Attorney to sue if Daytona continues nudity appeal

[simonsebs]

Attorney to sue if Daytona continues nudity appeal (http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST01082907.htm)

I hope that she wins. Sometimes money is the only way to get through to some people.

[K-Rob]

I also hope she wins. I never understood the big deal...

[simonsebs]

City loses topless appeal (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/volusia/orl-cfbriefs25_507sep25,0,7964630.story)

Here's an update to the story.

[simonsebs]

Daytona Beach To Close Loophole In Anti-Nudity Law (http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2007/11/8/daytona_beach_to_close_loophole_in_antinudity_law. html)

Seems to me that the city is being a bunch of sore losers.

Woman says she'll protest nudity law (http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Neighbors/Central/evlNC01111507.htm)

Here's an update to the story.

[Stu2630]

If a law doesn't address the mischief you intend it to deal with, it's perfectly reasonable to change the law. That's how laws are made and amended.

Stu

[Jason Lee]

Attorney to sue if Daytona continues nudity appeal (http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST01082907.htm)

I hope that she wins. Sometimes money is the only way to get through to some people.

The page cannot be found

might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable

[Naturist Mark]

If a law doesn't address the mischief you intend it to deal with, it's perfectly reasonable to change the law. That's how laws are made and amended.

Stu

The mischief in question is the attempt to get the law to treat men and women equally.

-Mark

[Stu2630]

The mischief in question is the attempt to get the law to treat men and women equally.

I know, Mark, but because males and females are anatomically different, I see nothing wrong with laws treating them differently on anatomical issues. Women exposing their breasts is an issue of decency, not equality, in my book.

Stu

[nudebushwalker]

So...

what is indecent about women's breasts, then ???

[MoonShadow]

Good question, nudebushwalker. Just what is indecent about women's breasts?

Interesting .... exposed women's breasts are indecent. Now, what kind of culture would even think to make women's breasts indecent? And we wonder why people have hang-ups about their bodies when it is thought that exposed breasts on women are indecent?

Accordingly, I suppose that it is indecent also that any part of the breasts are exposed so that would mean that today's fashions, today's swimwear for women are indecent also. Is that true, Stu?

[nudebushwalker]

Women have been going topless in ever increasing numbers on Oz' beaches since the 1960's, to the point that these days the majority of women will be topless on the majority of beaches here...

If breasts were considered indecent down here this would never have reached this current situation..

Such hangups about women's anatomical differences seem to be concentrated among certain clusters of people in the USA, parts of Britain, and much of the Middle East these days; [ while other countries - including Australia and NZ - do have such neurotics, mysogynists and 'moral minority' types, they are fortunately in a minority in most parts of the world ].

[Stu2630]

nudebushwalker

what is indecent about women's breasts, then ???

Nothing. There is nothing inherently indecent about any part of the human body. It is the circumstances of their exposure that can be considered indecent.

Women have been going topless in ever increasing numbers on Oz' beaches since the 1960's, to the point that these days the majority of women will be topless on the majority of beaches here...

So in the beach context female toplessness is now acceptable. Fine. But I bet it's still not acceptable in a shopping mall. BTW - in some parts of Europe, toplessness is becoming far less common on beaches.

Moonshadow

I suppose that it is indecent also that any part of the breasts are exposed so that would mean that today's fashions, today's swimwear for women are indecent also. Is that true, Stu?

Some of the more extreme fashions are verging on indecency, in my opinion. It does depend upon how much, and what part, of the breast is exposed - and, of course, that old chestnut the context. What may be acceptable for a young woman going to a discotheque may seem quite indecent on a female primary school teacher.

Stu

[simonsebs]

Topless activist sues Daytona over arrests (http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST02030108.htm) [Link not valid, results in bad page 3-16-08]

Here's an update to the story.

[Daveinct]

A woman's breasts are not indecent, it's the thoughts of some observers that are indecent. Then there are those whose lives are so empty and meaningless that they have to resort to trolling on the internet to gain some sort of satisfaction.

[MoonShadow]

LOL, Dave, how very true!

[simonsebs]

Oh God! That Was The Greatest Protest Ever! (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=60527974&blogID=365183850)

Here's an update in her own words.

[scubare]

Nothing. There is nothing inherently indecent about any part of the human body. It is the circumstances of their exposure that can be considered indecent.Stu

Stu, do you ever go swimming and wear a bathing suit? You know the traditional "men's" bathing suit that leaves the chest bare? Did you know that not long ago that was considered indecent? Times change, and with them, what is considered decent. There are parts of the world where women will uncover their breasts in order to cover their ankles. It's all a matter of priorities...and they change too. ;)

[Stu2630]

Scubare

You are quite right to point to the fact that what is considered indecent in one period or place may be considered perfectly acceptable in another. Our perceptions of what is and is not decent are not based upon cold logic: they are entirely cultural.

That doesn't mean we should abandon the ones that we have, though. Some African tribes have no problem with public sex, but I don't want to replace my cultural attitudes to sex with theirs. Similarly, I don't want to replace my cultural attitudes to nudity with those of my forefathers, who thought a man exposing his chest in public was indecent, or with those of nudists, who don't regard any part of the human anatomy to be indecent when exposed in public.

Stu

[florida-david]

My belly is indecent, it kind hangs out more as i get older. So i was talking to the neighbor the other day with my white indecent belly hanging out, yuk!!

Not that my white belly is relavant to this discussion (or is it?), but Breasts are not indecent, it is people's stupid thoughts that make them seem indecent. People need to mature enought to realize this, but some people (STU) just can't get over their personal hang-ups. I say to take all these people that think breasts are indecent and give them three free therapist sessions. if that does not "Cure" them, kick them off the island without their computers and make them live together in "prude-land" and leave the rest of us alone....

[Centauri4]

From Dictionary.com:
indecent

adjective
1. not in keeping with accepted standards of what is right or proper in polite society; "was buried with indecent haste"; "indecorous behavior"; "language unbecoming to a lady"; "unseemly to use profanity"; "moved to curb their untoward ribaldry"
2. offensive to good taste especially in sexual matters; "an earthy but not indecent story"; "an indecent gesture" [ant: decent]
3. offending against sexual mores in conduct or appearance; "a bathing suit considered indecent by local standards"


I also wanted to write I do not think it is possible for a "thing" such as a bare breast to be indecent, but I went to check the definition of the word and examples of its use first.

IMHO: "Simple" exposure of the genitals, buttocks or breast is not an indecent thing, it is the interpretation of that exposure in context and with deference to the viewer that categorizes it as such. Nudity in a setting where it is expected is therefore more likely to be considered "normal" or "acceptable" so the only thing necessary to improve its interpretation is a simple sign.

"Nudity is permitted in this area."
(or something like, "Nudity may be encountered between this sign and the next one in 1,000 ft.")

The astonished response of a portion on the public would likely last for awhile and then quickly fade as people became accustomed to seeing others naked.

Big deal!
Would people leave their jobs to go down and spectate on such as thing? No.
Would people cancel doctor appointments? Oil changes? Vacation to Florida plans? Unlikely.

All of the hype surrounding the novelty of "public indecency" is fueled by people imagining the worst case scenario, by peoples' reluctance and intolerance towards change and by poor social conditioning and their own "dirty" imaginations. Otherwise people would PHYSICALLY not be able to watch the tribespeople on cable making reality television for us "civilized folks". If the moment we saw naked body parts we became physically ill, vomited or passed out (fainted dead away) - or experienced some predictable physical reaction - then I would agree with the idea of a "built-in" or biologically-based inherent dislike/distaste of nudity.

If this were true the human race would be utterly doomed!
We would not be able to see each other naked, ever!
Not coming out of the shower.
Not in the doctor's examination room.
And certainly not in any form of printed media (magazine) or artwork.

We would be unable to procreate due to misguided mate selection and incorrect matching of gene-types and the entire process of "adaptive evolution" would be reduced to a snail's pace.

So what is indecent about all that?
Narrow-mindedness and our own ability to imagine how simply easy it would be to DECLARE nudity acceptable at any venue and under any circumstances. I suspect it would be less painful then declaring non-discrimination against Americans of African decent was in the latter half of the last century; simply because we are evolved and many, many people LOVE to look at naked bodies (yep, even the less attractive ones).

Heck, frankly I am surprised many localities don't license "pay per view" boardwalks along public nude beaches because of the guaranteed income they could expect to receive from them! There would be plenty of people willing to pay to see the "Naked Humans on Display" and the nudists would not even need to be doing anything remotely considered indecent. We all love to watch people living their lives and willingly wait for something out of the ordinary to happen.

G'night all.

[Stu2630]

Florida-David

Breasts are not indecent, it is people's stupid thoughts that make them seem indecent. People need to mature enought to realize this,

Of course breasts can be indecent. What is and is not indecent is determined by the prevailing cultural attitudes and, in most modern western societies, a woman exposing her bare breasts in public is CONSIDERED indecent and therefore it IS indecent.

but some people (STU) just can't get over their personal hang-ups. I say to take all these people that think breasts are indecent and give them three free therapist sessions. if that does not "Cure" them, kick them off the island without their computers and make them live together in "prude-land" and leave the rest of us alone....

What an intolerant attitude from a representative of a minority group which is demanding tolerance for itself. Sensibilities are not hang-ups and don't need therapy. And let's be honest - practically the whole world is "prude-land" so far as nudism is concerned, we textiles comprise a massive majority but we don't force you to undergo therapy or kick you out of your environment.

With the exception of a few gawkers or trouble-makers, textiles don't go to nudist beaches, communities or clubs so they do leave you alone.

Stu

[nacktman]

Of course breasts can be indecent. What is and is not indecent is determined by the prevailing cultural attitudes and, in most modern western societies, a woman exposing her bare breasts in public is CONSIDERED indecent and therefore it IS indecent.

Wrong.

Remember this type of statement has brought forth calls for your psychological evaluation from every other poster.
By the by, don't you think there might be something to them when every single poster at one time or another has questioned your mental state?!

And let's be honest - practically the whole world is "prude-land" so far as nudism is concerned, we textiles comprise a massive majority ...

Wrong again.
Nudism as an organized life philosophy or as an everyday matter of course of living is far more widespread than prudism with the "massive majority" of the world's population either living nude, comfortable being nude and/or around those who are nude, or just don't give a flying rat's arse one way or the other.

Also, if you do not like questions about your mental state why do you keep insisting on providing ample evidence for questioning?:confused:

[Boreas]

I have to chime in here. I know my views have already been expressed......female breasts are not indecent. Period.

I take offence at the idea that someone will tell me what to do with my breasts. It is supposed to be fashionable to wear bras that seem more like armour than clothing. Those are the obscenities. Not only are we supposed to wear these things, we are actually supposed to hide the fact that we have nipples. Now more and more women feel the need to augment their breasts so they look like cantaloupes. That is obscene. All of these things teach women that their bodies are not god enough as they are. I am tired of that.

I think societies that "allow" women to bare their breasts anywhere it is appropriate for men are much more evolved and mature. I certainly hope the puritanical American and British attitudes do not spread. I am glad to hear that Oz has made the changes it has. May we all be more like Oz. Enough of this body hatred.

[MoonShadow]

we textiles comprise a massive majority but we don't force you to undergo therapy or kick you out of your environment.

