Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/11/21 17:24:42
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
2012/11/21 17:39:52
Subject: Re:San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
2012/11/21 17:55:24
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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
2012/11/23 06:46:45
Subject: Re:San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/23 06:49:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/11/23 07:48:23
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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
But, it says nothing about no pants.
Peter: As we all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living! So we all sing Christmas Carols to lull him back to sleep.
Bob: Outrageous, How dare he say such blasphemy. I've got to do something.
Man #1: Bob, there's nothing you can do.
Bob: Well, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor.
2012/11/23 12:17:48
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/23 12:17:58
"And if we've learnt anything over the past 1000 mile retreat it's that Russian agriculture is in dire need of mechanisation!"
2012/11/23 12:29:04
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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?
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
2012/11/23 13:27:23
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
2012/11/23 13:41:48
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
2012/11/23 13:57:51
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
2012/11/23 19:16:49
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
2012/11/23 19:23:36
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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
2012/11/23 19:26:41
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/23 19:27:04
2012/11/23 19:45:14
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/11/23 19:48:33
2012/11/23 19:48:56
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
2012/11/23 21:05:47
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
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.
2012/11/23 21:44:09
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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
2012/11/23 21:49:06
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
2012/11/23 22:00:06
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/23 22:00:39
2012/11/23 22:18:27
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
How do you measure reasonableness?
2012/11/23 23:18:17
Subject: San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
How do you measure reasonableness?
your reaction below the belt line
if you don't run screaming, they can wear it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/11/23 23:18:56
2012/11/24 06:37:24
Subject: Re:San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.
2012/11/24 06:41:12
Subject: Re:San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/24 06:43:25
3000+
Death Company, Converted Space Hulk Termies
RIP Diz, We will never forget ya brother
2012/11/24 06:46:07
Subject: Re:San Fran close vote on public nudity.....Really?
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.