Deja NON Vu: Someone Was Imprudent Enough to Mention It

[Rick]

I have been asking -- with very little success in getting answers -- for the justifications underlying general codifications -- codifications which, because they apply even the special circumstances do not exist, are not justified by those special circumstances.

I hate doing this buuuut...How did those codes come into being to begin with?

[Sean]

You and I are evidently not reading the same threads, Sean.

It seems that some cannot spot the bleedin' obvious even when it's pointed out to them. I didn't expect you to agree with me Andrew. You are perfectly entitled to have you own opinions, however blinkered they may be.

And I notice that despite posting to me repeatedly, you have not responded at all to Sue U:

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?

Why is that?

Simply because I missed it. Sorry Sue, I guess it's the price you pay for not stamping your foot and demanding answers to your questions.

I'll answer you now though...

The question is whether there is anything of subtstance that justifies a rule prohibiting public nudity. Obviously, there is not, other than fashion convention.

I disagree with this. Hypothetical I know, but I wonder what would happen to rape and sexual assault statisitics if women walked around nude? Remember the Wonderbra billboards and how distracting they were to drivers? I wonder how distracting it would be if the same model were walking naked down the street...
So it's more than a fashion convention. Whether we like it or not, there are parts of the human body which have strong sexual connections for us. This is also the reason why it is different for men and women when it comes to going topless. Whether or not this has been bred into by us by societal norms that you and Andrew disagree with is by the by.

Nudist resorts and "clothing optional" beaches demonstrate that there is no damage to societal functioning inherent in nudity.

No they don't. Nudist areas are populated solely by people who agree with naturism so they do not represent an accurate cross section of society.

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?

In our society it is mandatory that (for men) genitals and (for women) genitals and breasts* be covered. Different societys have different standards and it's really not up to us to decide whether or not these standards make sense.

*This is not set in stone. I doubt that a woman would be arrested in most Western countries for flashing just her baps and of course breastfeeding in public places is allowed.

[The Hen]

Then of course there is the "junk" body argument raised by Rubato, that potentially would assail anyone's question of aesthetics.

Today, on my way back from the Cabinet Office. I passed a woman who was about 5 foot tall and eighteen plus stone.

She was wearing a nude bra with nothing else on top and carrying a peacock feather above her head. From a distance she looked like she was naked from the waist up.

It was not a pleasing site.

Many people complain about junk cars in public view, a naked junk body may also cause accidents.

Who pays?

[BoSoxGal]

I agree wholeheartedly with the above, and honestly, I think men should not be allowed to go shirtless in public because only about 10% are not sporting moobs that I'd rather not look at.

Frankly, the descent to wearing spandex, pajamas and exposed underwear in public is awful enough. We don't need to let things decline into public displays of mass quantities of flesh.

[Lord Jim]

Well, there you guys go with your "distractions" again....

This thread was never intended as a discussion. Andrew had already decided in advance that there was no such thing as a legitimate argument against his position, and then he attempts to make that a self fulfilling prophecy by merely dismissing every argument brought against his position as a "distraction"....

There's only one right answer here as Andrew sees it. No other position is legitimate, or even defensible.

[Andrew D]

... it's really not up to us to decide whether or not these standards make sense.

Really?

Isn't that exactly what we ought to be doing -- deciding whether the standards make sense?

When we are deciding the standards that are to govern us, should we not be deciding whether any suggested standard makes sense?

I think men should not be allowed to go shirtless in public because only about 10% are not sporting moobs that I'd rather not look at.

I'd rather not look at the ashen cross that comes around on people's foreheads every year. To me, it is a symbol of the supposed rightness of racism, misogyny, and genocide. Maybe I'm right about that; maybe I'm wrong.

Either way, is the fact that "I'd rather not look at" it a sufficient justification for prohibiting it?

[Gob]

... it's really not up to us to decide whether or not these standards make sense.

Really?

Isn't that exactly what we ought to be doing -- deciding whether the standards make sense?

We've already done that. That is why there is no major; "we want to go every where naked," movement in any country. Outside of a few naturist, flashers and wierdos, no one gives a flying fuck about this subject. Case closed.

[Andrew D]

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the issue is not simply that of public nudity; public nudity is merely an example. The case is closed only if one does not want to address the issue of which public nudity is merely an example.

[Andrew D]

There's only one right answer here as Andrew sees it. No other position legitimate, or even defensible.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Gob]

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the issue is not simply that of public nudity; public nudity is merely an example. The case is closed only if one does not want to address the issue of which public nudity is merely an example.

Eh?

[Lord Jim]

He likes to say that, because he realizes how trivial the subject seems to anyone who isn't obsessed with it the way he is.

[Sean]

... it's really not up to us to decide whether or not these standards make sense.

Really?

Isn't that exactly what we ought to be doing -- deciding whether the standards make sense?

When we are deciding the standards that are to govern us, should we not be deciding whether any suggested standard makes sense?

So now you want to demand public nudity for all other societies and cultures as well as your own?

Figures...

[Sue U]

Oh for Pete's sake. The issue Andrew raises -- for which pulbic nudity is only a simple but evocative example -- is quite simply, what is the justification for -- and proper role of the state in enforcing -- rules that control your, and other people's, behavior? Most codes of conduct (or to me, at least, the most objecitvely justifiable) are based on utilitarian considerations. We prohibit murder and assault because we cannot have an orderly, functioning society without a reasonable expectation of security in one's person. We prohibit robbery and theft because we believe in a personal right to ownership of property, without which our economy could not function. In order to promote individual liberty, we should avoid imposing restrictions that do not serve a necessary societal function. What purpose necessary to the functioning of society does nudity regulation serve? Is aesthetic sensibility (as bsg suggests) a proper role for state regulation? Is there some legitimate public safety concern, as Sean suggests? (Personally, I think Sean's argument is tantamount to blaming rape victims for wearing a skirt "too short.")

This is not a frivolous topic.

[Lord Jim]

He's had explained to him, seven ways to Sunday, in a number of threads he's started on this subject over a period of years, why others see these standards as making sense, he just refuses to admit it.

As I said, he simply does not recognize the legitimacy of any other position on this subject. When presented with an argument he doesn't like or disagrees with, he simply claims it's not an argument., and will then proclaim once again that no one has been able to present anything that makes his position anything less than completely unassailable. Andrew believes that if he proclaims something not to be an argument, that makes it so.

And this is hardly the only subject area where this has become his preferred approach. It's part of why engaging him in discourse is so pointless.

[Sean]

No Sue, Andrew started this thread about one issue and one issue alone. The issue was public nudity.

(Personally, I think Sean's argument is tantamount to blaming rape victims for wearing a skirt "too short.")

That, by the way, was insulting, misplaced and completely false.
Please explain (if you can) how the fuck you got that from my post?. I honestly thought you had more intelligence than that!

[Gob]

Well if Andrew hadn't banged on about nudity, we'd be better off, wouldn't we?

The issue is quite simply, what is the justification for, and proper role of the state in enforcing, rules that control your, and other people's, behavior?

Abridged.

That is how we have decided to live in society. Thesee rules and enforcement are not immutable, they are subject to review and change. If sufficient need for change is felt, then by political activism and protest we can change the rules. I would have thought that this was so obvious no one would need state it, the side show of “public nudity” has detracted from what is a simple point.

[Lord Jim]

If this is really about something other than just being able to wave one's fanny in the faces of strangers in public, then why wasn't a thread started about some serious specific related to this supposed "larger" point?

Why is it always this trivial, frivolous business about public nudity?

Sue is trying to give Andrew a hand here; and Andrew is apparently attempting to seize it....

As an after thought.

His agenda is clearly his obsession with being able to parade around in his birthday suit.

[Andrew D]

Everyone in this thread understands the issue.

Sue U has. more than once, forthrightly stated it.

Others continue to run away from it.

No surprise.

[Rick]

Sue , as Andrew has pointed out more than once, you have a grasp of the issue.

What is the answer?

Or better still, Andrew I throw up my hands, what is the answer?

Be aware a simple "there is no justification" ain't gonna buy it...

[Guinevere]

Sure, we regulate society based on all those concerns Sue outlined, but we regulate them based on morals and judgments as well. Blue laws spring to mind as a first example. We JUST repealed them in Massachusetts regarding selling alcohol on Sunday. And the law only allows retailers to sell on Sunday if they wish -- they are not obliged to sell on Sunday --- so many do not. What's the rationale for letting the populace purchase liquor 6 days a week but not the 7th? There is not intellectually honest rationale -- it can only be related to the political majority for whom Sunday is a day of worship, and some lingering puritanical streak related to drinking on that day.

When I was growing up in Maryland there was no retail AT ALL on Sundays - restaurants, a few grocery stores and convenience stores and gas stations were it. Those laws were based on similar moral judgments.

So really, the answer, to the extent one exists, and which I know Andrew will hate, is what Gob said:

That is how we have decided to live in society. Thesee [sic]* rules and enforcement are not immutable, they are subject to review and change. If sufficient need for change is felt, then by political activism and protest we can change the rules.

* demonstrating proper use of sic