Stu

Did you really say this? Then, why are you on this forum "forcing" members of a nudists' forum YOUR views? If you are such a "massive majority" why stay here?

[MoonShadow]

I think societies that "allow" women to bare their breasts anywhere it is appropriate for men are much more evolved and mature. I certainly hope the puritanical American and British attitudes do not spread. I am glad to hear that Oz has made the changes it has. May we all be more like Oz. Enough of this body hatred.


Well stated!!!!!

[Boreas]

Of course breasts can be indecent. What is and is not indecent is determined by the prevailing cultural attitudes and, in most modern western societies, a woman exposing her bare breasts in public is CONSIDERED indecent and therefore it IS indecent.

Wrong! Very flawed logic. It is ONLY considered indecent. And that is only in certain spots. It is considered perfectly acceptable in many places. It is time that those places be expanded to anywhere that is is okay for men to be topfree.....beaches, backyards, front yards, at picnics, etc.........

Gwen Jacobs challenged this logic in Guelph Ontario in about 1996. There were protests in Toronto to support her. (perhaps including her, Guelph and Toronto are not far from each other) Another woman (can't remember her name, I was in Toronto at the time) did the same in BC around the same time. The Ontario courts declared that it was not indecent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed, and stated that breasts in and of themselves are not sexual. They also confirmed that it was legal for a woman to be topfree anywhere it is legal/acceptable for men. Therefore, at least in theory, it is legal for a woman to be topfree in Canada, anywhere it is okay for a man to be topfree. If the Supreme Court of Canada declares that topfreedom is not indecent for women in Canada, then that works for me. I suspect the same challenge could work in Britain.

Check out www.tera.ca

[MoonShadow]

Wrong.

Also, if you do not like questions about your mental state why do you keep insisting on providing ample evidence for questioning?:confused:


Good question!!

[Stu2630]

nacktman

By the by, don't you think there might be something to them when every single poster at one time or another has questioned your mental state?!

That's a ridiculous statement. Most posters on here have not questioned my mental state. I have noticed that the ones who have tend to be the less intellectual contributors to this forum - people who lack the capacity to challenge my views using reason, so they resort to attacking my mental state.

with the "massive majority" of the world's population either living nude, comfortable being nude and/or around those who are nude, or just don't give a flying rat's arse one way or the other.

You come out with nonsense like that and then you question MY mental state? :laugh:

The "massive majority" of the world's population live in societies in which nakedness is at the very least restricted (like most Far Eastern nations, North America and Europe) or regarded as totally unacceptable (like virtually all Muslim countries). In any case, I was speaking about the societies in which the contributors of this board live in, not some native tribesmen in Borneo or the Amazon basin.

Wrong! Very flawed logic. It is ONLY considered indecent. And that is only in certain spots. It is considered perfectly acceptable in many places.

You have inadvertently proved my point. In those places where toplessness is considered indecent, it is, by definition, indecent. In those places where it is widely accepted as not indecent, it is not indecent. What is and is not indecent is entirely determined by prevailing values and culture.

It is time that those places be expanded to anywhere that is is okay for men to be topfree.....beaches, backyards, front yards, at picnics, etc.........

You are entitled to hold that opinion, but I disagree with it and I would contest any attempt to change the law in that direction.

The Ontario courts declared that it was not indecent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed, and stated that breasts in and of themselves are not sexual.

They were making a legal decision based upon their opinion. Thankfully, other courts in other countries would take a different, and in my view, more correct view that bare breasts in public ARE indecent.

Stu

[Boreas]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Wrong! Very flawed logic. It is ONLY considered indecent. And that is only in certain spots. It is considered perfectly acceptable in many places. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
You have inadvertently proved my point. In those places where toplessness is considered indecent, it is, by definition, indecent. In those places where it is widely accepted as not indecent, it is not indecent. What is and is not indecent is entirely determined by prevailing values and culture.

No, my point was that the use of "considered". That is not fact, nor law. As you know, many prevailing thoughts can and have been changed.


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">It is time that those places be expanded to anywhere that is is okay for men to be topfree.....beaches, backyards, front yards, at picnics, etc......... </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
You are entitled to hold that opinion, but I disagree with it and I would contest any attempt to change the law in that direction.


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">The Ontario courts declared that it was not indecent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed, and stated that breasts in and of themselves are not sexual. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
They were making a legal decision based upon their opinion. Thankfully, other courts in other countries would take a different, and in my view, more correct view that bare breasts in public ARE indecent.

Well, the law of Canada and many other places backs my opinion.

Declaring women's breasts as "indecent" is a paternalistic view that continues to sexualize women unecessarily and dictates to women what they are to do. That is just plain wrong.

I can respect your desire to keep your "private parts" private. I can even accept some of your arguments. This one rankles me.

[MoonShadow]

My, my, my, Stu, what an ego you have!

The most intelligent among us on this forum DO NOT ENGAGE in debate with you because you just keep responding with the same responses over and over and over. Nothing to debate

[Boreas]

My, my, my, Stu, what an ego you have!

The most intelligent among us on this forum DO NOT ENGAGE in debate with you because you just keep responding with the same responses over and over and over. Nothing to debate

And I fell for it again. :eek: That was my last comment.

Apparently I feel very passionately about this issue. I am truly tired of men telling us what we can and cannot do with our breasts. I am also apparently feeling a little fiesty today. To quote my Irish grandmother and her sibs, I have my "Irish" up today. :sneaky: (seems to be an appropriate day for that, don't you think? ;))

[MoonShadow]

I am with you on the issue of men telling women what they can and cannot do with their breasts. Stu has proven so many times over his paternalistic ideology about many things regarding the human body.

He just keeps whirring

Being half Irish, Happy St Pat Day!!!!!!

[nacktman]

Yet, more evidence for questioning!:rolleyes:

The 'less intellectual contributors' - including yourself - are the ones the rest of us question as to their mental state and we have been proven correct in each case with the most glaring case being that of Bobx.

In fact there have been two individuals who are definitely mentally ill (both are on Haldol for their illnesses), that have read your posts and called you crazy ... so if you are "crazy" to them (they had ol' Bobx pegged, too), how do you think you come across to those of us not mentally ill?!

The majority of the world's peoples do not care a twit about being nude or not or the fact that anyone else is nude or not - and this does include Europe, North America, Asia, South America, Africa, Australia and every other place humans inhabit - it just isn't something they dwell upon.

You are trolling as you always do.

The human breast is in no way indecent be it male or female. Get over it!

[nacktman]

My, my, my, Stu, what an ego you have!

The most intelligent among us on this forum DO NOT ENGAGE in debate with you because you just keep responding with the same responses over and over and over. Nothing to debate

True enough, we just respond with lampoon as we do with all trolls.

[Agde]

It seems to me the rule of thumb that "women may bare their breasts anywhere men do" is very practical.

For police, it provides an easy, reliable first check: in a given situation, look around -- if there are men without shirts on, then the women without shirts are within the rules. For normal folks, it provides an easy, understandable rule: in a given situation, look around -- if there are men around not wearing shirts, it is ok for you to take yours off. For prudes, it provides an easily understandable alert: look around, if there are uncovered male torsos in view, you may be somewhere that you are in danger of seeing an uncovered female torso.

A "men first" rule is of course a priori unfair, but it has the advantage of being clear. It respects those like Stu who are disturbed by nipples and provides an a posteriori path for them to accept gender equality as fair.

[Boreas]

A "men first" rule is of course a priori unfair, but it has the advantage of being clear. It respects those like Stu who are disturbed by nipples and provides an a posteriori path for them to accept gender equality as fair.

It may be unfair, but it is a good place to start. Generally men feel free to remove their tops in casual settings and on hot days. Women ought to have the same freedom. <!-- / message -->

[baregreg]

To quote my Irish grandmother and her sibs, I have my "Irish" up today. :sneaky: (seems to be an appropriate day for that, don't you think? ;))
:laugh:
My late father had a saying when he would get a bit upset about something. He would say:

"Doesn't that frost your Scotch Irish azz!"

Happy Saint Patrick's day.

[Boreas]

:laugh:
My late father had a saying when he would get a bit upset about something. He would say:

"Doesn't that frost your Scotch Irish azz!"

Happy Saint Patrick's day.

Yes, we had a variation of that in our family too. Got to love the Irish.....they have a saying for all occasions. Almost as good as those articulate southerners we know so well in here! :sneaky:

[Agde]

It is really good to have your "Irish" up! :) Just sometimes hard to know how to "unfrost" one's "azz". The problem with my "men first" rule, for instance, is that laws are usually formulated as "thou shalt not". It is really hard to write a "thou shalt not" law about women's breasts without reinforcing gender issues and generally sounding ridiculous. In contrast, a "men first" rule could easily be part of a judge's ruling on a current law, thus providing an important and broadly applicable precedent. That's why it can be more effective for "Irish" women to target and challenge gender-discriminating laws in court, rather than through new or revised laws, since offending provisions can be surgically invalidated without a convoluted legislative fight.

[Stu2630]

The issue of breasts is not a difficult concept.

To a computer, nothing is rude, indecent or offensive. To someone from Thailand, exposing the soles of your feet can be regarded as rude. In Victorian times, women exposing their ankles could have been regarded as indecent. Indecency is relative to the place, time and, most importantly, the prevailing culture.

In most modern western nations, and with certain exceptions, women don't expose their breasts in public. The female breast has come to be regarded as an intimate part of her anatomy . You may or may not agree with that, but it's the reality: it is a part of her body you would not normally touch without an implied invitation to do so. And it's why women normally wear two-piece bikinis or full swimsuits whereas men don't feel the need to cover their chests.

I don't regard this as an equality issue and neither do the Swedish Equal Rights Commission: they rightly recognised that a woman's breasts do not equate with a man's chest. They are physically different, have different functions and, equally importantly, they have entirely different social and cultural connotations.

I regard the open exposure of a woman's bare breasts in most public places as being indecent. That's my opinion. In some (admittedly not all) situations, other people who will also be able to see them will also regard them as being indecent - if you don't believe me, see what happens if a woman decides to take her top off while shopping in a supermarket, or on a plane, or in a primary school. So, anyone with a functioning braincell can see that this view is pervasive in our society and not just by me. It is also interesting that the view is held by women at least as much as by men.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

They are physically different, have different functions and, equally importantly, they have entirely different social and cultural connotations.

Stu

How many times are you going to say this? The ONLY difference, physically, is that women's breasts are larger than men's. That's it! Doesn't matter what the functions are of either. Doesn't matter what is socially or culturally accepted, such can be changed. Not so far back in history, men's bare chests were not socially or culturally accepted.

The day will come when we will go bare breasted where men go bare chested. Social and cultural norms are forever changing.

[Stu2630]

The ONLY difference, physically, is that women's breasts are larger than men's. That's it! Doesn't matter what the functions are of either. Doesn't matter what is socially or culturally accepted, such can be changed.

That's your opinion. I disagree. And I believe most of western society disagrees, just as the Swedish Equality Commission disagrees. I don't want to change what is socially and culturally accepted and I don't believe many other people do.

Not so far back in history, men's bare chests were not socially or culturally accepted.

I have a photograph of my great-grandfather swimming in a race across the River Trent in 1904, along with a dozen other men, and a crowd around supporting the swimmers. None of the men is wearing a top. 104 years is "not so far back in history"? If it's another 104 years before women can go topless, I'll be fine with that. :D

The day will come when we will go bare breasted where men go bare chested. Social and cultural norms are forever changing.

I've been hearing that for decades - but it hasn't happened. If anything, there has been a shift away from toplessness on many European beaches since the 1980s and that fact has been noticed and commented upon by the European press. So I'm not worried. :)

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Not concerned at all, are you? So, why do you keep posting the same stuff over and over? Obviously, you are very concerned.

104 years is just a century, Stu. That in terms of human history is not so far in the past.

[nacktman]

Here's a smiley graphic one can use to reply to posts of inane and languid sorts.

http://img84.exs.cx/img84/6927/palizaconsilla7eo.gif


Perfect for one poster on this thread in particular.

Feel free to apply liberally!

[Stu2630]

MoonShadow

Not concerned at all, are you? So, why do you keep posting the same stuff over and over? Obviously, you are very concerned.

It's not a matter of being "concerned", it's simply that I enjoy the intellectual debate. :)

104 years is just a century, Stu. That in terms of human history is not so far in the past.

Well I won't be around and neither will you. And a lot can happen in the meantime. Who would have imagined jet aircraft or home computers 104 years ago? I'm certainly not going to worry too much about what may or may not offend my great great grandchildren!

Stu

[Centauri4]

It is supposed to be fashionable to wear bras that seem more like armour than clothing. Those are the obscenities. Not only are we supposed to wear these things, we are actually supposed to hide the fact that we have nipples.


Here! Here! Well stated!

I commented to my wife last evening about a commercial for a new bra with built-in nipple shields! Though I understand some women in some situations want these, it seems absurd to me that anyone can focus on such as small detail and consider it THAT significant.

You cannot make someone shameful of anything they are unwilling to be ashamed of.

A few months ago we watched a live fashion show at our local mall that had randomly selected eight young women and sent them off into the mall with $500 to buy new outfits. One young lady had a sexy little top she kept worrying about (pulling up) while walking the runway and in this case I could not help think 'What was she thinking?' I chalked her behavior up to inexperience at being on camera and on the runway and thought she seriously reduced her chances of winning the next round by being so obsessed with the top! (step one, two, three, adjust, step two three adjust, step four five adjust...) She wore the sexy thing and yet was obviously not pleased with her own choice.

Regarding the prevalence of attitudes considering bared breasts being "indecent", I think the ONE and ONLY reason a court had to step in and rule women were entitled to bare their upper bodies that way was because the indignant public was wrong.

An attitude being widely held does not make it "correct"! Contrary to what some regular contributors may personally believe, I believe the necessity of a high court ruling proves that lower courts have already ineffectively addressed an issue. These situations may initially reinforce the idea a prevailing or widely held idea being "legal" because even the city councils, municipal governors, or lower court judges apparently agree 'Women should not...'. Either that or these governing bodies simply refused to overturn previous rulings or refused to revisit (or disagree with) them, and this compelled legal councils to plead the issue to the highest court of the land.

The practice of law is an "art". (wait for it, wait for it...)

The highest courts in turn review the cases and often find (or found) flaws with previous rulings, inadequate justification for locally inspired laws, or that an incorrect legal precedence had been established for some (small / overlooked / unconsidered) reason.

I am sure I have heard of cases the highest court refused to hear because an initial review of the previous rulings determined there was insufficient cause to revisit the issue, or (I guess) no new facts had been presented to substantially alter even THE HIGH COURTS prevailing attitude. The precedent rulings stand.

Final thoughts:
I do not believe Stu's presence here is "forcing" anyone to do anything. If someone disagrees with his statements they are certainly welcome to skip over them and read on!

It certainly seems Stu is wholeheartedly dedicated to his position and I do wonder what is gained by recursively espousing a conservative, clothes-centric ideology. But the other day I was thinking what the legacy of typed words on these subjects might be, because you never know WHO will read them and HOW deeply their personal attitude may be influenced reading them. A visitor to or member of the ClothesFreeForums may one day be the great nude emancipator or leader of a hyper-conservative revolution leading to the wide-spread wearing of unisex (sexless) "spacesuits".

These words are nothing but signs along the road to the future!


Recommended reading:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emancipator

[nacktman]

Originally Posted by Boreas http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=187928#post187928)
It is supposed to be fashionable to wear bras that seem more like armour than clothing. Those are the obscenities. Not only are we supposed to wear these things, we are actually supposed to hide the fact that we have nipples.

You mean you have Nipples!shocked


Got to love the Irish.....they have a saying for all occasions. Almost as good as those articulate southerners we know so well in here! :sneaky:

And what pray tell are you trying to say there, my dear lady?!:sneaky:

[Agde]

You know, I understand the public nudity debate because of the perceived link to sexuality and hence vulnerability, but I still can't get my head around The Great Nipple Debate. It is clearly and merely just a fetish, like some people have a foot fetish. How legislators get away with promoting a fetish is just beyond my visceral and logical understanding.

Life is understandably complicated, however, for fetish disciples. Stu's comment that breasts are a part of the body "you would not normally touch without an implied invitation to do so" is of course true about any touching, including shaking hands. This is simply not a very useful test for what should be covered or what is indecent when left uncovered. Meantime, in terms of prevailing culture's acceptance of chest contact, it makes me worry he doesn't get enough hugs.

[Stu2630]

You can extend a hand towards a woman's hand in friendship, but aim your hand towards her breast and that will be deemed sexual. You can touch a woman on the arm or back to gain her attention. If you see a tiny spider on a woman's face or in her hair then, if you know her even a little, she wouldn't think anything if you touched those parts of her gently to remove it. Breasts are different. The ONLY occasions a man touches a woman's breasts are either sexual, or if he is a medical person - and then he would normally be chaperoned! How many women would find it acceptable to be measured for a bra by a male sales clerk? If a woman is caught accidentally naked, the areas she quickly tries to cover up are her genital area and her breasts. Why do nearly 100% of women on most beaches hide their breasts on beaches, and even 70% to 80% now wear tops of some kind on European beaches where toplessness is considered acceptable? Why do swimming pools refuse to allow female swimmers to go topless? The answer is that, in our culture, female breasts are not merely baby milk dispensers - they have strong sexual associations for most people - both male and female - and second only to her genitals in that respect.

The only people who want to change that, i.e. to de-sexualize the female breast, are nudists and feminists, and each for their own particular reasons. The rest of us are quite happy with our "cultural associations".

BTW - I get plenty of hugs, thanks. :D

Stu

[Agde]

You can extend a hand towards a woman's hand in friendship, but aim your hand towards her breast and that will be deemed sexual. You can touch a woman on the arm or back to gain her attention. If you see a tiny spider on a woman's face or in her hair then, if you know her even a little, she wouldn't think anything if you touched those parts of her gently to remove it. Breasts are different. The ONLY occasions a man touches a woman's breasts are either sexual, or if he is a medical person - and then he would normally be chaperoned! How many women would find it acceptable to be measured for a bra by a male sales clerk? If a woman is caught accidentally naked, the areas she quickly tries to cover up are her genital area and her breasts. Why do nearly 100% of women on most beaches hide their breasts on beaches, and even 70% to 80% now wear tops of some kind on European beaches where toplessness is considered acceptable? Why do swimming pools refuse to allow female swimmers to go topless?...

Hands: Replace "woman" with "man" in sentences = same result
Touch: Replace "woman" with "man" in sentences = same result
Spiders: Replace "woman" with "man" in sentences = same result
Medical: Our doctor is female and unchaperoned.
Bras: Wife refuses as unhealthy. Last seen bra salesperson at major NYC department store was male.
Caught: Last experience, backstage at fashion show, woman continued without embarrassment.
Beach tops: In fashion, but still rare at our normal beaches
Pools: Last experience at hotel pool, topfree was acceptable.
Hugs: Involve chest contact without necessarily being sexual.

We clearly live in different worlds. But you avoided my fetish point. Why do you think nipples are sexual? Like feet, everybody has them.

[Stu2630]

Agde

We obviously do live in very different worlds. In my world, my female colleagues wouldn't think twice about reaching into the breast pocket of my shirt to remove a key if my hands were in use on the phone, but I could never dream of doing that to them. A male doctor here would not usually examine a woman's breasts without a female chaperon, but a female doctor or nurse would be astonished if a male patient asked for a male chaperon before she examined him. As for your beaches - France was the place where topless bathing began. It caught on over here at one time, but it's a rarity these days on UK beaches and is becoming less common on Scandinavian and even German beaches. Taken as a whole, most women in Europe wear tops when sunbathing on beaches, and only a very small proportion of European parks have topless sunbathing. In North America, topless sunbathing anywhere outside of nudist places is extremely rare and often considered illegal.

Female nipples are seen as sexual partly because they are far more substantial than male ones and partly because they are functional. Male nipples are vestigial only. A woman's nipples take a far more prominent role in sexual activity than men's nipples do - they are more sensitive and generally considered to be more erogenous.

Stu

[nacktman]

Female nipples are seen as sexual partly because they are far more substantial than male ones and partly because they are functional. Male nipples are vestigial only. A woman's nipples take a far more prominent role in sexual activity than men's nipples do - they are more sensitive and generally considered to be more erogenous.

shocked Someone needs to take a Human Anatomy and Physiology class ... in the worst way?!
A Cultural Anthropology class wouldn't hurt, either.

[MoonShadow]

You do live in a different world, Stu

I would never put my hands in a man's shirt pocket (unless it was my spouse). I don't know of any women who do such.

Physicals here are conducted by both a physician and a nurse regardless of your gender.

Glad to know that your nipples are not use as often as your spouse's nipples in sexual activity. Here, we feel men's nipples are just as sexual.

But that is the sexual aspects. Otherwise, women's breasts should be free to bare wherever a man's are.

You just want to keep arguing your dislike/disdain for topless women period.

[Stu2630]

You do live in a different world, Stu

I would never put my hands in a man's shirt pocket (unless it was my spouse). I don't know of any women who do such.A female colleague, who I have known for many years, did that to me just a week or so ago when I was carrying some files and she wanted to borrow my electronic access card: I could never have done that to her I also recall several years ago my sister-in-law applying some ointment to an insect bite my chest but there would be no way I could have done that if she had been bitten in that same area.

Physicals here are conducted by both a physician and a nurse regardless of your gender.It's different here.

Glad to know that your nipples are not use as often as your spouse's nipples in sexual activity. Here, we feel men's nipples are just as sexual.I suspect you are saying that from your perspective as a nudist rather than because of your nationality. Certainly the US law seems to agree with me about this. Check out this case:

"Sexual contact means the touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, pubic region, buttock or, if the person is female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person"

http://www.co.lucas.oh.us/Appeals/DecisionsPDF/969.pdf
Otherwise, women's breasts should be free to bare wherever a man's are. You know I disagree with that.

You just want to keep arguing your dislike/disdain for topless women period.I believe women should be topless in private places only, and not in public.

Stu

[scubare]

You can extend a hand towards a woman's hand in friendship, but aim your hand towards her breast and that will be deemed sexual. You can touch a woman on the arm or back to gain her attention. If you see a tiny spider on a woman's face or in her hair then, if you know her even a little, she wouldn't think anything if you touched those parts of her gently to remove it. Breasts are different. The ONLY occasions a man touches a woman's breasts are either sexual, or if he is a medical person - and then he would normally be chaperoned! How many women would find it acceptable to be measured for a bra by a male sales clerk? If a woman is caught accidentally naked, the areas she quickly tries to cover up are her genital area and her breasts. Why do nearly 100% of women on most beaches hide their breasts on beaches, and even 70% to 80% now wear tops of some kind on European beaches where toplessness is considered acceptable? Why do swimming pools refuse to allow female swimmers to go topless? The answer is that, in our culture, female breasts are not merely baby milk dispensers - they have strong sexual associations for most people - both male and female - and second only to her genitals in that respect.

The only people who want to change that, i.e. to de-sexualize the female breast, are nudists and feminists, and each for their own particular reasons. The rest of us are quite happy with our "cultural associations".

BTW - I get plenty of hugs, thanks. :D

Stu

Well, Stu, all of your arguments can be answered with one word. That word helps change attitudes, opinions, and - yes - culture. That same word can help fight pornography, teen-age pregnancy, drug & alcohol abuse, and other harmful behaviors such as smoking. That word is EDUCATION. When people are enlightened to the benefits and wonders of the relaxation and stress freedom; when they realize that naturism is indeed good for their physical, mental and psycological health, they are indeed anxious to give up old stereotypical hang-ups. When they do, culture changes. Since you seem to be so proud of YOUR education, maybe you can appreciate the benefit of how education can enlighten people. :D

[Stu2630]

scubare

I'm all for 'education', as you would expect. The trouble is, what one person calls 'education', somebody else would call 'propaganda' or even 'brainwashing'. The Soviets used to think that people who had concerns about the rightness of communism had 'mental issues' and needed correctional 'education' to help them to see the wonderful benefits they were enjoying, if they did not know, in their socialist republic.

I find the term 'education' to be both disturbing, and also deeply patronising. Education is something which must be provided to children because they are children and need to learn to survive in the world. But education must never be imposed upon adults - it must be only for those who actively seek it. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't be prepared to supply information about nudism. Of course you should do that and you should also extend a welcome to potential newcomers, but never try to 'inflict' education onto an unwilling public. That will only result in alienating and antagonizing them.

You enjoy nudism and see benefits in it. Keep on enjoying it, let the rest of to enjoy our textile lifestyles. Respect and celebrate the fact that we are all different and don't need "educating" to make us all the same.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

More whirring

[Agde]

More whirring
I just realized that Stu is successful in constantly pulling our chain by systematically using various logical fallacies -- not just classics like "petitio principii" but even some "modal logic" fallacies. Look what he did with "education"! No wonder he finds this forum intellectually interesting. If you want to keep a scorecard, Wikipedia has a handy list of logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies) -- also worth a quick prior check before falling for one of the traps. In a sinister sort of way, what he does is actually quite cool! :book:

Meanwhile, thankfully, we all are of course actually right! :)

[Stu2630]

Look what he did with "education"!Yup. I destroyed the argument. :)

If you want to keep a scorecard, Wikipedia has a handy list of logical falacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies)-- also worth a quick prior check before falling for one of the traps.That's wasted on MoonShadow - the best she can manage is "whirring". Doh! :rolleyes:

Your Wikipedia "list of logical fallacies" doesn't include "petitio principii" or even "modal logic", so it's not going to help much.

In a sinister sort of way, what he does is actually quite coolSinister? Nah. Just true logic - as understood by the 95% of us who are textiles.

Meanwhile, thankfully, we all are of course actually right!

Only in your dreams! :D

Stu

[Agde]

For reference: "petitio principii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petitio_principii)" and "modal logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic)" -- you just want me to frighten folks :) -- and to steer them away from the original list of logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies)
Defining dreams: a culture of good common sense prevailing over prevailing culture's sense of common defining good! :yes:
.

[Boreas]

You do live in a different world, Stu

I would never put my hands in a man's shirt pocket (unless it was my spouse). I don't know of any women who do such.

Physicals here are conducted by both a physician and a nurse regardless of your gender.

Glad to know that your nipples are not use as often as your spouse's nipples in sexual activity. Here, we feel men's nipples are just as sexual.

But that is the sexual aspects. Otherwise, women's breasts should be free to bare wherever a man's are.

You just want to keep arguing your dislike/disdain for topless women period.

Ditto! :D

Stu, you mentioned that your female colleague had been working with you for many years. I would only put my hand in the breast pocket (or any pocket) of a male, or female, colleague if I knew them well, and had worked with them a long time. I had one male colleague who would likely feel comfortable enough to retreive a card out of one of my pockets.....with my permission first. I would of course get his permission.

I would imagine that any male could ask a doctor for a chaperone if he felt the need, even if it were not convention.

[scubare]

scubare

I'm all for 'education', as you would expect. The trouble is, what one person calls 'education', somebody else would call 'propaganda' or even 'brainwashing'. The Soviets used to think that people who had concerns about the rightness of communism had 'mental issues' and needed correctional 'education' to help them to see the wonderful benefits they were enjoying, if they did not know, in their socialist republic. Stu

'Propaganda'? There is another word for you Stu: PARANOID!

But education must never be imposed upon adults - it must be only for those who actively seek it. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't be prepared to supply information about nudism. Of course you should do that and you should also extend a welcome to potential newcomers, but never try to 'inflict' education onto an unwilling public. That will only result in alienating and antagonizing them.


Did I say - ANYWHERE in that post about IMPOSING or INFLICTING this so called BRAINWASHING on anybody? You are as bad as Bush, you are totally incapable of seeing truth, or admitting it if you did.
You are beyond hope. You SAY that you are interested in honest debate, but all you REALLY seem interested in is running your ignorant mouth...'nuf said, I'm done with you.

[scubare]

Yup. I destroyed the argument. :) Stu

The only thing you destroyed is ANY credibility you MAY have had because you shot down what you seem to be most proud of. How do you know that your precious education was not really just Propaganda? :rolleyes:

[Stu2630]

Boreas

In the circles I mix in both at work and socially, we are fairly uninhibited about touching one another in a non-sexual way. I accept that not every group in society is quite as relaxed about that as we are and if I moved into your circles, I'd have to remember that you aren't quite as comfortable with our touchy-feeliness.

scubare

Calm down. I'm not likening nudism with Marxist-Leninism, I'm merely pointing out that education is something which you offer to people and never impose upon them. If you meant offer education - fair enough - I take your point and I actually agree with you (I think I said that, didn't I?)

How do I know that some of my education wasn't propaganda? In a way, it was - all education is ideological - Foucault knew that as did almost all modern philosophers. The differences are firstly that I opted to undertake the education knowing that it was ideological and hegemonic and secondly that, built into that education I received, were skills of critical analysis so that we were actually encouraged to question and challenge accepted theories and belief systems.

You mentioned education - why not tell me more about what exactly you have in mind, how you propose that education should be delivered, and to whom? If, as you say, it's about offering rather than imposing education, I'll probably agree with you.

Stu

[Boreas]

In the circles I mix in both at work and socially, we are fairly uninhibited about touching one another in a non-sexual way. I accept that not every group in society is quite as relaxed about that as we are and if I moved into your circles, I'd have to remember that you aren't quite as comfortable with our touchy-feeliness.

So, if your group is touchy feely, then what is the problem with you getting a card out of a female friend's pocket? I am guessing that there would be little problem. I am also guessing that you are seeing a problem where there isn't one. At least that is how it would be in the more touchy feely groups I would be around.

[Stu2630]

Boreas

So, if your group is touchy feely, then what is the problem with you getting a card out of a female friend's pocket? I am guessing that there would be little problem.

You may be right. I don't know.

The problem is that it would be near her breast and that's a NO-GO area on a lady for a man unless invited. She might be OK with it, but I have my doubts and wouldn't like to risk it and have my innocent intentions misunderstood. My colleagues think of me as gentlemanly and I would never do anything to jeopardize that.

Stu

[simonsebs]

Topless Protestor Could Settle With City (http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2008/5/5/topless_protestor_could_settle_with_city.html)

Here's an update to the story.

[simonsebs]

Daytona agrees to $15,000 settlement in nudity dispute (http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST01050808.htm)

Hopefully a lesson can be learned from all of this.

[simonsebs]

A Message from Elizabeth Book (http://nudiarist.blogspot.com/2008/07/message-from-elizabeth-book.html)

Here's an update.

[nimrod]

Wow, she sounds fiesty. I appluade her efforts, I hope she keeps fighting the good fight.

[Agde]

If Ms Book is going to sue on 14th Amendment grounds, the legal fees will likely grow beyond her $15K settlement. Where can we contribute to her battle coffer?

[Centauri4]

I find the term 'education' to be both disturbing, and also deeply patronising. Education is something which must be provided to children because they are children and need to learn to survive in the world. But education must never be imposed upon adults - it must be only for those who actively seek it. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't be prepared to supply information about nudism. Of course you should do that and you should also extend a welcome to potential newcomers, but never try to 'inflict' education onto an unwilling public. That will only result in alienating and antagonizing them.

Stu

I think there are two types of education at work in our society "at large" and this includes "active education" (or active learning) where someone purposely seeks out knowledge on a subject using tools such as Google, Wikipedia or a community college class. The other type is "passive learning" where knowledge is simply "put out there" for people to see, experience and interpret as they will. These may not be forms of "traditional education" some people are used to encountering but they definitely exist in the form of "public interest spots" (PSAs), infomercials, billboards, newspaper articles, magazine articles and even much more simple devices.

The ordinary Stop sign at an intersection is a learning tool. The Stop sign exists to serve as a constant reminder of our traffic laws, traditions and control methods, and yes young children learn what this means from and early age but we also know all to well what the consequences of ignoring this educational device MAY be (up to and including death).

Similarly moving message signs above highways, the scrolling news "ticker" at the bottom of the CNN/Headline News channel, radio commercials and even the Yellow Pages (tm) phone book is an educational tool. So while you might not like the idea of having education forced on the masses each day, I would argue that it is happening and IS all around us! The mere fact that a sign exists by the side of a road is an indication that somewhere a committee developed rules or guidelines regarding the placement of this sign and workers went out an implemented that "passive public education" plan.

Granted an example of "imposing" education on adults is requiring them to sit through a remedial Driver's Education class after committing a "moving violation" and (yes) most adults probably find this annoying or antagonizing; all I can say to this is "Aww, poor them!" (cynicism intended)

In the Yellow Pages the placement of an advertisement for a Nudist Resort or Club is informative enough in and of itself to simply educate people, and the more advertisements that appear the more significant the education. I imagine some people upon seeing such an ad for the first time think, 'We have a nudist resort on the other side of town?' in the same manner as 'We have a new methodist church downtown?' - and the question forms the basis of inspiration to (typically) increase the desire to learn more about the thing, service or business (time allowing).

How many parents in the audience have had to patiently and "creatively" explain something a child saw for the first time while the family drove along the road on vacation?

I appreciate your higher level analysis and comparison between education ideology and political philosophies but that is way above what the majority of men or women on the street knows as an educational relationship, methodology or relationship. I think people often forget they even knew something was a "thing" they once learned years and years ago because our environments change as do our "passive" reminders of specific facts and specific knowledge.

~