Coherence and consistence of the law regarding public nudity

[Soleil Nu]

What people like Rocket and Stu don't seem to understand is that all we are trying to acheive is a rational, coherent and consistent set of laws that don't contredict themselves. I've submitted them a series of questions which specificaly emphasise these contradictions, questions that they judiciously chose not to answer. This is their prerogative of course, and some might say that this is because of my somewhat "passionnate" style of writing. But I prefer to believe that they chose not to answer because they have no answer. In fact, among all the people I've submitted these questions to in the last few years, not ONE SINGLE PERSON has ever been able to give me a coherent answer to ANY of these questions.

So, Rocket and Stu (and everyone else who's interested), here they are again. Feel free to ignore me once more... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The reason most often given for the existence of anti-nudity laws is that most people find nudity offensive, and therefore there must be laws to protect them against inconsiderate people that would walk around naked everywhere. So be it.

In light of the preceding, explain this:

Most people also find very offensive a person which is grossly disfigured, yet no law exists to prevent such a person to be in a public place, or to hide his/her face behind a mask if he/she does. Why ? And if such a law was proposed, would you condone it ? And if not, why not ? You DO approve of a similar existing law to protect people from being offended, don't you ?

Now this next one applies to canadian law only. Most cities have regulations to prevent someone from becoming a public nuisance to other citizens. Play your music too loudly outside, mow the lawn at 3 am, grossly neglect your lot, or let your house fall to pieces, and you will get fined. But be nude in your backyard, and you will get arrested, trown in jail and accused of a criminal offense. Why ? Why is it that public nudity, which is nothing more than another public nuisance, is treated like a crime and deserves a criminal record ?

If "public decency" is such a natural and universal truth that it needs no explanation, why do laws which are supposed to reflect it vary so widely from place to place around the world ?

If relaxation of public nudity laws would undoubtably lead to people walking around naked, why don't we see women walking around topless on every street corner in Ontario, where women have had the right for years now to be topless wherever men can ?

If it's apparently ok for young iranians to campain for a change in the law so that women in Iran have the right not to wear the veil in public (right that they have obtained in many other islamic countries), then why is it NOT OK for people in the western world to campain for relaxation, or at least decriminilisation, of public nudity laws

And finaly (a question less related to the law, but pertinent nevertheless), why would anyone in his right mind WANT to transmit to their offspring an irrational and useless fear which they are not born with, knowing that this fear would provide absolutely no benefit to them whatsoever ?

P.S. By the way, I don't consider "because it's just the way it is" to be a coherent answer.

[Soleil Nu]

What people like Rocket and Stu don't seem to understand is that all we are trying to acheive is a rational, coherent and consistent set of laws that don't contredict themselves. I've submitted them a series of questions which specificaly emphasise these contradictions, questions that they judiciously chose not to answer. This is their prerogative of course, and some might say that this is because of my somewhat "passionnate" style of writing. But I prefer to believe that they chose not to answer because they have no answer. In fact, among all the people I've submitted these questions to in the last few years, not ONE SINGLE PERSON has ever been able to give me a coherent answer to ANY of these questions.

So, Rocket and Stu (and everyone else who's interested), here they are again. Feel free to ignore me once more... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The reason most often given for the existence of anti-nudity laws is that most people find nudity offensive, and therefore there must be laws to protect them against inconsiderate people that would walk around naked everywhere. So be it.

In light of the preceding, explain this:

Most people also find very offensive a person which is grossly disfigured, yet no law exists to prevent such a person to be in a public place, or to hide his/her face behind a mask if he/she does. Why ? And if such a law was proposed, would you condone it ? And if not, why not ? You DO approve of a similar existing law to protect people from being offended, don't you ?

Now this next one applies to canadian law only. Most cities have regulations to prevent someone from becoming a public nuisance to other citizens. Play your music too loudly outside, mow the lawn at 3 am, grossly neglect your lot, or let your house fall to pieces, and you will get fined. But be nude in your backyard, and you will get arrested, trown in jail and accused of a criminal offense. Why ? Why is it that public nudity, which is nothing more than another public nuisance, is treated like a crime and deserves a criminal record ?

If "public decency" is such a natural and universal truth that it needs no explanation, why do laws which are supposed to reflect it vary so widely from place to place around the world ?

If relaxation of public nudity laws would undoubtably lead to people walking around naked, why don't we see women walking around topless on every street corner in Ontario, where women have had the right for years now to be topless wherever men can ?

If it's apparently ok for young iranians to campain for a change in the law so that women in Iran have the right not to wear the veil in public (right that they have obtained in many other islamic countries), then why is it NOT OK for people in the western world to campain for relaxation, or at least decriminilisation, of public nudity laws

And finaly (a question less related to the law, but pertinent nevertheless), why would anyone in his right mind WANT to transmit to their offspring an irrational and useless fear which they are not born with, knowing that this fear would provide absolutely no benefit to them whatsoever ?

P.S. By the way, I don't consider "because it's just the way it is" to be a coherent answer.

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Soleil Nu:
Now this next one applies to canadian law only. Most cities have regulations to prevent someone from becoming a public nuisance to other citizens. Play your music too loudly outside, mow the lawn at 3 am, grossly neglect your lot, or let your house fall to pieces, and you will get fined. But be nude in your backyard, and you will get arrested, trown in jail and accused of a criminal offense. Why ? Why is it that public nudity, which is nothing more than another public nuisance, is treated like a crime and deserves a criminal record ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Soleil nu: While I am usually in agreement with what you say, I have to disagree on the point above.

I live Toronto and am regularly nude in my back yard, and sometimes (early morning) in my front yard. Neighbors (including their kids), paper delivery guys, limo drivers and tradespeople have seen me nude, but I have never been charged. In fact, there has never been a complaint.

Also, I have been challenged twice by the police, once for cycling nude in a city park and once for pumping gas nude, but was not charged in either case.

It is rare for anyone to be convicted of public nudity in Canada. The laying of a charge requires the permission of the provincial solicitor-general, which permission is rarely given. In most cases, the police deal with public nudity by asking the person to cover up and maybe also issuing a warning.

I think that the police in Canada tend to distinguish between simple public nudity and nudity accompanied by lewd or threatening activity, which is just what we nudists want.

Gary

[Soleil Nu]

We may not disagree as much as you think Gary. I live in a house by a small lake. I have neighbours on both sides, and my backyard is not that secluded. Now I've been swimming in the lake and sunbathing in my yard nude for 11 years now, and my neighbours couldn't care less. I still have very good relations with them. In fact, my nudism has never been brought up between us. It's simply a non-issue. There hasn't been a single conviction in Canada under criminal code article 174 since 1953. So I agree with you that yes, we are somewhat privileged here in Canada as far as public nudity in concerned.

But the heart of the matter remains that article 174 still exists, and is still part of the criminal code, even though it is virtualy unenforceable. In these conditions, it's very existence can only be used for purpose of harassement and waste of public money. This happened recently in a parade in Ontario, where a topless woman was arrested, handcuffed and publicly humiliated, just to be released a few ours later when police had to admit that, according to a previous court case (Gwen Jacobs, 1996), she was not in violation of article 174.

Had this law not existed in the first place, it could not have been used as an excuse for such an obvious abuse of power. I say scrap article 174 and let provinces and municipalities deal with the issue of public nudity in their own way, at the civil level, providing they are not in violation of the constitution and the bill of rights.

Soleil Nu

I don't ignore you but sometimes I have to go away for a day or two or even longer and then pick up any threads when I get back. Invariably I miss some. The points you mention below, however, are ones I have answered several times.

"Most people also find very offensive a person which is grossly disfigured, yet no law exists to prevent such a person to be in a public place, or to hide his/her face behind a mask if he/she does. Why ?"

I do not accept that most people find the sight of a disfigured person offensive. They find them repulsive, yes, but not offensive. Apart from identical twins, everyone has a different face, some ugly, some beatutful, most somewhere in between. In our culture our faces and hands are essential tools in communication. Smiling, grimacing, eye contact, frowning, gesticulation are all as important communicative tools as language itself. We show our faces in public, no matter how ugly. Disfigurement is merely a form of ugliness and we react to it as such. Interestingly, if we have some form of severe skin disease, or a fresh injury, or some form of grotesque scarring, we frequently try to hide that.

"And if such a law was proposed, would you condone it ? And if not, why not ? You DO approve of a similar existing law to protect people from being offended, don't you ?"

No. People who are disfigured or ugly have no choice. They did not ask to be that way - and it is for that reason they deserve our tolerance and understanding. A person naked in public, however, is a different animal. In our present culture he is able to be almost naked in public - he can wear the skimpiest shorts on any British beach or in a park on a summer's day. He can choose to disregard those on naturist beaches or in private places. The chances are that the person wears shorts or some other attire for the great majority of the time anyway! Naturism is, for the vast majority of naturists, nothing more that a preferred state of dress (or undress) during certain climatic conditions. A personal preference can not be likened to a disfigurement.

"Why ? Why is it that public nudity, which is nothing more than another public nuisance, is treated like a crime and deserves a criminal record ?"

Public nudity should be treated as a nuiance and it usually is here in the UK. But here all offences against public law are technically "crimes" and therefore attract criminal records.

"If "public decency" is such a natural and universal truth that it needs no explanation, why do laws which are supposed to reflect it vary so widely from place to place around the world ?"

The strange thing is that, in spite of the huge cultural differences that exist, they don't vary that much. If you walk about openly exposing your sex organs in a street in the vast majority of cities around the world you would be arrested.

"If relaxation of public nudity laws would undoubtably lead to people walking around naked, why don't we see women walking around topless on every street corner in Ontario, where women have had the right for years now to be topless wherever men can ?"

The main reason for this is the simple fact that most women are far more reluctant to display private parts of the body than men are - and most women consider their breasts to be private parts to some degree. If you don't believe that statement, ask yourself why most naturists - and by far most contributors here, are male!

"If it's apparently ok for young iranians to campain for a change in the law so that women in Iran have the right not to wear the veil in public (right that they have obtained in many other islamic countries), then why is it NOT OK for people in the western world to campain for relaxation, or at least decriminilisation, of public nudity laws"

Who is stopping you campaigning? I'm not. I just don't want any such campaign to succeed because I don't want to encounter nudity in public - as I believe most other people don't. Unfortunately, people like Mr Gough isn't just campaignin - he's trying to impose his will on the rest of society and consequently he is in prison. And righly so IMO.

"And finaly (a question less related to the law, but pertinent nevertheless), why would anyone in his right mind WANT to transmit to their offspring an irrational and useless fear which they are not born with, knowing that this fear would provide absolutely no benefit to them whatsoever ?"

Wow! You have just won first prize for the most loaded question ever asked. Firstly we transmit our own cultural values to our offspring even though they are often based not on pure logic but upon tradition. Otherwise why do kids believe in Santa Clause? Or that it's wrong to tell lies? Or that we should be polite? Secondly, you use the term "fear". Most people aren't afraid of nudity - they encounter it in their work, or at home with their partners, and even in public in changing rooms or shower rooms at the gym or swimming pools etc. Similarly, regardless of how they are brought up, the vast majority of non-nudists have no problem about using shower rooms and changing facilities or letting the doctors see their private parts. So whilst there are no apparent "benefits" to bringing up children to "cover up" when not in their own bathrooms or bedrooms, there is no evidence that bringing them up that way does them any harm either.

Many or even most people, including many naturists, are repulsed by nudity in an out-of-context public place. Human beings are creatures who feel that there is a time and place for everything.

Gary

"In most cases, the police deal with public nudity by asking the person to cover up and maybe also issuing a warning."

So ignore the warning and see what happens. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu

[Rocket]

Stu,

Well said...I have nothing to add..

Sol Lo Nue,

Regarding Iran...their culture is Muslim. It's not applicable to your argument. Saudi Arabia does the same thing.

Women can't drive..have to be seated differently..

Go over there, and try to display Christmas lights..

It's a different culture..and not applicable to your argument.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[namedun]

whoa, that was quite the message. I have to disagree with you stu, as usual. What's happening in Iran is, I think, caused by globalization. What you have is large western countries saying "come on, live like us, it's the best thing since sliced bread. The fact that you women have to wear those veils is goofy and sexist", to which the women, and some men, are saying "yeah ok, this way of life does seem outdated and inefficient". So change is slowly happening. Nudists don't have an equivilant situation. There isn't a more dominant, or at least more popular culture somewhere else in the world where everyone is naked. No large country exists where people are critisizing our cultures use of clothing.
And since when is Gough "imposing his will upon the rest of us"? Do you think that if a religious person comes to your door with a nice suit and a visible bible, that since you can automatically recognize what they are campaigning about, that they are imposing they're will on you?! Mr. Gough is not forcing anyone to be naked; he's not even forcing anyone to be subjected to long-term nudity. If you're "disgusted" by what you see, don't stare.
Personally, since becoming a nudist, I find it increasingly hard to be disgusted by anyone's body. As any real nudist will tell you, nudism is partly about body acceptance.

Namedun

[Rocket]

Not against the law to talk religion..but it is to walk naked in public. As well, Mr Gough decided to do this without public support, and the financial means to do so.

He's in jail now..I hope he gets some common sense. If not..he'll spend more time behind bars.

The law of the land simply doesn't want someone walking around in the nude looking for handouts.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[namedun]

hmmm, you've got a point Rocket, I wasn't aware that Mr. Gough was walking around without money. I had assumed that he was not begging for food at peoples doorsteps. Other than that though, I support what he's doing.

Namedun

"What's happening in Iran is, I think, caused by globalization. What you have is large western countries saying "come on, live like us, it's the best thing since sliced bread. The fact that you women have to wear those veils is goofy and sexist", to which the women, and some men, are saying "yeah ok, this way of life does seem outdated and inefficient". So change is slowly happening." That's their culture and their choice. What happens in my country and culture is my choice and the choice of each citizen. If they want to have laws that require women to wear veils in public then they have every right to do so. "Nudists don't have an equivilant situation. There isn't a more dominant, or at least more popular culture somewhere else in the world where everyone is naked. No large country exists where people are critisizing our cultures use of clothing." That should tell you something. The whole of the civilised world accepts that clothing is the norm - and virtually every nation has laws requiring clothing to be worn in public places. Being naked in public has been unacceptable virtually everywhere for centuries and a small minority are seeking to change that. We must not let them. "And since when is Gough "imposing his will upon the rest of us"? Do you think that if a religious person comes to your door with a nice suit and a visible bible, that since you can automatically recognize what they are campaigning about, that they are imposing they're will on you?!" He's trying to because he's been brainwashed into believing a load of stuff that I don't buy - Christianity. "Mr. Gough is not forcing anyone to be naked;" That's like saying that a criminal isn't forcing other people to commit the same crime. "he's not even forcing anyone to be subjected to long-term nudity." He's forcing other people who are using public places that they have to use and have to pay for have to put up with something they find offensive and that makes their presence in that place either uncomfortable or downright unpleasant. "If you're "disgusted" by what you see, don't stare." I shouldn' have to put up with it anyway!!!! "Personally, since becoming a nudist, I find it increasingly hard to be disgusted by anyone's body". Good for you - that's your free choice to become a nudist and what we do changes us. I am not a nudist and neither are 98% of the population, and, unlike you, we are still "disgusted" by the sight of nudity in public. "As any real nudist will tell you, nudism is partly about body acceptance". OK. But as I said, most of us aren't nudists. Most of us accept nudity in certain contexts and find it unacceptable in others. Public streets, roads, paths and most beaches are not acceptable places for nudity for most people and the minority who enjoy naturist activities should confine their activities to places where people don't mind seeing it.

It seems as though you really couldn't care less if people find nudity offensive, and that attitude won't win you many friends in the textile ppulation.

Stu

[R.M. Greenman]

As I have mentioned in another thread, if public nudity is offensive to some and that is why it is illegal, vagrancy is also offensive and is tolerated to a point because people think that they have no choice. Homelessness is a choice and can be rectified quickly,yet I still see cardboard sign holding people standing on the off ramps, same people month after month, causing a major discomfort with anyone who has to sit there while this person stares at them, playing on their consciece until they give up some of their hard earned money, insuring that this person will be back, because it is easier than actully showing up to work and doing something.

I am sorry that I ranted a bit. I am just tired of working two jobs, to pay bills and keep my children in decent clothing,(when they need to wear something) and others WILL NOT! That makes me offended and disgusted and I am powerless to change it.

As far as wanting the laws relaxed on public nudity, Rocket and Stu, some of us feel the same way about getting dressed, just to check our mail or get the paper from the driveway, as you guys feel about putting on the most uncomfortable shoes to walk 1km or two.

I am tired of people that whine and protest about what they see on T.V. rather than just changing the channel or turning it off. If they let people be nude anywhere that is not a health issue, it would be no worse that a two foot, hot pink mohawk, on some teenagers head. It might draw attention, but most people would just shake their head and giggle. If you don't want to see a person nude, there is another 359 degree line of sight. Just don't look.

[namedun]

Stu, have you ever read a book called Ishmael? I highly recommend it. The author is Daniel Quinn.

Namedun

"vagrancy is also offensive and is tolerated to a point because people think that they have no choice. Homelessness is a choice and can be rectified quickly,"

Over here many activities of vagrants are actually illegal under the Vagrancy Act 1824. This law isn't enforced as rigourously as it ought to be, but people such as beggars etc are prosecuted from time to time if people complain.

"As far as wanting the laws relaxed on public nudity, Rocket and Stu, some of us feel the same way about getting dressed, just to check our mail or get the paper from the driveway, as you guys feel about putting on the most uncomfortable shoes to walk 1km or two."

You can do what you like, so long as it doesn't cause offence to others.

"I am tired of people that whine and protest about what they see on T.V. rather than just changing the channel or turning it off."

I agree. But you choose to turn on your TV and you choose what to watch.

"If they let people be nude anywhere that is not a health issue,"

No, it's a comfort issue. People have a right to feel comfortable when using public places.

"it would be no worse that a two foot, hot pink mohawk, on some teenagers head."

No. We have long accepted the fact that teenagers go through phases of wanting to look ridiculous - putting on the style. It's not offensive and we don't interfere with people's sartorial choices generally because that would be very problematic and possibly counterproductive.

"It might draw attention, but most people would just shake their head and giggle."

People here don't just shake their heads and giggle. They call the police.

"If you don't want to see a person nude, there is another 359 degree line of sight. Just don't look."

You could say the same for anything i public - people having sex, slaughtering pigs, undergoing surgery, defecating etc etc. How about a giant poster in the street near your house showing an erect penis, or a decapitated corpse? You could always look away! As I said, people have a right to feel comfortable using public places without experiencing alarm or discomfort or offence.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
No, it's a comfort issue. People have a right to feel comfortable when using public places. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you agree that people who find nudity comfortable have a right to be nude when using public places.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>People here don't just shake their heads and giggle. They call the police. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true. Only a tiny, tiny minority call the police as evidenced during Steve Gough's 750 mile walk.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You could say the same for anything i public - people having sex, slaughtering pigs, undergoing surgery, defecating etc etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah there it is again - public defecation. But undergoing surgery's a new one - is there a web site where I can debate the rights and wrongs of public surgery? I feel outrage coming on and must make myself heard on this one!

Rik

[NUDKIWI]

Stu
You keep insinuating that a majority of people are anti nudity or as you put it "offended" by nudity.I disagree.There probably are a few narrowminded people who are offended,but generally i think Joe Public is fairly tolerant towards nudity.The fact there is a law against it doesn't necessarily mean a majority is against it.I personnally have never been asked to vote on the matter.Have you???In fact i remember reading the results of a poll once{and no it was not on a naturist site}that stated over 80% of the people polled had skinnydipped in mixed company.Looks like a majority there Stu!

Rocket
"Not against the law to talk religion,but it is to walk naked in public."Exactly Rocket you have just highlighted the hypocrisy that exists in this anti nudity law,thank you.
I am sure there are as many people,if not more,offended by total strangers knocking on their doors,talking religion,as there are people offended by a naked{natural} body.So why is one illegal and the other not.What harm does a nude body do.To my knowledge a naked body has not started any wars.On the other hand history is full of instances where religion has been the catalyst for conflict or persecution.
You also find it fit to attack Steve Goughs common sense for hiking naked.Where i ask is the common sense in prosecuting an individual for the thoughts in another individuals mind.For this is what any prosecution against a nudist/naturist is.Where is the common sense in getting dressed to swim.What function does the swimming costume perform,does it keep you warm? Does it keep you dry?Or do they just prevent others from looking at your body with unclean thoughts.God help us.These anti nudity laws are a prime example of common sense giving way to heavy handed self righteousness.

Naturally KIWI /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Rik,

"So you agree that people who find nudity comfortable have a right to be nude when using public places."

To quote a past Prime Minister - "You can't please all the people all the time". So, when it comes to public places, we work on majority rule. It was agreed by the committe who run the street where I live to erect some new lamp standards in the street. There were two distinct styles that we could have had fitted - traditional and modern. How should we decide which ones to have? Should we (a) allow a vociferous minority to have their way, or (b) hold a ballot and let the majority decide? We could have a ballot of residents of the UK on whether nudity should be allowed in streets and parks etc. I can assure you that I would support whatever the majority agreed. Would you?

"Not true. Only a tiny, tiny minority call the police as evidenced during Steve Gough's 750 mile walk."

Precisely how many people who saw Mr Gough, realised he was naked, had access to a telephone and knew what number to dial, actually called the police, Rik? I suspect you don't know any more than I do. So how do you know it was a tiny minority. You are making an assumption.

"Ah there it is again - public defecation. But undergoing surgery's a new one - is there a web site where I can debate the rights and wrongs of public surgery? I feel outrage coming on and must make myself heard on this one!"

The principle is there - and neatly avoided, yet again! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NUDKIWI

"You keep insinuating that a majority of people are anti nudity or as you put it "offended" by nudity.I disagree.There probably are a few narrowminded people who are offended,but generally i think Joe Public is fairly tolerant towards nudity."

OK, you disagree. But my experience tells me the opposite.

"The fact there is a law against it doesn't necessarily mean a majority is against it.I personnally have never been asked to vote on the matter.Have you???"

No. For most people it would be like having a vote on whether people should be allowed to shout obscene language in public. The answer you will get is so obvious the authorities don't think it worthwhile spending the money to bother asking people.

"In fact i remember reading the results of a poll once{and no it was not on a naturist site}that stated over 80% of the people polled had skinnydipped in mixed company."

I don't think so, Kiwi. You show me that survey!! I'm not suggesting that a lot of people haven't at some time in their lives done something as idiotic as skinnydipping, but that hardly means they necessarily approve of public nudity. Most people have got drunk in their time, but that doesn't mean they approve of or want to legalise public drunkenness, now does it? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu

[Rocket]

I think the public defecation subject is worth exploring..

Sol LoNue..in his efforts to attack laws against public nudity keeps asking "why not?"

Why not allow people to defecate in public? After all, it is a biological natural function..and those who are offended don't have to look? Why not?

Why not allow people to have sex in public? It hasn't started any wars..it's love..and sex is natural. Why not? Those who don't like it just don't have to look.

Makes as much sense as the nonsense these nude activists make..and would be just as popular with the public /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Soleil Nu]

Stu,

"I don't ignore you but sometimes I have to go away for a day or two or even longer and then pick up any threads when I get back. Invariably I miss some."

I know, I know... I can be cynical and immature sometimes. Please accept my apologies.

"I do not accept that most people find the sight of a disfigured person offensive. They find them repulsive, yes, but not offensive."

Don't you remember, at some point, when you and some other posters argued profusely about the definition of "causing harm" ? Let's not start another war of words here. Can we agree on the affirmation that people should be allowed to use public places without being subjected to things that make them "feel bad", in the largest sense of the term ? Now seing a nude person makes you feel bad. Seing a grossly disfigured person makes me feel bad.

"People who are disfigured or ugly have no choice."

Now that's actualy the closest thing to a solid argument I have ever read regarding this question. Ok, so what about volontary body modifications ? Someone can modify his own body in such an extreme way (tatoos, body piercing, tong splitting, etc.) that it would become truly offensive and/or repulsive to most people. Should such a person be prevented from using public places ? Or better yet, what about Nazi symbols ? Now that's something we can agree would cause extreme offense to almost every single human being across the world. Yet, in the US and Canada (I don't know about England), a person has every legal right to walk around in any public place wearing a t-shirt with a swastika printed on both sides.

"The strange thing is that, in spite of the huge cultural differences that exist, they don't vary that much. If you walk about openly exposing your sex organs in a street in the vast majority of cities around the world you would be arrested."

Sorry to bring back the slavery thing again, but, until very very very recently in the history of mankind, slavery was widely generalized around the world and considered totaly legitimate. You killed your ennemy, you took his wife and children has slaves. Fair enough. Right ? So why is now slavery universaly condemned ? No "civilized" society would condone it, and those who still practice it must do so in a hidden form or in secrecy, under threat of extreme prejudice from the rest of the world.

Humanity has always strived to better itself, Stu, although with mixed results I will admit. But they try anyway. Some things that were considered acceptable at some point in history no longer are. The simple law of the strongest is no longer good enough (although still largely dominant). That's what separates human civilisation from the rest of the animal world. Nature has no concept of right and wrong, of justice or fairness. These are strictly human inventions. Altough totaly abstract, these principles are held dear by almost every single human being on earth. This is what I call the "spiritualization" of our species. That's why people are always searching for new ways to improve humanity. And when a person thinks he has found one, he feels compelled to share it with others. At some point, someone thought that humanity would improve if every child, not just the children of the aristocracy, had the right to an education. Another one tought that humanity would be better off without slavery. An another one beleived in equal rights for men and women.

Now I believe, as do a growing number of people, that the world would be a better place without clothes compulsiveness and body shame. This conviction does not come out of the blue, it is based on the personal experiences of millions of people around the world and numerous scientific studies (yes Stu, although debatable, they do exist).

"Wow! You have just won first prize for the most loaded question ever asked."

I know. I'm rather proud of myself. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Bob S.]

"We have long accepted the fact that teenagers go through phases of wanting to look ridiculous - putting on the style. It's not offensive and we don't interfere with people's sartorial choices generally because that would be very problematic and possibly counterproductive."

We accept it up to a point. And schools accept it even less. I recall a case here in Virginia a couple of years ago where a 12 or 13-year old boy, after proving to his mother that he was responsible, was allowed to dye his hair blue. His school suspended him until his hair was back to its original color, but the suspension was expunged from his record after a complaint to the school board.

"You could say the same for anything i public - people having sex, slaughtering pigs, undergoing surgery, defecating etc etc."

This argument also goes for you, Rocket since you picked up on the subject of defecation. But in order, sex is one of the reasons why non-nudists villify nudity. But as I have said before, sex is a behaviour. Nudity is a fashion choice.

Slaughtering pigs and defecating both bring up sanitary issues. Blood and feces both harbor bacteria, viruses, germs, etc. that could pose a haelth problem. Performing surgery without a licence to do so is already a violation and there are laws about where you can perform surgery. All issues have to deal with the patient's health.

Bob S.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Why not allow people to defecate in public? After all, it is a biological natural function..and those who are offended don't have to look? Why not?

Why not allow people to have sex in public? It hasn't started any wars..it's love..and sex is natural. Why not? Those who don't like it just don't have to look. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If there is any person, group or organization which is actively campainging for the right to defacate or have sex in public then it might be worth debating - but there's not. There are however people campaigning for the right to be nude in public so I suggest we try to stay on topic and resist silly analogies.

Rik

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Rik,

"So you agree that people who find nudity comfortable have a right to be nude when using public places."

To quote a past Prime Minister - "You can't please all the people all the time". So, when it comes to public places, we work on majority rule. It was agreed by the committe who run the street where I live to erect some new lamp standards in the street. There were two distinct styles that we could have had fitted - traditional and modern. How should we decide which ones to have? Should we (a) allow a vociferous minority to have their way, or (b) hold a ballot and let the majority decide? We could have a ballot of residents of the UK on whether nudity should be allowed in streets and parks etc. I can assure you that I would support whatever the majority agreed. Would you?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why do I feel that being slapped round the face with a stocking full of porridge would be preferable to reading some of your replies?

I'm rapidly losing the will to live. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"Not true. Only a tiny, tiny minority call the police as evidenced during Steve Gough's 750 mile walk."

Precisely how many people who saw Mr Gough, realised he was naked, had access to a telephone and knew what number to dial, actually called the police, Rik? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But you said, with some authority, that people phone the police when they see nudity. Are you now telling me they don't?

Rik

"Can we agree on the affirmation that people should be allowed to use public places without being subjected to things that make them "feel bad", in the largest sense of the term?"

That's stretching it too far. People shouldn't have to witness behaviour that people find offensive - and nudity is a behaviour.

"Seing a grossly disfigured person makes me feel bad."

OK. But you can see that a disfigured person has no choice - they haven't asked to be that way. Nudity is a choice.

"Or better yet, what about Nazi symbols ? Now that's something we can agree would cause extreme offense to almost every single human being across the world. Yet, in the US and Canada (I don't know about England), a person has every legal right to walk around in any public place wearing a t-shirt with a swastika printed on both sides."

Depending upon the circumstances and likelihood of causing offence, here they could be arrested, or at least told to cover it up. And rightly so, in my view. People should be able to use public places without suffering such offence.

"Right ? So why is now slavery universaly condemned ? No "civilized" society would condone it, and those who still practice it must do so in a hidden form or in secrecy, under threat of extreme prejudice from the rest of the world."

Agreed. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"Another one tought that humanity would be better off without slavery. An another one beleived in equal rights for men and women."

OK /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"Now I believe, as do a growing number of people, that the world would be a better place without clothes compulsiveness and body shame. This conviction does not come out of the blue, it is based on the personal experiences of millions of people around the world and numerous scientific studies (yes Stu, although debatable, they do exist)."

"Clothes compulsiveness" and "body shame"? Now we're on different planets. Nobody is stopping anybody practicing nudity, nor casting of their clothes, just not in public places. OK, you think people are better off adopting a naturist lifestyle. I disagree, but there is room for both points of view in this world. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not nudity should be tolerated in public places. I say that should only happen if most people who use those public places find it acceptable. It's just like you would seek permission from someone before you got naked in their house, and if they said no, then you would respect that. I don't believe that most people do find it acceptable.

Bob S.

"We accept it up to a point. And schools accept it even less. I recall a case here in Virginia a couple of years ago where a 12 or 13-year old boy, after proving to his mother that he was responsible, was allowed to dye his hair blue. His school suspended him until his hair was back to its original color, but the suspension was expunged from his record after a complaint to the school board."

OK, so who decides what is and is not acceptable attire in the school environment? And what do they base that decision on? Answer - the head teacher, or the school board, or (as is the case here) the school governors. The decision is based on current accepted norms and values of society. Who decides what is acceptable behaviour in public places? Answer - the authorities acting on behavlf of the people duly mandated by a majority of the people. The decision is again based on currently accepted norms and values of society.

"But in order, sex is one of the reasons why non-nudists villify nudity. But as I have said before, sex is a behaviour. Nudity is a fashion choice."

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, Bob, it doesn't make it true. If I walked out into your town wearing a tee shirt upon which there was a photograph of a man having sex with a baby is that a behaviour or a fashion choice?

"Slaughtering pigs and defecating both bring up sanitary issues. Blood and feces both harbor bacteria, viruses, germs, etc. that could pose a haelth problem."

Only if the substances are left behind and not cleared away, Bob. Nobody has said that wouldn't happen. After all, we clean up after our dogs, so why can't we allow people to deffecate in the street provided they have the means to clear it away afterwards? Or slaughter pigs so long as they hose the blood and guts away when they're finished? If these measures were taken would you consider deffecating and slaughtering pigs was acceptable in public, Bob?

Rik

"If there is any person, group or organization which is actively campainging for the right to defacate or have sex in public then it might be worth debating - but there's not. There are however people campaigning for the right to be nude in public so I suggest we try to stay on topic and resist silly analogies."

Are you SURE there are no such groups? I think if you look hard enough you will find that there are a very small number of people who would support this. They interviewed a couple on the BBC Home Service (Radio 4) about five or six years ago who thought that keeping sex "behind closed doors" was denying ourselves the pleasure of enjoying watching the beautiful act of sex! Nutcases? Possibly. But such people do exist (I'll have a look and see if they have a website), so it's not such a silly analogy.

"I'm rapidly losing the will to live."

Now don't do anything silly!

"But you said, with some authority, that people phone the police when they see nudity. Are you now telling me they don't?"

I never said they ALL phone the police. Many couldn't even if they wanted to, many are offended but don't have faith that the police eithercan or will do anything. Many do, but don't get a response. Many times when the police do attend the naked person has left etc etc. The point I was making is that you don't know any more than I do how many people actually called the police, let alone how many were actually offended, in numerical terms. But I would say that offence is a pretty standard reaction of most people.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I never said they ALL phone the police. Many couldn't even if they wanted to, many are offended but don't have faith that the police eithercan or will do anything. Many do, but don't get a response. Many times when the police do attend the naked person has left etc etc. The point I was making is that you don't know any more than I do how many people actually called the police, let alone how many were actually offended, in numerical terms. But I would say that offence is a pretty standard reaction of most people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you're saying you haven't got a clue whether it was 2, 200 or 2000 people that might have phoned the police if only they had their mobile phone charged up or if only the police could be arsed to respond or if only there was a 'r' in the month, yet you seem to know for certain that all these people were offended?

Beats me how you do it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

Rik,

You are confusing the number of times Mr Gough was arrested with the number of calls made to the police, and then the number of calls made to the police to the number of people who were offended. There is very little correlation between the two. To get an accurate idea as to how much offence was actually caused and to how many people you would need to ask them all, and that's impossible. So we are left estimating this by using our knowledge of how people normally react to public nudity - i.e. by loathing, disgust, offence, alarm, consternation, annoyance, distress, fear, harassment, fury etc etc.

Stu

[Soleil Nu]

Stu,

"People shouldn't have to witness behaviour that people find offensive - and nudity is a behaviour."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Nudity is not a behavior, it is a state of being, like not wearing a hat or having blue hair. Undressing is a behavior. Having sex in public is a behavior.

"Depending upon the circumstances and likelihood of causing offence, here they could be arrested, or at least told to cover it up."

Well, not over here, which goes to prove the inconcistencies and incoherence of the law, which is, after all, the subject of this thread.

But more importantly, it goes to show the inconsistencies in people's minds about nudity. One of the women who called the police on Mr. Gough said she felt "threatened" by the fact that he was nude. Understandable, considering the generalized misconceptions people have about nudity. But, had she witnessed the same man, fully dressed, wearing a swastika t-shirt, would she have called the police ? We'll never know for sure, but my guess is she wouldn't have. I don't know about you, but personaly, I'd feel much more threatened by a neo-nazi than by a nudist. To use a previous example, which of the two would YOU rather be locked up in a room with ?

"Agreed. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif OK /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif "

Oups, judging by your reaction, I think I didn't make myself clear enough...

You said that laws against public nudity were fairly universal and therefore accurately reflected "common sense". I submitted to you that slavery, education reserved to the elite, and inequality of rights for men and women were also fairly universal and accurately reflected "common sense" in the past. But, at some point in history, this changed, and these are now considered unaccepable by almost all cultures and countries. Then I expressed my belief that the same will eventualy happend with the now universaly accepted attitude against public nudity, and that in the future, laws dictating the way people should dress, or not dress, in public or not, will no longer be considered acceptable.

Hope this helps clear things up.

"The issue is whether or not nudity should be tolerated in public places. I say that should only happen if most people who use those public places find it acceptable."

Believe it or not, we agree on that Stu. But the point is that most people find nudity in public places unacceptable BECAUSE of clothes compulsion. How can people have an accurate opinion of the acceptability of nudity in public with all the misconceptions and prejudices most of them have about the nudist lifestyle ? To a large number of people, nudists are still considered exhibitionnists, swingers, sex maniacs, paedophiles, flashers, streakers, etc.

To prove my point, try inviting a non art-inclined friend to an afternoon at the museum. He will likely protest, whine, find some excuse not to go, say it's "not for him", but that's it. Now try inviting a non-nudist friend to an afternoon at the local nude beach. He might try to look cool about it, but you will immediatly see his palms sweat, his body langage show EXTREME discomfort. He will bable, his voice will show extreme nervousness, and you will see actual FEAR in his eyes. After that, he might not even talk to you and avoid you for weeks.

Clothes compulsion is virtualy indistinguishable from all other compulsive nevrosis mentionned in the DSM-IV. In my book, that tells me that clothes compulsion IS a nevrosis, until proven otherwise.

My belief is that if this nevrosis is not tranmitted to the following generations, by means of public education, soon, public nudity will be a non-issue. Actualy, the laws (in the UK at least, from what you've tought me about them) won't even have to be changed. Public offense will still be a crime commanding arrest. But public nudity will ne longer offend anyone.

I can dream, can I ?

"Nudity is not a behavior, it is a state of being,"

That's what Bob S says, but you know my views on that. Legally speaking, an intentional state of being is a behaviour - and nudity is intentional. Wearing a t-shirt with a sexually explicit picture on it would be classed as a behaviour just as nudity would.

"Well, not over here, which goes to prove the inconcistencies and incoherence of the law, which is, after all, the subject of this thread."

The US seems to go from one extreme (e.g. Arkansas) to the other (e.g. San Francisco). Here the law of England is uniform throughout England and Wales, though Scotland has its own legal system and laws.

"One of the women who called the police on Mr. Gough said she felt "threatened" by the fact that he was nude. Understandable, considering the generalized misconceptions people have about nudity."

Now we have to be careful here. Whilst she may have used the word "threatened", which was reported, she may have experienced other emotions as well that were not.

"But, had she witnessed the same man, fully dressed, wearing a swastika t-shirt, would she have called the police ? We'll never know for sure, but my guess is she wouldn't have. I don't know about you, but personaly, I'd feel much more threatened by a neo-nazi than by a nudist. To use a previous example, which of the two would YOU rather be locked up in a room with ?"

I would have no problem being locked in a room with either character - but my wife certainly would! Most neo-nazi's are just people who hold unpalatable political opinions, and don't generally get involved in one-on-one violence - well not against non-Jewish men! The issue isn't about locked rooms, though, it's about public places.

"You said that laws against public nudity were fairly universal and therefore accurately reflected "common sense". I submitted to you that slavery, education reserved to the elite, and inequality of rights for men and women were also fairly universal and accurately reflected "common sense" in the past. But, at some point in history, this changed, and these are now considered unaccepable by almost all cultures and countries. Then I expressed my belief that the same will eventualy happend with the now universaly accepted attitude against public nudity, and that in the future, laws dictating the way people should dress, or not dress, in public or not, will no longer be considered acceptable."

Most minority interest groups feel the same way about their particular "issue". I recall that not too long ago we had a lot of far left socialists here in the UK telling us all that capitalism would soon collapse because it was unacceptable hat some people were fabulously wealthy whilst others lived in squalor. So, we were told, we had better get used to the ideas of Marx and Trotski. Never happened. Nude recreation has been practiced in the UK for more than a century - and longer than that in some countries. But there is hardly anywhere in the world where you can, for example, go shopping in the nude without finding yourself in custody. Changes such as the one you are predicting can only and should only happen when those of us who own and have to use public places consent. At this moment in time most people don't.

"Believe it or not, we agree on that Stu. But the point is that most people find nudity in public places unacceptable BECAUSE of clothes compulsion. How can people have an accurate opinion of the acceptability of nudity in public with all the misconceptions and prejudices most of them have about the nudist lifestyle ? To a large number of people, nudists are still considered exhibitionnists, swingers, sex maniacs, paedophiles, flashers, streakers, etc."

There are several issues here. Firstly, in my experience most people know perfectly well that the typical practitioner of naturism is not doing it with sexual motives in mind. There have been plenty of TV documentaries and newspaper items about this subject so that people generally know what naturism is. Secondly, it can not be denied that there are some perverts and exhibitionists who are only too happy to attach themselves to the otherwise innocent and respectable ethos of naturism in order to further their own nafarious and twisted ambitions. Thirdly, there are, as we see here, plenty of naturists who have absolutely no desire whatsoever to encounter public nudity away from naturist beaches. They find it offensive!! I see no evidence that convinces me that the general public is becoming more inclined to accept nudity in public than it was twenty years ago. In fact, I would say that the most uninhibited period as far as accepting nudity was the 1960s - the days of the hippies, nearly 40 years ago!

"Now try inviting a non-nudist friend to an afternoon at the local nude beach. He might try to look cool about it, but you will immediatly see his palms sweat, his body langage show EXTREME discomfort. He will bable, his voice will show extreme nervousness, and you will see actual FEAR in his eyes. After that, he might not even talk to you and avoid you for weeks."

Now that's strange. Everyone else here has been telling me that, after a few minutes first-timers just get used to the fact that you and everyone about you is naked and it's no big deal! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Actually I agree with you about that - the naturist beach WOULD be a major ordeal for most people. And it is for that very reason that I believe most people in the UK are far from ready to accept nudity in public.

"Clothes compulsion is virtualy indistinguishable from all other compulsive nevrosis mentionned in the DSM-IV. In my book, that tells me that clothes compulsion IS a nevrosis, until proven otherwise."

It's not "clothes compulsion" at all. We are talking not about ALL nudity, but about PUBLIC nudity. The people who object to it are usually quite OK with nudity in other contexts - e.g. when they are with their partners, or showing themselves to their doctor, or in the changing rooms or shower room at the gym or swimming pool.

"My belief is that if this nevrosis is not tranmitted to the following generations, by means of public education, soon, public nudity will be a non-issue."

People are still bringing up their kids to avoid showing themselves to adults. The latest panic about paedophiles has reinforced that and it is also discouraging adults from letting children see them naked. So the "norm" of keeping yourself "decent" is being perpetuated. Be careful about using the term "public education" because that sounds as though you are the enlightened ones and the rest of us have a problem of which you must cure us. We don't see it as a problem but a lifestyle choice - a choice not to be nude in public or to encounter nudity in public.

"Actualy, the laws (in the UK at least, from what you've tought me about them) won't even have to be changed. Public offense will still be a crime commanding arrest. But public nudity will ne longer offend anyone."

I can dream, can I ?

Dream on /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu

[Soleil Nu]

"Legally speaking, an intentional state of being is a behaviour - and nudity is intentional."

Are babies "intentionally" born naked ?

"The US seems to go from one extreme (e.g. Arkansas) to the other (e.g. San Francisco)."

That's an understatement ! Arkansas is the perfect example of a small minority of very loud mouthed and influencial people who make a mockery of democracy.

"Now we have to be careful here. Whilst she may have used the word "threatened", which was reported, she may have experienced other emotions as well that were not."

Yes but she did feel "threatened". I wonder: If Mr. Gough had been a woman, how would things have turned out ? Would "she" have attracted more publicity ? Would she have been arrested ? Thrown in jail ? Attacked and beaten up ?

"I would have no problem being locked in a room with either character"

Here again you must not have the same neo-nazis we have here. Ours are the skinheads type. You know: shaved heads, Doc Martin boots, bad attitude. We have a saying here: if you meet a skinhead on the street at 3 am, don't take any chances: die.

"Most minority interest groups feel the same way about their particular "issue"."
"I see no evidence that convinces me that the general public is becoming more inclined to accept nudity in public than it was twenty years ago. In fact, I would say that the most uninhibited period as far as accepting nudity was the 1960s - the days of the hippies, nearly 40 years ago!"

Indeed, but we can never tell in advance which groups will prevail in the end and which ones will fall into oblivion, can't we ? What drives people with and idea to push on against adversity are hope and faith. How long do women have had to fight for equal rights ? Did they give up after a few years ? A few centuries ? Heck, they're still fighting today !

"Firstly, in my experience most people know perfectly well that the typical practitioner of naturism is not doing it with sexual motives in mind."

Now we DO live on different planets Stu. My experience is totally different from yours. In fact, what I find most frustrating is having to explain my lifestyle time and time again to new people and having to deal continuously with the same old jokes, wise cracks and misconceptions over and over again. The good thing is that I have yet to encounter ONE person that has not totally enjoyed the experience once they built up the nerve to try it.

"Everyone else here has been telling me that, after a few minutes first-timers just get used to the fact that you and everyone about you is naked and it's no big deal!"

Yes, but for that they have to actualy MAKE IT to the beach first !

"It's not "clothes compulsion" at all."

After the events of 9-11, seminars were organized to inform people working in large buildings of what to do in case of chemical or biological attacks. When told that they would have to undress completely (because clothes could trap toxic agents) before exiting the building, 40 percent of the people said, very seriously, that they would rather die than walk out the street naked.

And you don't call that compulsion ?

[Bob S.]

"The decision is again based on currently accepted norms and values of society."

Actually, tattoos and piercings were condemned when they first appeared on the scene. Some people figured that only criminals would want to have such things on them, them or sado-masochists. Over time, society grew accustomed to tattooed and pierced people and now, even grandmothers are getting tattoos. There has to be a beginning point to acceptability, at which point such look or behaviour was unacceptable.

"If I walked out into your town wearing a tee shirt upon which there was a photograph of a man having sex with a baby is that a behaviour or a fashion choice?"

Neither, that is child pornography and has nothing to do with my argument.

"If these measures were taken would you consider deffecating and slaughtering pigs was acceptable in public, Bob?"

Actually, it happens in the woods a lot. Latrines are holes in the ground and pig roasts are popular in some places. Of course, as we disagree with, nudity is simply not wearing anything. Walking is. Standing is. Breathing is. Being nude is not!

And anyone who wants to campaign for the right to have sex in public places is free to use this venue to argue it. As long as they can follow the rules of the board. Until then, there is no need to argue it, unless you are going to take up that argument. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

Soleil Nu, I didn't know that you knew of other stus up in Canada! I would say that your description of an invitee to a nude beach would be less uncomfortable, especially if you do it right.

"The US seems to go from one extreme (e.g. Arkansas) to the other (e.g. San Francisco)."

That's because here in the US, stu, any power not expressly guarenteed to the federal government in the Constitution is given to the states. And there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to decide public behaviour laws.

"Most neo-nazi's are just people who hold unpalatable political opinions, and don't generally get involved in one-on-one violence - well not against non-Jewish men!"

As Soliel Nu mentioned, either your neo-nazis are better behaved or ours are just mean. Over here, neo-nazis are for the Aryan race, Hitler's idea for the master race.

"Nude recreation has been practiced in the UK for more than a century - and longer than that in some countries. But there is hardly anywhere in the world where you can, for example, go shopping in the nude without finding yourself in custody."

A couple of things: one; nudists are generally nice and would prefer not to bother other people. two; history tells us that people who are naked are usually arrested. three; I recall hearing stories of some stores (can't recall where--somewhere in Europe I believe) where they have had sales where women can come in naked and buy clothes.

"Firstly, in my experience most people know perfectly well that the typical practitioner of naturism is not doing it with sexual motives in mind."

You live in a more enlightened society. Hippie Hollow, a nude beach here in the US, bars children because they fear they will be subjected to sexual assaults. A congressman in Florida went after a nudist park in his homestate that was host to a summer camp program for teens on grounds that sexual abuse may occur there. People, during their debating, argued that children should not be allowed at nudist camps because of the nudity.

"People are still bringing up their kids to avoid showing themselves to adults. The latest panic about paedophiles has reinforced that and it is also discouraging adults from letting children see them naked."

OK so people are aware that naturists are not sexual but when it comes to kids, they are careful not to show themselves to their own children, lest they be accused of sexual abuse. stu, that seems to me that people do not understand naturism fully.

"The people who object to it are usually quite OK with nudity in other contexts - e.g. when they are with their partners, or showing themselves to their doctor, or in the changing rooms or shower room at the gym or swimming pool."

Oh cool, even at the swimming pool! And so because they find these plaecs as fine for nudity, that means that the public nudity cannot be so offensive. As I have argued, it is due to the surprise they get from the unexpectedness of seeing it out of context and the feeling that what they are seeing is illegal. Relax the illegality and all they would have is the surprise of the unexpectedness of it.

And one more inconsistency of the law:
The age of the "violator." The law has chosen a minimun age at which someone's nudity becomes illicit. Let's say it is 10. Two ten-year-old children can look vastly different from each other. How does someone decide that a nine-year-old who is an early maturer can be naked while an 11-year-old late bloomer is illicit?

Bob S.

[butnaked]

WHAT IS FUN ABOUT THIS DADAADADEBATE!!!! Would you please take these legal issues to that topic. There is no need to air all of this in The FUN topic!

Lawyers Go Home! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Soleil Nu]

For crying out loud, would someone move this thread to the "legal issues" section before butnaked has a heart attack and dies on us !

Geeezzz... talk about overreacting.

BTW don't call me a lawyer. I find this insulting. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif