Should public nudity be legal?

Should public nudity be legal?
MisterMaggot
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Aug 27, 2012

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 7
#1 - Quote - Permalink
2 of 2 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 22, 2013 - 5:49 AM:
Subject: Should public nudity be legal?
I am defining public nudity as being naked in public i.e. the street, the park, the mall, picking the kids up from school etc. I do not include nudity used to cause distress (such as a flasher who opens his trench coat in front of a schoolgirl requesting she touch his penis) in this definition.

Clothes are a necessity. We need clothes to keep warm and provide additional comfort. However when the climate permits it nudity can be comfortable.

In most tribal societies everyone is naked as there is no need for clothes. This doesn't cause any harm, if anything they have a much healthier body image than those living in nations where the media decide what is 'normal'. Some argue that children must not be exposed to nudity, however if children are damaged by viewing nudity why do we allow them to see nude statues and paintings? Why are they allowed to view their own bodies?

In Victorian England it was unacceptable for a woman to show her ankles, why has this changed? If someone today is offended by women's ankles don't they still have a right not to be offended? What if someone is offended by black/gay/fat/ugly people?

We are quick to criticize Islamic nations where women are forced to wear a burka or hijab, yet we impose are own standards of decency on others. This is hypocrisy.

What right do people have to be offended by someones physical body? What justification is there for prohibiting nudity in public?
mayor of simpleton
Chairman of the BORED!
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 118
Total Posts: 6347
#2 - Quote - Permalink
2 of 2 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 22, 2013 - 6:08 AM:

MisterMaggot wrote:
What justification is there for prohibiting nudity in public?


Simple...

The vast majority of humans look much better with clothing on them rather than naked. Sure having to see many of them in the "current fashion rage" is bad enough, but the alternative of seeing them naked would make me wish to go blind.

We are all super models if you turn the lights off, problem is... the lights are on.

Is this enough for a law? No, but I'm sure glad most people wear clothing.

Meow!

GREG

btw... is politics and law really philosophy?

Edited by mayor of simpleton on Jan 22, 2013 - 6:31 AM. Reason: I can't get behind a fat ass, much less have to look at one unwillingly.
mayor of simpleton
Chairman of the BORED!
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 118
Total Posts: 6347
#3 - Quote - Permalink
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 22, 2013 - 7:21 AM:

MisterMaggot wrote:


We are quick to criticize Islamic nations where women are forced to wear a burka or hijab, yet we impose are own standards of decency on others. This is hypocrisy.

vs.

...both seem to remove the identity for the individual, but then again many of them wish for that to be the case and others seem to feel it expresses more of their individuality... yadda yadda yadda.

Religious "must" vs. a Fashion "must"?

Sure no one is forcing the girls into wearing a particular fashion, but funny how they are very much the "outcast" in a real manner if they do not.

Then again, the ones forced to wear the Burka in public need not do so at home or with other women in private, whereas the girls in the "west" need the costume in public as well or... you finish that one for yourself.

I proposed, in Austria, that the Burka should not be allowed for a totally different reason than women's rights or decency... it was an official proposal via a poltical party. My thought was, due to security reasons, no one is allowed to go about in public fully masked, as the current situation of crime seems to indicate that people cannot be trusted to be in public places where they cannot be in some way identified. The current society has proven to act in such a manner that granting this liberty would be against the safety of the general public. Any robber could put on a hockey mask and rob a bank or put on a Burka and rob a bank just as well without being identified by the security cameras. Until the public here can demonstrate a manner of trust in this matter, this liberty should be indeed controlled. The same goes for speed limits. Cars and drivers could indeed go faster, but how far can we trust the publics ability to act within a manner of trust as to not endanger the other members of the public. Often to assue a peace of safety, some restrictions need to be made to assue no one abuses this liberty. All individuals have the freedom to act and do as they please as long as it does not violate the law of the land... this means compromise. A single group cannot be granted more liberty than another, thus if we have a ban on wearing a hockey mask in public places (other than playing the sport of hockey itself), we cannot allow the Burka in public places (other than in places of worship itself).

Perhaps this seems logical, as this was simply based upon fairness for all and how far we can trust the current members of society... in any event it was not accepted and they went back to arguing that it violated a women's individuality and was a "universal bad thing". The politicians seem to value a clandestine agenda more than philosophy and logic. It did not come unexpected to me.

Oh well...

Meow!

GREG

On Jan 22, 2013 - 9:20 PM, SIR2U responded: Is that second photo of Ginger?
baden511
Vladimir
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2473
#4 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 2 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 22, 2013 - 10:59 AM:

MisterMaggot wrote:
I am defining public nudity as being naked in public i.e. the street, the park, the mall, picking the kids up from school etc. I do not include nudity used to cause distress (such as a flasher who opens his trench coat in front of a schoolgirl requesting she touch his penis) in this definition.


And where do you draw the line? You think grown men going naked to pick up there kids wouldn't cause distress for their children's schoolmates? Or do you think a young girl sitting at a bus stop wouldn't become distressed by a naked man standing next to her with his penis inches from her face?

MisterMaggot wrote:
Clothes are a necessity. We need clothes to keep warm and provide additional comfort. However when the climate permits it nudity can be comfortable.


I guess those of us (i.e. just about everyone) who's ever been naked in a warm place already know this.

MisterMaggot wrote:

In most tribal societies everyone is naked as there is no need for clothes.


Source? As far as I know, in almost every tribe out there, individuals wear some form of clothing at least, particularly around their sexual organs.

MisterMaggot wrote:

This doesn't cause any harm, if anything they have a much healthier body image than those living in nations where the media decide what is 'normal'.


Again, what's your reason for believing this? Sounds like pure speculation to me.

MisterMaggots wrote:

Some argue that children must not be exposed to nudity, however if children are damaged by viewing nudity why do we allow them to see nude statues and paintings? Why are they allowed to view their own bodies?


A person with their genitals exposed, particularly a male, could present a sexual threat that doesn't apply in the other cases.

MisterMaggot wrote:

In Victorian England it was unacceptable for a woman to show her ankles, why has this changed?


You tell me.

MisterMaggot wrote:
If someone today is offended by women's ankles don't they still have a right not to be offended?


What?

MisterMaggot wrote:

What if someone is offended by black/gay/fat/ugly people?


As long as individuals from said groups aren't walking around the street naked, no one need give a toss about anyone who is offended by them.

MisterMaggot wrote:

We are quick to criticize Islamic nations where women are forced to wear a burka or hijab, yet we impose are own standards of decency on others. This is hypocrisy.


I imagine it would be women who would most object to any law allowing public nudity. Besides, it's not hypocrisy to oppose a particular standard in one context for one reason and enforce a different standard in another context for another reason. In other words, the subject of two different standards being equivalent doesn't make the ethical status of our respective enforcement of them so.

MisterMaggot wrote:

What right do people have to be offended by someones physical body? What justification is there for prohibiting nudity in public?


You don't need someone to give you the right to be offended. You can just go ahead and be offended regardless. On the question of whether the level of offence would be widespread and disruptive enough to make society as a whole less better off if such behaviour were tolerated, there are strong reasons to answer in the affirmative. Apart from the aspect of sexual threat which I'll come to, your major sexual organs also double up as excretory organs. There's an issue of hygiene here. Would we have to introduce a law to make sure people wiped their ass before going out in public?

Getting back to the more serious point though, do you have daughters? I don't, but if I did, I wouldn't want them to have to negotiate environments crowded with naked men, to be sandwiched on the subway between penis and ass, to have to sit at a restaurant with the threat of passing dongs dipping in their soup, to have to ask strangers to point their erections in different directions, to have to be subject to the possibility of immediate sexual assault by any passing weirdo who wanted to take advantage of the actions of whatever moron-in-charge decided it was a good idea that we all just let it hang loose.

In reality of course, said moron-in-charge would have been locked up in a nice bouncy room if he or she ever seriously tried to initiate such a dramatic relaxation of the law, which is why such hypotheticals are destined to remain naught more than the ever-amusing subjects of deliberations on forums like this.

Nice try though.


Edited by baden511 on Jan 22, 2013 - 11:09 AM
ScottieX
Forum Veteran

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2013

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 691
#5 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 22, 2013 - 12:44 PM:

There are groups of nudists in the world - the relevant empirical question would seem to be do those groups experience the negative side effects mentioned above in comparison to similar non nudist groups and if so what sort of effect do they have on quality of life.
On Jan 22, 2013 - 7:22 PM, HemlockHangover responded: Great point.
Huangdi
You cant handle the truth

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 10, 2013
Location: Somewhere out there

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 199
#6 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 22, 2013 - 1:58 PM:

Should public nudity be legal?


Absolutely. Repression; Suppression breeds neuroses; conflict. The Human body and sexuality [the inevitable implication] is something that should be accepted as natural and beautiful.

Yahadreas
YHDRS
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Exeter, England

Total Topics: 216
Total Posts: 9703
#7 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 22, 2013 - 2:20 PM:

Public nudity is legal in some places. For example, in the United Kingdom there is no law against it. There is only a law against using nudity to harass, alarm, or distress, which is entirely reasonable.
Veritas Vincit
Philosophical Dilettante
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 07, 2010
Location: North of 49

Total Topics: 120
Total Posts: 5774
#8 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 22, 2013 - 3:25 PM:

I agree most folks look better with at least some clothing on. For some, to this eye, the more the better.

Many jurisdictions, though, have some semi-secluded place, often a beach, where nature minded folks may gad about fully nude without attracting the attention of police or bylaw officers.

So, in that limited sense, I think some accommodation is a good thing. Full frontal nudity on a busy public sidewalk should remain a minor offense, but I don't think women should be, um, exposed to a double standard regarding bare breasts.
On Jan 22, 2013 - 3:32 PM, Yahadreas responded: I approve a double-standard: male nudity must be forbidden and female nudity must be compulsory. But only the hot ones, obviously.
On Jan 22, 2013 - 4:05 PM, Veritas Vincit responded: Members should not be allowed to, um, expose their biases on these Forums.
ciceronianus
Gadfly
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: An old chaos of the Sun

Total Topics: 95
Total Posts: 5872

Last Blog: Homage to Edgar Poe

#9 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 22, 2013 - 3:32 PM:

Public nudity should be legal, but only when one is engaged in having sex with a corpse.
On Jan 22, 2013 - 4:46 PM, Veritas Vincit responded: Yeah, but that would be having sex in a public place, which there's some silly ordinance against in most places.
1 ticket for public nudity
1 ticket for lewd behavior in public
1 ticket for defiling a corpse
Looks like a tax grab to me!
mric
Forum Veteran

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Location: UK

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 870
#10 - Quote - Permalink
2 of 2 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 22, 2013 - 3:41 PM:

baden511 wrote:

A person with their genitals exposed, particularly a male, could present a sexual threat that doesn't apply in the other cases.

I am not convinced that a male with their genitals exposed presents a sexual threat in any special way. Are you suggesting that the time it takes to push aside loose shorts or a coat seriously inhibits sexual assaults?

Rather the opposite would be true, I would have thought, because of the increased vulnerability of a man's exposed genitals to physical harm.
On Jan 22, 2013 - 3:46 PM, Yahadreas responded: All men are serial rapists underneath their clothes. Apparently.
locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Recent Internal Replies
On Jan 22, 2013 - 9:20 PM, SIR2U replied internally to mayor of simpleton's vs. ....
On Jan 22, 2013 - 7:22 PM, HemlockHangover replied internally to ScottieX's There are groups of ....
On Jan 22, 2013 - 4:56 PM, Huangdi replied internally to Huangdi's Precisley! Jus....
On Jan 22, 2013 - 4:53 PM, Banno replied internally to Huangdi's Precisley! Jus....
On Jan 22, 2013 - 4:46 PM, Veritas Vincit replied internally to ciceronianus's Public nudity should....
On Jan 22, 2013 - 4:05 PM, Veritas Vincit replied internally to Veritas Vincit's I agree most folks l....
On Jan 22, 2013 - 3:46 PM, Yahadreas replied internally to mric's I am not convinced....
On Jan 22, 2013 - 3:32 PM, Yahadreas replied internally to Veritas Vincit's I agree most folks l....

This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.