Public Nudity acceptable or not?

Two Toed Sloth said:
Well no actually, I thought that in my post I implied that people in general would not be happy with it (I project that feeling from the fact that I wouldn't be happy with it) hence I conclude that the majority of supermarkets (if not all) would not allow it for fear of losing custom. Thus nullifying the issue of nudity in supermarkets if public nudity were legal.
Click to expand...

Ah, my bad. I thought you were suggesting that supermarkets should be allowed to let nude people wander amongst the food if they wished to have such a policy.

As for you issue with nudest's opinion towards clothed people, which is your biggest problem with public nudity; for one thing how on earth do you know that nudists feel this way (unless you canvassed opinion within the nude community), and also even if it were true that (unlikely as it is) most nudists feel themselves superior how would this be justification for a law against public nudity.
Click to expand...

Just an observation, that particular piece. Truth be told, no matter how many suggestions one can make as to how to minimize some of the concerns, the risks to public health and safety are great enough to outweigh the benefits of making public nudity legal - the only benefit being, so far as I can tell, allowing a few people to merely have their d'ruthers.

As to how I know some nudists feel that way; well, this isn't the first thread on the Internet where proponents of free nudity have held discussions; I've participated in at least a couple, and have seen pro-nudists express such attitudes directly. If anecdote will not suffice, a web search ought. I conducted one for the purpose of providing an example link, but found so many similar results that it probably makes the point better if you do the search yourself: simply type 'nudist', 'textile', and 'hangups' into Google's search engine and examine the first few pages thereof. It's obvious that there's at least a sizeable contingent of nudists to whom the 'textile' world is a world of judgemental prudes with bad body images and 'hangups' (the term, so far as I can tell seems to be a catchword for things like 'preferring to wear clothes' or 'getting aroused by seeing naked women').
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
Just an observation, that particular piece. Truth be told, no matter how many suggestions one can make as to how to minimize some of the concerns, the risks to public health and safety are great enough to outweigh the benefits of making public nudity legal -
Click to expand...
I think it depends greatly on context. There are a lot of things which are commonplace, particularly in big cities, that are bigger health hazards than a few naked people walking around; particularly since there are plenty of pets and feral animals out there (city pigeons are truly disgusting creatures). However, I do agree that prohibition of full nudity inside public buildings and public transport is valid; and private businesses should definitely have the right to exclude nudity to whatever degree they wish. Public parks and beaches, on the other hand, are appropriate places to allow full nudity; and there's no valid reason to prohibit it in that context. Of course, it should go without saying that laws for men and women should be equal (no gender-specific prohibitions on partial or full nudity).

the only benefit being, so far as I can tell, allowing a few people to merely have their d'ruthers.
Click to expand...
Of course, US law, at least, is ostensibly designed to protect the rights of the minority from the whims and preferences of the majority; otherwise, a democratic/republican society would quickly devolve into mob rule (as was frequently the case in pure democracies), and minorities would suffer under an oppressive "tyrrany of the majority".

As to how I know some nudists feel that way; well, this isn't the first thread on the Internet where proponents of free nudity have held discussions; I've participated in at least a couple, and have seen pro-nudists express such attitudes directly.
Click to expand...
I've encountered more than my fair share of militant nudists as well. Fortunately, they're the minority as far as I can tell.
 
Segnosaur said:
(Not that I'm saying everyone will be that way, but I'm sure there will be at least a few nudists who don't bath regularly, or who don't quite use the bathroom properly.)
Click to expand...
I deal with more than a few non-nudists on my daily commute whose personal hygiene is so bad they might qualify as walking health hazards; but who are still allowed on public transport. I practically have to hold my breath for a dozen city blocks some days. When the guy sitting next to you on the bus reeks of urine, BO, alcohol, stale cigarettes, and G-D knows what else, whether he's clothed or not doesn't really add much to the problem.

I've only seen two people ever kicked off a bus for hygiene problems. One was actively gobbing on the floor. The other smelled so bad that passengers actually moved away or left; and the driver actually stopped the bus and ran off retching.
 
Cainkane1 said:
Pardon me for being old fashioned but I believe children should go through a long stage of sexual innocence.
Click to expand...

RhodyDave said:
I respect your feelings on this, but here's why I think you're wrong. The human body is not just a sexual object. In many cultures, nudity is quite common among family members (Japan, Finland, as well as almost every "primitive" culture) and for good reason - we all possess the same equipment (gender specific), and the sexuality of the body has nothing to do with the general day to day functions that we all share, adults and children included.
Click to expand...

What consistently fails to be addressed in these debates is the definition of "innocence". What exactly does that mean? I've never yet seen anyone define the term adequately. Most often, it's used as a synonym for "ignorance". Why is it a good idea to keep children ignorant? If it doesn't equate to ignorance, what does it mean, and why is it a desirable state?

Children naturally go through a period of sexual latency, when sexuality is not a significant part of their psychological makeup. They do not automatically make sexual associations unless strongly influenced or forced to by adults. There's a huge difference between children being aware of sexuality, and being sexually active or associative. As has been noted before, children are exposed to far more sexualizing influences from advertising and entertainment aimed at children than they are from simple nudity in a non-sexual context.

Indeed, children have to be taught to sexualize nudity; which is clearly evident when comparing different cultural mores and practices regarding nudity and sexuality. IMO there is far more damage done to a child by over-sexualizing nudity than by simply observing naked people in a non-sexual context.

Another comment was brought up earlier, I don't remember by who (but I've seen it repeatedly in past threads) about paedophiles using this as an excuse to expose themselves to children. This strikes me as patently absurd. For starters, paedophiles are inherently cowards, they typically do not stalk children in public in obvious ways. Such a practice would be far too obvious. The more important question is "What is the harm?" If a child is not taught to sexualize nudity, then how will they know what the paedophile is doing? All they will know is that there's a naked person there, no different than any number of other naked people around. If the paedophile is making overt sexual advances then:
1) It won't matter if he's naked or not, since it will be obvious to others that it's happening, and action can be taken.
2) The child likely won't recognize it as a sexual advance unless they've already been taught to. The reason so many paedophiles put the child through an extended "grooming" process is as much about teaching the child to respond sexually, as it is about gaining trust.
 
luchog said:
I deal with more than a few non-nudists on my daily commute whose personal hygiene is so bad they might qualify as walking health hazards; but who are still allowed on public transport. I practically have to hold my breath for a dozen city blocks some days. When the guy sitting next to you on the bus reeks of urine, BO, alcohol, stale cigarettes, and G-D knows what else, whether he's clothed or not doesn't really add much to the problem.
Click to expand...
Here I have to disagree...

If a clothed person has bad hygiene, it will smell bad/make things miserable for a while, but when they leave, the smell should dissipate.

If a nudist has bad hygiene (especially in the bathroom...e.g. doesn't wipe properly, or if they're male they don't, ahem, shake) then that material can potentially be left behind on bus seats (or, if its crowded, on the clothing of people they're pressed up against). I suspect that there would be much less chance of transfer if the individual were wearing at least underwear.

I've only seen two people ever kicked off a bus for hygiene problems. One was actively gobbing on the floor.
Click to expand...
My opinion is that as gross as that is, someone farting on a bus seat sans clothing would be worse. But then, that is just my opinion, based on the cleanliness of the act (the intestinal tract is probably a more dangerous environment) and the location (the floor would only affect the shoes; on a bus seat its in more direct contact with clothing, any packages that are left behind, etc.)
 
luchog said:
I deal with more than a few non-nudists on my daily commute whose personal hygiene is so bad they might qualify as walking health hazards; but who are still allowed on public transport. I practically have to hold my breath for a dozen city blocks some days. When the guy sitting next to you on the bus reeks of urine, BO, alcohol, stale cigarettes, and G-D knows what else, whether he's clothed or not doesn't really add much to the problem.

I've only seen two people ever kicked off a bus for hygiene problems. One was actively gobbing on the floor. The other smelled so bad that passengers actually moved away or left; and the driver actually stopped the bus and ran off retching.
Click to expand...


That is exactly what I meant with my previous post on banning strong stench.
 
luchog said:
Another comment was brought up earlier, I don't remember by who (but I've seen it repeatedly in past threads) about paedophiles using this as an excuse to expose themselves to children. This strikes me as patently absurd. For starters, paedophiles are inherently cowards, they typically do not stalk children in public in obvious ways.
Click to expand...

Just a nitpick, although I agree with the rest of your post, I disagree with that paragraph. At 4 and 6 years difference my sisters and me had "acquaintance" with various such a persons, one masturbating openly in a car near a school (like, the otehr side of the street), and two being naked under a parka (exhibitionist). One of them was arrested (car number was noted) I dunno for the others guys. So it does not seem to be so rare as you might think, or even be coward, as you have to have balls to masturbate in your car near a school, or show yourself naked to children. Or maybe my sisters and me were at a school/city which sucked (pun unintended).
 
slingblade said:
No one wants to see me naked. Since I'm not the only one, I'd have to vote no way. :D
Click to expand...

No one would want me to see naked, either.

Doesn't stop me from not caring if they do, and me from liking to be naked (where it's appropriate).
 
Something just doesn't sit right when one would be sitting mext to a man while his sun dial starts going towards high noon.
 
I grew up in a setting where nudity was neither frowned on or overtly encouraged. One wore clothing when and if one wanted to, and for protection from the elements. Nothing was manditory, clothingwise. The folks around me wore anything from bellbottoms to loincloths, to nothing but prayer beads and body paint.

Nudity =/= sexuality. I don't remember even being particularly curious about the bodies of the opposite gender, because I had already seen them, knew what they looked like, and could see naked people any time I cared to. I don't feel like this in any way harmed my sense of innocence.

Even after puberty, nudity didn't automatically start equaling sexuality, though I did go through a stage where I wore a speedo to avoid showing off my brand new and thus uncomfortable body changes.

As for hygiene, people need to bathe, or they'll stink, and that goes for naked people or clothed. In many cases, clothing absorbed the sweat and stink and intensified it, where sweat would otherwise just dry, and not be particularly pungent.

Not rubbing up against those who don't want to be rubbed, not leaking bodily fluids on others, and keeping your junk off of produce in the supermarket just comes under common courtesy in a culture that doesn't stigmatize nudity.

A
 
I liked the arrangement we had in Florida when I lived there. Nudity wasn't illegal, but lewd behavior was, and of course anyone could make their own rules for private property like stores or whatever. I mean, you're going to get arrested for shopping naked at the local Sears.

But I remember this one little hippy grocery that had Naked Tuesdays. Every Tuesday, naked people got a discount.

Welcome to Florida.

It worked out fine. In all those years I can't remember hearing about any problems with the law anywhere in the state.
 
Andrew Wiggin said:
I grew up in a setting where nudity was neither frowned on or overtly encouraged. One wore clothing when and if one wanted to, and for protection from the elements. Nothing was manditory, clothingwise. The folks around me wore anything from bellbottoms to loincloths, to nothing but prayer beads and body paint.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, what region of the world/environment did you grow up in? Was it a 'rural' setting or a major city? Was it homogeneous or did you have people of differing backgrounds/religious beliefs?

The thing is I can see a 'nudity-accepting' environment working in some situations, but failing in others. For example, in a rural setting with a small homogeneous population base, it might work because:
- It would have fewer 'common' services (e.g. public transport) where unexpected contact would occur
- The small population would mean that you'd have a smaller chance at having 'troublemakers' around.
On the other hand, if it were a major city, allowing nudity might be a problem because there are more people around (thus a better chance of coming across 'jerks' who might cause problems), and more common services where you'd be forced to interact with those people.

Nudity =/= sexuality.
Click to expand...
Not sure if that's exactly true.

I agree that nudity does not have to equal sexuality. Its quite possible (and may even be preferable) for nudity to be viewed as natural. But in much of the world nudity is currently associated with sex. Even if the majority of society decided to liberalize our view of the naked body (and dissociate it from sex), it would take year if not decades to make the transition. In that time, you'll get a lot of, shall we say, uncomfortable situations when pro-nudity forces run into people raised in a culture that thinks otherwise.

As for hygiene, people need to bathe, or they'll stink, and that goes for naked people or clothed. In many cases, clothing absorbed the sweat and stink and intensified it, where sweat would otherwise just dry, and not be particularly pungent.

Not rubbing up against those who don't want to be rubbed, not leaking bodily fluids on others, and keeping your junk off of produce in the supermarket just comes under common courtesy in a culture that doesn't stigmatize nudity.
Click to expand...
First of all, it may be 'common courtesy' to not rub against strangers or leak bodily fluids, but where exactly is it written that everyone in society will automatically follow those conventions? (Its also common courtesy not to spit on the floor of a bus, but it happens.) Unfortunately, the minority can ruin things for the majority. (People don't even have to be particularly rude. Even a well-mannered person can make mistakes.)

Secondly, even if it is true that smell might be worse if you are wearing clothes, as I said before, smell will likely dissipate. Poo-stains, like diamonds, last forever.
 
Segnosaur said:
(snip)
I agree that nudity does not have to equal sexuality. Its quite possible (and may even be preferable) for nudity to be viewed as natural. But in much of the world nudity is currently associated with sex.
Click to expand...

(Bolding mine)

I think it's much more narrow than that: United States and Canada, and maybe Central America and a lot of the Middle East (where, maybe not coincidentally, the Abrahamic religions originated.) Europe is a prime counter-example. It doesn't seem to associate nudity with sex, and the modern naturist movement started in Germany.
 
In hundreds of visits to nude beaches, I have never seen an erection. Never.
 
When I was a cadet, we spent a week every year at a camp on the north cornwall coast which was very close to a popular holiday town.

One of the activities of the week was abseiling (that's rapelling, USians :p) and there were two pitches, one of which leads down onto a beach that was used by holiday makers and families, with lifeguards and ice cream stalls and everything.

The other pitch, further inside the camp, lead down to a beach that was adjudged to have too dangerous a rip tide for public use. There were no lifeguards or kiosks selling tea. It wasn't ever designated a nudist beach, but it's out of the way nature and lack of official scrutiny allowed it to be used as such. Sitting up on the cliffs, waiting our turn to abseil down, we had a grandstand view of the activity on the beach.

Mostly men used the beach, lying around in the sand. Occassionally, they would wander off into the grassy dune areas at the top of the beach, mostly in pairs, sometimes in groups of three or four. A little while later, they would reappear, take a very quick dip in the sea, and resume their sunbathing. In the rare event of a woman appearing on the beach and shucking down, the men would imperceptibly shufle closer to her, until she was surrounded by a cluster. The clustering men gave up lying flat, and would sit hunched over themselves.

When we used the first pitch, a couple of cadet NCO's would be sent down first and remain there to help the following cadets release themselves from the rope. After you had done your two or three abseils you were allowed to remain on the beach, catching some rays and having a swim.

When we used the second pitch, an Officer would remain at the bottom, with the duty of ensuring that the 'sunbathers' didn't come within 100 yards of the bottom of the ropes, and that cadets made their way immediately back up the path to the top of the pitch.

The point of this rambling anecdote is that 'nudists' are not necessarily de-sexualised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom