Public Nudity.

[derchin]

It was a discussion I had with my class today and some folks on another forum. I was against it for the following reasons I made:

Quote:

What if you fall? Cut yourself? Insect or animal bites? Clothes that would've taken some of the blow are now absent and injury is now amplified.

What if you step or fall into some feces, or some trash or a dirty puddle? What about sweat, urine, blood, feces? Now you stink and look bad where ever you go and whatever building you may happen to enter.

What about people with physical disabilities? What about people who are obese, anorexic or are considered "unattractive?" With clothes they're already judged and ashamed for it. Without them and that ordeal is amplified up to eleven.

And also the risk of sexual assaults are heightened greatly since there's no protective layer of clothing covering you. With clothes, you were a tease, without and now you're a walking sex billboard who is practically an easy open invitation for rape, groping and violence.

And what about winter or the summer? Now the chances of frostbite or severe heat stroke or sunburn are increased dramatically. Everything is now a potential risk for injury, disease or contamination

What's your take? Should it be legalized or not?

[Rolfe]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=217616

Depressing, I know.

Rolfe.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=217616

Depressing, I know.

Rolfe.

Funny way of spelling "hilarious."

[Irony]

You know, it's not like the moment you leave your house naked you are now and forever incapable of wearing clothes ever again. Nor is it the case that allowing nudity is a mandate that everyone be nude. And the body issues you mentioned are only issues because of the nudity taboo.

[Soapy Sam]

The other thread raised two contrary issues.
1. People's right to do what they like so long as it doesn't harm others.
and
2. People's right to be offended (or not to be offended) by the behaviour of others.

My opinion is that nudity may occasionally surprise me, but doesn't bother me. If a man was standing, naked, at my front door with a boom box at full volume, I'd shoot the boom box. He could stand there all day for all I care.

Nudity is uncomfortable:- cold, heat, ants, midges; impractical - where do you put your change?; ugly - my god is ALL of that belly? and unsanitary; bodies leak.

All things considered, it's better done indoors, but if you really want to, I won't stand in your way. Unless you're hot.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by derchin

It was a discussion I had with my class today and some folks on another forum. I was against it for the following reasons I made:

...

What's your take? Should it be legalized or not?

In my country public nudity law prohibit only display of the genitalia in public - under "public decency". As long as your genitalia are covered you can otherwise wear nothing else.

I found your arguments interesting, mostly because I can't really see any of them being legitimate grounds for banning public nudity. Let me show you why:

Originally Posted by derchin

What if you fall? Cut yourself? Insect or animal bites? Clothes that would've taken some of the blow are now absent and injury is now amplified.

The protective properties of most clothing are negligible, and in some cases may exacerbate or even cause injury. Further, public clothing law does not require the entire body to be covered. The parts of the body most vulnerable to injury in the case of falling are also the parts least likely to be covered (lower limbs, head, extremities, etc).

For this reason, arguing against nudity on these grounds is nonsensical.

Originally Posted by derchin

What if you step or fall into some feces, or some trash or a dirty puddle? What about sweat, urine, blood, feces? Now you stink and look bad where ever you go and whatever building you may happen to enter.

Aside from the incredible rarity of these events, the same applies whether one is clothed or not, and as most people do not carry changes of clothing with them, even clothed people will be forced to endure bad smell and poor aesthetic. Most people seem to address the matter by simply avoiding falling or stepping into such unsavory things, and presumably the same care can be taken by naked people.

Originally Posted by derchin

What about people with physical disabilities? What about people who are obese, anorexic or are considered "unattractive?" With clothes they're already judged and ashamed for it. Without them and that ordeal is amplified up to eleven.

I see a number of issues with this argument.
1) You make an unsupported claim that unattractive people without clothes would be judged more harshly than with clothes.
2) Evidence suggests that body issues actually decrease with increased nudity as people become more accustomed to seeing different body shapes, and are less likely to make an issue of it.
3) If public nudity is legal that doesn't mean it's compulsory. It is legal for women to be in public topless in New Zealand, yet I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've actually seen a topless woman in public (outside a yearly topless parade held in Auckland to promote an adult lifestyle expo). People who feel uncomfortable being nude because of disability or body confidence issues or a strange birthmark, can simply choose to wear clothes.

Originally Posted by derchin

And also the risk of sexual assaults are heightened greatly since there's no protective layer of clothing covering you. With clothes, you were a tease, without and now you're a walking sex billboard who is practically an easy open invitation for rape, groping and violence.

This is perhaps one of the most distasteful of your arguments, as it's of the same mentality as the argument that women shouldn't dress "sexily" as it encourages sexual assault.
It is also, incidentally, the logic that sees oppressed women in Fundamentalist Islamic countries forced to cover themselves completely in public and not talk to men they're not related to.

Originally Posted by derchin

And what about winter or the summer? Now the chances of frostbite or severe heat stroke or sunburn are increased dramatically. Everything is now a potential risk for injury, disease or contamination

This is more of the absurd jump from "allowed to be nude in public" to "must be nude in public all the time". Frostbite, heatstroke and sunburn are all dilemmas that we have to face on a regular basis. Sensible people take precautions, wearing appropriate protection for the conditions. A sensible person, choosing to be nude in public, will wait until warmer months, and apply a generous layer of sunscreen.

Silly people won't, of course, but then, there's no helping silly people.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by gumboot

This is perhaps one of the most distasteful of your arguments, as it's of the same mentality as the argument that women shouldn't dress "sexily" as it encourages sexual assault.
It is also, incidentally, the logic that sees oppressed women in Fundamentalist Islamic countries forced to cover themselves completely in public and not talk to men they're not related to.

In fact I'd go as far as to suggest that it would actually decrease sexual assualts to some degree over time as it would de-sexualise nudity.

[Jodie]

They would ask me to put my clothes back on. I don't prefer nudity indoors because I do not want e-coli on my upholstered furniture.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

The other thread raised two contrary issues.
1. People's right to do what they like so long as it doesn't harm others.
and
2. People's right to be offended (or not to be offended) by the behaviour of others.

My opinion is that nudity may occasionally surprise me, but doesn't bother me. If a man was standing, naked, at my front door with a boom box at full volume, I'd shoot the boom box. He could stand there all day for all I care.

Nudity is uncomfortable:- cold, heat, ants, midges; impractical - where do you put your change?; ugly - my god is ALL of that belly? and unsanitary; bodies leak.

All things considered, it's better done indoors, but if you really want to, I won't stand in your way. Unless you're hot.

One or more (dependent on sex) places to store change. I.D. and credit cards normally less so.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Irony

You know, it's not like the moment you leave your house naked you are now and forever incapable of wearing clothes ever again. Nor is it the case that allowing nudity is a mandate that everyone be nude. And the body issues you mentioned are only issues because of the nudity taboo.

While I can see how it may contribute, I disagreed that it is primarily because of the nudity taboo, let alone only because of it.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

In fact I'd go as far as to suggest that it would actually decrease sexual assualts to some degree over time as it would de-sexualise nudity.

Ummm, how?

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Ummm, how?

In the same way short skirts have desexualised ankles.

[Craig4]

Here in Germany they've set aside areas for it. I don't think of myself as a naturist or a nudist but there's a lake I bike to in the summer and go for the odd skinny dip sometimes. I also hit the nude saunas/baths on occasion. It seems perfectly reasonable to set aside places to do this. I don't think we need to go the route of saying you can run around naked in public whenever and where-ever you like.

[Checkmite]

There already exist in the US places devoted to public nudity; if one wishes to be nude, they may go to these places whenever they wish.

[The Man]

to quote Robert Graves on the subject

Quote:

The Naked and the Nude


For me, the naked and the nude
(By lexicographers construed
As synonyms that should express
The same deficiency of dress
Or shelter) stand as wide apart
As love from lies, or truth from art.

Lovers without reproach will gaze
On bodies naked and ablaze;
The Hippocratic eye will see
In nakedness, anatomy;
And naked shines the Goddess when
She mounts her lion among men.

The nude are bold, the nude are sly
To hold each treasonable eye.
While draping by a showman's trick
Their dishabille in rhetoric,
They grin a mock-religious grin
Of scorn at those of naked skin.

The naked, therefore, who compete
Against the nude may know defeat;
Yet when they both together tread
The briary pastures of the dead,
By Gorgons with long whips pursued,
How naked go the sometime nude!

Originally Posted by Jodie

They would ask me to put my clothes back on. I don't prefer nudity indoors because I do not want e-coli on my upholstered furniture.

Must be why my grandmother had plastic covers on all her upholstered furniture!!!

Along that line, wouldn't most of the sanitary and protective augments be covered (pun intended) by materials not necessarily visually occlusive?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by derchin

It was a discussion I had with my class today and some folks on another forum. I was against it for the following reasons I made:




What's your take? Should it be legalized or not?

derchin, was the discussion about whether public nudity should be allowed, or whether public nudity should be required?

I ask because your reasons against it only make sense if the discussion is about whether public nudity should be required.

[StankApe]

IMNSHO, I think it's a battle of wills really.

Does the will of those who like to be nekkid overweigh the will of those who would prefer not to see you nekkid?

I think that people can be nekkid at home, at a nekkid beach, or nekkid park and enjoy their nekkidness to their heart's content and not subject those of us who don't want to see them nekkid with their nekkidness.

Where people walking down the street,minding their own bidness, trying to do the shopping or go to work, have nowhere to go to escape the nekkid if it attacks them in public. "Dammit! that janitor is nekkid!, but I gotta go by there to get to the grocery store. argh!!! what if he waves his tackle at me?!!! THE HORROR!!!'

I see it no differently than my having a right to play baseball in the street. The cars drive there sure, but don't I have a right to clog up traffic playing the game I love? or am I being an incredibly selfish PITA?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by The Man

Must be why my grandmother had plastic covers on all her upholstered furniture!!!

Along that line, wouldn't most of the sanitary and protective augments be covered (pun intended) by materials not necessarily visually occlusive?

Most visually non-occlusive materials tend to be rather uncomfortable as garments; they trap and collect body heat, moisture and dirt on their inside surfaces; which can lead to them becoming visually occlusive anyway, only in a most appetite-affecting manner.

[BenBurch]

Women go to the beach wearing two sequins and a postage stamp, I can't see how nude is much different?

[Merton]

I'm definitely for legalization: we ought not to legislate subjective offenses.

Originally Posted by StankApe

I see it no differently than my having a right to play baseball in the street. The cars drive there sure, but don't I have a right to clog up traffic playing the game I love? or am I being an incredibly selfish PITA?

Causing traffic congestion has objective effects for drivers; nudity is a subjective issue.

Originally Posted by Craig4

Here in Germany they've set aside areas for it. I don't think of myself as a naturist or a nudist but there's a lake I bike to in the summer and go for the odd skinny dip sometimes. I also hit the nude saunas/baths on occasion. It seems perfectly reasonable to set aside places to do this. I don't think we need to go the route of saying you can run around naked in public whenever and where-ever you like.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

There already exist in the US places devoted to public nudity; if one wishes to be nude, they may go to these places whenever they wish.

I don't buy this argument. What if we legislated other groups like this? "We don't mind that people are skeptical about god's existence, but not in public. You have to be in your designated area(s) before you can spout your offensive, atheist rhetoric."

My point is that there's no objective reason to regulate one's dress, and oases don't combat this problem.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

All things considered, it's better done indoors, but if you really want to, I won't stand in your way. Unless you're hot.

Wait... so if someone's good-looking you will stop him or her from undressing?

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Most visually non-occlusive materials tend to be rather uncomfortable as garments;...

So there are at least some that are not?

It is simply a matter of practicality and application that protective clothing does tend to be uncomfortable. Heck even just formal clothing can tend to be rather uncomfortable.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

...they trap and collect body heat,...

So better in the winter and colder climates?

Originally Posted by Checkmite

...moisture and dirt on their inside surfaces;

Washing ones clothing (or having it washed) is not a new experience for most.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

...which can lead to them becoming visually occlusive anyway, only in a most appetite-affecting manner.

For some, like me, the lack of visual occlusion can be the most appetite-affecting. It would give me a new source of income as an reverse stripper. Tip me a few bucks and I'll put my cloths back on for a brief period of time (though I'd probably still belch, fart, pick and scratch the same).

[bruto]

Public nudity is legal in Vermont as long as one does not behave lewdly. Of course that's subjective, but you can walk around naked if you wish. You cannot disrobe in public but you may come out of your house naked. Our esteemed governor is said to have been quite deshabille last year when he came out to chase bears away from his bird feeder. There's an annual naked bike ride in Burlington (e.t.a. another one in the capital of Montpeculiar, too), though I think it was cancelled last year because of weather. Instances of nakedness are, of course, somewhat self-regulating in a climate like ours.

Of course if you think it's lewd and indecent for people to walk around with their genitals exposed, then you should favor banning nudity. Otherwise, though, as long as one can legally wear shorts, sandals, a bathing suit, go barefoot in public, and so forth, considerations of freezing, embarrassment, cleanliness, and even of overall decency are not an issue of nudity and are spurious. Issues of sexual assault, aside from putting the responsibility in the wrong place, are speculative only, unless one can offer some statistics. If people wish to embarrass themselves, freeze, look stupid, or whatever, who should stop them? And if they are the sort who look good in the nude, who would want to?

[StankApe]

define "good" ?

[PhantomWolf]

IMNSHO, I think it's a battle of wills really.

Does the will of those who are black overweigh the will of those who would prefer not to see blacks?

I think that people can be black at home, at a black beach, or black park and enjoy their blackness to their heart's content and not subject those of us who don't want to see them blacks with their blackness.

Where people walking down the street,minding their own bidness, trying to do the shopping or go to work, have nowhere to go to escape the blacks if it attacks them in public. "Dammit! that janitor is black!, but I gotta go by there to get to the grocery store. argh!!! what if he looks at me?!!! THE HORROR!!!'

[StankApe]

Can't even be silly without people getting all OUTRAGED!!!

lighten up Francis

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Merton

I don't buy this argument. What if we legislated other groups like this? "We don't mind that people are skeptical about god's existence, but not in public. You have to be in your designated area(s) before you can spout your offensive, atheist rhetoric."

My point is that there's no objective reason to regulate one's dress, and oases don't combat this problem.

Freedom of speech is a codified protected right, for all kinds of important reasons. Freedom from textiles is not, because it amounts to nothing more than a personal preference a few people have.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Freedom of speech is a codified protected right, for all kinds of important reasons. Freedom from textiles is not, because it amounts to nothing more than a personal preference a few people have.

Is not what you wear, or unwear in this case, covered (like that pun?) under freedom of expression?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by The Man

So there are at least some that are not?

Yes, but these sometimes don't fit the sanitary condition and never fit the protective condition.

Originally Posted by The Man

So better in the winter and colder climates?

No, because of the trapping moisture part.

Originally Posted by The Man

Washing ones clothing (or having it washed) is not a new experience for most.

These things capture the heat, dirt, and moisture whilst being worn. Anyone who has ever tried to wear a poncho on a warm summer day is familiar with this effect: the air inside gets hot and sticky, and the inner surface becomes wet with condensation and sweat (which carries dirt and oils from the skin and smears them on the inside of the poncho). Now imagine a perfectly clear poncho: all the sweat and dirt and condensation is visible as a translucent coating, except for where your wet, sweaty, hairy skin is pressed directly against the material.

Originally Posted by The Man

For some, like me, the lack of visual occlusion can be the most appetite-affecting. It would give me a new source of income as an reverse stripper. Tip me a few bucks and I'll put my cloths back on for a brief period of time (though I'd probably still belch, fart, pick and scratch the same).

Yes but people are able to choose to patronize strip clubs when they want to go to them, and avoid them when they don't want to go to them. Forcing people to have to become reverse-stripping patrons by traveling about in public amounts more to extortion than providing a service.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Is not what you wear, or unwear in this case, covered (like that pun?) under freedom of expression?

The freedom is of speech, not all expression in general - and I don't think that's a semantic thing - but even if we choose not to go there: not every activity can be made into "expression" for the purposes of freedom thereof. There are certain things and activities which are not accepted, even if analogous things are. For instance, adult pornography is considered protected as free speech; child pornography is not. Burning an object on your property as a political or other statement (or even simply "art") is protected; doing the same thing in the middle of a public street is generally not. Playing music in your house or car so that other people can hear it, whether or not the lyrics carry a poignant political or social message, is protected; blaring your music in any of these locations so loudly that the other people have trouble thinking and talking with each other or hearing approaching danger, or begin to feel pain while nearby, is not (again regardless of the point, intention, or message).

Even though it is mostly illegal, it seems to me from reading stories in the media and so forth that people often are accepting of one-off nudity - sometimes grudgingly, sometimes in good humor - provided an obvious political point is being made besides "I want to be naked". People can choose to watch the proceedings as a display and make judgments about the message as people do, and move on. However, going through the motions of daily urban life being naked - forcing people to have to come into contact with you, to interact with you unavoidably - that's when people get squicked, when they start to balk.

[StankApe]

"look at my butt!!!....loooooook at it!!!!!!

[truethat]

Clothing came about for a reason. Because bodies are gross. Most people don't take care of their body very well. If you've ever gone to the beach and seen older people waking around you'd get it.

[StankApe]

You won't be scoffing at my alabaster body when the apocalypse happens!

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by gumboot

In the same way short skirts have desexualised ankles.

Not 'how would that desexualize nudity' but 'how would desexualized nudity reduce sexual assualt'.

[Macgyver1968]

Whoo Hooo!! (runs through thread swinging willie)

[MontagK505]

Originally Posted by Jodie

They would ask me to put my clothes back on. I don't prefer nudity indoors because I do not want e-coli on my upholstered furniture.

Sitting down on a public park bench while nude would carry a greater risk of infection. Public nudity as such should not be criminalized, only when it becomes a public danger or some form of harassment should it be illegal. Being forced to rub against clothed people while traveling on crowded public transportation as bad enough.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Not 'how would that desexualize nudity' but 'how would desexualized nudity reduce sexual assualt'.

Well, if everyone was naked, and used to it, it would be pretty obvious if a guy was going to try sexually assault you. He'd... stick out, so to speak.

Of course, most sexual assaults are committed by a person the victim trusts, in a place of safety. "Stranger danger" is essentially a myth, or at least rare enough that it's pointless making an issue of it.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Well, if everyone was naked, and used to it, it would be pretty obvious if a guy was going to try sexually assault you. He'd... stick out, so to speak.

A terrifying line of reasoning for every teenage male. And twenty something males.

Quote:

Of course, most sexual assaults are committed by a person the victim trusts, in a place of safety. "Stranger danger" is essentially a myth, or at least rare enough that it's pointless making an issue of it.

Exactly. And even rapists who are strangers use surprise. 'An erection' is simply not enough of a 'rape signal' to avoid.

Besides, 'the desexualization of nudity' doesn't have anything to do with any of that in the first place. Those are just effects of being nude. Or in sweatpants. Or tights. Or hell, jeans if you're like me. Did I mention I hate jeans?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by gumboot

"Stranger danger" is essentially a myth, or at least rare enough that it's pointless making an issue of it.

HA...HA-HAAAA. Hooooo. Wow!

Yup, never happens. Wait, I'm sorry - happens too rarely to care about. Yessir indeedy.

[Dogdoctor]

I lived on a commune where part of the time people went around naked. In that context it seemed to make us a lot closer. It just seemed like there is absolutely nothing between two naked people standing next to each other. I think most of society was raised wearing clothes and not sure how things would be without them but figure for your average people who don't know each other being naked represents a risk. But within a group of friends it is perhaps a pleasant thing to do. However I could see a world where it was clothing optional but for that to exist there would need to be a way to exclude undesirable elements. As far as bugs and falling and stuff goes if you are going to be around such things that is where clothes have a benefit but if you aren' then not so much benefit.