Deja NON Vu: Someone Was Imprudent Enough to Mention It

[Crackpot]

I repeat.

Why not join a nudist colony?

[Sue U]

Try "because the overwhelmingly vast majority of people don't like other people's going naked".
You're trying to make it sound like a small group of people (a MOTU if you will) are controlling society on this subject.

You're missing the point, Sean. It doesn't matter whether it's an "overwhelmingly vast majority." The question is whether there is anything of subtstance that justifies a rule prohibiting public nudity. Obviously, there is not, other than fashion convention. Nudist resorts and "clothing optional" beaches demonstrate that there is no damage to societal functioning inherent in nudity. Is there societal damage in prohibiting nudity? One can argue that it is an infringement of liberty for the state to demand that you cover yourself under threat of criminal sanction. Moreover, how much covering should be mandatory? Certainly, there are some societies that believe nothing short of a burqa is sufficient. Do such "modesty" laws make sense, and are they consonant with a free society?

[Andrew D]

I was drafting a posting, but Sue U has put the point admirably well.

[Gob]

Obviously, there is not, other than fashion convention.

I've always thought nudity laws were religion based rather than fashion.

[Gob]

Where the social acceptability of nudity in certain places may be well understood, the legal position is often less clear cut. In England, for example, the law does not actually prohibit simple public nudity, but does forbid indecent exposure. In practice, this means that successful prosecution hangs on whether there is a demonstrable intention to shock others, rather than simply a desire to be nude in a public place.

[Crackpot]

Obviously, there is not, other than fashion convention.

I've always thought nudity laws were religion based rather than fashion.

You've never read the Emperors new clothes

[Andrew D]

Where the social acceptability of nudity in certain places may be well understood, the legal position is often less clear cut. In England, for example, the law does not actually prohibit simple public nudity, but does forbid indecent exposure. In practice, this means that successful prosecution hangs on whether there is a demonstrable intention to shock others, rather than simply a desire to be nude in a public place.

"A successful prosecution" and whether one is likely to get arrested are not the same thing. A successful prosecution may depend "on whether there is a demonstrable intention to shock others, rather than simply a desire to be nude in a public place," but try walking naked on a busy sidewalk in the center of London. In the end, you might not be successfully prosecuted, but that does not mean that you will be allowed to walk naked down the sidewalk.

[Lord Jim]

The question is whether there is anything of subtstance that justifies a rule prohibiting public nudity.

Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it...

To me, the far more interesting question is:

Why would anyone be so obsessed with the concept of being allowed to ponce about waggling their willie for all to see, wherever and whenever they choose, that they would start...

what is this...the third thread, the fourth thread?

on the subject...?

Personally I find the psychology that motivates that behavior far more worthy of focus and analysis...

[Andrew D]

The question is whether there is anything of subtstance that justifies a rule prohibiting public nudity.

Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it...

Yes, it is. It is the way that he is afraid of looking at it.

To me, the far more interesting question is:

Why would anyone be so obsessed with the concept of being allowed to ponce about waggling their willie for all to see, wherever and whenever they choose, that they would start...

what is this...the third thread, the fourth thread?

on the subject...?

Personally I find the psychology that motivates that behavior far more worthy of focus and analysis...

Really?

Is he really interested in that question?

Does he really want to examine that psychology?

Is he really willing to consider the entire matter, including whether his description of the pertinent psychology is accurate?

Is he really willing to expend the time and energy necessary for the "focus and analysis" which he suggests?

The only way that we'll ever know, I suppose, is by seeing whether he actually engages in an inquiry into the question which he claims to find "far more interesting".

Will his actions eventually accord with what he professes to believe?

Hey, there's a first tme for everything ....

[Lord Jim]

You're like the tuba player in the marching band who believes that he is the only one marching in step.

We have a bingo!

And of course:

Actually Andrew, in the OP you made specific reference to walking down the street so this was never just about your back yard.

A classic Andrewdriver goal post shift...

[Andrew D]

And he still can't come up with anything substantive.

And no one is surprised.

All he can do is pretend to ignore me.

And if you believe that, I know of some bridges which you might be interested in buying ....

[Andrew D]

Actually, I've posed the question about one's front yard, precisely because the rules for nudity in one's front yard -- where one can be seen by others who are not on one's property -- are the same as the rules for nudity on a public sidewalk.

Answer The Question

Stop with the dodges about "dribbling" and "pathogens" wiped on restaurant chairs and all that.

Answer The Question

Why should being naked in others' view be against the law?

It's a simple enough question.

Either you have an answer, or you don't.

If you have one, we can discuss it. If you don't, you can say so. But all the rest of it is horseshit, and everyone here knows it.

[Sue U]

The question is whether there is anything of subtstance that justifies a rule prohibiting public nudity.

Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it...

That is the only way to look at it, and has been the sole issue since Andrew first posed the question. It is an interesting question because it forces consideration of many aspects of how our society is run -- what are the rules, and why, particularly with regard to personal liberty issues, which extend far beyond the example of public nudity.

[Rick]

and the antithesis...

[Lord Jim]

That is the only way to look at it, and has been the sole issue since Andrew first posed the question.

That's your opinion.

The only thing I see of interest here is the question of why this guy has such a consuming obsession with being able to parade around naked in public. (Something that most people don't seem overly, or even remotely, concerned with)

I suspect it goes to his narcissism and self-centered sense of entitlement, (as well as a misanthropic desire to simply be offensive to others) but I confess I lack the requisite board certifications to analyze what motivates him in this professionally...

But by all means, please feel free to indulge him, and humor him, and pretend that there's actually some relevant larger point involved here in this silliness...

That's your right in a forum like this.

Just as it is my right to decline to do so.

[Sean]

Actually, I've posed the question about one's front yard, precisely because the rules for nudity in one's front yard -- where one can be seen by others who are not on one's property -- are the same as the rules for nudity on a public sidewalk.

Answer The Question

Stop with the dodges about "dribbling" and "pathogens" wiped on restaurant chairs and all that.

Answer The Question

Why should being naked in others' view be against the law?

It's a simple enough question.

Either you have an answer, or you don't.

If you have one, we can discuss it. If you don't, you can say so. But all the rest of it is horseshit, and everyone here knows it.

May I ask who you are addressing with that post Andrew?

Because from where I'm sitting, it sounds petulant and demanding.

Not to mention downright rude!

[rubato]

In Santa Cruz, more than 30 years ago, those who thought that women should have the same right as men to go topless did something about it and the law was changed. They challenged the law by going topless and forcing the issue to be publicly defended or abandoned. This being the county were all beaches north of the city limits were already 'clothing optional' they did the latter.


I suppose that they could have just whinged and whined about it for the past 30 years but that would be boring and nothing would have happened.


You can either be the sort of person who does things, or you can be the sort of person who whines that nobody else ever does them. Do the experiment.



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

May I ask who you are addressing with that post Andrew?

Because from where I'm sitting, it sounds petulant and demanding.

Not to mention downright rude!

Well, that quote you reference, pretty much captures Andrewdriver to a tee...

"Petulant and demanding" is his raison darte...

As Andrewdriver views it when dealing with him, there are only three acceptable courses of action:

1.Admit he is right and bow down to his brilliance.

2. Allow him to bully you into an intellectually dishonest, sophistic, never ending rhetorical merry-go-round, until you can feel your life force draining away...... (okay, that's an overly dramatic exaggeration..but you get my point... )

3. Give up and Shut The fuck Up ...

For my part, I refuse accept any of those three....

I will not humor him, I will not be drawn into his sophistic games, and I will not "shut up"....

I chose Option Four:...

I will feel perfectly free to comment on his behavior when it is brought to my attention by others; As I've said before, as I view it, the Foe Feature is not a "get out of jail free card" for bad actors...

[Andrew D]

It is an interesting question because it forces consideration of many aspects of how our society is run -- what are the rules, and why, particularly with regard to personal liberty issues, which extend far beyond the example of public nudity.

Exactly.

On the whole, we have very little difficulty articulating the underlying rationale of a rule when the harm sought to be averted is obvious: I do not wish to be hit in the head with a crowbar, so I consent to rules which prohibit me (with certain exceptions) from hitting others in their heads with a crowbar.

But when the purported harm is not readily articulable, we encounter much greater difficulties. It is not an accident that we have seen no articulation of why public nudity ought to be prohibited: The people who favor that prohibition cannot articulate the reason(s) underlying it.

And it is not just about public nudity, which, as I have posted before, is a relatively trivial example. It is about whether gay pepple should be allowed to adopt children. It is about whether African-Americans should be consigned to the back of the bus. It is about a host of things.

We could discuss those matters.

Or we could take "Option Four": We could run away from the substantive issues, because we have nothing to say about them.

[Lord Jim]

I repeat.

Why not join a nudist colony?

A nudist colony...