Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Signs on door

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Signs on door

    Hi all..I have a question that someone in Florida with some knowledge of the law may have the answer to, besides going and asking a lawyer. I have a sign on the door that reads.."Warning. Clothes may or may not be worn by those behind this door so don't expect us to be dressed. If you knock or enter you may encounter non-sexual Nudity". And I also have one that reads.."Warning..Naked people beyond this point" and "Warning..Clothes may come off at anytime producing total or partial Nudity" What I was wondering is that if anyone came to the door and my wife or I opened it Au natural with these signs being there could we still get into trouble? or if they are inside and we removed our clothes would we be legally covered, ha, ha, by having the signs on the door? I know that if I just open the door nude we can have problems but what about if they are warned ahead of time? I know that three signs are overkill but we want to be sure. And I figure the more the better..Let us know if you can or have your input of what the signs should legally read...Cheers..NoodJuggler

  • #2
    I would still put something on when opening the door. The people on the street did not come knocking on your door and may not want to see you nude in your doorway. The sell little towels with velcro...easy to just put on to open the door, when you close the door...take off the towel.

    Good luck with the signs though.

    Comment


    • #3

      Good to hear from you again, NoodJuggler. I hope you and yours are doing well.

      You certainly pose a good question, and not being a LAWYER, I am not completely sure, but I think, even with the signs posted, you could get in trouble by opening the door nude. In your house, however, is a different story. If you let them know you are nudists and are going to remove your clothes, thereby giving them the option of staying or leaving, you are within your rights to get nude.

      Comment


      • #4
        I dont think its right that you should get in trouble just because some nosy person on the street sticks their nose in your doorway and sees you nude. People shouldnt be looking into other people's houses anyways and even if they do they get whatever they deserve for looking in there. Nobody makes them look into someone else's doorway so if they look there and get disgusted by some nude guy standing there, I say its their fault for looking. Same with looking into people's open windows and seeing naked people inside. If you dont wanna see it, dont look!

        Comment


        • #5
          I think the person peeking in is guilty of invasion of privacy.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re read the origianal post. It is not about someone peeking. The question was; Could you get in trouble for answering the door nude if you had a sign warning that this could be a possibility.

            Comment


            • #7
              Here is Florida's indecent exposure statute.

              Florida Indecent Exposure Statute

              800.03 Exposure of sexual organs.--It is unlawful to expose or exhibit one's sexual organs in public or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be naked in public except in any place provided or set apart for that purpose. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section.

              I'm not sure what the answer to your question is based on this.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by oldbob:
                Here is Florida's indecent exposure statute.

                Florida Indecent Exposure Statute

                800.03 Exposure of sexual organs.--It is unlawful to expose or exhibit one's sexual organs in public or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be naked in public except in any place provided or set apart for that purpose. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section.

                I'm not sure what the answer to your question is based on this.
                A non-lawyer's analysis:

                1) A person's own home is neither public nor the private premises of another.

                2) Florida legal precedent has established that mere nudity is neither vulgar or indecent in and of itself.

                3) Private premises with signs and warnings of nudity are clearly a place set aside for that purpose. It would take a legal authority to set aside a public place for such a purpose, but I assume the owner of a private property is legally competent in the State of Florida to do so on private land.

                None of which allows for nudity on private property if it can be seen from public or other private premises. I.E. if you can be seen from the street or your neighbors property when you answer the door nude, you could still be in trouble. If only the people on your property can see you - you should be OK.

                However - being within the law is no guarantee that you won't be arrested - witness the arrests in Moravia, New York. But you would have a good chance of prevailing in court should they be foolish (or evil) enough to prosecute.

                -Mark

                Comment


                • #9
                  "What I was wondering is that if anyone came to the door and my wife or I opened it Au natural with these signs being there could we still get into trouble?"

                  Yes. As krc mentioned, the signs do not cover anyone who can see you from the street. It also doesn't cover children. But as for adults who are right there at the door, I would imagine that they should expect it with your three signs.

                  Now if they were to to enter your house without knocking, they should expect anything. If you invite them in, it wouldn't hurt to tell them that not everyone is dressedl that way they know absolutely what to expect.

                  Bob S.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks for the replies..I am not really talking about if someone can see us from the street, we won't let that happen, and the law applies to being able to be seen from the street thru the windows, that is not very smart as we could get arrested. I know about statue 800.03. I am basically talking about if someone comes to the door and is knocking and we open the door and only they can see us. I know it would be stupid if children were at the door and we opened it nude. I was just wondering if by having signs posted if it would keep us from being arrested. We just get tired of having people knock on the door and having to get some coverup on every time someone does show up at the door. We didn't invite them over any way. We have to dress every time we go out side and we feel that if someone come over that we are not going to dress just to make them happy. We just want to push the envelope as far as we can without getting into trouble. Would no trespassing signs help?.I know some would just say cover up when there is a knock. But where do we start to stand up for our rights as nudists? We always have to give in to non nudists all the time. When can they start to give in to us? And it is also nice to hear from everyone...cheers...NoodJuggler

                    Love the shirts Mark..

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Here are two Florida cases regarding the indecent exposure statute. One affirms the conviction; the other reverses. The key seems to be whether one intended to be seen by others. A person can have lewd and lascivious intent even in a consensual situation (for instance, strippers are the subject of a lot of indecent exposure case law). You might argue that strip clubs are public, while your front door is on private property; but when you give the public access to your front door, you probably effectively make it a public place.


                      District Court of Appeal of Florida,
                      Second District.
                      Gerard M. EGAL, Appellant,
                      v.
                      STATE of Florida, Appellee.
                      No. 84-1937.
                      May 22, 1985.

                      LEHAN, Judge.
                      We affirm the conviction of this male defendant for committing a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a female child under the age of fourteen years, a violation of section 800.04, Florida Statutes (1984).

                      A seven-year-old girl soliciting orders for Girl Scout cookies knocked on the door of defendant's home. Defendant opened the door and stood naked facing the girl. When the girl asked if defendant wanted to buy cookies, defendant answered affirmatively, took an order form from her and went inside while she waited. He reappeared at the door, still naked, and handed her the completed order form and a ten dollar bill, although no money was then owed for the order. The order form was filled out with a fictitious name, address and telephone number. Defendant's private parts were exposed to, and seen by, the girl.

                      Defendant's testimony, which the jury disbelieved, essentially was that he was alone in the house on the afternoon in question, that the girl did not come to the door, and that her positive identification of him was incorrect--in short, that the incident never happened with him. On appeal, defendant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction.

                      The term "lewd and lascivious" has been referred to as generally and usually involving "an unlawful indulgence in lust, eager for sexual indulgence." Chesebrough v. State, 255 So.2d 675, 678 (Fla.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 976, 92 S.Ct. 2427, 32 L.Ed.2d 676 (1972); Payne v. State, 463 So.2d 271 (Fla.2d DCA 1984). That term has also been said to connote "wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual design on the part of the perpetrator." Chesebrough, 255 So.2d at 677, quoting from Boles v. State, 158 Fla. 220, 27 So.2d 293, 294 (1946); Goodmakers v. State, 450 So.2d 888, 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The term "imports more than a negligent disregard of the decent proprieties and consideration due to others." McKinley v. State, 33 Okl.Cr. 434, 244 P. 208 (Okla.Crim.App.1926), cited by the Florida Supreme Court in Chesebrough for the foregoing general, usual meaning.

                      As indicated in Chesebrough, which declared section 800.04 constitutional, the legislature has not defined "lewd and lascivious," and it is for the judiciary to apply those words based upon common understanding of them. Chesebrough also noted that "[i]t would be, of course, difficult or impossible to detail in a statute book all the acts which would constitute lewd and lascivious behavior...." 255 So.2d at 678, quoting from Buchanan v. State, 111 So.2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). That task would, of course, be no less difficult or impossible in a court opinion. Therefore, a determination of the precise meaning of the words "lewd and lascivious" in particular contexts must be developed on a case by case basis.

                      Prior cases have held that simply sleeping naked on a dock, apparently without deliberate exposure to others, was not lewd and lascivious, Goodmakers v. State, supra, nor was urinating in a public parking lot, apparently without deliberate exposure to others, Payne v. State, supra, or parading before the state capitol without clothing but with cardboard signs on front and back which avoided substantial exposure of sexual organs, Duvallon v. State, 404 So.2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Those cases were decided under section 800.03 which prohibits indecent exposure. However, the element of lewdness and lasciviousness has been determined to exist under both section 800.03 and 800.04. See Hoffman v. Carson, 250 So.2d 891 (Fla.), appeal dismissed, 404 U.S. 981, 92 S.Ct. 453, 30 L.Ed.2d 365 (1971); Goodmakers v. State, supra. On the other hand, Chesebrough found that exposing a young child to a view of sexual intercourse between his mother and stepfather was lewd and lascivious, as was conduct in Buchanan v. State, supra, which involved fondling and attempted sexual intercourse with a child under thirteen years of age.

                      Defendant contends that his mere nudity, which was not shown to have been accompanied by gestures or words, cannot be found to be in violation of section 800.04. We disagree. While it is true that in many circumstances mere nudity would not violate the statute, the jury in a case of this kind must also consider the intent of defendant. As explained above, lewd and lascivious has been said to mean "wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual design on the part of the perpetrator." Chesebrough, 255 So.2d at 677. Thus, conduct which in some circumstances might be purely innocent, such as nudity, can be found to be lewd and lascivious if accompanied by the requisite improper intent. See Faulkner v. State, 146 Fla. 769, 1 So.2d 857 (1941).

                      In this case, although the evidence did not show that defendant spoke any words or made any motions evidencing an illicit intent, nevertheless the totality of the circumstances was such that the jury could properly have concluded that defendant's conduct violated the statute. One consideration is that defendant appeared at the door twice, and it is clear that defendant knowingly exposed himself in front of the young girl when he returned to the door where the girl was waiting. This factor distinguishes defendant's behavior from conduct in some other cases which was found not to be lewd and lascivious. For example, there was apparently no showing in Goodmakers that the man sleeping naked on the dock knew that anyone else was present and observing him, and there apparently was no showing in Payne that the defendant knowingly exposed himself to others. This factor of intentional exposure to others also distinguishes this case from the situation of a person who happens to be seen through a window while walking nude in his house. See McKinley v. State, supra.

                      The jury could have concluded from the evidence that defendant knowingly and with intent to do so exposed himself to the young girl. The evidence supported the jury's conclusion that defendant's intent was lewd and lascivious, i.e., wicked, licentious, or unchaste. Lewd and lascivious conduct is not limited to acts involving physical contact, threat thereof or manifested desire therefor. The prevailing, accepted standard of behavior in our society is to keep the private parts of one's body covered when in the presence of strangers. We recognize, as defendant argues, that mores and standards of behavior of our society change and that society's views on exposure of the body are more liberal today than in the not too distant past. As the court noted in State ex rel. Swanboro v. Mayo, 155 Fla. 330, 19 So.2d 883, 884 (1944), "[I]f forty years ago either a man or a woman had donned the apparel popular on our bathing beaches today ... such person would probably have been ... branded as a lewd, lascivious and indecent person." And it is again true, some forty years after that statement was made, that many popular bathing suits of today would no doubt be considered indecent by the standards of the 1940's.

                      However current standards have not changed to the point that total nudity is considered to be normally acceptable behavior. To intentionally expose one's private parts to a young child is hardly accepted conduct. Not all such exposure, however, is necessarily lewd and lascivious. There are occasions when a person exposing his body might have a reason for the exposure which our society might generally recognize as being not lewd or lascivious. For example, many people today would recognize that a person who is exposed in a nudist camp or in some theatrical presentation could very well have reasons for his exposure that are not at all lewd or lascivious. (We mention these situations merely as possible examples; we need not and do not decide whether conduct other than the specific conduct in this case is unlawful.)

                      As to bodily exposure in a nudist camp or a theatrical presentation or other similar situations, we are not expressing approval or disapproval. Nor are we saying that, or whether or not, all or even most members of our society would condone that behavior or want it to be viewed by themselves or their children. We do believe, however, that most people would recognize that in those situations and others, there may be exposure without lewd and lascivious intent.

                      Thus, the question in this case is whether the jury, in considering all the circumstances surrounding defendant's exposure, was justified in concluding that defendant had a lewd and lascivious intent. We believe that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's decision. The evidence clearly showed that defendant, as he stood nude at his door in front of the young girl, was not in a nudist camp or a theatrical presentation or any situation comparable thereto. At that point he was not alone in the privacy of his own home where the mores of our society might require no explanation for nudity. In any event, "it is no longer necessary that such act [of lewdness] be committed in a public place or in the presence of many people. It has been held sufficient if it is an intentional act of lewdness, offensive to one or more persons present." Chesebrough, 255 So.2d at 678.

                      The fact that defendant filled out the order form with totally false information could have been interpreted by the jury to show that his intentions were not legitimate. This evidence also negates any possible supposition that defendant returned to the front door solely to order the cookies with no intent to expose himself again to the girl.
                      The lewd and lascivious interest of a defendant can be imputed from the circumstances. Boles v. State, 27 So.2d at 294. Thus, the jury could reasonably have concluded from all the evidence in this case that defendant's behavior was motivated not by any legitimate reason but by the illicit intent required under section 800.04.

                      Affirmed.

                      OTT, A.C.J., concurs.

                      FRANK, J., dissents with opinion.


                      FRANK, Judge, dissenting.
                      I respectfully dissent. The majority, in affirming the appellant's conviction, adopts the view that certain acts committed by him in addition to his nakedness offer sufficient indicia of "wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious or sensual design," Chesebrough, 255 So.2d at 677, from which the jury could conclude that the appellant's conduct was lewd and lascivious in violation of section 800.04, Florida Statutes. I must disagree and in doing so, I emphasize that I attach no degree of propriety or approval to the manner in which the appellant presented himself to the child.

                      The determination of whether the accused engaged in the act charged by the information is a matter for the jury. State v. Mayo, 155 Fla. 330, 19 So.2d 883 (Fla.1944). The threshold question, however, is whether the appellant's behavior was lewd and lascivious within the meaning of section 800.04, Florida Statutes. That is a question for determination by the court. Id.

                      The majority has concluded that a lewd and lascivious intent can be inferred from the appellant's nude appearance before the child at his own front door on two occasions and his completion of the order form with false information. In my view the appellant's acts relied upon in the majority opinion to support the conviction, and the evidence taken as a whole, fall far short of disclosing a sensual design on his part. The record leaves no doubt that the appellant neither touched himself or the child, made any other lustful movement, nor uttered any comment to her other than agreeing to purchase the cookies. Although the appellant's naked presence at his front door is at the very least unorthodox and certainly condemnable when gauged by customary social standards, it does not as a matter of law equate with behavior proscribed by section 800.04. My brethren reach too far in attempting to bring the appellant's palpably strange performance within the boundaries of a "wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious or sensual design." I would reverse the conviction.

                      ****************

                      District Court of Appeal of Florida,
                      Fifth District.
                      Robert A. BURKS, Appellant,
                      v.
                      STATE of Florida, Appellee.
                      No. 5D99-2980.
                      Sept. 18, 2000.

                      SAWAYA, J.
                      Robert Burks appeals his conviction for a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child. We reverse.

                      The year 1998 was not a good year for Burks. In that year, his house burned down, his mother died, and his girlfriend was murdered by her grandson. These most unfortunate events exacerbated Burks' already serious problem with alcohol. To add to these calamities, later in the same year Burks was charged with and convicted of a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child and sentenced to 35 months in prison. Our duty is to review the latest of Burks' misfortunes and decide whether the trial court erred when it denied Burks' motion for judgment of acquittal. We find, based on the unique facts and circumstances of this particular case, that the motion should have been granted.

                      On August 29, 1998, Burks was living on a remote five acre tract of land in a mobile home situated on a dirt road in rural Geneva, Florida. According to the transcript of the sentencing hearing, Burks is hearing impaired and this, along with his alcoholism, led him to feel more secluded on his property than he actually was. This portion of the record also reveals that Burks was sitting in his Jacuzzi, apparently naked, drinking (the record does not reflect whether he was intoxicated), when he decided to get out and check on his garden hose. The evidence presented at trial reveals that fourteen-year-old Jennifer and her sixteen-year-old girlfriend, Lindsey, who had been riding their all terrain vehicles up and down little dirt roads all day, passed Burks' trailer which is down the road from the cabins owned by Jennifer's mother's fiancee, Butch. As they passed by, Jennifer noticed that Burks was completely naked. Lindsay did not see Burks, so the two made a U-turn and went by Burks again. In fact, the two girls made several trips past Burks. There is no evidence that Burks was aware of their comings and goings.

                      Jennifer and Lindsey decided to go back to Butch's cabin to report what they had seen. Incredibly, Butch directed Jennifer's mother, Carolyn, to take Jennifer--the younger of the two girls--back to see the sight. Carolyn and Jennifer got on an ATV and the two returned to the dirt road running along Burks' property. Driving "pretty slow," they spied Burks just as he stepped from behind his trailer. Burks stopped and put his hands on his hips. The prosecutor argued to the jury that Burks' act of standing in the open with his hands on his hips constituted the lewd and lascivious act which formed the basis of the charge. Carolyn and Jennifer returned to Butch and reported what they had seen. We find the next event to occur to be even more incredible: Butch instructed Jennifer and Lindsey--the two minors--to go back to Burks' area and ride up and down the road to keep the naked Burks outside until the police arrived. The girls complied. Carolyn apparently had decided, however, to confront Burks, so all three females arrived at Burks' property simultaneously. Burks was behind his trailer, but unfortunately came out when Carolyn started yelling. The girls left to get Butch.

                      Carolyn testified that she asked Burks what he was doing and he responded, "I'm sorry, ma'am, I didn't realize anybody was out here." Carolyn said, "Bull****. I've been up and down the road all day." She testified that she stood there calling Burks names, hoping the police would get there. Unfortunately for Burks, the situation grew progressively worse when Butch arrived at the scene, entered onto Burks' property, and confronted the naked man at which time Burks said, "I'm sorry, I'm just airing out." At that point, Butch hit the hapless Burks, knocking him to the ground. Butch testified that he "pounded on him pretty seriously." Burks, bleeding, was able to get away and run into his house. The police arrived about five minutes later.

                      Burks was charged with one count of lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child, a second degree felony, for exposing himself to Jennifer. Astonishingly (we use this word to avoid being repetitive but incredible and other similar superlatives may aptly fit here as well), Butch was not charged with anything.

                      At the conclusion of the State's case, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the basis that there had been no evidence of a lewd or lascivious act. The State countered that the evidence of intent was sufficient to go to the jury to decide whether Burks had exposed himself in a wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious manner. The trial judge, Judge Martin Budnick, noted that the State's case was "weak, and that's an understatement," but decided to let the case go to the jury. After the jury retired to deliberate, defense counsel renewed his objection and moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion. The jury found Burks guilty as charged. Defense counsel again unsuccessfully moved for judgment of acquittal.

                      Sentencing occurred before Judge O.H. Eaton, who stated that he was not certain whether he would have sent the case to the jury if he had been the trial judge. Before sentencing, two psychological exams had been performed on Burks, neither of which revealed any sexual deviancy or perversions. Nevertheless, Judge Eaton noted that since the jury had found Burks guilty, the best he could do was to sentence Burks to the absolute minimum--35 months DOC. Sentence was imposed accordingly.

                      Based upon his act of stepping from behind his trailer and standing with his hands on his hips in the view of the fourteen-year-old, Burks was charged with the commission of a lewd or lascivious act in the presence of a minor. Burks argues that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the conviction. We conclude that under the facts of this case, Burks is correct.

                      Section 800.04(4), Florida Statutes, entitled "Lewd, lascivious, or indecent assault or act upon or in presence of child," provides in pertinent part:

                      A person who:

                      * * *

                      (4) Knowingly commits any lewd or lascivious act in the presence of any child under the age of 16 years, without committing the crime of sexual battery, commits a felony of the second degree....

                      The term "lewd or lascivious" is not defined in the statutes. In Egal v. State, 469 So.2d 196, 197 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 476 So.2d 673 (Fla.1985), the appellate court discussed the term:

                      The term "lewd and lascivious" has been referred to as generally and usually involving "an unlawful indulgence in lust, eager for sexual indulgence." Chesebrough v. State, 255 So.2d 675, 678 (Fla.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 976, 92 S.Ct. 2427, 32 L.Ed.2d 676 (1972); Payne v. State, 463 So.2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). That term has also been said to connote "wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual design on the part of the perpetrator." Chesebrough, 255 So.2d at 677, quoting from Boles v. State, 158 Fla. 220, 27 So.2d 293, 294 (1946); Goodmakers v. State, 450 So.2d 888, 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The term "imports more than a negligent disregard of the decent proprieties and consideration due to others." McKinley v. State, 33 Okl. Cr. 434, 244 P. 208 (1926), cited by the Florida Supreme Court in Chesebrough for the foregoing general, usual meaning.

                      As indicated in Chesebrough, which declared section 800.04 constitutional, the legislature has not defined "lewd and lascivious," and it is for the judiciary to apply those words based upon common understanding of them. Chesebrough also noted that "[i]t would be, of course, difficult or impossible to detail in a statute book all the acts which would constitute lewd and lascivious behavior...." 255 So.2d at 678, quoting from Buchanan v. State, 111 So.2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). That task would, of course, be no less difficult or impossible in a court opinion. Therefore, a determination of the precise meaning of the words "lewd and lascivious" in particular contexts must be developed on a case by case basis.

                      In the instant case, there was absolutely no evidence which would support the conclusion that Burks' act of coming from behind his trailer while naked and putting his hands on his hips was an act of "wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious or sensual design." There is no evidence that Burks knew the girls had earlier been ogling him or that he knew that the mother and daughter had returned. See Durant v. State, 647 So.2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that evidence failed to prove wicked, lustful, unchaste intent on part of defendant who urinated off his back steps one evening, allegedly knowing that teenage girls were outside and would see him; circumstances must show a lewd or lascivious intent). Burks had just stepped from behind his trailer and he put his hands on his hips. He made no motions or movement and he said nothing. There is a complete absence of circumstances from which lewd and lascivious intent could be imputed. Interestingly, Jennifer would not have even been exposed to the alleged lewd and lascivious act had her mother not taken her to the scene--at Butch's direction--and the question arises as to why these adults would knowingly send minor girls back to the scene of something the adults considered lewd and lascivious. We reverse Burks' conviction.

                      REVERSED.

                      PETERSON, J., concurs.

                      COBB, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion in which PETERSON, J., concurs.

                      COBB, J., concurring specially.
                      I concur in Judge Sawaya's excellent opinion and note that it is not too late for a responsible prosecutor to prosecute Butch for aggravated battery based on the latter's own testimony.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm not an attorney - but I do know that in many locales - deliberate exposure and accidental exposure are two different things.

                        Also - nudity to cause affront or alarm - is illegal in most places. So sitting in your backyard while someone snoops is one thing. Opening the door while naked to a child is certainly something else.

                        The reasons for the two cases here - one the conviction is upheld (for the clown who opened the door for the girl scout cookies) and the other one where the guy was minding his own business and was busted after being spied upon (and the "victims" continued on encouraging him to commit the behavior) -- two different circumstances.

                        Two sets of standards.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I would have a sign that specifically warns salespeople on the edge of the property or on the gate if you have a fence. "No Solicitors or Agents" or some such, and then the nude signs. I answer the door if I am nude and stand behind it and just open it enough to see who is there and they can't see me nude. If it is someone I need to get dressed for, I just have them wait outside.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I answer the door if I am nude and stand behind it and just open it enough to see who is there and they can't see me nude. If it is someone I need to get dressed for, I just have them wait outside.
                            Exactly. And I think that's just good sense. You can have the sign on your front door or next to it, and visitors will be forewarned. Then, if they knock or ring, you can crack the front door enough to see them, but not enough for them to see more than your head. Why would you want to swing the door wide open?

                            Personally, I believe in keeping the situation as simple as possible: hanging a bathrobe by the front door. It's easy, painless, and you won't have to wonder whether you're breaking the law or not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I keep shorts by the front door anyway, I don't know what people would think if I kept answering the door in a bath robe, especially in the afternoon. I think a simple sign by the door explaining your a nudist is good. About answering the door naked, may not be a good idea especially if your the only nudist on your block, you may be labeled some kinda perv real quick.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X