Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
No, not that kind of baked.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Non-discriminatory anti-topless laws

Get around anti-discrimination laws with "public opinion" to ban toplessness
  (+2, -12)(+2, -12)
(+2, -12)
  [vote for,
against]

So, I'm somewhat of a libertarian, but I thought of this idea from libertarian "activists" being jackasses and going topless (women) or naked, even in small towns. I'm libertarian, but you still have to f!*#ing wear clothes in public. And if you want to convert people, you shouldn't be an a!*@hole about it, offending everyone and ruining their day, as opposed to actually trying to persuade them. I mean, look at the results, they even got me, a libertarian, to come up with this, because of their jagaloonery.

But, basically, there is an issue with the law where the banning of toplessness for women but not for men may be a violation of equal protection laws, both federal and state. A lot of states in the first place don't even ban toplessness in public, and where they do, I'm not sure of the legal status of the equal protection issue. I THINK there may have been some successful lawsuits? Not sure.

But anyway, I figure what they could do with the law is not to outright directly codify for that issue, and, beyond basic not showing anus or genitalia, mention something about nudity being defined by current cultural mores or public opinion. This might require a jury trial for every violation, and there's an issue there of whether it's a misdemeanor/felony, I don't know how that works with jury trials. I guess misdemeanors don't get jury trials? Or perhaps localities could have votes on guidelines for the law.

I'm not a prude, but I wouldn't want jack!@$es being lewd and vulgar all over my small town. Hell, as a matter of public policy you don't want me enforcing decency myself. Let enough of this stuff go and eventually you get stuff like that series of pictures that made the rounds on the internet, where right across the street from some guy's home a couple of crackheads engaged in male-male prostitution out in public, and it's grosser than that. It was funny, but that would NOT fly with me and I suspect many other family-oriented guys from Jersey. You better believe I would let them know that sh!t wouldn't be tolerated. And that's half the point of laws, avoiding people engaiging in self-enforcement.

EdwinBakery, May 21 2012

Koteka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koteka
Modesty! [pocmloc, May 21 2012]

National_20Protest_20Day all yer nuts in one basket [FlyingToaster, May 21 2012]

Naked Bike Ride http://wiki.worldna...e=Brighton_%26_Hove
You wouldn't like it here then. [DrBob, May 21 2012]

The Naked Ape http://en.wikipedia...wiki/Desmond_Morris
Please, everyone, at least catch up with this debate as far as the 1970s, even if no-one's added much to it since then. Morris offers some interesting biological reasons for covering your private parts - including women's breasts - in most situations. [pertinax, May 21 2012]

"Men's breasts do not grow into... well, breasts." Huh? http://robkingfitne...11/05/nicholson.jpg
Think again. Nearly 50 percent of all men will experience gynecomastia at some point in their lives, according to Glenn Braunstein, the chairman of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. [ldischler, May 22 2012]

DC crackheads http://keithiskneed...crack-is-whack.html
If you guys keep slandering me, I'll have to post what I was talking about. I warn you, you can't unsee it. Like I said, it's more than just gay prostitution, though you assholes could have just read that I already said that. [EdwinBakery, May 22 2012]

Nudity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity
Frequently there is still at least one tiny piece of clothing even in hot regions [EdwinBakery, May 22 2012]

Works for me :) http://www.jskinner...Leaf-Logo-Small.jpg
[Phrontistery, May 24 2012]

[link]






       //I'm not a prude// Debatable   

       //libertarian// Also debatable   

       //Let enough of this stuff go// Slippery slope argument - questionable at best just plain false in this case. Partial or complete nudity != Lewd behavior.   

       //equal protection// Frequently this is cause to move away from Jury trials instead of towards them. After all, the collective social mores at the relevant times favored slavery, opposed mixed marriages, and closed down schools rather than desegregate.
MechE, May 21 2012
  

       Just because YOU think that people should wear clothes in public, that doesn't mean you are right. Not to mention that the definition of "public" is somewhat variable. See any nudist colony, for example.   

       Do you know why Muslim women are supposed to bundle themselves up so much (often including veils) that in public guys hardly get a glimpse of them? It is because guys supposedly can't control themselves in the presence of exposed female flesh --apparently ANY female flesh, except maybe the fingers.   

       Which is utter nonsense, of course. And it is more nonsense to try to "fix" the issue by having the men dominating a culture exercise control over women instead of over themselves.   

       Our own culture actually has exactly the same problem and nonsensical solutions --just the matter of degree is different/less, that's all.   

       Study some old National Geographic magazines. Lots of human cultures have proved to work just fine with women being topless all the time. Children grow up in it and think nothing special about it. The only drawback is that, for women, gravity can cause breasts to sag over the years.   

       Our missionaries stupidly insisted the women of those cultures cover themselves. That doesn't solve the real problem at all! What they should have done instead is promote the wearing of half-bras, that women can still be mostly topless all the time, and win the fight against gravity!
Vernon, May 21 2012
  

       /beyond basic not showing anus / and they call themselves libertarian. Where is the liberty here?
bungston, May 21 2012
  

       no, no, no.... You can't be naked in public, that's it, and you know it. Nudist colonies are deliberately cordoned off places, i.e. not exactly public.   

       You wouldn't be thrilled about public nudity, either. Especially if you had a family, and especially if you deliberately moved to a small town. The libertarians I'm speaking of, at least in one case, are often harassing the citizens of Keene, NH. In a small town like that, it's reasonable to expect a certain decorum. Places like San Francisco exist for a reason, anyone can move there.   

       How about pooping in public? Hey, that's not hurting anyone either. How about I just pop a squat right in front of you, right in front of everyone in the middle of downtown? Maybe I own a house there and it's my own property.   

       Anyway, I need to look up the nature of felony vs. misdemeanor in terms of jury trials, and whatever other legal stuff.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       You lot are even stranger than the Ferengi sometimes …   

       The main problem is that the vast majority of humans really don't look very nice without clothing; any person, male or female, wishing to go around naked should be permitted to do so providing that a randomly selected panel of citizens agree thay they are "fit tto be seen", by a majority vote.
8th of 7, May 21 2012
  

       ///The main problem is that the vast majority of humans really don't look very nice without clothing///   

       indeed, this is one good reason for clothes. However, I'd disagree when it comes to women, most women look pretty good. As long as a woman's not like really fat or really skinny (like above 40% body fat or below 12%), and not too old (over 55, but the looks can vary considerably), and not too squinty-eyed, she looks good.   

       I always laugh when someone says "all women are beautiful", because I know that it's totally true and not just a platitude because it can be re-framed much simply, and that's "I want to sleep with every woman", lol
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       //So, I'm somewhat of a libertarian//   

       Oh no. Another one. Phasers on 'vaporize.'   

       The problem with nudist cultures is the lack of a good strip-tease.
RayfordSteele, May 21 2012
  

       //You wouldn't be thrilled about public nudity, either.//   

       I'm fine with public nudity.   

       //Especially if you had a family//   

       I have a family. I hope that by not demonizing nudity and sex to my children from an early age, when they are old enough to understand and be curious about such things they will feel they can come to me to talk about them. That doesn't mean I go out of my way to expose them to things they are too young for, but I don't make a concerted effort to hide from them the existence of something that is a normal, natural part of life.   

       //and especially if you deliberately moved to a small town.//   

       Never heard of anyone moving to a small town to escape rampant public boobs. But I assure you that your kids will see their fair share of nudity sooner or later, no matter where you live.   

       //How about pooping in public? Hey, that's not hurting anyone either.//   

       Someone evidently needs to explain to you about hepatitis A transmission. Pooping in public is a health and sanitation issue. Showing skin isn't.
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       //The problem with nudist cultures is the lack of a good strip-tease.//   

       Don't they do dress-teasing instead?
Loris, May 21 2012
  

       thar y'ar <elf link>
FlyingToaster, May 21 2012
  

       // how do you define, in legal terms, the difference between ...Panties and a bikini bottom? This is a very thin line.//   

       You're thinking of thongs. (Well, you are now.)
MaxwellBuchanan, May 21 2012
  

       The question comes down to: Why is it that male breasts are acceptable while female breasts are not? And there isn't any logical answer to it. If breasts are to be covered in our fundamentalist society, then they must all be covered.
ldischler, May 21 2012
  

       The whole thing is completely irrational.   

       In trains and aircraft, and private dwellings, toilets are unisex. In bars, clubs, public buildings they are segregated.   

       Different cultures/nations have totally different notions of when, where and how much coverage or uncoverage is acceptable.   

       In some locations you can have any amount of hashish, but no alcohol, and vice-versa.   

       In other locations you can own a gun and drive a car at 15, yet must wait to be 21 before you drink.   

       Can't you lot be consistent about ANYTHING ?
8th of 7, May 21 2012
  

       I've never understood the point of having separate single-occupancy bathrooms.
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       21 Quest, It's interesting, yeah, you wonder, what's the definition? One definition I heard from I think a locality in Florida was if the anus is exposed or the genitalia is exposed or the areolas on a woman are exposed. So, yeah, apparently you can write something sufficiently specific. This of course allows very tiny bikinis, including thong underwear and those strap bras that barely cover the nipples.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       // I'm fine with public nudity. //   

       No you're not. You would not be comfortable if 80+ year old women were walking around nude. Or big fat hairy guys You're full of it.   

       //I have a family. I hope that by not demonizing nudity and sex to my children from an early age...//   

       Again, you're full of it, and B.S. Nobody is demonizing sexuality or the human body. You're throwing the same old tired liberal claptrap. Can't you at least be original if you're going to be stupid?   

       Let's get this straight, nobody is comfortable with this stuff. If you were, you'd be at a nudist colony, or people in general would be walking around half-naked. Or at least you'd be protesting nudity laws. Lots of claims with little actual reality. You know and i know and everyone knows that you are not cool with public nudity becoming the norm, regardless of the self-righteous B.S. you spout to make yourself look enlightened.   

       //Never heard of anyone moving to a small town to escape rampant public boobs//   

       Never said that. but people live in suburbs because in general you see less deviancy and such. I won't see a homeless man screaming or masturbating in the middle of some small town. I'm very likely to see that in NYC or Boston or etc.   

       //Someone evidently needs to explain to you about hepatitis A transmission/// No, you aren't likely to get hep A. That doesn't make sense. And if you'd actually care to read what I wrote, I did mention that you could do it on your private property. And the point is it still wouldn't be OK.   

       the populace at large is not going to be OK with public nudity as a regular thing any more than they're going to be comfortable with shitting in public. And again, you're no different, and everyone knows it, no matter how much you want to act enlightened or whatever.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       //Why is it that male breasts are acceptable while female breasts are not//   

       Because it's another sign of dimorphism. Men's breasts do not grow into... well, breasts. Anyway the breast thing has varied over time even in european culture.   

       //I always found it odd that restaurants and grocery stores have signs saying shoes and shirts are required, but make no mention of clothing below the waist.// Because such would already be illegal. These messages are more aimed at people in the summer, who may be going to or from the beach, and may be wearing flip-flops.   

       But yeah, I've always thought a funny skit would be to walk into a quickshop with shirt and shoes butno pants or underwear, then when the owner complains, be all like "what? what? I'm wearing a shirt and shoes!"
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       [Edwin], I'm pretty sure that I'm different from you, because you're creeping me out. What part of the country do you live in?   

       I hail from San Diego, which has a beautiful clothing optional beach. Granted, while it used to sport a large family crowd a few decades ago, and now sees a much smaller population, I don't think you can say "You have to agree with me because I say you already do" and have that be a winning argument.   

       Again, what state do you live in? Someplace perhaps less suited to nudity by weather, so that people there perhaps grew up less comfortable with skin?
normzone, May 21 2012
  

       [Edwin], I betcha wouldn't feel the same if all the fit topless birds were breastfeeding their children ;-)
gnomethang, May 21 2012
  

       On the culture thing, there actually are very few cultures, if any, that don't have an idea of "naked", and some clothing reglarly worn. Even in jungles where they're basically naked, there are still penis gourds, or leaf sheaths of some kind. And the people do make a point of not being completely OK with nudity. I've watched plenty of those tribal shows to know that (one in particular I remember was some American guy living with a tribe in Papua New Guinea and they laughed at him or someone at some point because he was naked, because his penis sheath fell off or sometrhing).   

       It's just one of those universal human things. One of the most basic and primitive forms of morality; I find it meaningful that the Bible mentions that the first thing that Adam & Eve knew as "wrong" was that they were naked. It's arbitrariness highlights the nature/existence of morality and the human need/challenge to live by rules and codes and morality.   

       More practically, it isn't hard to imagine some useful aspects of clothes and how they may have come about. Cold weather may have been a start. There's the sanitation issue. And clothes minimize sexual dimorphism, perhaps help us to deal with each other without the id nature of sexuality. Also, they cover up arousal in men, avoiding awkwardness. etc. etc. Also the gross old-body factor. Covering that up again can avoid awkwardness.... hmmm.... Like, OK, some bodies a lot of people would consider gross: old people, fat people, people with burns or injuries. Now normally some jackasses in a society could make fun of that, and that could cause strife. But what clothes do is make that verboten as long as you're wearing said clothes. That is the make-funner is AUTOMATICALLY out of line if the person he's making fun of is properly clothed. And you can see that play out with fat girls and revealing clothing. That's an aold joke, that the fat girls shouldn't wear tank tops. But it still actually applies even to hot girls, because too much revealing and a more conservative older lady may call the young girl a jezebel, accuse her of "flaunting" her stuff. But enough clothing and nobody really dares to say either of these things to either kind of person. Enough clothing, being a dick is verboten. Plenty of other useful stuff about clothes could be realized by other people.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       Please explain your idea for the changing of the law in your country across a number of states that already have their own laws.
I would like to know who can do what and when and where.
Some detail, if you will, and not just a 'Lets-all' or 'rant' which might receive the MFD tag.
Thanks you.
gnomethang, May 21 2012
  

       //No you're not. You would not be comfortable if 80+ year old women were walking around nude. Or big fat hairy guys You're full of it. //   

       Um, yes, I would be fine with that. Unlike you, apparently, I don't think people merit different treatment based on their physical appearance.   

       //Again, you're full of it, and B.S.//   

       Ah. Touché.   

       //Nobody is demonizing sexuality or the human body.//   

       Yes. You are.   

       //Let's get this straight, nobody is comfortable with this stuff.//   

       Like I said, I'm comfortable with it. Didn't take long to spot the gaping logical hole in that argument.   

       //If you were, you'd be at a nudist colony//   

       Just because I'm comfortable with it doesn't mean that I actively seek it out. It's just really not that important to me.   

       //Or at least you'd be protesting nudity laws.//   

       How do you know I don't?   

       //You know and i know and everyone knows that you are not cool with public nudity becoming the norm, regardless of the self- righteous B.S. you spout to make yourself look enlightened.//   

       But... I am cool with it. I couldn't care less if you think I'm telling you the truth or not.   

       //I won't see a homeless man screaming or masturbating in the middle of some small town. I'm very likely to see that in NYC or Boston or etc.//   

       It sounds like your real problem is with homeless people. But I guess as long as you don't have to look at them, who gives a damn about them, right?   

       //No, you aren't likely to get hep A. That doesn't make sense.//   

       So... You're arguing that people defecating in public /isn't/ a public health issue? Oooookay...   

       //And if you'd actually care to read what I wrote, I did mention that you could do it on your private property. And the point is it still wouldn't be OK.//   

       I'm not sure what your point is here. Whether it's on private property or not is irrelevant. Certain parts of your private property are nevertheless a public space. There are restrictions on what you may do in a public space, even though it may be on private property. You're perfectly free to defecate anywhere you choose on your private property, so long as that space is not open to the public. Conversely, a public toilet, while not private property, is not considered a public space. So private vs. public property doesn't matter a bit.   

       //the populace at large is not going to be OK with public nudity as a regular thing any more than they're going to be comfortable with shitting in public.//   

       Funny thing about social attitudes: they tend to change over time. It used to be that being openly gay was punishable by prison time. People probably would have said the same thing about that, back then.   

       //And again, you're no different, and everyone knows it, no matter how much you want to act enlightened or whatever.//   

       You're right. Actually, everybody in the whole world thinks exactly the same way you do, and anybody who purports to disagree with you is doing so deliberately and maliciously, for the express purpose of annoying you. You've uncovered the vast conspiracy. Bravo.
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       again, B.S. normzone. Anybody who's honest with themselves, who isn't obtuse, will indeed understand and agree with that part of my argument because it is indeed true. Nothing but self-righteous liberals who have a huge need to see themselves as more enlightened than the common people. But the reality is ther'e no different.   

       Going to a nude beach is different. And yeah, I'd even take my kids there. An event here or there is different. But someone ATUALLY, truly accepting nudity as a normal thing, like an everyday thing? Never seen it. It's only in nudist colonies, and we force those people there (via law and the threat of extra-legal, direct enforcement).
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       B.S. B.S. B.S. B.S. B.S. B.S. B.S. B.S. B.S. and again B.S.   

       No one serious, no one who's level, without pretension, buys a word you're saying. You're another self-righteous liberal who needs to act all superior for his own ego. You use strawman arguments like the demonizing the human body thing or the sexuality thing or the "changing attitudes" B.S. to try and scrape what might mimic an argument.   

       There are tons of people who do get grossed out by certain bodies, and you're porobably one of them. It's all easy to say when you've never actually experienced real, day-to-day nudity.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       You really are completely incapable of comprehending that some people genuinely might not agree with you, aren't you [EeBie]? It must be nice to be in possession of Universal Truth.
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       I never said I'm in possession of universal truth. I'm just not an idiot. It's what you might call "street smarts", but in general it's just practical sensibility. Any idiot can claim whatever he wants on an internet forum, and there are plenty of people who need to act all self-righteous to inflame their ego. But saying and exeperiencing are two totally different things, and few people ever see anyone who's cool with public nudity outside of some special context.   

       if you really didn't care, you'd live in a nudist colony, just to save money on clothes, not to mention the convenience and time. You could save thousands upon thousands in laundry and clothes shopping and oodles of time not dressing. You'd only need work clothes. It would clearly be the basic ratrional choice. But you don't because you actually do (care). There's no avoiding it. Nobody keeps doing something their entire life without truly choosing to do so when it is a choice given. At the very least you're taking the veracity of your claims for granted because you've nebver actually experienced day-to-day public nudity.   

       Again, it's all B.S. and everyone knows it.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       Sorry, [EB], I may have misjudged you. I thought that your idea was to allow some attractive (to you) females to be allowed to walk around your local town with their norks (q.v.) hanging out.
Now I realise that you are totally against it.
Shame that your 'idea' didn't make your thoughts clear in any way shape or form .
gnomethang, May 21 2012
  

       //Any idiot can claim whatever he wants on an internet forum, and there are plenty of people who need to act all self-righteous to inflame their ego.//   

       How refreshingly introspective!
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       ^ What [YTK] said.
|
gnomethang, May 21 2012
  

       //How refreshingly introspective//   

       Again, B.S. Misdirection and strawman. You think you're being clever, but you're not. The tone of what I've said has the tone and explicitly is populist (that is NOT self-aggrandizing, I'm NOT better than anyone) and common sense oriented.   

       again, anyone with common sense that you're claims about you being completely 100% OK with nudity clearly aren't true. All the education in the world can't instill common sense.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       Oh, and [marked-for-deletion], advocacy.   

       That has nothing to do whether I agree with your idea or not, incidentally. But as best I can tell, this is simply a rant about public nudity, and the proposal of a slight modification of an existing law such that we "clone, kill, jail, or tax all people who do X".
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       I dunno. You seem to think you're better than those self-righteous San Francisco liberals. You know, the ones who secretly agree with you, but just have to argue to make themselves feel important.
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       not really. It's funny, as enlightened as you claim to be, you actually can't even thoroughly read and analyse a post. The idea was how to get around equal-protection laws in craftying anti-nudity laws.   

       So you're just marking for deletion because I trounced you and you can't stand that anyone with common sense can see through your thinly veiled B.S. Real classy
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       // someone ATUALLY, truly accepting nudity as a normal thing//   

       I think you misunderhend the big picture. As someone pointed out a while back, a look through Notional Geographic will furnish plenty of images of people who are as comfortable with bare breasts as they are with bare hands. Bare genitals are less common, but not particularly so. So, there are clearly plenty of cultures where nakedness is not really an issue.   

       There are also plenty of developed countries who are far less silly about nudity than we are here in the UK, and certainly less silly than people are in the US.   

       For example, in many parts of Europe nobody (except the Brits and Americans) will take any notice if a woman is topless on any public beach, and it's fairly common to see people buck naked.   

       Topless sunbathing in parks or gardens, in full public view, is also common in at least a few European countries. People don't do it to make a point, they just do it and nobody really cares or worries, because nobody has told them they should care or worry.   

       In Victorian England (and no doubt in the US at the same time), people would have been left speechless if a woman walked down the street in shorts or in a knee-length skirt. Not so now.   

       The point (which is really pretty obvious) is that society decides which, if any, bits of the human body should be concealed. Then, revealing those bits becomes provocative. But it's arbitrary and changes easily.   

       I happen to agree that, for reasons of hygeine and aesthetics, there are some parts of some bodies I'd like to be kept securely wrapped up, but that's really a horse of a different kidney.
MaxwellBuchanan, May 21 2012
  

       No, again, I've explicitly said, and this is the second time, that the whole point is I'm NOT better than anyone else, and guys like you aren't no matter how hard you try to show that image. Again, explicitly populist. I've repeatedly said it's only a matter of common sense that what you're saying is 99% chance false, exceedingly unlikely to be true. thus, basically, not true.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       Yeah, MB no question.   

       But again, I make a point of knowing about cultural geography. And I've never heard of a culture that truly didn't have clothes. They all have at least a penis sheath of some sort or loincloth and/or skirts, etc.   

       And while the extent of what's OK has changed, no culture has ever gone all-out with it. It just has never happened.   

       Yeah, with the topless with beaches and public parks, yeah, I get that. But again, honest, true, full-on nudity as a day-to-day thing in ANY context of society for adults? Never been OK with any society. There's ONE tribe somewhere in Africa I think that are studied as the "last cavemen" because of their extreme primitivism, that I think didn't wear clothes. But if i remember correctly, I do remember seeing loincloths in the NatGeo thingy.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       // No, again, I've explicitly said, and this is the second time, that the whole point is I'm NOT better than anyone else, and guys like you aren't no matter how hard you try to show that image. Again, explicitly populist. I've repeatedly said it's only a matter of common sense that what you're saying is 99% chance false, exceedingly unlikely to be true. thus, basically, not true.//
I'm guessing COMPUTER!
gnomethang, May 21 2012
  

       //The idea was how to get around equal-protection laws in craftying anti-nudity laws.//   

       Then I comprehend your idea very clearly. You're not happy that we don't punish people who do X, so you're coming up with a way to punish people who do X. Advocacy, plain and simple.   

       And you can keep telling me I don't believe what I actually believe until you're blue in the face. But I've found that what constitutes "common sense" varies rather widely, depending on who's talking about it. Oddly, I've never heard anyone use "common sense" to describe anything that was relatively uncontroversial.
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       while we're on the subject I might as well point out something interesting that's sort of related.   

       With that show with the guy living with a tribe in Papua New Guinea, the tribesmen, well, had this thing they could do. Running around the forest, let's say, hunting, even with only a penis sheath leaf, still, for a guy, can be uncomfortable as his bits flop about. So they had figured a way that you could... well... push it inside yourself, and it's stay there. Yup, seriously. He said one of the other guys had to do it for him. And he said he was uncomfortable because said tribesman had hit on him earlier on in the project. Yeah... crazy story. Oh and it was a riot because he was telling this story on Conan O'Brien
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       ///But I've found that what constitutes "common sense" varies rather widely///   

       That you think it varies widely shows that you don't know what it is/have it
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       //That you think it varies widely shows that you don't know what it is/have it//   

       Funny, because I'm pretty sure I've heard both the NRA and the Brady Campaign talk about "common sense" firearms regulations when referring to two diametrically opposed pieces of legislation. They can't both be right, can they?
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       Common sense is hugely overrated, and is usually invoked when reasoning fails.
MaxwellBuchanan, May 21 2012
  

       [Edwin] You are definitely projecting your own personal opinions on other people. I have no problem with nudity, not because I don't find particular people attractive or unattractive, it's that I just don't care. I'll look at the ones who I find attractive (clothed or not) and ignore the ones who aren't (again, clothed or not). And yes, clothes serve a purposes in a lot of cases, protection (temperature or physical), cleanliness (not enough to bother me in most roles, but medical or food service I would prefer my servers dressed), etc. Beyond, that, however, I JUST DON'T CARE, if people want to be nude, fine by me.   

       You can insist all you want that no other view than yours is possible, but that doesn't make you right.
MechE, May 21 2012
  

       no, they can't.   

       The brady campaign is shrill and simply gun-fearing. All their claims about crime are demonstrably, PROVABLY FALSE. There is no correlation; there are plenty of places that have plenty of guns but less crime. It is PROVEN that GUNS BEING LEGAL does NOT RAISE crime. The inverse or converse may be true, but that statement by itself is proven by years of statistics and experience.   

       furthermore, the meaning of the plain text of the 2nd is also common sense. Words mean what they mean, end of story. Pretty common sense.   

       If one wants to argue for banning guns, there are plenty of other reasons one could propose why it would be a good idea. But those ain't, and they're not common sense. And if someone thinks guns should be illegal, then they should just say that, instead of pretending they don't have common sense. If they think banning guns lowers crime, well, that's tougher and not a common sense thing and may be provable. But the claim that them being legal raises crime, again, is proven false, and understanding that is common sense. Anybody that knows what the various states are like, like Florida, Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire, could tell you that. You don't need to be a huge state-hopper. You just need to have been around a little bit. There just aint no positive relationship between guns and crime. There might be a negative one depending on the context, but that involves more statistics.   

       So yeah, there's common sense again. We can disagree for lots of reasons. But some things are just common sense.   

       I could raise a few reasons to ban guns myself. But they're more involved. The common sense stuff is pretty settled... among people who have common sense.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       I'll say it again, you're entire life you've had the choice, and you've chosen to stick with the non-nudist world. There's huge monetary incentive no to. But you do anyway   

       There's NO WAY you've made the decision "just 'cause". Like it's some F!@#ing shrug. Like, eh. whatever. Common sense
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       it's these sorts of deeply disingenuous attitudes that made me move away from more doctrinaire libertarianism   

       They spout the same sort of B.S., and again, anyone with common sense could see it was/is nonsense.   

       I still read Reason magazine, and I still think generally people shouldn't be fucked with, but I can't stand the disingenuous purist nonsense.   

       It's like, yeah right, voting is the same as gang rape, and taxes are violence (typical libertarian canards). Anyone with common sense could see that as B.S., and eventually I did too. I even noticed that I had been supressing my B.S. detector.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       //There's huge monetary incentive no to. //   

       I've spent a little time in nudist environments. However, since my well paying job isn't convenient to any, I'd say I have a huge monetary incentive to be elsewhere.   

       Regardless, I'm not sure you understood me. I don't have any particularly strong desire to be nude in public (I don't mind it if that's the going thing, and its comfortable and convenient sometimes) but I just don't mind if others want to be.   

       //I'm not a prude// And at this point I think this has gone from debatable to definitely a false statement.   

       //libertarian// Also definitely false, since you seem strongly intent on forcing your views on other people (by way of denying other people can legitimately have differing views).
MechE, May 21 2012
  

       So not being a nudist makes me a prude? Absurd   

       Forcing my views on other people? Calling B.S. on B.S., pointing out when someone is clearly being disingenuous, even if he manages to fool himself, is forcing my views on other people? Believing in anti-nudity laws is far too basic to be outside the scope of libertarianism. Again, it's such a basic part of all cultures everywhere. One may as well say not disagreeing with taxes puts one outside libertarianism, which would be far too narrow; plenty of libertarians do believe in a minarchy that does involve taxes, however little.   

       It's amazing how many people who can say such absurd things come out on the internet. (hold for predictable and not clever, "yeah, like you!" comment).
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       No, not being a nudist doesn't make you a prude. Being rabidly anti-nudity, however, pretty much does.   

       And yes, given that the core tenet of libertarianism is "live and let live", favoring laws that enforce your views on other people pretty much does put you outside that group.
MechE, May 21 2012
  

       Okay, okay, everyone. This has gone on long enough. Let's all just come clean and admit what we all know: that people /should/ in fact be arrested and imprisoned for doing things that anyone with "common sense" would prefer they didn't do. See, we're all really libertarians at heart!
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       //or have you simply decided not to extend yourself to areas of the subject matter you hadn't given any thought to?//   

       Well, I think that's been demonstrated not to be the case, repeatedly.
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       OMG, what is wrong with you people? Being rabidly anti-nudity? WTF is a matter with you? Got no reading comprehension? It's the disingenuous attitude that bugs me to no end, that's what I've been proving as false. I'm rabidly anti-B.S. Like the B.S. when some high-and-mighty moron wants to try to claim he doesn't care at all about nudity, when common sense shows that can't be true, and at the very least, he wouldn't truly know since he's never experienced it.   

       Who's taling about forcing their views on other people? Nudists can have their nudist colonies. But in the public at large, culture since time immemorial and all over the world has had rules about nudity to some extent or another. Believing in the most basic of laws doesn't place me outside of non-doctrinaire libertarianism. I still may vote for Ron Paul even though I know he won't win.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       //Okay, okay, everyone. This has gone on long enough. Let's all just come clean and admit what we all know: that people /should/ in fact be arrested and imprisoned for doing things that anyone with "common sense" would prefer they didn't do. See, we're all really libertarians at heart!//   

       Cause I totally said stuff even remotely close to that, right?   

       See what I'm talking about with the rampant B.S.? Disingenuous fucking liars. It's the attitude that irks me
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       //You're not a Libertarian/   

       Anyone who says something like "I'm somewhat of a libertarian, but", ain't.
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       ///By the way, I also notice you're anti-gay.///   

       WTF are you talking about? When the fuck did i say anything to that extent?   

       At this point I'm just dealing with retards
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       //Anyone who says something like "I'm somewhat of a libertarian, but", ain't//   

       Not really, unless you think that ideologies should be defined by their purist/extremist elements. Which wouldn't really be fair to the more level-headed co-ideologues.   

       But then again, I don't think you care because you don't have any level-headedness.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       //Cause I totally said stuff even remotely close to that, right?//   

       Let's have a look-see.   

       //I figure what they could do with the law is not to outright directly codify for that issue, and, beyond basic not showing anus or genitalia, mention something about nudity being defined by current cultural mores or public opinion. This might require a jury trial for every violation, and there's an issue there of whether it's a misdemeanor/felony//   

       //Like the B.S. when some high-and-mighty moron wants to try to claim he doesn't care at all about nudity, when common sense shows that can't be true//   

       So, nudity (to pick just one arbitrary concern of yours) should be based on the "common sense" cultural opinion, and people who run afoul of that standard should be punished with either a misdemeanor or a felony, both of which are by definition punishable by imprisonment (misdemeanors are crimes punishable by up to one year, felonies are crimes punishable by more than year).   

       Huh. Guess you did say something fairly close to "people should be arrested and imprisoned for doing things that anyone with 'common sense' would prefer they didn't do". Seems that way to me, anyway. Maybe I just lack common sense.
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       //At this point I'm just dealing with retards//   

       The hilarious part is you don't even realize how offensive the word "retard" is, to people with common sense anyway.
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       //Sure sounded like it.//   

       No it didn't, you're an idiot. And how about you actually look up the internet meme i was talking about? There's a hell of a lot more to it that made it gross.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       //And how about you actually look up the internet meme i was talking about?//   

       Sorry, we're not your private research team. Next time consider how you come across to other people before you write something publicly. Just a "common sense" tip for you.
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       You said that I said   

       //Okay, okay, everyone. This has gone on long enough. Let's all just come clean and admit what we all know: that people /should/ in fact be arrested and imprisoned for doing things that anyone with "common sense" would prefer they didn't do. See, we're all really libertarians at heart!//   

       Which is something i never said. you're shitty attempt to piece together different things that i've said to make it look like i said that... is, well, shitty. Again, you're being disingenuous.   

       We all already live in a society that punishes public nudity. The vast majority of people are OK with that. If you're not, you're in the extreme minority. All i'm doing is proposing a more effective way of doing that to match American cultural mores better, i.e. dealing with the breasts issue vis-a-vis equal protecxtion
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       I've literally never said anything about nudists, 21Quest.   

       Just the disingenguous people here
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       //The hilarious part is you don't even realize how offensive the word "retard" is, to people with common sense anyway.//   

       and this proves you don't have common sense. In colloquial speech, we use the word "retard" all the time to describe excessively stupid. Only asshole tight ass, P.C. police liberals, like you (I'm assuming), have a problem with it. Unless you live in the UK, in which case, FYI, we say it all the time here.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       //I've literally never said anything about nudists, 21Quest.//   

       //Nudists can have their nudist colonies.//   

       You literally don't know the meaning of the word "literally".
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       I'm not posting a link to that thing that happened in DC. It's got pictures. It's pretty fuckin gross and depraved. I already was before trying to avoid cuss words, but I grew too lazy.   

       Go look it up. Any respecyable internet surfer would have seen it already.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       //In colloquial speech, we use the word "retard" all the time to describe excessively stupid.//   

       Well, then it couldn't possibly be offensive to those with a mental disability. So do you also use "Jew" to describe someone who's stingy?
ytk, May 21 2012
  

       guess I'm not respecyable... and staying that not way.   

       Follow my link for what evil stuff can happen when breasts can be legally bared.
FlyingToaster, May 21 2012
  

       I'm not posting a link to that thing that happened in DC. It's got pictures. It's pretty fuckin gross and depraved. I already was before trying to avoid cuss words, but I grew too lazy.   

       Go look it up. Any respecyable internet surfer would have seen it already.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       ////Nudists can have their nudist colonies.//   

       which is not a comment about what nudists are like
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       //Well, then it couldn't possibly be offensive to those with a mental disability//   

       We don't care if it is over here (USA, the youngish folks anyway). And anyway, if someone is retarded, I doubt they'd understand. It's other people who thrive on self-righteousness that get their panties in a bunch. Nothing worse than self-appointed PC police.
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       What?
EdwinBakery, May 21 2012
  

       He's a plucky little brawler, isn't he?
Custardguts, May 21 2012
  

       //Nothing worse than self-appointed PC police.//   

       But you're apparently fine with being the self- appointed morality police.
MechE, May 22 2012
  

       In this thread you've consistently claimed that other individuals can't possibly believe differently from you, and attacked them personally when they claim to. //You're full of it//   

       You've claimed the right to force people to behave as you want them to behave. //we force those people there (... the threat of extra-legal, direct enforcement).//   

       You've made illogical arguments //There's huge monetary incentive no to.// and refused to address peoples counter arguments.   

       You've ignored the fact that we all agree that clothes do serve a purpose in some times and places.   

       You've ignored that fact that most of us report indifference to rather than preference for casual nudity.   

       You've repeatedly appealed to "common sense" to support your views without the understanding that reasonable people can disagree on what is common sense. Since my common sense tells me that most of the arguments against casual nudity are either environmental, which is irrelevant because we largely control at least our indoor environments; religious, which is irrelevant because I am not religious and neither are many others; or sanitary, which is irrelevant in most situations among a population that is healthy and showers on a daily basis.   

       You've resorted to ad-hominem attacks //high- and-mighty moron wants to try to claim he doesn't care at all about nudity, when common sense shows that can't be true, and at the very least, he wouldn't truly know since he's never experienced it.// and at the same time ignored my post previously pointing out that I had experienced it and and yes, I am indifferent to it.   

       You've attacked individuals for taking your posts to their logical conclusions. And yes, just because society currently punishes people for nudity does not mean that doing so is a libertarian viewpoint. In fact, doing things because that's the way society already does them is, pretty much by definition, a conservative viewpoint.   

       So stop the name calling, and try to make your argument without using the phrase "common sense" which is rarely either, then maybe we can have a rational discussion.   

       At the same time, please acknowledge and discuss my initial point that this would not satisfy any "equal protection" arguments in a constitutional law case.
MechE, May 22 2012
  

       //it's these sorts of deeply disingenuous attitudes that made me move away from more doctrinaire libertarianism//   

       Okay, he gets a partial pass. When he recognizes the fundamental practical inconsistencies and tensions between public and private goods and the problems with unrestricted 'buyer beware' arrangements, he'll be out from under my scrutiny.   

       Are all our collective spleens sufficiently vented yet? Everybody go have a beer or ten. Invent a drinking game based on the number of insults traded here. If you throw an insult, take 2 drinks. Whomever is still standing at the end, wins.   

       And this does seem like a let's all. I, for one, would be disgusted by having to travel in public transportation previously vacated by nudists, public restrooms being any indication of our standards of cleanliness.   

       I'm a prude and not ashamed to be one.
RayfordSteele, May 22 2012
  

       //I, for one, would be disgusted by having to travel in public transportation previously vacated by nudists, public restrooms being any indication of our standards of cleanliness.//   

       Any polite nudist carries a towel for use in such situations.
MechE, May 22 2012
  

       //We don't care if it is over here//   

       Yes, WE do. I live in the USA, and I'm young enough to have heard people use "retard" and "retarded" casually. And you know what? People used to use other offensive terms casually as well. You didn't answer my question about the word "Jew". Is that something you don't think is offensive when used to describe someone you see as stingy?   

       If your pathetic excuse is that mentally disabled people are too stupid to be offended, then what about the parents and family of the mentally disabled? I know a guy who has a son with Down Syndrome, and he'll tear your damn head off if you dare use the word "retarded" in front of him. Are such people not worthy of your sensitivity and compassion?   

       I suppose not. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.
ytk, May 22 2012
  

       Why is my gut screaming that there are far fewer profiles than annos would indicate?   

       I typed this naked...
in public.
No, no I would never do such a thing...
I'm just topless...
  

       but it's cold here
and my nipples are sensitive.
  

       This is more fun (and more boring) than an ammunition debate on the 'bakery. If [jutta] wearies of the whole mess and shuts it off, I'd be sad but not surprised.   

       [Edwin], no geographical 'fessing up for you? I'm calling the US Midwest for you, without having any other clue.
normzone, May 22 2012
  

       [Norm] He mentions (New) Jersey in the post, think thats it.
MechE, May 22 2012
  

       //Nothing worse than self-appointed PC police// - [EdwinBakery]   

       Public Notice:
  

       PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL
UnaBubba, May 22 2012
  

       sad: that took almost an entire day.
FlyingToaster, May 22 2012
  

       Aw, but feeding them brings them out into the open.
rcarty, May 22 2012
  

       Haven't fishboned simply because i don't but i disagree. There should be equality between the sexes regarding toplessness, which can be achieved either by insisting everyone wears tops in public or that no-one has to. The latter is preferable because it's freer. Not all heterosexual men have breast fetishes, and those who have would become habituated if they saw thousands of them on a daily basis.   

       Some of us have fetishes for items we see every day associated with complete strangers. When you're like that, not only does the idea of toplessness as indecent seem absurd, but also the idea of nakedness as _more_ titillating is laughable. However, i suppose some of us are just lucky.   

       Would you want people to hide their elbows because of all the elbow fetishists out there?
nineteenthly, May 22 2012
  

       Here in toronto women can go topless anywhere in public during the summer months. - suppose that relief from heat was the deciding consideration. This has been a boon for adult entertainment, carwashes, and for auto collision repair. Even though it is legal it is still rare to see women topless outside of commercial activities. For most women going topless still represents a very intentional action, unlike for most men who are so comfortable with it they often realize their shirt is off, having removed it previously. Thankfully these laws have pushed the threshold and absolutely gorgeous women can be seen not completely topless but wearing almost nothing at all which is something i will fight to the death to support. If you don't like it look away as you would from a disfigured person or the elderly. Or move to iran, you crazy americans.
rcarty, May 22 2012
  

       I *love* how the poster states 3 times his "libertarian" credentials just as he's advocating handing over strict controls of public behaviour over to the government! Personally, I think if he hadn't made such line-in-the-sand pronouncements at the outset, he might have gotten away with it.   

       [marked-for-deletion], advocacy - seconded.   

       There's already perfect decent public order legislation that covers perceived breaches of "morality". The good thing about these is that case-law gets to move with the times without all that expense of fiddling about with hard and fast definitions of what constitutes "clothing" or "nakedness" or "male" or "female" in each instance. It also covers perfectly reasonable beach-behaviours without becoming silly. Let the courts deal with this themselves, let's have a little discretion. Surely it's possible to tell the difference between "deviant" behaviour and someone having some fun. I don't want my life to be overly controlled by the police, and I'm willing to put up with some people occasionally taking off their clothes if it means I get to carry on and feel free to loosen my collar while not worrying about accidentally getting arrested because some policeman forgot the intricacies of the law and was having a bad day. I'm probably a bit of a libertarian myself (here in Europe, I think that just means preferring "small" government - but I'm quite happy to let people hold alternative views if they want to - that seems to be in the spirit of liberty and tolerance as well) It is unusual though to find that the two words, "liberty" and "liberal" are so diametrically opposed in some American language - there must have been some shift of meaning there somewhere. If belief in liberty makes one a libertarian, does believe in liberality make one a librarian?   

         

       If you don't like people taking off their clothes, *you* are perfectly at liberty to go over to them and convince them of their immoral ways, using your tightly honed powers of persuasion. Isn't that what a libertarian should be advocating? Get on with it and stop complaining and expecting other people to solve your own personal problems. Geez.   

       But, something obviously sparked off this rant - what was the event? Perhaps if we knew what context caused you to share your uncharacteristically Stalinist leanings, it might be easier for others to understand.
zen_tom, May 22 2012
  

       //not too squinty-eyed// ??!!!
theleopard, May 22 2012
  

       //[Edwin], no geographical 'fessing up for you? I'm calling the US Midwest for you, without having any other clue.//   

       Being from the Midwest myself, I'm a bit wrangled by that statement.
RayfordSteele, May 22 2012
  

       //It's just one of those universal human things. One of the most basic and primitive forms of morality...//   

       The taboo against nudity has more to do with the cultural need to conform than with morality. Were you to spend time in a naked city you might discover that your attitude about nudity became inverted, that you were now uncomfortable wearing clothes and looked upon those wearing them with disapproval. And I imagine that those who grow up in such places (Cap d'Agde, for instance) have nightmares of suddenly discovering themselves fully clothed in public.
ldischler, May 22 2012
  

       I said: "NOT TOO SQUINTY-EYED"????!!   

       In other news: I want to go to Toronto.
theleopard, May 22 2012
  

       //SQUINTY-EYED// [theleopard] if you look at the comment in context, I think it’s safe to say he meant it in a strictly misogynistic sense, rather than the overtly racist one.
zen_tom, May 22 2012
  

       He sounds like Prince Philip.
theleopard, May 22 2012
  

       So, he's disgusted by fat people, skinny people, people over 55, everyone with an Asian background and Renee Zellweger. And presumably anyone with an exuberant smile.   

       "Stop smiling vile naked person! Your eyes have gone quite squinty!"
theleopard, May 22 2012
  

       It's not the nudity that bothers me, it's the hygiene. Or lack of.
Phrontistery, May 22 2012
  

       You mean by that the wearing of clothing, that traps bacteria and provides refuge for vermin in the crevices and damp spots on the human body?
UnaBubba, May 22 2012
  

       Clothing's only a cover, whatever's underneath is there regardless.
Phrontistery, May 22 2012
  

       This post is written with the sap of the tree that bears the flowers of fallacy and the fruit of intellectual anguish.
WcW, May 22 2012
  

       Would anyone like any of my peanuts?. I left them on the seat.
gnomethang, May 22 2012
  

       stop slandering me, douchebags, I never said any of those things. Try fucking reading. And look up the DC thing yourself for god's sake.
EdwinBakery, May 22 2012
  

       I can grow boobs? YAAAYY!! Imonna breast feed some otter pups
EdwinBakery, May 22 2012
  

       lulz, I only found a thing where a woman in DC crawled into a dead horse and had pictures taken. OK, THAT was definitely not what I was talking about, however also gross
EdwinBakery, May 22 2012
  

       from the wikipedia article on nudity   

       "Yet a man without this "covering" could be considered to be in an embarrassing state of nakedness. "   

       and in general, near-nakedness only exists among hot-region cultures. And even then, there is frequently SOME kind of clothing worn, no matter how slight.
EdwinBakery, May 22 2012
  

       //stop slandering me, douchebags//   

       You're a troll, [Edwin]. It's not slander; it's in the public interest that you be called for the prescriptive, proselytising prude you are.   

       I suspect you may also be a Catholic priest and that this post is part of your personal guilt expiation process.
UnaBubba, May 22 2012
  

       So I'm a prude and a Catholic priest because i think public nudity should be illegal, just like IT ALREADY IS AND VERY FEW PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH SAID LAW?   

       If everyone is a prude, doesn't that make that word meaningless?   

       Seriously What the fuck is wrong with you people? I've said over and over that what's pissing me off is this obviously bullshit claim that you guys are all completely comfortable with nudity in any context. That lying is what's pissing me off. AGAIN, there's no freaking way, because, A) It is a choice, and you've all clrearly chosen, there's no way you've gone your whole life and made the decision with just an "whatever", and B) you would never truly know if you were, since you've never experienced an entire society where nudity is accepted as the norm in all contexts.   

       What the fuck is wrong with you peple? What? Dropped on the head when you were a kid? Kicked by a horse? How the fuck does bbelief in the most basic nudity laws and nothing further translate into "catholic priest" or "prudishness".
EdwinBakery, May 22 2012
  

       Oh, and by the way, numbskulls, your description of tropical peoples as "naked" is ethnocentrism, technically. I'd just call it being a dumbass, because you assume that just because they're naked in YOUR eyes that that means they see themselves as naked, which isn't true. You guys are just straight up too dumb to imagine that another culture would see things differently from you on a fundamental level.
EdwinBakery, May 22 2012
  

       //You guys are just straight up too dumb to imagine that another culture would see things differently from you on a fundamental level.//   

       Aaaand I think we can cancel the "Ironic Statement of the Year" contest and declare a winner.
ytk, May 22 2012
  

       //claim that you guys are all completely comfortable with nudity in any context//   

       Which is interesting because I don't think a single one of us has said that, as has been pointed out repeatedly. Unlike you, we seem to be willing to admit that situations vary, and there are definitely times and places where nudity is not appropriate. That being said, many of us are comfortable with it in far more contexts than much of modern American society will permit.   

       Please also note that the extreme rejection of nudity (and sexuality, although that's a different topic) present in "mainstream" American culture is not found in much of the world to anywhere near the same degree.
MechE, May 22 2012
  

       You know what? I'm going to go ahead and say that. I just want to make it perfectly clear:   

       I am 100%, absolutely, positively, fully and without reservation comfortable with nudity to any degree in any context whatsoever.   

       And furthermore, I believe that [EdwinBakery] secretly is as well. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. I am quite certain that [EdwinBakery], in his heart of hearts, harbors an intense desire to let his junk run wild and free while he does the same, and the fact that he's not allowed to by an oppressive, puritanical society is the source of all of this vitriol. I think that this is obviously the case, and I will hear none of his B.S. protestations to the contrary. In fact, the more he protests, the more confident I am in my view.   

       Truly, the emperor has no clothes—and in [EeBie]'s ideal world, neither would anyone else.
ytk, May 22 2012
  

       Someday in the distant future this thread will be a valuable lesson.   

       Someday.
RayfordSteele, May 23 2012
  

       no, MechE, see ytk's comment. He is making that absurd claim. I'm plenty comfortable with nudity in the right context, the gym shower, beaches in Europe, the odd naked bike thingy, but as an everyday thing? No, and nobody really can claim to be. Both because they've clearly made a choice, and because they wouldn't know what it's like being in a place where nudity is always there (that is, it's allowed, so inevitably some people partake in it even while you're shopping or just strolling)
EdwinBakery, May 23 2012
  

       what's ironic about it? I get that some people could be comfortable with different levels of nudity, and even full on nudity in the case of nudists. But what I'm saying is it's pretty obvious that's not true in the vast majority of cases, no one here being an acception.   

       To prove my point, what would you guess my opinions on contraception and abortion are?
EdwinBakery, May 23 2012
  

       You're naked right now, [EB]. I can tell by your typing style that you're clearly not wearing clothes. That's great! You taken the first step towards publicly acknowledging your desire not to wear clothes, ever. Now... Free yourself... Embrace the nudity...
ytk, May 23 2012
  

       //what would you guess my opinions on contraception and abortion are?//   

       Now why would anyone want to open that can of worms?   

       // and nobody really can claim to be//   

       You are claiming to know the inside of everyone in the world's mind, forgive me if I think that's a little unlikely.   

       //because they've clearly made a choice//   

       Yes, they've made a choice to live in our society because it's convenient and that's where the grocery stores are. Doesn't actually have a bearing on whether they are comfortable with nudity.   

       //they wouldn't know what it's like being in a place where nudity is always there//   

       And you do? Let me repeat, I have experienced it a bit in the limited roles our society allows. It doesn't bother me.   

       I've also never had a billion dollars, anonymous, tax free, and legal. I think it's reasonable to say that I would appreciate it. It's possible to imagine a situation that you've never experienced, in fact it's kind of the definition of both imagination and creativity.
MechE, May 23 2012
  

       Ho hum..people are strange. If we support not going out without a lizard on your head as a social norm, then someone would instantly want to go out sans-lizard and someone would instantly want to tell them off.   

       I don't think there's any compelling argument for wearing or not wearing clothes, hygiene or whatever. You could make a case for skin cancer, but there is sun block these days.   

       Having seen people wandering around naked in public, it's not very interesting. This is just another dull thing that us humans find to occupy that period between birth and death.
not_morrison_rm, May 23 2012
  

       There are practical reasons for wearing clothing in some circumstances. It's unfair that some people are allowed to bare their chests publically and others are forbidden. It would be fairer if either nobody was permitted to bare their chests or if the law let everyone go topless. It would be more libertarian to let everyone do it.   

       Also, clothing has a display function as well as a protective function. In some circumstances, that display sexualises the body of the person wearing the clothes. This is not always intentional. There are people around who would prefer women not to go topless precisely because they find them more sexually arousing when they wear certain clothing. People like different things in that area. To encourage women to cover up will have the reverse of the intended consequences for some people. People will also get used to seeing breasts and find them less indecent/exciting after a while.   

       Just thought of something: how do you feel about public breastfeeding, [EdwinBakery]?
nineteenthly, May 23 2012
  

       //This is just another dull thing that us humans find to occupy that period between birth and death.//   

       [marked-for-tagline]
rcarty, May 23 2012
  

       Sorry, I'm too busy now planning a line of head lizards, it's the snap-down brim that's proving as issue...
not_morrison_rm, May 23 2012
  

       //This is just another dull thing that us humans find to occupy that period between birth and death.//   

       That sounds straight out of the mouth of Marvin the Martian.
Voice, May 23 2012
  

       // That sounds straight out of the mouth of Marvin the Martian.//
You perhaps meant Marvin The Paranoid Android.
AbsintheWithoutLeave, May 23 2012
  

       It's the top-hat lizards that are the worst, they just won't stack neatly. Escher, you big girly fibber you..   

       //Marvin The Paranoid Android. Ahh, flattery. My (teenage years) hero.   

       When it comes to debate of societal norms, it is a matter of taste and "In matters of taste there is no argument" etc. Lots of things I find interesting are excruciatingly boring to others. Trust me on that one.
not_morrison_rm, May 23 2012
  

       [Absinthe] That is precisely what I meant, and the error shows what comes of sleepless baking.
Voice, May 23 2012
  

       Marvin the Paranoid Mashup Martian: 'That earth creature has given me nothing but pain in my diodes all down my left side. Brain the size of a planet under this helmet and I'm reduced to chasing earth creatures all over the ship. Call that job satisfaction 'cause I don't.
RayfordSteele, May 23 2012
  

       I cant believe that the author of this post is still drunk after all this time.
I still can't make out from his ramblings what the idea is and even where he stands on the "Tits Oot" Question.
Perhaps I will never know.
gnomethang, May 23 2012
  

       Interesting, you say that like it's a bad thing ...
8th of 7, May 23 2012
  

       ...and it takes a semi-sentient being with no self will to recognise that.
gnomethang, May 23 2012
  

       If the cap fits ..
8th of 7, May 23 2012
  

       It's just occurred to me that normative enculturated nudity would probably precipitate some form of global economic crisis. Erase all the Paris fashion shows and clothing manufacturers and retail outlets and fashion magazines etc... Hm.
Phrontistery, May 23 2012
  

       I'd like to hope not, but somehow...
Phrontistery, May 23 2012
  

       //Erase all the Paris fashion shows and clothing manufacturers and retail outlets and fashion magazines etc... Hm.//   

       We'd see either a strong uptick in quick application body art or whatever accessories were still socially acceptable. People like decoration.   

       Which is why I doubt general nudity would ever become socially mandatory, but I wouldn't mind it becoming socially acceptable.
MechE, May 24 2012
  

       Move to Maine. Something about the long winter here makes people want to take advantage of the three or four months of genuinely warm weather we get; every summer for the last half-dozen years, courts around the state have handed down acquittals or or simply thrown out public indecency cases involving women going topless or even nude in public. As it stands right now, Maine State Law defines indecent nudity as overt display of genitalia or the anus, meaning--and this has been established repeatedly in court--that a fully nude woman or a man wearing a strategically-placed sock can walk down the street in broad daylight without violating state law. Those inclined to do so are advised to review local statute, however. Interestingly, the smaller the town, the generally less uptight people are about it.   

       I don't see naked people running around every day here, but I do see it at least 2-3 times a summer, and occasionally in the winter, and it warms my heart to know that there's fuck-all anyone can do to stop them.
Alterother, May 24 2012
  

       Do you think they'd be interested in a matching head lizard and sock combo? Obviously using a chameleon would mean it'd match any sock..
not_morrison_rm, May 24 2012
  

       [nmrm] I think you need to look into well trained lizards with long tails, obviating the need for the sock completely.
MechE, May 24 2012
  

       As far as I know, the wearing of live reptiles in order to conceal male genitalia has none been addressed in Maine. It may simply be that this is not the appropriate climate.
Alterother, May 24 2012
  

       Bone! [-] Sorry, [Ed], this one's a loser.
Grogster, May 24 2012
  

       Sounds ultimately like yet another pressure group and there are way too many of those already.
Phrontistery, May 24 2012
  

       what [theleopard] said.
FlyingToaster, May 24 2012
  

       // As far as I know, the wearing of live reptiles in order to conceal male genitalia has none been addressed in Maine.   

       A shocking oversight...the obvious answer would a (non-venomous) and difficult to provoke snake.
not_morrison_rm, May 25 2012
  

       The Red-Tailed Boa Constrictor would be a good choice. Very docile, likes to cuddle, and disinclined to attack anything it has no intention of eating.   

       The Ball Python, of course, would be the best option, pun- wise, but in practice probably not as comfortable to wear. Equally pacifistic, but they like to squeeze a bit too much...
Alterother, May 25 2012
  

       In May 1999? (I think) women in toronto protested for this right, and it was Legalised. I went there the following month and there was not a topless woman to be found. It seemed that women were only interested in the right when it was denied from them!?
bob, May 25 2012
  

       It doesn't mean they have to do it. In fact it's the delicious proof of this most delicious pudding that just because someone has the right or the choice to do something doesn't mean they will necessarily do it. It doesn't even come down to choice, choice is something that is exercised in a situation when options are given such as when the world is structured in terms of legal/illegal good/bad right/ wrong. If you disregard those evaluations, people are just doing stuff. Only now when women do stuff like take off their tops big burly men with city jobs don't manhandle them into automobiles. That's all. The latent effect of the law is that because the decency/ indecency evaluation has been blurred more women wear more revealing clothes, but usually not entirely topless. If their question is can I wear this? In Toronto the answer is most certainly, yes, you can. Oh indeed you can.
rcarty, May 25 2012
  

       //it's the delicious proof of this most delicious pudding//   

       [marked-for-tagline]   
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle