You guys talk the talk, but will you walk the walk?
You guys talk the talk, but will you walk the walk?
The idea that faces aren't indecent is a cultural thing. It's shared by the majority of them, but not all. Similarly, Ancient Greece and other cultures (largely before Christianity took over as a major religion) also didn't view a naked human as indecent.
You aren't going to convince me that I should see a human body as indecent just because you think it is. You've gotta do better than "nuh uh!"
Gay men have been attacked for kissing or holding hands in the US, even fairly recently. It was more common a few decades ago, but it does still happen in some areas. If you think kissing and holding hands is obviously acceptable and not at all comparable, there are also people who strongly disagree. Also, Muslim-majority countries, of which a few countries completely ban these things in public.
You gotta do better.
Some flashers do it for arousal, it's called exhibitionism and takes many forms. However, it can be illegal to do otherwise legal things when you specifically target someone (e.g., run up to someone, whip it out, spin it around, and run away). Screaming is legal, but if you run up to someone and scream at them you'll probably get a stern talking to from the police at least.
Virtually everyone has that specific alertness. It's one of our built-in senses. Naturally you can get attacks that are unexpected, but so can anyone, even a woman wearing a thong and a miniskirt. Not much to stop a decent attack there.
Also, vomit. Everyone can vomit, at any time, and we largely do nothing to stop it except of our own volition. Vomiting outside is also not illegal (unless you could determine it was intentional, I suppose). Random diarrhea attacks are fairly comparable.
I'm arguing in general. Most people seem to have diarrhea under control, clothed or not. You don't suddenly get irritable bowel syndrome when you take your pants off.
Which makes me laugh and laugh and laugh. Besides, it being illegal is currently unrelated to hypothetical sanitation issues. It is illegal to stand around naked, or wear transparent clothing (think see-through raincoat), but these could not not invoke any sanitation issues.
People can be disturbed about a whole lot of things. Interracial couples kissing, gay couples kissing, etc. We need extra reasons, like provable psychological effects, to really warrant making things illegal. Otherwise, it's just ick-factor. Which you support, and I laugh and laugh again.
so when you get one of those out-of-the-blue boners
do you just run like hell to the nearest hiding spot and wait it out?
This ban, as pheasible as it is, shouldn't go through. As stated in the article, its a large part of the tolerance found in San Francisco. And it seems like hes just mad because nudists are gathering together in small groups in public locations regularly. If THAT is the tipping point of nudism tolerance, it comes to show that there musn't have been much tolerance at all.
People should be allowed to require clothing in their private buinesses and stores. Maybe even public transportation due to the close proximity at which people travel, but nobody is being hurt by nudists walking around sidewalks and parks. If people are uncomfortable with it, thats relavent to their own psyche and can avert their vision.
Or maybe they just like being naked. Either way self control is required.
Also do you think I'm trying to convince you? Beauty is subjective and I'm sure you already know that
What the fuck are you even doing?
The only way it would be considered illegal if we outlawed public nudity is if you stalked a person or did it infront of their homes in that general direction.
No ones saying they get IBS when they take their pants off. Its "what if" they got IBS.
The point is that you may or may not know when diarrhea or regurgitation will occur. Its not a thing you can just plan for half the time unless you're already aware of it. And thus not everyone may plan for any issues while they make the venture outside.
And if I could cite a source for psychological effects I wouldn't be arguing on behalf of "Its disgusting" or "Its icky" in fact I would have cited them already. All I know is that reactions to public nudity are dependent of the subject. The ick factor is at best the only thing you can use since no one has cared enough to make a study on The Effects of Public Nudity on the Populous
The "ick factor" is an important part of decency. Especially when you benefit from clothing more than you would without. Which is why we have been wearing clothing for such long periods of time. Now let me be serious for a second
Of course you can't really make it illegal along with sexual activities in public but these acts should be frowned upon. They're stupid and disgusting.
Remember that we are talking about the city of tolerence here. The fact a certain number of people would dislike something relatively harmless shouldn't dictate wether people can or cannot do it.
I'm posting on an internet discussion forum. We discuss things. If you don't want to discuss things, or aren't trying to convince others of your point of view, then why are you posting?
Your randomized spacing aggravates me.
That is not the only way it could be made conditionally illegal, that's a non-argument. You could make nudity have quite a lot of conditions for its legality.
Someone with a medical condition that makes nudism effectively impossible, or at least impractical, will have to deal with that in their own way. Just like someone who has a condition that makes them spontaneously vomit.
Sure, but that's the case now, and it is a terribly minor issue on the whole. Plenty of people vomit or shit themselves from drinking too much alcohol, for example. We do not use this as a primary factor in determining its legality.
So you are arguing. Why did you ask about why I'm discussing this earlier, then? Why say you weren't trying to 'convince' me?
Alright, but ick factor is insufficient for public policy, as per all the other examples of things that have been or currently are illegal elsewhere based on ick factors.
Decency is not a good basis for anything. It's far too subjective a basis for the limiting of freedom, which we generally take very seriously. Look how much people hate marijuana being illegal, and that has much more serious implications overall!
And yes, clothes are functional. That is unrelated. We could just as easily be talking about full head coverings if we were in certain countries.
You are silly and foolish, and I find your text to leave a significantly foul after-taste.
Decency has nothing to do with it, it's an issue of sanitation.
in that picture of them eating in the restaurant... if they don't wear clothes, how do they carry their money/identification/phone?
Being naked doesn't do anything that can harm anyone else, just because you don't like seeing peoples bodies doesn't mean it should be illegal.
As such, you have a potential problem that can be easily somewhat combated (by wearing clothing), and the solution is not harmful to others (because nobody needs to be naked, outside of a few psychological reasons, or in cases of specific articles of clothing causing allergic reactions).
All of this is ignoring the higher-contaminate areas of the body that are traditionally covered in clothing (the genital region), as well as areas of the body that have a higher risk of being hygienically neglected.
Please note the absence of key words such as "obscene" or "decency" or "vulgar" in the above statements.
To summarize, I can think of a number of reasons against public nudity, and far less reasons in favor of it. If you can think of any that somehow combat or negate the reasons against, I'm all ears.
This isn't a matter of human rights or anything, this is a minority people exposing themselves, lowering the sanitary state of everything around them, and causing discomfort in others.
As for sanitation, the effects are not as extreme as you think. I'll find a study to cite.
Is seeing a naked person when you weren't expecting it going to make you have a mental breakdown?
That is not how the law works.
Even if sanitation isn't an issue, it still is something that'd socially break my last functioning limb. People shouldn't have to tolerate it, it isn't a right that someone has to have to live normally.
Just because something is lacking in germs doesn't mean that it's illogical to not want to touch it directly or indirectly. You can't just break things like this down into the most logical, rational components.
I'm saying that the idea that you're going to die if you touch something that somebody's buttock bumped into accidentally is silly and likely a result of the contemporary hand-sanitiser-culture that we've got going on. It's also about respecting one's genitals for sexual and personal reasons; which is why you wouldn't walk along grabbing bollocks if you were in a nudist area.
Why would you not break things like this down into logical and rational components?
That's not what you want to hear, but that is the truth.
My point is that some repulsions and taboos in society cannot be defended scientifically and yet that is not a reason to oppose the taboos.
a toilet seat is usually cleaner than a cutting board.
I'm pretty sure that if something you regularly piss, shit, and occasionally vomit into is cleaner than what you prepare food on, you're probably alright if a naked person sat the chair you're using an hour before you did.
2. Stains, Obesity and having a messed up face isn't the equivalent to being nude in public.
3. I made an earlier statement stating that I don't think this can really be made illegal (well on the basis of it being disgusting)