Exposure of private parts

Stu · Post by **Stu** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:45 pm

Nudists claim that nakedness is a natural state and they attempt to support that claim by pointing out that human beings enter the world naked. This is a naïve and illogical perspective on several counts. It assumes that the state of a new-born somehow provides a template as to the way adults should behave. When we are born, we are naked. We are also incontinent, unable to communicate linguistically, unable to walk on two legs, and unable to survive without a huge amount of adult support. We have no manners, we eat anything that tastes good, even if it were to be poisonous. We have no sense of propriety, judgement or morality. Surely it is true to say that how we are at the point of birth is irrelevant to social norms.

All states regulate the behaviour of its respective citizens in public places. The question isn't whether they do, it's the extent to which they should do it - i.e. where do we draw the line? There are some behaviours that almost nobody would consider acceptable in public, like open sexual acts, defecating, displaying graphic pornography and so on. Who would argue with the authorities prohibiting that sort of behaviour? In spite of the fact that some people are perfectly OK with nudity, to me, it's an obscenity. I don't want to have to encounter it, I don't want my kids exposed to it, and I want the machinery of law to protect me from it. If I belonged to some sort of fringe minority, then I would have a poor case to demand such legislation and enforcement. There are some people in my society, for example, who do not believe a woman should be allowed to expose any part of her body in public except for her eyes. These people are, however, so few in number and the requirement upon womankind would be so onerous that their feelings can not reasonably be accommodated. The fact is that, whether nudists like it or not, public nudity still has the potential to cause serious offence and distress, especially where children may be present. Aside from private premises, nudists are given public places where they can do their stuff. It is not, therefore, unreasonable to expect them to exercise restraint elsewhere in consideration of the sensibilities of the rest of society.

Stu

Post by **Milfmog** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:51 pm

Stu,

Clearly you have issues with the thought of other's nudity and you always take your thoughts to extremes; what has public sex or public defecation got to do with nudity? If you really think they are just a logical extension of nudity then, following your own "logical" path, we should ban bare legs (so no more short skirts) perhaps bare arms and uncovered heads should also go? Taking things to ridiculous extremes will never make a good argument.

Your other favourite argument, "I find it offensive", is just a version of "I'm more important than you, so you must accept things should be the way I want." Yet you do not accept the converse argument "I'm more comfortable without clothes when it's warm enough". Why not? Do you believe that your view automatically trumps everyone else's?

Your views on nudity are well known (anyone who does not know your outlook only has to read all your posts on this forum to see the pattern, those who've encountered you on a number of other forums will not need to look back) and I'm certain that you will therefore insist on having the last word. However, I see no point in trying to change your mind and know that, since I'm not scared of the sight of my own species with no clothes on, you will not change mine.

This forum exists to discuss men in skirts. I shall try to stick to that subject in future, there are plenty of other forums to discuss nudism / naturism if that is what you want to do.

Have fun,

Ian.

Stu · Post by **Stu** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:39 pm

Milf

I'm going to respond to you because you have asked questions that need answering, and also said some things that are untrue. Including things about me. Feel free to ignore this post because you may find it as difficult as my other ones on this topic.

I do not have issues with nudity in private - just in public. I believe there are times and places to encounter the sight of nakedness, and the public street, park and beach are not such places.

You ask "what has public sex or public defecation got to do with nudity?" Sex, defecation and nudity are all behaviours which are considered by a very large proportion of the population to be inappropriate in public and, where they encounter them in public, are likely to be offended. I thought I had made that clear enough. Obviously not. You may think this association is "taking it to extremes". I disagree. Ask a thousand of your average Mrs Bloggs which they find the most offensive between, say, a man emptying his bowels down the grate in the road, a couple having sex on a park bench, or a man walking stark naked through Marks and Spencers and I think you'd find little difference. They are all offensive to varying degrees and according to the sensibilities of each observer.

You then misrepresent me by quoting me as saying "I find it offensive". If you bother to read what I actually say, you will find that I have repeatedly contended that I am one of a large proportion of the population who find such behaviours offensive. If you can demonstrate that the proportion of people who actually want to get naked in any public place they like is greater than the number of people who find public nakedness unacceptable, then you might have a valid argument. Somehow I doubt even the most ardent naked activist would try to claim that. The sensibilities of the many certainly do trump the (in my opinion, perverse) preferences of such a tiny minority.

You attempted to cast doubt upon my claim to be a police officer - I note you haven't done that this time (there are people on here who know me and my family, so you're on to a loser with that one!). You also tried to claim my assertion that an obscene word on a t-shirt could be a criminal offence - I proved you were wrong about that. I have made thoughtful and considered points, none of which you have really addressed and some of which I doubt you have really grasped. So now you resort to you trying to undermine me by misrepresenting my key arguments, making out that I "have issues with the thought of other's nudity", that I am "scared of the sight of my own species with no clothes on" etc as though I were some sort of anally retentive prude. Do you really expect to defeat my arguments by doing this? The whole thrust of my argument is that nudity should be confined to places where it is unlikely to upset anyone. That's all I am saying. Is that so "extreme"?

Yes, let's get back to the men-wearing-skirts discussion. I did not initiate this thread, but if someone else does, and I disagree with points that are being made, I will say so. And I will say why.

Stu

Since1982 · Post by **Since1982** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:08 pm

I agree, I'm getting tired of this thread anyway, now I'm going to go take a bath, and for those that care, I AM going to be NUDE while doing so.:sarcastic:

Departed Member · Post by **Departed Member** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:54 pm

"You also tried to claim my assertion that an obscene word on a t-shirt could be a criminal offence - I proved you were wrong about that."

That's a totally different issue. I've known cases where a police officer has tried to claim that a tee-shirt carried an 'obscene' word/blasphemous statement and, because no member of the general public actually made an official complaint, their 'objection' was rejected 'because they were in uniform', and as such, not 'a member of the general public' - care to comment?

(For the record - it wasn't me - I totally disapproved of the presentation of the religious 'message' as depicted. As for being offended, I have been bitterly offended by the cretins who 'fox hunt', not for killing foxes, per se, but the terrible damage they and their followers do/have done to the countryside/environment as a whole, in pursuit of their ludicrous 'hobby'. Do those nudists/naturists really damage our world to that extent?). Oops! Sorry! Different offence!

Bravehearts.us · Post by **Bravehearts.us** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:16 am

This thread did start off about fashion freedom but got side tracked with nudity and moral issues. In this post I would like to touch on some of the comments made and on my original post.
My definition of nudity is bare skin exposed to the elements. My belief and perception about total nudity is that it is our natural state. Clothes are a human invention for protection from the elements, moral inventions stemming from beliefs, health and safety issues, identification, status/classification, sexuality/attraction, ego, insecurities, deception, etc. With the evolution of clothes I can stand longer, walk easier, run/swim faster, climb better, stay warmer/cooler, stay safer, feel better about myself emotionally, however false that image of myself may be and I can deceive others for whatever reason. But I also get stuck in a quagmire of the expectations and perceptions of others, because of clothes. The tilt sign goes on when we see things out of the norm. That’s because things are only strange to the stranger. Truthfully, taking off my clothes doesn’t make me a pervert or obscene. How can it, if nothing has been perverted? It only makes me naked.

The argument of the state of the new born and what it is verses what it does is two different arguments. I don’t see defecating in public as much of a moral issue as it was a health issue. We learned that it smells bad and that we can get sick and die of it. We learned that communicating made life easier. We learned how to judge and with that we learned how to invent a belief about a set of rules we called morals. We judged what they should be according to what our tribe taught us about the world and how we thought based on our own personal judgments. But these are things we do that change over time. They are constantly changing. Our nudity doesn’t change. Only how we see it changes by the judgments we make about it.

But I do understand your argument, Stu, and that’s what my original post was about. We all draw lines as to what is and what isn’t acceptable and/or tolerable in the society we live in and for the time we live in. You see nudity in the general public as offensive. 100 years or so ago it was obscene if a woman had her feet uncovered in public. You don’t.? Why? Because it’s a different time. People have gotten use to it gradually and formed different opinions and beliefs about it. I find cleavage and short skirts on women at work as inappropriate and offensive. Do I have the right to have that banned? Would anyone even listen? 50 years ago I wouldn’t have had to say anything. She would have been sent home to change or fired for not changing. Yet today someone is offended by me if I wear my kilt to work. As time goes by this will not be the case?

So since all of us stand accused of public nudity because our faces, arms and legs are naked, the question arises, what is the limit on how much nudity we show at school and in public?

Since1982 · Post by **Since1982** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:41 am

Lar wrote:I find cleavage and short skirts on women at work as inappropriate and offensive. Do I have the right to have that banned? Would anyone even listen? 50 years ago I wouldn’t have had to say anything. She would have been sent home to change or fired for not changing.

That's true, 300 years ago the same woman dressed the same in the Northeast part of what is now the United states might have been hanged or at least tied into the dunking stool for a long dip in the nearest river. How things DO change. Thank the powers that be.