San Fran votes 6 to 5 to not allow public nudity....The real question in my mind is why was there even a need to vote on this issue...and furthermore why was it so close.
So apparently quite a few people in San Francisco believe there is nothing wrong with walking around naked in public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF lawmakers pass vote to ban public nudity
IMAGE: San Francisco has voted to ban public nudity in most places.
AP 5 hr ago
In a close 6 to 5 vote, the approval means that exposed genitals will not be allowed in most public places.
SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco lawmakers on Tuesday narrowly approved a proposal to ban public nakedness, rejecting arguments that the measure would eat away at a reputation for tolerance enjoyed by a city known for flouting convention and flaunting its counter-culture image.
The 6-5 Board of Supervisors vote means that exposed genitals will be prohibited in most public places, including streets, sidewalks and public transit.
Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced the measure in response to escalating complaints about a group of men whose lack of clothing was an almost daily occurrence in the city's predominantly gay Castro District.
"The Castro and San Francisco in general, is a place of freedom, expression and acceptance. But freedom, expression and acceptance does not mean anything goes under any circumstances," Wiener said Tuesday. "Our public spaces are for everyone and as a result it's appropriate to have some minimal standards of behavior."
Wiener's opponents on the board said a citywide ban would draw police officers' attention away from more critical problems and eat away at city's reputation for tolerance.
"I'm concerned about civil liberties, about free speech, about changing San Francisco's style and how we are as a city," Supervisor John Avalos said.
Under Wiener's proposal, a first offense would carry a maximum penalty of a $100 fine, but prosecutors would have authority to charge a third violation as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and a year in jail.
Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city's annual gay pride event and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures.
A federal lawsuit claiming the ban would violate the free speech rights of people who prefer to make a statement by going au naturel was filed last week in case the ordinance passes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
generalgrog wrote: The real question in my mind is why was there even a need to vote on this issue...
You're right. It's pretty sad that people think that being naked in public matters at all, and spent tax money on voting on this ban.
So apparently quite a few people in San Francisco believe there is nothing wrong with walking around naked in public.
So what exactly IS wrong with it?
The end is truly Nigh...........
Yep. The End Times are here. The Beast has arisen, and Jesus will soon bring the fires of heaven down upon this cursed world and send the flaming corpses of the unbelievers straight to hell. Repent now or burn with them! REPENT!
LordofHats wrote: You really want to see this when walking down the street?
Since when do my aesthetic preferences matter to what is legal? There are a lot of things I don't want to see, does that mean that I get to make them illegal?
I was kind of disappointed when I was in San Francisco and there wasn't a single weirdo walking around nude. It was kind of cold, I guess, and we never went to The Castro because we forgot, but still.
It's worth pointing out that while the idea that we should not go around with our genitals on view is just a taboo with no real basis in sense or reason... but that's basically what all taboos are. And every society has them, and that's just how it is.
Now maybe the idea that taboos like this offend people's idea that we should get to do whatever we want as long we don't hurt anyone, but just learn to deal with the fact that human society's don't actually think like that, and probably never will. Even when a taboo doesn't hurt anyone they will enforce it.
I mean, this thing reminds me of this stupid conversation I once had with a girl who set about trying to convince me that, if there was no chance of children, there wasn't anything immoral about her sleeping with her brother (hypothetically, she didn't actually have a brother). It went on for what seemed like hours, and she used all kinds of clever reason to point out that no-one was hurt in the hypothetical incest, until I eventually said 'this is all good and well but just don't feth your brother. It isn't that much of a sacrifice.'
And it's the same thing here. It really isn't that much of a hardship for these people to just put some pants on, so just do it.
sebster wrote: Now maybe the idea that taboos like this offend people's idea that we should get to do whatever we want as long we don't hurt anyone, but just learn to deal with the fact that human society's don't actually think like that, and probably never will. Even when a taboo doesn't hurt anyone they will enforce it.
I'd say it's being enforced pretty well right now, since only a tiny minority of people ever go around naked in public. The question here is whether it should be illegal, not whether we should approve or disapprove of their actions.
I mean, this thing reminds me of this stupid conversation I once had with a girl who set about trying to convince me that, if there was no chance of children, there wasn't anything immoral about her sleeping with her brother (hypothetically, she didn't actually have a brother). It went on for what seemed like hours, and she used all kinds of clever reason to point out that no-one was hurt in the hypothetical incest, until I eventually said 'this is all good and well but just don't feth your brother. It isn't that much of a sacrifice.'
There's a very simple answer here: don't sleep with your brother. However, your personal feelings of disgust don't mean that other people, who don't share those feelings, should be thrown in prison for it.
And it's the same thing here. It really isn't that much of a hardship for these people to just put some pants on, so just do it.
It really isn't that much of a hardship for people to very rarely see someone naked in public, so they should just look the other way and accept the fact that not everyone shares their objection and it's not illegal to be unappealing to someone.
Peregrine wrote: I'd say it's being enforced pretty well right now, since only a tiny minority of people ever go around naked in public. The question here is whether it should be illegal, not whether we should approve or disapprove of their actions.
No, because enforcing means, you know, like actually using force. Being a thing that very few people want to do, and that most people will back away from isn't force
There's a very simple answer here: don't sleep with your brother. However, your personal feelings of disgust don't mean that other people, who don't share those feelings, should be thrown in prison for it.
No. You've missed the point. It isn't about whether, rationally, there is any pressing social need to not see people's genital in public. There isn't. I'm happy to concede that.
My point is that when faced with that piece of social irrationality, then boo fething hoo, you have to put some pants on. That's it. It really isn't that much of a restriction. Much like having to accept that your hypothetical brother is the one man among 3 billion on this Earth you can't feth, putting some pants on is a trivial discomfort.
So just fething do it. There's actual real things in the world that cause people actual, real problems.
sebster wrote: No, because enforcing means, you know, like actually using force. Being a thing that very few people want to do, and that most people will back away from isn't force
Since when is social pressure not force?
My point is that when faced with that piece of social irrationality, then boo fething hoo, you have to put some pants on. That's it. It really isn't that much of a restriction. Much like having to accept that your hypothetical brother is the one man among 3 billion on this Earth you can't feth, putting some pants on is a trivial discomfort.
That's not a reason, it's just a rant. You have yet to say WHY these laws should be accepted and, more importantly, why they need to pass an additional law.
So just fething do it. There's actual real things in the world that cause people actual, real problems.
Oh yes, the classic "there's a worse problem" complaint. I guess we'd better stop trying to solve any problem besides the eventual heat death of the universe, since it's hard to be a bigger problem than that.
Not to mention it's just downright unhygenic. Do you want to sit on a stool or chair that some guy just sat on bare naked? (Toilets are different because thee is a huge hole in the middle of the seat)
generalgrog wrote: Not to mention it's just downright unhygenic. Do you want to sit on a stool or chair that some guy just sat on bare naked? (Toilets are different because thee is a huge hole in the middle of the seat)
GG
You sit on toilets that have lots of other people sitting on them?
generalgrog wrote: San Fran votes 6 to 5 to not allow public nudity....The real question in my mind is why was there even a need to vote on this issue...and furthermore why was it so close.
So apparently quite a few people in San Francisco believe there is nothing wrong with walking around naked in public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF lawmakers pass vote to ban public nudity
IMAGE: San Francisco has voted to ban public nudity in most places.
AP 5 hr ago
In a close 6 to 5 vote, the approval means that exposed genitals will not be allowed in most public places.
SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco lawmakers on Tuesday narrowly approved a proposal to ban public nakedness, rejecting arguments that the measure would eat away at a reputation for tolerance enjoyed by a city known for flouting convention and flaunting its counter-culture image.
The 6-5 Board of Supervisors vote means that exposed genitals will be prohibited in most public places, including streets, sidewalks and public transit.
Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced the measure in response to escalating complaints about a group of men whose lack of clothing was an almost daily occurrence in the city's predominantly gay Castro District.
"The Castro and San Francisco in general, is a place of freedom, expression and acceptance. But freedom, expression and acceptance does not mean anything goes under any circumstances," Wiener said Tuesday. "Our public spaces are for everyone and as a result it's appropriate to have some minimal standards of behavior."
Wiener's opponents on the board said a citywide ban would draw police officers' attention away from more critical problems and eat away at city's reputation for tolerance.
"I'm concerned about civil liberties, about free speech, about changing San Francisco's style and how we are as a city," Supervisor John Avalos said.
Under Wiener's proposal, a first offense would carry a maximum penalty of a $100 fine, but prosecutors would have authority to charge a third violation as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and a year in jail.
Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city's annual gay pride event and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures.
A federal lawsuit claiming the ban would violate the free speech rights of people who prefer to make a statement by going au naturel was filed last week in case the ordinance passes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GG
You obviusly know nothing of San Francisco. Weirdoes are celebrated and have rights there.
I say weirdoes because they're never easy on the eyes but ugly pruny white guys. Plus their naked. In San Francisco.
"The coldest winter I ever saw was the summer I spent in San Francisco."
You really want to see this when walking down the street?
The friendly office is clearly less than pleased. At least be a hot chick if your going to be a nudist. Or even a hot guy. Just saying.
Pah. I see worse in the mirror every day. If people wanna be naked, I say let 'em. Seriously we've all seen ourselves naked before, so we shouldn't be running into too many new things. Seriously the worst thing you could run into some 4yr old asking "Why doesn't that lady have a winky" or the like.
I don't really get the appeal of being naked all the time but I don't see any reason to stop people.
How, exactly? I mean "Incredibly unhygienic" is an extremely strong term here. I suppose if someone is covered in oozing pustules you've got a point, but otherwise I'm not seeing it. Presumably someone with half-decent personal hygenie is going to be taking a shower on a fairly regular basis, and thus isn't going to be introducing any particularly large amount of general uncleanness into the environment. Similarly a gross slob who wouldn't shower, is likely not paying attention to how clean their clothes are either so in either case they're spreading their stank everywhere.
Even then in public spaces everything is already getting touched so many times by so many people, chances are someone's hands have probably already delivered anything some dudes hairy back could deliver to whatever surface is in question. I suppose there is the argument the naked person might be exposed to something they otherwise wouldn't be, but hey that's on their head right?
You're at more risk from people sneezing public than some dude rubbing his ass-rash on a subway seat (especially since you are presumably wearing pants), but you're probably not clamoring for mandatory public surgical masks.
Truth be told I don't particularly care about people having the right to be naked in public, but it seems silly to pretend that it's some kind of health risk out of scale with the many, many things we already readily accept as a part of living with other members of the same species. That and I'm feeling contrary.
How, exactly? I mean "Incredibly unhygienic" is an extremely strong term here. I suppose if someone is covered in oozing pustules you've got a point, but otherwise I'm not seeing it. Presumably someone with half-decent personal hygenie is going to be taking a shower on a fairly regular basis, and thus isn't going to be introducing any particularly large amount of general uncleanness into the environment. Similarly a gross slob who wouldn't shower, is likely not paying attention to how clean their clothes are either so in either case they're spreading their stank everywhere.
Even then in public spaces everything is already getting touched so many times by so many people, chances are someone's hands have probably already delivered anything some dudes hairy back could deliver to whatever surface is in question. I suppose there is the argument the naked person might be exposed to something they otherwise wouldn't be, but hey that's on their head right?
You're at more risk from people sneezing public than some dude rubbing his ass-rash on a subway seat (especially since you are presumably wearing pants), but you're probably not clamoring for mandatory public surgical masks.
Truth be told I don't particularly care about people having the right to be naked in public, but it seems silly to pretend that it's some kind of health risk out of scale with the many, many things we already readily accept as a part of living with other members of the same species. That and I'm feeling contrary.
why on earth would I think they have half decent personal hygiene? Dude they're literally rubbing their ass all over the city. But then again its California so the concept of someone doing that pleases me greatly.
I would never enter a hobby shop again, let alone sit in a chair in a hobby shop!
There is a reason people wear underwear, it keeps your genitals and ass off of your clothes. This puts people's buttholes right onto the furniture.
Not to mention the fact that the first people that go naked are always the last people that should.
Hell, I see people at Walmart I can barely stomach looking at clothed!
While I have little issue with people having the right to dress, or not dress, as they wish in theory... I dont want to sit on a chair of bus seat that has someone else's sweaty prosteria and genetalia rubbed all over them by the previous occupant. There is a genuine hygiene issue here.
Yeah I agree, it's very unhygienic on a bus or something... but I don't see the problem in a park or other open public area....
However, I think there needs to be a law that allows only people of a certain gender, age and body-weight to walk around in the adam-and-eve-costume....
sebster wrote: I was kind of disappointed when I was in San Francisco and there wasn't a single weirdo walking around nude. It was kind of cold, I guess, and we never went to The Castro because we forgot, but still.
I did and right off the bus pow! big fat naked guy. I was quite shocked. I thought clothes was the one thing all Americans agreed on.
God bless Western religion for making us ashamed of our own bodies. Of course this is the culture where showing thousands of murders on TV is quite alright while a woman's nipples are deemed off limits and wrong.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: God bless Western religion for making us ashamed of our own bodies. Of course this is the culture where showing thousands of murders on TV is quite alright while a woman's nipples are deemed off limits and wrong.
Damn straight. Violence never hurt anyone, but nipples. Those things are deadly
I'm not ashamed of the naked body myself, I just don't want to handle or sit on a seat where someone has wiped their sweaty ballsack only a few minutes prior.
I'm ashamed of the naked form. Especially when it's fat, sun burnt, swollen and walking up and down the street. Come on people, there is so little we all agree one, can't we just agree not to walk up and down the street naked.
At least they'd be getting exercise. Hell, with all the unattractive fat people walking (we hope running) around, maybe there'd be an effort to change the American food industry to not have so many fat people cracking pavement..... I mean, if we walked as much as Europeans and ate less processed foods, we'd see a serious decline in weight and huge increase in health. I'm sure people would fully support models walking around in the nude....
You guys do realize that there are many, I'd even go so far as to say MOST restaurants and other places of business have the policy of No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service... and that still applies, even here... Unless of course San Fran has some weird, "you cannot deny service to people because of their state of clothed-ness" law
Of course it's a force, but to argue that a thing is being enforced is entirely different.
That's not a reason, it's just a rant. You have yet to say WHY these laws should be accepted and, more importantly, why they need to pass an additional law.
I've explicitly stated there is no good reason to have these laws, it's just a taboo society in general has. It's just that, in the scheme of things, the sacrifice one has to meet in order to that taboo is entirely trivial.
Oh yes, the classic "there's a worse problem" complaint. I guess we'd better stop trying to solve any problem besides the eventual heat death of the universe, since it's hard to be a bigger problem than that.
Well, when the problem is that the man is making you wear pants in public, then yes, of course there's bigger problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchKillsRambo wrote: God bless Western religion for making us ashamed of our own bodies. Of course this is the culture where showing thousands of murders on TV is quite alright while a woman's nipples are deemed off limits and wrong.
Yeah, Western religion. That's why there's so many people walking around China and India in the buff. Uh huh, totally a Western religion thing.
I'd agree that I am happy for people to dress however they want in many public spaces, but they should at least have pants (or underpants for our trouserless american friends ) when using public transport or sitting in a business.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: You guys do realize that there are many, I'd even go so far as to say MOST restaurants and other places of business have the policy of No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service... and that still applies, even here... Unless of course San Fran has some weird, "you cannot deny service to people because of their state of clothed-ness" law
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the naked human form, nor is nudity inherently sexual, so whilst I don’t think it’s fair to call these guys perverts, there is surely a time and place for nudity. There are still nudist beaches and nudist camps these people can go to right?
Being naked in the context of a general nudist environment is fine, being naked on the general streets isn’t.
I find it interesting that most of this thread has focused on the stereotype of a naturalist rather than the actual legalities or ethics of naturalisim. How about something a little more mature?
LuciusAR wrote: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the naked human form, nor is nudity inherently sexual, so whilst I don’t think it’s fair to call these guys perverts, there is surely a time and place for nudity.
The problem here is that, if it may be a stereotype then ohh well, most of the people shown to exercise the "i don't have to wear clothing" rights are people who are the last people that anyone would want to see that way... It'd be one thing entirely if someone like David Beckham and Marisa Miller exercised that right in San Fran, but it isn't. Instead we have folks like the guy in the above picture doing this, and really, they shouldn't.
The reality is that most people do not look like sport stars and models, they're normal people with hairy bits and flabby bits. It's not that nudists have ugly bodies, it's that most people tend to look a good but short of perfect when naked.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The reality is that most people do not look like sport stars and models, they're normal people with hairy bits and flabby bits. It's not that nudists have ugly bodies, it's that most people tend to look a good but short of perfect when naked.
i completely understand, it's just that it isn't the ones that are close to "perfection" who are running about in their birthday suits, it's the ones who are a couple hundred pounds, and don't even bother to exercise, or take care of themselves in any meaningful way that do.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The reality is that most people do not look like sport stars and models, they're normal people with hairy bits and flabby bits. It's not that nudists have ugly bodies, it's that most people tend to look a good but short of perfect when naked.
i completely understand, it's just that it isn't the ones that are close to "perfection" who are running about in their birthday suits, it's the ones who are a couple hundred pounds, and don't even bother to exercise, or take care of themselves in any meaningful way that do.
Why should they have to hide there bodies just because society in general doesn't think they're sexy? There's a good argument to be made that it's unhygienic (who wants ball sack sweat on a park bench), but just because some people aren't good-looking is not a good reason to ban
walking around naked, plus if people want to be nude outside there home just go to a nudist beach or camp.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The reality is that most people do not look like sport stars and models, they're normal people with hairy bits and flabby bits. It's not that nudists have ugly bodies, it's that most people tend to look a good but short of perfect when naked.
i completely understand, it's just that it isn't the ones that are close to "perfection" who are running about in their birthday suits, it's the ones who are a couple hundred pounds, and don't even bother to exercise, or take care of themselves in any meaningful way that do.
Why should they have to hide there bodies just because society in general doesn't think they're sexy? There's a good argument to be made that it's unhygienic (who wants ball sack sweat on a park bench), but just because some people aren't good-looking is not a good reason to ban
walking around naked, plus if people want to be nude outside there home just go to a nudist beach or camp.
Almost everyone, supermodels included look better with clothes on. YMMV.
Spoiler:
even my ex who wasn't bad looking looked better with clothes on, without them she was a strange barbie doll type figure. lol
Howard A Treesong wrote: The reality is that most people do not look like sport stars and models, they're normal people with hairy bits and flabby bits. It's not that nudists have ugly bodies, it's that most people tend to look a good but short of perfect when naked.
i completely understand, it's just that it isn't the ones that are close to "perfection" who are running about in their birthday suits, it's the ones who are a couple hundred pounds, and don't even bother to exercise, or take care of themselves in any meaningful way that do.
Why should they have to hide there bodies just because society in general doesn't think they're sexy? There's a good argument to be made that it's unhygienic (who wants ball sack sweat on a park bench), but just because some people aren't good-looking is not a good reason to ban
walking around naked, plus if people want to be nude outside there home just go to a nudist beach or camp.
Almost everyone, supermodels included look better with clothes on. YMMV.
Spoiler:
even my ex who wasn't bad looking looked better with clothes on, without them she was a strange barbie doll type figure. lol
Yeah, people look stupid in sock and sandals but you don't' see us banning that or people who look bad in yoga pants.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The reality is that most people do not look like sport stars and models, they're normal people with hairy bits and flabby bits. It's not that nudists have ugly bodies, it's that most people tend to look a good but short of perfect when naked.
i completely understand, it's just that it isn't the ones that are close to "perfection" who are running about in their birthday suits, it's the ones who are a couple hundred pounds, and don't even bother to exercise, or take care of themselves in any meaningful way that do.
Why should they have to hide there bodies just because society in general doesn't think they're sexy? There's a good argument to be made that it's unhygienic (who wants ball sack sweat on a park bench), but just because some people aren't good-looking is not a good reason to ban
walking around naked, plus if people want to be nude outside there home just go to a nudist beach or camp.
Almost everyone, supermodels included look better with clothes on. YMMV.
Yeah, people look stupid in sock and sandals but you don't' see us banning that or people who look bad in yoga pants.
Tbh it tends to be bad for ones health to wander round quite a few areas naked, north of England and Scotland are two relatively cold places i'd rather not be in buff during winter.
But in warmer climates go right for it, be proud of who you are.
just remember it's an ancient taboo which can carry serious connotations if no matter how innocently, you happen to be near a place where children frequent.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The reality is that most people do not look like sport stars and models, they're normal people with hairy bits and flabby bits. It's not that nudists have ugly bodies, it's that most people tend to look a good but short of perfect when naked.
i completely understand, it's just that it isn't the ones that are close to "perfection" who are running about in their birthday suits, it's the ones who are a couple hundred pounds, and don't even bother to exercise, or take care of themselves in any meaningful way that do.
Why should they have to hide there bodies just because society in general doesn't think they're sexy? There's a good argument to be made that it's unhygienic (who wants ball sack sweat on a park bench), but just because some people aren't good-looking is not a good reason to ban
walking around naked, plus if people want to be nude outside there home just go to a nudist beach or camp.
Almost everyone, supermodels included look better with clothes on. YMMV.
Yeah, people look stupid in sock and sandals but you don't' see us banning that or people who look bad in yoga pants.
Tbh it tends to be bad for ones health to wander round quite a few areas naked, north of England and Scotland are two relatively cold places i'd rather not be in buff during winter.
Yeah you could only do it during summer and spring here. Just so everything's clear I'm not advocating public nudity (too unhygienic), but I do think there should places where nudity is accepted.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The reality is that most people do not look like sport stars and models, they're normal people with hairy bits and flabby bits. It's not that nudists have ugly bodies, it's that most people tend to look a good but short of perfect when naked.
i completely understand, it's just that it isn't the ones that are close to "perfection" who are running about in their birthday suits, it's the ones who are a couple hundred pounds, and don't even bother to exercise, or take care of themselves in any meaningful way that do.
Why should they have to hide there bodies just because society in general doesn't think they're sexy? There's a good argument to be made that it's unhygienic (who wants ball sack sweat on a park bench), but just because some people aren't good-looking is not a good reason to ban
walking around naked, plus if people want to be nude outside there home just go to a nudist beach or camp.
Almost everyone, supermodels included look better with clothes on. YMMV.
[spoiler]even my ex who wasn't bad looking looked better with clothes on, without them she was a strange barbie doll type figure. lol
[/spoiler]
Yeah, people look stupid in sock and sandals but you don't' see us banning that or people who look bad in yoga pants.
...That sounds pretty awesome actually. Spandex should be a privilege and not a right.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The reality is that most people do not look like sport stars and models, they're normal people with hairy bits and flabby bits. It's not that nudists have ugly bodies, it's that most people tend to look a good but short of perfect when naked.
i completely understand, it's just that it isn't the ones that are close to "perfection" who are running about in their birthday suits, it's the ones who are a couple hundred pounds, and don't even bother to exercise, or take care of themselves in any meaningful way that do.
Why should they have to hide there bodies just because society in general doesn't think they're sexy? There's a good argument to be made that it's unhygienic (who wants ball sack sweat on a park bench), but just because some people aren't good-looking is not a good reason to ban
walking around naked, plus if people want to be nude outside there home just go to a nudist beach or camp.
Almost everyone, supermodels included look better with clothes on. YMMV.
[spoiler]even my ex who wasn't bad looking looked better with clothes on, without them she was a strange barbie doll type figure. lol
[/spoiler]
Yeah, people look stupid in sock and sandals but you don't' see us banning that or people who look bad in yoga pants.
...That sounds pretty awesome actually. Spandex should be a privilege and not a right.
Except how do you decide whats clothes some people are allowed to wear and which ones they can't? Also for some people the clothes you wear is a form of self-expression.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The reality is that most people do not look like sport stars and models, they're normal people with hairy bits and flabby bits. It's not that nudists have ugly bodies, it's that most people tend to look a good but short of perfect when naked.
i completely understand, it's just that it isn't the ones that are close to "perfection" who are running about in their birthday suits, it's the ones who are a couple hundred pounds, and don't even bother to exercise, or take care of themselves in any meaningful way that do.
Why should they have to hide there bodies just because society in general doesn't think they're sexy? There's a good argument to be made that it's unhygienic (who wants ball sack sweat on a park bench), but just because some people aren't good-looking is not a good reason to ban
walking around naked, plus if people want to be nude outside there home just go to a nudist beach or camp.
Almost everyone, supermodels included look better with clothes on. YMMV.
[spoiler]even my ex who wasn't bad looking looked better with clothes on, without them she was a strange barbie doll type figure. lol
[/spoiler]
Yeah, people look stupid in sock and sandals but you don't' see us banning that or people who look bad in yoga pants.
...That sounds pretty awesome actually. Spandex should be a privilege and not a right.
Except how do you decide whats clothes some people are allowed to wear and which ones they can't? Also for some people the clothes you wear is a form of self-expression.
We'll have to get permits to where anything that isn't amish clothing
Except how do you decide whats clothes some people are allowed to wear and which ones they can't? Also for some people the clothes you wear is a form of self-expression.
While clothing as a form of self-expression is true in some respects, if a person (notably large females, oddly) looks like they are 300 pounds, and is squeezing that large land-based whale physique into tiny little spandex.... well, that goes beyond expression into the realm of offensive and just terrible sense.
Except how do you decide whats clothes some people are allowed to wear and which ones they can't? Also for some people the clothes you wear is a form of self-expression.
While clothing as a form of self-expression is true in some respects, if a person (notably large females, oddly) looks like they are 300 pounds, and is squeezing that large land-based whale physique into tiny little spandex.... well, that goes beyond expression into the realm of offensive and just terrible sense.
While you have the right to be offended, she is just entitled to wear whatever she wants and besides beauty is a very subjective thing it wasn't long ago that being fat was considered desirable by many.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: We'd use the reasonable person test at a licensing office. You'll be judged in the item you seek a license for by a jury of your peers.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: We'd use the reasonable person test at a licensing office. You'll be judged in the item you seek a license for by a jury of your peers.
Eh, I would be perfectly fine walking around naked myself, but that's because I am gorgeous. What I would have a problem with is not so gorgeous people running around like flabby sides of meat with legs. The solution would be to have a licensing system where one applies for permit to be naked in public, and is then evaluated for general attractiveness. If you are a perfection of the human form such as myself, you get your naked license. If you area jolly old tub of lard, then no license for you.
Except how do you decide whats clothes some people are allowed to wear and which ones they can't? Also for some people the clothes you wear is a form of self-expression.
While clothing as a form of self-expression is true in some respects, if a person (notably large females, oddly) looks like they are 300 pounds, and is squeezing that large land-based whale physique into tiny little spandex.... well, that goes beyond expression into the realm of offensive and just terrible sense.
worst part
they make thongs for them as well
more fabric than goes into my pants goes into their thongs
rubiksnoob wrote: The solution would be to have a licensing system where one applies for permit to be naked in public, and is then evaluated for general attractiveness.
Except beauty is subjective so you could have a guy who's into bearded ladies with no legs doing the evaluation.
rubiksnoob wrote: The solution would be to have a licensing system where one applies for permit to be naked in public, and is then evaluated for general attractiveness.
Except beauty is subjective so you could have a guy who's into bearded ladies with no legs doing the evaluation.
Sorry. Women must look like Marion Cottillard. Men must look like me.
dude, at least in America, for some reason, many people consider the bewbs to be genitalia.. not sure if this particular bill is this way, but there you have it, even that may not be safe.
How, exactly? I mean "Incredibly unhygienic" is an extremely strong term here. I suppose if someone is covered in oozing pustules you've got a point, but otherwise I'm not seeing it. Presumably someone with half-decent personal hygenie is going to be taking a shower on a fairly regular basis, and thus isn't going to be introducing any particularly large amount of general uncleanness into the environment. Similarly a gross slob who wouldn't shower, is likely not paying attention to how clean their clothes are either so in either case they're spreading their stank everywhere.
Even then in public spaces everything is already getting touched so many times by so many people, chances are someone's hands have probably already delivered anything some dudes hairy back could deliver to whatever surface is in question. I suppose there is the argument the naked person might be exposed to something they otherwise wouldn't be, but hey that's on their head right?
You're at more risk from people sneezing public than some dude rubbing his ass-rash on a subway seat (especially since you are presumably wearing pants), but you're probably not clamoring for mandatory public surgical masks.
Truth be told I don't particularly care about people having the right to be naked in public, but it seems silly to pretend that it's some kind of health risk out of scale with the many, many things we already readily accept as a part of living with other members of the same species. That and I'm feeling contrary.
why on earth would I think they have half decent personal hygiene? Dude they're literally rubbing their ass all over the city.
But then again its California so the concept of someone doing that pleases me greatly.
I totaly agree with what you're saying here, Fraz, and exalt. There is an element of common sense that does not seem to be kicking in with the proponents of public nudity. I don't want to be packed into an elevator or publlic transportation with some naked slob and getting their pubs on me and I definitely don't want my kids at eye level with people's exposed junk.
In Texas, that is current law. Topless is fine.
Personally, I don't care that much except as a hygienic issue. I have no problem with nude beaches, etc. I Just don't want to sit in the bus post grandpa with clothing and hygiene issues.
So long as there are boundries, there will be folks who test them.
From a public health level, yes, nudity is an issue. But on a more societal level, I've seen many more protests and sympathy given to the male/female torso nudity equality campaign.
I'm all for equality. Shirtless men and women, all well and good. When you cross the line from expression to helath concern, you've lost me.
I don't want to sit on a theater seat where someone in the previous movie with crabs or genital warts had his bare butt and testicles. As cold as theaters are, I doubt that would be an issue, though.
I don't want to sit on a theater seat where someone in the previous movie with crabs or genital warts had his bare butt and testicles. As cold as theaters are, I doubt that would be an issue, though.
Hate to break it to you... but theater seats likely already have those undesirables in ample amounts... especially in the back.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: God bless Western religion for making us ashamed of our own bodies. Of course this is the culture where showing thousands of murders on TV is quite alright while a woman's nipples are deemed off limits and wrong.
Yeah, Western religion. That's why there's so many people walking around China and India in the buff. Uh huh, totally a Western religion thing.
I know your probably smarter than me after reading your posts but really? Did you never learn how one of the first thing missionaries did to natives in the Americas and South Pacific was to clothe them and teach them "modesty" aka shame?
My whole point is what the hell is wrong with nudity? The vast majority of us are naked everyday for a varying length of time. Why should we be ashamed to be nude? Anyway its way to late to start now as nudity has become sexualized for the attractive and made comedic for the less attractive. Sad but true.
And my point about whats acceptable media in our culture still stands.
Clothing tends to be something associated with civilization, not one specific religion over another. Every major civilization has had clothing be a major fixture.
The only thing that changes is what parts of the body a more taboo then others. And then they follow similar patterns. Generally radiating from the genitalia outwards to varying degrees.
Regardless, clothes are a major part of all civilized societies.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: God bless Western religion for making us ashamed of our own bodies. Of course this is the culture where showing thousands of murders on TV is quite alright while a woman's nipples are deemed off limits and wrong.
Yeah, Western religion. That's why there's so many people walking around China and India in the buff. Uh huh, totally a Western religion thing.
I know your probably smarter than me after reading your posts but really? Did you never learn how one of the first thing missionaries did to natives in the Americas and South Pacific was to clothe them and teach them "modesty" aka shame?
My whole point is what the hell is wrong with nudity? The vast majority of us are naked everyday for a varying length of time. Why should we be ashamed to be nude? Anyway its way to late to start now as nudity has become sexualized for the attractive and made comedic for the less attractive. Sad but true.
And my point about whats acceptable media in our culture still stands.
"
All evidence we have is that people wore clothing in the Americas. Depending on the region that clothing was more or less, but everyone wore clothing, even in the Amazon. Not sure what you're getting at.
We know the Mayans (via the few codexes that remain and their sculpture) wore clothing, as did the Aztecs. The Inca definitely had elaborate clothing. Comanche, Apache, Lakotah, Dakotah, and Iroquois were all noted as having clothing, again depending on region and season.
The only one I know that might fit your story is a variant of the Kiowa (or was it Kickapoo) that lived near/on Galveston. And they wore heavy leayers of mud to protect them from horsefly bites.
Depending on the region they wore clothing but even now there's Amazonian tribes that wear little to nothing. They wore adornments surely but not everyone covered their breasts and genitals.
Even on Magellans cruise during the first contact with Pacific Islanders his missionaries were abhorred at the nudity of the natives and tried to get them to cover it. Partly because the sailors were getting it on with said natives. Partly because it was immodest to Euroean eyes.
Similar story in Mexico. It's not really news.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Clothing and covering specific body parts aren't always the same thing Fraz.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Depending on the region they wore clothing but even now there's Amazonian tribes that wear little to nothing. They wore adornments surely but not everyone covered their breasts and genitals.
Even on Magellans cruise during the first contact with Pacific Islanders his missionaries were abhorred at the nudity of the natives and tried to get them to cover it. Partly because the sailors were getting it on with said natives. Partly because it was immodest to Euroean eyes.
Similar story in Mexico. It's not really news.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Clothing and covering specific body parts aren't always the same thing Fraz.
Breasts aren't what I'd define as nudity but your mileage may vary. The Amazons may wear little but they generally wear something. If not, hey their Amazons who make Borneo's long house brigade look positively Oxfordesque. I'm not going to judge standards by that of confirmed cannibals. The other native tribes did not dress like that.
I don't know anything about Pacific islanders, and give a hearty meh to them as well. If I lived in paradise I wouldn't care either, now get a job you lazy bums!
San Francisco is no Tahiti on the environmental front.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Depending on the region they wore clothing but even now there's Amazonian tribes that wear little to nothing. They wore adornments surely but not everyone covered their breasts and genitals.
Even on Magellans cruise during the first contact with Pacific Islanders his missionaries were abhorred at the nudity of the natives and tried to get them to cover it. Partly because the sailors were getting it on with said natives. Partly because it was immodest to Euroean eyes.
Similar story in Mexico. It's not really news.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Clothing and covering specific body parts aren't always the same thing Fraz.
Breasts aren't what I'd define as nudity but your mileage may vary. The Amazons may wear little but they generally wear something. If not, hey their Amazons who make Borneo's long house brigade look positively Oxfordesque. I'm not going to judge standards by that of confirmed cannibals. The other native tribes did not dress like that.
I don't know anything about Pacific islanders, and give a hearty meh to them as well. If I lived in paradise I wouldn't care either, now get a job you lazy bums!
San Francisco is no Tahiti on the environmental front.
Neither do I consider breasts nudity. But i can assure you the missionaries of that era did.
And glad you livened up the discussion by saying "I don't know so I don't care"
It's not like I have some anti-religious agenda here. Its just the facts of history.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Depending on the region they wore clothing but even now there's Amazonian tribes that wear little to nothing. They wore adornments surely but not everyone covered their breasts and genitals.
Even on Magellans cruise during the first contact with Pacific Islanders his missionaries were abhorred at the nudity of the natives and tried to get them to cover it. Partly because the sailors were getting it on with said natives. Partly because it was immodest to Euroean eyes.
Similar story in Mexico. It's not really news.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Clothing and covering specific body parts aren't always the same thing Fraz.
Breasts aren't what I'd define as nudity but your mileage may vary. The Amazons may wear little but they generally wear something. If not, hey their Amazons who make Borneo's long house brigade look positively Oxfordesque. I'm not going to judge standards by that of confirmed cannibals. The other native tribes did not dress like that.
I don't know anything about Pacific islanders, and give a hearty meh to them as well. If I lived in paradise I wouldn't care either, now get a job you lazy bums!
San Francisco is no Tahiti on the environmental front.
Neither do I consider breasts nudity. But i can assure you the missionaries of that era did.
And glad you livened up the discussion by saying "I don't know so I don't care"
It's not like I have some anti-religious agenda here. Its just the facts of history.
I'm not being hostile. As I noted my issue is only hygiene. After all Austin actually has a nude beach.
I'm just duipsuting the arguments that the Americas was clothingless. I know most of themajor areas had quite a bit based on the limited informaiton we have.
Fraz I never said all of the Americas were completely naked. And honestly where did you get that from? The part where I said people wore varying amounts of clothing depending on region? And in a similar vein they did try to change to way all natives dressed to a more European style. Even going as for to outlaw some native garments.
If public hygiene is really your only argument, how come public bathrooms aren't responsible for millions of infections every year then? I'm just not buying it. How is a naked guy sitting on a seat, followed by you sitting on the same seat, but wearing clothes, a public health issue?
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Fraz I never said all of the Americas were completely naked. And honestly where did you get that from? The part where I said people wore varying amounts of clothing depending on region? And in a similar vein they did try to change to way all natives dressed to a more European style. Even going as for to outlaw some native garments.
If public hygiene is really your only argument, how come public bathrooms aren't responsible for millions of infections every year then? I'm just not buying it. How is a naked guy sitting on a seat, followed by you sitting on the same seat, but wearing clothes, a public health issue?
How do we know its not? Plus there is sanitary wraps for that. I don't use them, because I'm the guy everyone else worries about.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Did you never learn how one of the first thing missionaries did to natives in the Americas and South Pacific was to clothe them and teach them "modesty" aka shame?
My point was that this wasn't a product purely of Western religion. Western religion may have had the resources and inclination to send out missionaries, but it isn't as though most cultures around the world were wearing clothes anyway. They weren't sending out missionaries but you better believe the Muslim, Buddhists and Hindus weren't all sitting around nude.
Anyhow, there have always been notions of modesty and shame, even in cultures with little or no clothing. Even among the Australian Aboriginal tribes who were fully naked there was still a notion of shame - both men and women would sit very particularly to avoid giving a full view of their genitals to anyone.
So exactly where everyone falls on that scale, from 'I'm totally starkers but I won't give you a view of the best bits' per those Aboriginal tribes, to some Muslim groups who will cover all but the eyes of a woman, there is still a notion of shame and privacy.
My whole point is what the hell is wrong with nudity? The vast majority of us are naked everyday for a varying length of time. Why should we be ashamed to be nude?
I agree with you totally, there is no good reason. And yet we are, so, you know, whatever. It's something hardwired in the brain.
My whole point is what the hell is wrong with nudity? The vast majority of us are naked everyday for a varying length of time. Why should we be ashamed to be nude?
I agree with you totally, there is no good reason. And yet we are, so, you know, whatever. It's something hardwired in the brain.
Hardwired? Really? Because both of my children had zero problems with nudity and being nude until the wife and I taught them all about the importance of modesty. (Particularly when grandma is visiting )
feeder wrote: Hardwired? Really? Because both of my children had zero problems with nudity and being nude until the wife and I taught them all about the importance of modesty. (Particularly when grandma is visiting )
feeder wrote: Hardwired? Really? Because both of my children had zero problems with nudity and being nude until the wife and I taught them all about the importance of modesty. (Particularly when grandma is visiting )
Not from birth, obviously.
then it's not hardwired, it's just our societies influences on us.
nomsheep wrote: then it's not hardwired, it's just our societies influences on us.
Yeah, that's exactly why, because we don't want sex before puberty, but then do once we hit puberty... that we conclude the sex drive is entirely society's influence on us. Yeah, that's it.
nomsheep wrote: then it's not hardwired, it's just our societies influences on us.
Yeah, that's exactly why, because we don't want sex before puberty, but then do once we hit puberty... that we conclude the sex drive is entirely society's influence on us. Yeah, that's it.
There are human behaviours that are not present at birth, but develop later in life that it'd be completely absurd to claim are purely created by society. To claim otherwise is to claim the sex drive is purely a social construct.
From there, we can observe that while modesty typically exhibits later in life, we can see it in some form or another in just about every society on Earth, and as such find it reasonable to assume that there is something our hardwiring that makes most of us prefer modesty in some form or another.
Not that of any of that really means anything anyway, in terms of whether or not it should be allowed. It's really just there to reject the idea that our ideas of modesty are the product of western religion.
why on earth would I think they have half decent personal hygiene? Dude they're literally rubbing their ass all over the city. 
Just so everything's clear I'm not advocating public nudity (too unhygienic), but I do think there should places where nudity is accepted.
Also for some people the clothes you wear is a form of self-expression.
