Should public nudity even be illegal?

[Gamma Male]

Edit: BTW, I am not, nor have I ever been, nor do I plan on becoming in the future, a nudist.

I've been thinking about it a lot, and I honestly can't come up with a single good reason why public nudity should be illegal. There's nothing inherently wrong or bad about the human body, and the only justifications I've found to support laws against public nudity are "But it makes me uncomfortable" which isn't reason enough to make something illegal, and "but that's just the way things are!"/ some bullshit appeal to meaningless social traditions that have no basis in reality.

Also, the fact that men are allowed to go shirtless but not women is sexist. The only difference between men's chests and women's chest is the presence of(typically) larger breasts, and the idea of women's breasts somehow being "bad" or "inappropriate" but men's breats being "normal" and "appropriate" is grounded not in logic or rationality, but in pointless and arbitrary social customs that are both completely unnecessary and detrimental to society as a whole and the individual rights of people.

Honestly, this is the kind of thing that one hundred years from now people will look back on and say "not being clothed in public used to be ILLEGAL? :lol: What a bunch of prudish savages".

[Horatio Nelson]

I've been thinking about it a lot, and I honestly can't come up with a single good reason why public nudity should be illegal. There's nothing inherently wrong or bad about the human body, and the only justifications I've found to support laws against public nudity are "But it makes me uncomfortable" which isn't reason enough to make something illegal, and "but that's just the way things are!"/ some bullshit appeal to meaningless social traditions that have no basis in reality.

Also, the fact that men are allowed to go shirtless but not women is sexist. The only difference between men's chests and women's chest is the presence of(typically) larger breasts, and the idea of women's breasts somehow being "bad" or "inappropriate" but men's breats being "normal" and "appropriate" is grounded not in logic or rationality, but in pointless and arbitrary social customs that are both completely unnecessary and detrimental to society as a whole and the individual rights of people.

Honestly, this is the kind of thing that one hundred years from now people will look back on and say "not being clothed in public used to be ILLEGAL? :lol: What a bunch of prudish savages".


You are the kind of person that is going to cause the world to implode. :lol3:


But seriously, it should be. Give me one legitimate reason for you to be walking around naked?

Besides, it would be disgusting to sit on anything. I just don't see any pros to it.

[Gamma Male]

You are the kind of person that is going to cause the world to implode. :lol3:


But seriously, it should be. Give me one legitimate reason for you to be walking around naked?

Besides, it would be disgusting to sit on anything. I just don't see any pros to it.

Why someone would choose to go nude is irrelevant, as long as they're not harming anyone else there should be no reason for public nudity to be illegal. And the fact that something may cause people to be uncomfortable is not sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I believe that public nudity is free speech protected under the 1st amendment.

[Blood]

I've been thinking about it a lot, and I honestly can't come up with a single good reason why public nudity should be illegal. There's nothing inherently wrong or bad about the human body, and the only justifications I've found to support laws against public nudity are "But it makes me uncomfortable" which isn't reason enough to make something illegal, and "but that's just the way things are!"/ some bullshit appeal to meaningless social traditions that have no basis in reality.

Also, the fact that men are allowed to go shirtless but not women is sexist. The only difference between men's chests and women's chest is the presence of(typically) larger breasts, and the idea of women's breasts somehow being "bad" or "inappropriate" but men's breats being "normal" and "appropriate" is grounded not in logic or rationality, but in pointless and arbitrary social customs that are both completely unnecessary and detrimental to society as a whole and the individual rights of people.

Honestly, this is the kind of thing that one hundred years from now people will look back on and say "not being clothed in public used to be ILLEGAL? :lol: What a bunch of prudish savages".

i agree that women should be allowed to be shirtless just like men. i don't see why a woman's breats are considered great and beautiful until they come out from under the shirt. it's just plain stupid.

I want to agree that full nudity should be allowed in public, but the fact of the matter is that some people don't have the personal hygiene they should and that shit can stink and spread harmful bacteria. like, if everyone would just keep themselves clean and smelling at least decent, i'd be all for it. but since that isn't the case, i can't be 100% for public nudity.

there's also the problem that would arise with women on their period. i can see hardcore feminists going around refusing to stop the flow and leaking blood all over everything in an effort to proclaim their "womanhood." that's gross and unsanitary on so many levels.

[Karkat]

Honestly? I don't think it'd be a good idea with the way society is now. Unfortunately, that would leave women SO much more open to rape and slut-shaming. If people weren't a bunch of fucking molesters, it'd be a different story.

I just feel like people would abuse the privilege by sexually assaulting everyone willy nilly. It's not like a lot of men, and a fair amount of women don't do that now.

Plus, people might try to use it as an excuse to jack off in public, which is just...no. Nobody wants to see that.

Ideally, if people weren't sick-minded, I'd agree 100%, but with the way society is now, I think it's best reserved to private homes, and nudist camps and beaches.

there's also the problem hat would arise with women on their period. i can see hardcore feminists going around refusing to stop the flow and leaking blood all over everything in an effort to proclaim their "womanhood." that's gross and unsanitary on so many levels.

Oh god. This too. It's not like they aren't already trying to do this.

[Horatio Nelson]

Why someone would choose to go nude is irrelevant, as long as they're not harming anyone else there should be no reason for public nudity to be illegal. And the fact that something may cause people to be uncomfortable is not sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I believe that public nudity is free speech protected under the 1st amendment.

One major flaw I see with it is making rape easier. Two dudes see some chick walking around naked, what is there to stop them?

Plus, most parents aren't going to want their little kids seeing that kind of stuff.

I'm perfectly okay with nudity designated areas, but again, there is no logical reason to do it.

[Karkat]

One major flaw I see with it is making rape easier. Two dudes see some chick walking around naked, what is there to stop them?

Plus, most parents aren't going to want their little kids seeing that kind of stuff.

I'm perfectly okay with nudity designated areas, but again, there is no logical reason to do it.

While I do agree that it makes rape easier ('cause I totally beat you to that :P ), children aren't inherently scarred by nudity- humans are naturally nude. We may have made clothes for ourselves, but it isn't as if animals don't have visible genitalia and such.

The human body is natural. Parents need to stop being so prudish. Violence on the other hand? Let them wait until they're older to see that shit. That WILL scar a child. And I don't know that I'd let my kids watch blatant sex scenes in a movie or anything, but there's nothing wrong with a naked human. Nothing.

And if you want to get technical, there's no logical reason for us to wear fashionable clothing, either. It's just a form of self-expression, there's no reason that's 'necessary'. Nudity can be a form of self-expression as well.

[Horatio Nelson]

While I do agree that it makes rape easier ('cause I totally beat you to that :P ), children aren't inherently scarred by nudity- humans are naturally nude. We may have made clothes for ourselves, but it isn't as if animals don't have visible genitalia and such.

The human body is natural. Parents need to stop being so prudish. Violence on the other hand? Let them wait until they're older to see that shit. That WILL scar a child. And I don't know that I'd let my kids watch blatant sex scenes in a movie or anything, but there's nothing wrong with a naked human. Nothing.

And if you want to get technical, there's no logical reason for us to wear fashionable clothing, either. It's just a form of self-expression, there's no reason that's 'necessary'. Nudity can be a form of self-expression as well.


I never said there was anything wrong with the human body, and yes your impractical clothing point is extremely valid.

But like you said, the world is filled with disgusting people, and it's not like making nudity legal would all of a sudden make those perverts any less perverted, but rather add more to fuel their fire.

[Blood]

The human body is natural. Parents need to stop being so prudish. Violence on the other hand? Let them wait until they're older to see that shit. That WILL scar a child. And I don't know that I'd let my kids watch blatant sex scenes in a movie or anything, but there's nothing wrong with a naked human. Nothing.

Yes, I totally agree with this. The human body is a beautiful thing and society (parents, really) needs to stop teaching children that it's something you need to hide and be ashamed of.

[Karkat]

I never said there was anything wrong with the human body, and yes your impractical clothing point is extremely valid.

But like you said, the world is filled with disgusting people, and it's not like making nudity legal would all of a sudden make those perverts any less perverted, but rather add more to fuel their fire.

Yes, in its current state, I do believe that. However, I do also believe that it could someday be a viable option, if the circumstances were right.

[Gamma Male]

i agree that women should be allowed to be shirtless just like men. i don't see why a woman's breats are considered great and beautiful until they come out from under the shirt. it's just plain stupid.

I want to agree that full nudity should be allowed in public, but the fact of the matter is that some people don't have the personal hygiene they should and that shit can stink and spread harmful bacteria. like, if everyone would just keep themselves clean and smelling at least decent, i'd be all for it. but since that isn't the case, i can't be 100% for public nudity.
Huh. Yeah, I can see how that might be a problem. But I doubt it's something that social stigma wouldn't stop from happening.
there's also the problem that would arise with women on their period. i can see hardcore feminists going around refusing to stop the flow and leaking blood all over everything in an effort to proclaim their "womanhood." that's gross and unsanitary on so many levels.
They can do the same in their pants, and its still pretty disgusting. I don't think pants not being mandatory would really affect this(very minor, almost nonexistent) issue very much. Besides, it's not as if I?want to outlaw clothes.:lol: Pmsing women would probably usually choose to wear pants still.
Honestly? I don't think it'd be a good idea with the way society is now. Unfortunately, that would leave women SO much more open to rape and slut-shaming. If people weren't a bunch of fucking molesters, it'd be a different story.

I just feel like people would abuse the privilege by sexually assaulting everyone willy nilly. It's not like a lot of men, and a fair amount of women don't do that now.

Plus, people might try to use it as an excuse to jack off in public, which is just...no. Nobody wants to see that.

Ideally, if people weren't sick-minded, I'd agree 100%, but with the way society is now, I think it's best reserved to private homes, and nudist camps and beaches.



Oh god. This too. It's not like they aren't already trying to do this.
Of course, I agree that before these laws against public nudity are repealed certain social progress regarding nudity should be made. Only when attitudes change sufficiently will these laws get repealed. A few hundred years ago women weren't allowed(and still aren't in some cultures) to expose their legs and faces and arms. Most of the same arguments against making public nudity illegal were also used to justify making wonen cover up other(no considered appropriate) parts of their body.
One major flaw I see with it is making rape easier. Two dudes see some chick walking around naked, what is there to stop them?
You do realize this is the same argument used to justify blaming rape victims for exposing too much skin, right?

Plus, most parents aren't going to want their little kids seeing that kind of stuff.
So? As I said before, being uncomfortable with something isn't sufficient reason to make it illegal. The notion that being exposed to nudity in a nonsexual context is harmful to children is just absurd.

I'm perfectly okay with nudity designated areas, but again, there is no logical reason to do it.

Yes, there is. People go to jail and are unable to go nude in public for no good reason. Why they choose to go nude is irrelevant. It's their decision, not anyone else's.

[Horatio Nelson]

You do realize this is the same argument used to justify blaming rape victims for exposing too much skin, right?


Seriously? There is a huge difference between wearing revealing clothes and having your "parts" completely exposed.

[CharlieHorse]

Honestly? I don't think it'd be a good idea with the way society is now. Unfortunately, that would leave women SO much more open to rape and slut-shaming. If people weren't a bunch of fucking molesters, it'd be a different story.

I just feel like people would abuse the privilege by sexually assaulting everyone willy nilly. It's not like a lot of men, and a fair amount of women don't do that now.

Plus, people might try to use it as an excuse to jack off in public, which is just...no. Nobody wants to see that.

Ideally, if people weren't sick-minded, I'd agree 100%, but with the way society is now, I think it's best reserved to private homes, and nudist camps and beaches.


I have to agree with you. For the whole of society, public nudity wouldn't really do much good with the state society is now.

Plus, I think a lot of people aren't confident to do things like that.

I personally like having clothes because I look better clothed.

[Lovelife090994]

I see nudity as illegal because it is unsanitary, opens the door to rape for both sexes, invites perverts, means I have to see even grotesque bodies, and is like that because it isn't safe to roam naked. Clothes give you protection and warmth, no use abandoning it just to go to a children's museum to say "I wanted to be free." Besides, even as an artist I am kind of asexual about public nudity, I don't like it nor do I want to see it. Naked bodies are not pleasing at all to me, nor something you simply can be blind to. Having a naked public may take the shame out of looking though. But not everyone is fit...

[Gamma Male]

I'm not suggesting it be legalized immediately, but rather that when we, as a society, reach a point were we are much less prudish about nudity and it is no longer considered that big a deal, if we were to choose to repeal laws prohibiting public nudity I would wholeheartedly support making it legal. I agree that we aren't quite ready yet. I'm just saying that really, there's no logical reason for us not to be ready yet, and that it would be preferable if people's attitudes toward nudity were less prudish.

[Karkat]

I see nudity as illegal because it is unsanitary, opens the door to rape for both sexes, invites perverts, means I have to see even grotesque bodies, and is like that because it isn't safe to roam naked. Clothes give you protection and warmth, no use abandoning it just to go to a children's museum to say "I wanted to be free." Besides, even as an artist I am kind of asexual about public nudity, I don't like it nor do I want to see it. Naked bodies are not pleasing at all to me, nor something you simply can be blind to. Having a naked public may take the shame out of looking though. But not everyone is fit...

By this logic, obese/deformed peoples shouldn't be legal in public either. It shouldn't be illegal just because you don't like it.

[Harry Smith]

Also, the fact that men are allowed to go shirtless but not women is sexist.

Wouldn't say it's sexist per say-the vast majority of women would not want to go Topless in public out of personal choice-it's similar to how many Muslim women want to wear the Burqa-it's personal preference

One major flaw I see with it is making rape easier. Two dudes see some chick walking around naked, what is there to stop them?

Plus, most parents aren't going to want their little kids seeing that kind of stuff. .

Getting close to Rape apologists there, you fail to mention male rape. Surely they'd be at risk as well from wide spread nudity

I see nudity as illegal because it is unsanitary, opens the door to rape for both sexes, invites perverts, means I have to see even grotesque bodies, and is like that because it isn't safe to roam naked. Clothes give you protection and warmth, no use abandoning it just to go to a children's museum to say "I wanted to be free." Besides, even as an artist I am kind of asexual about public nudity, I don't like it nor do I want to see it. Naked bodies are not pleasing at all to me, nor something you simply can be blind to. Having a naked public may take the shame out of looking though. But not everyone is fit...

You don't seem to understand the issue-it's not forcing people to be nude-it's making it legal-there's a very big difference. Sure if you don't like it then where sunglasses when you go out and look people in the face

[CosmicNoodle]

I'm not suggesting it be legalized immediately, but rather that when we, as a society, reach a point were we are much less prudish about nudity and it is no longer considered that big a deal, if we were to choose to repeal laws prohibiting public nudity I would wholeheartedly support making it legal. I agree that we aren't quite ready yet. I'm just saying that really, there's no logical reason for us not to be ready yet, and that it would be preferable if people's attitudes toward nudity were less prudish.
This^
Were not ready yet, there are still to many busy body's and prudes walking around and for it to happen.

In the UK nudity isn't illegal, the only reason you can be arrested for it is if someone feels uncomfortable, so provided everyone around yoiu is OK with it, then your allowed to be naked in public here. So here, your problem isn't wityh the government, but with the prudish people around you.

[anrigirl]

I think society would be a better place when nudity is allowed everywhere. The biggest problem would be to get people like pedophiles out of society!

[Gamma Male]

Wouldn't say it's sexist per say-the vast majority of women would not want to go Topless in public out of personal choice-it's similar to how many Muslim women want to wear the Burqa-it's personal preference

The vast majority of men do not like going topless in public, that's no reason to make it illegal.

It is sexist. The fact that women aren't allowed to go topless but men are is sexist.

[Harry Smith]

The vast majority of men do not like going topless in public, that's no reason to make it illegal.

It is sexist. The fact that women aren't allowed to go topless but men are is sexist.

I'd disagree with that, if you take a beach for example I'd say 98% of men are shirtless

It's not sexist, your making it too black and white to say that's it sexist

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

I wouldn't mind public nudity, as long as I get to wear clothes if I want to.

[Camazotz]

Nope. No public nudity please. Sanitary conditions would drop dramatically. The issue of body shaming is obviously wrong, and people should respect the nude body, but eww, certain parts NEED to stay covered. Torso is fine for all genders, but genitalia should be covered, and again, not because it increases the risk of rape (I don't know if it actually does) but because there would be nasty stuff on public benches and such. Yuck.

[Gamma Male]

I'd disagree with that, if you take a beach for example I'd say 98% of men are shirtless

It's not sexist, your making it too black and white to say that's it sexist

How is it not sexist? It's discrimination, plain and simple. Female breasts are no more "sexual" than male breasts, and there's no reason to hide female but not male breasts.

[Harry Smith]

Female breasts are no more "sexual" than male breasts,

Once again your applying buzzwords. Never thought I'd be saying this because I'm probably guilty of it but your trying to just sweep the issue away by screaming 'it's sexist, it's sexist' when in fact it isn't.

Sorry if this ends up being NSFW I've warned you

You've got to be silly if you honestly think that female breasts are no more sexual, in our western culture they're extremely sexual-hence why they're classified as secondary sexual feature. Even as a gay guy I know that guys are extremely sexually attracted to breasts

When Roy Levin, of the University of Sheffield, and Cindy Meston, of the University of Texas, polled 301 people -- including 153 women -- they found that stimulating the breasts or nipples enhanced sexual arousal in about 82 percent of the women. Nearly 60 percent explicitly asked to have their nipples touched.

In the year 2014 in western culture breasts are considered by the vast majority of the population to be sexual

[Gamma Male]

Once again your applying buzzwords. Never thought I'd be saying this because I'm probably guilty of it but your trying to just sweep the issue away by screaming 'it's sexist, it's sexist' when in fact it isn't.

Sorry if this ends up being NSFW I've warned you

You've got to be silly if you honestly think that female breasts are no more sexual, in our western culture they're extremely sexual-hence why they're classified as secondary sexual feature. Even as a gay guy I know that guys are extremely sexually attracted to breasts



In the year 2014 in western culture breasts are considered by the vast majority of the population to be sexual

So, women aren't allowed to show their breasts and men are because society considers them to be sexual? That's still sexist. What you're basically saying is "You, as a woman, are not allowed to display part of your body that men are allowed to display, purely because other people consider them to be sexual."


Faces and necks aren't allowed in some Islamic countries for the same reason breasts aren't allowed(to be unclothed in public) in America. How is that any different? Neither breasts or faces are an inherently sexual body part, we only consider breasts sexual here and faces sexual there because of societal pressures. And yet, you don't think women not being allowed to go topless sexist, while(I'm assuming) you do think women being forced to hide their faces is sexist, right?

[Harry Smith]

"You, as a woman, are not allowed to display part of your body that men are allowed to display, purely because other people consider them to be sexual."

Other people don't consider them to be sexual-your trying to play the hipster anti-establishment card. The vast majority of women consider there breasts to be sexual. You seem to have this strange motion that it's all being forced by men upon women. Women consider them to be sexual-did you read the evidence I presented? Your also having to draw the argument away to make a point-do you accept that breasts are sexual within western society?

Faces and necks aren't allowed in some Islamic countries for the same reason breasts aren't allowed(to be unclothed in public) in America. How is that any different?

Once again your failing to understand the issue-Islam is vastly different because the nudity laws are applied in a secular society where as Islamic laws are from a Islamic society. The big issue is that it's easy for western white kids to say that the Burqa is wrong and it's sexist but the issue is much wider than that. The vast majority of Burqa use is enforced by the husband to stop all men from looking at his wife, with the exception of countries like Saudi Arabia the Burqa/other coverings are not placed into law. It's a strange mix of Paternial society, religion and culture. It's a massive over-simplification to just scream-it's sexisttttt

Thousands of women choose to wear the Burqa in this country-are you saying that these women are sexist?

[Gamma Male]

Other people don't consider them to be sexual-your trying to play the hipster anti-establishment card. The vast majority of women consider there breasts to be sexual. You seem to have this strange motion that it's all being forced by men upon women. Women consider them to be sexual-did you read the evidence I presented? Your also having to draw the argument away to make a point-do you accept that breasts are sexual within western society?
Yes, but if a women doesn't want to cover her breast and chooses to go topless she should be able to do so everywhere a man can also do so. To not allow her to is sexist. The fact that many people consider breasts to be sexual is irrelevant, she women shouldnt be forced to cover their breasts because people consider them to be sexual. Her body, her decision.


Once again your failing to understand the issue-Islam is vastly different because the nudity laws are applied in a secular society where as Islamic laws are from a Islamic society. The big issue is that it's easy for western white kids to say that the Burqa is wrong and it's sexist but the issue is much wider than that. The vast majority of Burqa use is enforced by the husband to stop all men from looking at his wife, with the exception of countries like Saudi Arabia the Burqa/other coverings are not placed into law. It's a strange mix of Paternial society, religion and culture. It's a massive over-simplification to just scream-it's sexisttttt

Thousands of women choose to wear the Burqa in this country-are you saying that these women are sexist?
No, it's about choice. If a women wants to cover her face or breasts she should be able to. If a women doesn't want to cover her breasts or face in a situation in which men aren't also required to cover and she isn't allowed to, that's sexist.

[Harry Smith]

Yes, but if a women doesn't want to cover her breast and chooses to go topless she should be able to do so everywhere a man can also do so. To not allow her to is sexist. The fact that many people consider breasts to be sexual is irrelevant, she women shouldnt be forced to cover their breasts because people consider them to be sexual. Her body, her decision.
No, it's about choice. If a women wants to cover her face or breasts she should be able to. If a women doesn't want to cover her breasts or face in a situation in which men aren't also required to cover and she isn't allowed to, that's sexist.

Your wandering off into Pseudo Libertarianism, I don't think an issue like this can be dismissed as easily as-her body her choice.

The main problem your argument has is that you either fail or you simply ignore that male and female breasts are different-they're different in there role, they're role within culture and there sexual status. As I said before the evidence on the matter proves that there's a marked difference

You can keep saying it's sexist as much as you want, doesn't make it true

[Gamma Male]

Your wandering off into Pseudo Libertarianism, I don't think an issue like this can be dismissed as easily as-her body her choice.
Yes it can.

The main problem your argument has is that you either fail or you simply ignore that male and female breasts are different-they're different in there role, they're role within culture and there sexual status. As I said before the evidence on the matter proves that there's a marked difference
Yes, society views female and male breasts differently. But that doesn't mean we should be able to force those societal views upon women who disagree with them. Society in general typically views male breasts as normal and appropriate and female breasts as sexual and inappropriate, but when it comes to how one chooses to dress ones own body your decision>societal views. The majority(people who think breasts are inappropriate for public) should not be able to force their views on how women should dress upon the minorty(people who want to go topless in public), because how you choose to dress your own body is your decision, so long as you're not hurting anyone other than yourself.

[Lovelife090994]

Yes it can.


Yes, society views female and male breasts differently. But that doesn't mean we should be able to force those societal views upon women who disagree with them. Society in general typically views male breasts as normal and appropriate and female breasts as sexual and inappropriate, but when it comes to how one chooses to dress ones own body your decision>societal views. The majority(people who think breasts are inappropriate for public) should not be able to force their views on how women should dress upon the minorty(people who want to go topless in public), because how you choose to dress your own body is your decision, so long as you're not hurting anyone other than yourself.

Do you want to see everyone naked in the streets?

[Gamma Male]

Do you want to see everyone naked in the streets?What I want to see is irrelevant, it's their bodies, not mine. Some people don't like seeing people wear socks and sandals, that doesn't mean we should be able to control what they wear and force them to conform to out standards.

[Vlerchan]

... you're trying to just sweep the issue away by screaming 'it's sexist, it's sexist' when in fact it isn't.
Feel free to explain how it isn't sexist to regulate an issue on the sole basis of ones sex.

... You've got to be silly if you honestly think that female breasts are no more sexual.
Objectivily, they are not.

... in our western culture they're extremely sexual.
You'll have to explain why I should care here.

hence why they're classified as secondary sexual feature.
No, they're classified a secondary sexual feature because they develop during puberty.

You'll find that pubic hair is also a secondary sexual feature.

Even as a gay guy I know that guys are extremely sexually attracted to breasts
I tend to find them sexually attractive regardless of whether they're covered up or not: they're still noticed.

The vast majority of women consider there breasts to be sexual.
Again, I'm confused as to why who considers what sexual matters.

[Lovelife090994]

What I want to see is irrelevant, it's their bodies, not mine. Some people don't like seeing people wear socks and sandals, that doesn't mean we should be able to control what they wear and force them to conform to out standards.

Oh drop the act and stop changing subject. Answer my question. Do you want to see people naked in public? Public nudity is impractical, unclean, sometimes gross, awkward, and not civilized. Even tribal people wear something. Your body needs some protection. What sane person wants to bare themselves whole to the world? You have to be respectful of laws, and others. Why stop there? Let's make public sex legal, and why have. Restrictions onn dress at work? We can all go naked by your logic even as the dangerous machinery chews you up and spits out what's left.

[Gamma Male]

Oh drop the act and stop changing subject. Answer my question. Do you want to see people naked in public?
Personally, I wouldn't mind. I don't think I would choose to go naked in public myself though.

But like I already said, even if I did mind and public nudity did bother me it wouldn't matter. I shouldn't get to regulate how other people dress and tell them they can't not wear something or other because it makes me uncomfortable.

[Lovelife090994]

Personally, I wouldn't mind. I don't think I would choose to go naked in public myself though.

But like I already said, even if I did mind and public nudity did bother me it wouldn't matter. I shouldn't get to regulate how other people dress and tell them they can't not wear something or other because it makes me uncomfortable.


Perhaps I would be more willing to get into debates with you if your arguments didn't lack a clear train of thought. After you think you've sufficiently responded to something, try to stop yourself from, for lack of a better turn of phrase, rambling on incoherently.

I am coherent. What do you want? The words of someone sane? Yeah, too late for that one.

[Gamma Male]

I am coherent. What do you want? The words of someone sane? Yeah, too late for that one.

I just meant you have a tendency to go off topic in debates and not really respond to the thing you're supposed to be responding to.

[Remora]

I know y'all hate my attitude on these things, but i want a complete turn of events. Feminine entities will enslave the masculine race and most importantly, cats.

[Harry Smith]

Feel free to explain how it isn't sexist to regulate an issue on the sole basis of ones sex.


Because there's clear differences in this case-like in many cases. It's not sexist to acknowledge that there's marked differences between men and women in a similar way to how it's not sexist to refuse to put cubicles in a women's toilet. Using your logic it's sexist to not have cubicles in a women's toilet block.

Objectivily, they are not.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/why-men-love-mammaries

Moreover, the breasts play a key role in female sexual arousal. In their classic report on the female sexual response, Masters and Johnson (3) pointed out that breast volume increases during sexual arousal.

Beneath the surface interesting events are taking place. Stimulation of the nipple that occurs during breast feeding increases the amount of the hormone oxytocin that circulates. Oxytocin is often referred to as the "cuddling hormone" because it is released by male and female mammals during close social encounters of various kinds (4).

In addition to its general social effects, whereby a mother feels closeness for the baby she is feeding, there are other more specialized functions. One is that milk flows, a reflex known as the "milk let-down response" familiar to mothers and dairy farmers alike. Another - you guessed it - is orgasm. Indeed, some women report experiencing their first orgasm, not from genital stimulation, but from breast feeding.

[Gamma Male]

Well, that's funny. You do that actually. I am simply giving my words. In an equalist society we should both be able to speak. But in yours I guess I am to be quiet and everyone's little toy? Forget it.

See? Right there! What do those last 3 sentences even have to do with anything?

Nevermind, I'm done. I'm going off to read erotic harry potter fanfiction. Have a good day.

[Star Wolf]

i agree that women should be allowed to be shirtless just like men. i don't see why a woman's breats are considered great and beautiful until they come out from under the shirt. it's just plain stupid.

I want to agree that full nudity should be allowed in public, but the fact of the matter is that some people don't have the personal hygiene they should and that shit can stink and spread harmful bacteria. like, if everyone would just keep themselves clean and smelling at least decent, i'd be all for it. but since that isn't the case, i can't be 100% for public nudity.

there's also the problem that would arise with women on their period. i can see hardcore feminists going around refusing to stop the flow and leaking blood all over everything in an effort to proclaim their "womanhood." that's gross and unsanitary on so many levels.

I agree on no full nudity for sanitary reasons. I feel it may also have the potential to increase rape crimes, spread STDs, and honestly, in my personal opinion, I just don't want to see what's hanging down there.

Chest nudity should be legal for women though. It's not fair that it's fine for a male to show his chest and it's nonsexual, but if a women does, all of a sudden it's sexual. Women are so over-sexualized by society to the point where it's even become illegal for women to breastfeed in public. like wtf? That's what boobs are for.

[Gamma Male]

Okay, new topic(kinda).

Should women be allowed to go shirtless in all the same places men are allowed to go shirtless?

[Lovelife090994]

Ugh, shirtless women? I'll have to avoid the pool and beach from now on. What about women who don't want to bare all? And come on, a man's chest is sexualized too. Pecs anyone? Muscle butt, beach bod? Ring a bell? I don't think women should be shirtless. Women wear bikinis for a reason. Men can't even wear speedos without being called gay yet women can wear thongs?

[Blood]

Okay, new topic(kinda).

Should women be allowed to go shirtless in all the same places men are allowed to go shirtless?

Yes, absolutely. I'd love for someone to try to tell me why they shouldn't though, because every reason I've heard so far has been complete bullshit.

[Gamma Male]

Ugh, shirtless women? I'll have to avoid the pool and beach from now on. What about women who don't want to bare all? And come on, a man's chest is sexualized too. Pecs anyone? Muscle butt, beach bod? Ring a bell? I don't think women should be shirtless. Women wear bikinis for a reason. Men can't even wear speedos without being called gay yet women can wear thongs?

Should it be illegal for men to be shirtless too?

[Lovelife090994]

Should it be illegal for men to be shirtless too?

Will you argue if I say what is not your opinion? Maybe not, but make it where I don't have to see naked people at every beach and pool.

[Gamma Male]

Will you argue if I say what is not your opinion?


No. I'll consider what you have to say and if I find any flaws in your reasoning I'll point them out. That's how a debate works.

Maybe not, but make it where I don't have to see naked people at every beach and pool.

Should it be illegal for women to be topless in places where men are allowed to be topless?

[pconnor2001]

It should not be required. Hee hee.

[Lovelife090994]

No. I'll consider what you have to say and if I find any flaws in your reasoning I'll point them out. That's how a debate works.



Should it be illegal for women to be topless in places where men are allowed to be topless?

I don't know how to respond to that. Unless the bodies are super fit, I'm not coming out of my house. Last thing I want is a bunch of naked people around me on a crowded subway.

[Gamma Male]

I don't know how to respond to that. Unless the bodies are super fit, I'm not coming out of my house. Last thing I want is a bunch of naked people around me on a crowded subway.

The question was about women going shirtless in public being legal, not full nudity.

Should women be allowed to go shirtless in situations in which men are also allowed to go shirtless? It's a very simple yes or no question. Please answer it.

[Lovelife090994]

The question was about women going shirtless in public being legal, not full nudity.

Should women be allowed to go shirtless in situations in which men are also allowed to go shirtless? It's a very simple yes or no question. Please answer it.

I say no for public, yes for private adult only areas.

-edited. Unnecessary. -Emerald Dream.

[Gamma Male]

I say no for public, yes for private adult only areas.
Why should it be illegal for women but not for men?
Let the hatred commence since now I am the bigoted conservative freak with a phobia of women parts.

I never said anything like that. In fact, I've never been anything but polite in this debate.

[Lovelife090994]

Why should it be illegal for women but not for men?


I never said anything like that. In fact, I've never been anything but polite in this debate.

Breasts are different than men. Men don't have two big flapping regions. In a private or adults only area then maybe women can bare all, but not in public. What about other women and men who don't want that? Women and men are different, men bare their chests because we have no boobs, generally smaller nipples, and there isn't much to see unless the person is fat then that is another problem.

[Gamma Male]

Breasts are different than men. Men don't have two big flapping regions. In a private or adults only area then maybe women can bare all, but not in public. What about other women and men who don't want that? Women and men are different, men bare their chests because we have no boobs, generally smaller nipples, and there isn't much to see unless the person is fat then that is another problem.

What does the fact that their breasts are bigger have to do with anything at all?

And wouldn't you agree that legally regulating how someone dresses based on other people's uncomfortableness is wrong? Shouldn't it be up to the individual woman to decide how to dress?

[Lovelife090994]

What does the fact that their breasts are bigger have to do with anything at all?

And wouldn't you agree that legally regulating how someone dresses based on other people's uncomfortableness is wrong? Shouldn't it be up to the individual woman to decide how to dress?

Yes and no because it depends on the location. Bear in mind that women cover their chests for a reason. Nothing is stopping guys from covering up. Heck I'd wear a bikini myself if I was allowed to. And breasts flop which equals quite the sight and back pain to the woman.

[britishboy]

Yes! Would you like walking your children around town amongst naked creeps?

[Karkat]

Once again your applying buzzwords. Never thought I'd be saying this because I'm probably guilty of it but your trying to just sweep the issue away by screaming 'it's sexist, it's sexist' when in fact it isn't.

Sorry if this ends up being NSFW I've warned you

You've got to be silly if you honestly think that female breasts are no more sexual, in our western culture they're extremely sexual-hence why they're classified as secondary sexual feature. Even as a gay guy I know that guys are extremely sexually attracted to breasts



In the year 2014 in western culture breasts are considered by the vast majority of the population to be sexual

Male nipples are actually sensitive as well, and are considered "erogenous zones" by some.

Feel free to explain how it isn't sexist to regulate an issue on the sole basis of ones sex.


Objectivily, they are not.


You'll have to explain why I should care here.


No, they're classified a secondary sexual feature because they develop during puberty.

You'll find that pubic hair is also a secondary sexual feature.


I tend to find them sexually attractive regardless of whether they're covered up or not: they're still noticed.


Again, I'm confused as to why who considers what sexual matters.

Exactly.


I agree on no full nudity for sanitary reasons. I feel it may also have the potential to increase rape crimes, spread STDs, and honestly, in my personal opinion, I just don't want to see what's hanging down there.

Chest nudity should be legal for women though. It's not fair that it's fine for a male to show his chest and it's nonsexual, but if a women does, all of a sudden it's sexual. Women are so over-sexualized by society to the point where it's even become illegal for women to breastfeed in public. like wtf? That's what boobs are for.

Very good point. Breastfeeding shouldn't be so taboo- it's literally the most natural thing ever.

Okay, new topic(kinda).

Should women be allowed to go shirtless in all the same places men are allowed to go shirtless?

Absolutely.

Ugh, shirtless women? I'll have to avoid the pool and beach from now on. What about women who don't want to bare all? And come on, a man's chest is sexualized too. Pecs anyone? Muscle butt, beach bod? Ring a bell? I don't think women should be shirtless. Women wear bikinis for a reason. Men can't even wear speedos without being called gay yet women can wear thongs?

We're talking about a law PERMITTING nudity, not ENFORCING it. You seem to keep getting the two confused.

And yes, men's chests are sexualized, and it IS a problem, however women arguably face more sexism over more parts of their body by more people.

Yes, absolutely. I'd love for someone to try to tell me why they shouldn't though, because every reason I've heard so far has been complete bullshit.

Exactly.

Breasts are different than men. Men don't have two big flapping regions. In a private or adults only area then maybe women can bare all, but not in public. What about other women and men who don't want that? Women and men are different, men bare their chests because we have no boobs, generally smaller nipples, and there isn't much to see unless the person is fat then that is another problem.

...Have you ever seen a shirtless woman? What on earth is so inherently despicable about womens' breasts??

Yes and no because it depends on the location. Bear in mind that women cover their chests for a reason. Nothing is stopping guys from covering up. Heck I'd wear a bikini myself if I was allowed to. And breasts flop which equals quite the sight and back pain to the woman.

Uh, most of us cover up our chests because we'd get misdemeanors if we didn't. Or because most stores, etc. do not serve shirtless people of any kind. Or maybe the weather's a bit drafty. I assure you most females went around topless when they were prepubescent, and a fair amount (myself included) miss being able to. Plus, shirts can get hot in hot (especially humid) climates, and arguably someone who is sweating a pool the size of Lake Michigan in their shirt is less attractive than a half-naked woman.

Not to mention that we get called sluts and get sexually harassed essentially no matter the amount of coverage or size of our breasts, so honestly, while it'd increase a little, those who would do it anyways don't care (which is the way to go, ya know. Which I could stop giving a shit) or are used to it.

Also, bras are there for support, but aren't a necessity. They can help alleviate back pain if you're larger, but shirts don't provide much more support than air does, and if you're running it honestly doesn't matter unless you've got a well-fitted sports bra. A lot of girls walk around bra-less, or shirtless when they can, because it happens to feel better than a bra. (To most anyways, I don't like it all the time.)

Also, if you're above a certain size, those suckers are going to hurt your back no matter what you do- unless what you do is get a reduction.

[Vlerchan]

Using your logic it's sexist to not have cubicles in a women's toilet block.
You'll have to explain how my logic infers this.

I'm in disagreement with the idea of discriminating on the basis of you perceiving sonething to be different.

Aside, I do agree with the idea of unisex bathrooms, though alongside the traditional male-female ones.

[SOURCE]
First, this doesn't support that woman's breasts are 'sexual', at least in how of was being used prior: 'attractive, exciting, etc.', but rather that certain interactions with woman's breasts can be arousing. Second, you'll have to explain why I should care about this, too. Your breasts being capable of causing arousal, orgasm, etc. on stimulation isn't going to be much of an issue unless someone starts simulating them: it is hardly a reason to illegalise something.

Further:

Young adult women and men report that breast stimulation not only induces their sexual arousal but enhances it when already aroused.

[...]

Breasts, and especially the nipples, are highly erogenous zones, for both men and women, and have a heightened sensitivity, the stimulation of which may result in the production of erotic sensations or sexual excitement.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulation_of_nipples

---

I'm in a country right now, Spain, [that I'm pretty sure] has it legal for woman to go topless and it hasn't fallen into complete anomie yet.

[Harry Smith]

I'm in a country right now, Spain, [that I'm pretty sure] has it legal for woman to go topless and it hasn't fallen into complete anomie yet.

Eh doesn't mean that the system is perfect does it, just because spain hasn't collapsed doesn't mean that every single law that it's passed is correct and valid.

tbh this whole debate shows that our society isn't ready for public nudity, sure have nudist beaches but I don't think the majority of people want nudity in schools, offices or train stations

[Lovelife090994]

Male nipples are actually sensitive as well, and are considered "erogenous zones" by some.



Exactly.



image (http://i.imgur.com/GfB6Jj0.png)



Very good point. Breastfeeding shouldn't be so taboo- it's literally the most natural thing ever.



Absolutely.



We're talking about a law PERMITTING nudity, not ENFORCING it. You seem to keep getting the two confused.

And yes, men's chests are sexualized, and it IS a problem, however women arguably face more sexism over more parts of their body by more people.



Exactly.



...Have you ever seen a shirtless woman? What on earth is so inherently despicable about womens' breasts??



Uh, most of us cover up our chests because we'd get misdemeanors if we didn't. Or because most stores, etc. do not serve shirtless people of any kind. Or maybe the weather's a bit drafty. I assure you most females went around topless when they were prepubescent, and a fair amount (myself included) miss being able to. Plus, shirts can get hot in hot (especially humid) climates, and arguably someone who is sweating a pool the size of Lake Michigan in their shirt is less attractive than a half-naked woman.

Not to mention that we get called sluts and get sexually harassed essentially no matter the amount of coverage or size of our breasts, so honestly, while it'd increase a little, those who would do it anyways don't care (which is the way to go, ya know. Which I could stop giving a shit) or are used to it.

Also, bras are there for support, but aren't a necessity. They can help alleviate back pain if you're larger, but shirts don't provide much more support than air does, and if you're running it honestly doesn't matter unless you've got a well-fitted sports bra. A lot of girls walk around bra-less, or shirtless when they can, because it happens to feel better than a bra. (To most anyways, I don't like it all the time.)

Also, if you're above a certain size, those suckers are going to hurt your back no matter what you do- unless what you do is get a reduction.

I've seen breasts, not pretty really. I've seen pecs, not pretty either. Honestly why should everyone have to abide by this and see women topless? At that rate then no one can go to a beach or pool without seeing everyone naked. What happened to integrity? Why would anyone want to go uncovered and all exposed to the world?

-edited. Unnecessary. -Emerald Dream

[Karkat]

I've seen breasts, not pretty really. I've seen pecs, not pretty either. Honestly why should everyone have to abide by this and see women topless? At that rate then no one can go to a beach or pool without seeing everyone naked. What happened to integrity? Why would anyone want to go uncovered and all exposed to the world?

Because that's how humans originally came. If anything, the societal pressure to wear clothing in extreme heat is the result of a mental issue.

Integrity is subjective. Not everyone abides by Christian morals, and frankly, not everyone should be forced to. Christians do not rule the country, nor the world, they are merely a part of it.

You've read the Bible, even the Bible says Adam and Eve were NAKED at first, and they clothed up because they 'were made aware that they were naked, and came to be ashamed' of it.

So really you're contradicting yourself either way. Either it's natural and good, and Christianity is prudish, or it's unnatural, and so is literally everything else humans do, or heck, that animals do. You pick.

[Lovelife090994]

Because that's how humans originally came. If anything, the societal pressure to wear clothing in extreme heat is the result of a mental issue.

Integrity is subjective. Not everyone abides by Christian morals, and frankly, not everyone should be forced to. Christians do not rule the country, nor the world, they are merely a part of it.

You've read the Bible, even the Bible says Adam and Eve were NAKED at first, and they clothed up because they 'were made aware that they were naked, and came to be ashamed' of it.

So really you're contradicting yourself either way. Either it's natural and
good, and Christianity is prudish, or it's unnatural, and so is literally everything else humans do, or heck, that animals do. You pick.

Hey, I gave my opinion. Why pick on me? I'm saying that we should not all have to be naked or see nudity in every public space. If you wantt to go topless then go to a nude beach or a nudist colony. I like clothes.

[Karkat]

Hey, I gave my opinion. Why pick on me? I'm saying that we should not all have to be naked or see nudity in every public space. If you wantt to go topless then go to a nude beach or a nudist colony. I like clothes.

I'm not 'picking' on you, I'm responding to your opinion with my own.

The human body is perfectly natural. That's kind of like saying you don't want to see overweight or disfigured people in public, because they don't look nice in your opinion.

Or if a nudist wanted nudity to be enforced because they didn't like clothes.

[Pulp501]

No man, it should stay illegal

[Lovelife090994]

I'm not 'picking' on you, I'm responding to your opinion with my own.

The human body is perfectly natural. That's kind of like saying you don't want to see overweight or disfigured people in public, because they don't look nice in your opinion.

Or if a nudist wanted nudity to be enforced because they didn't like clothes.

No, you insulted me and all Christians in blanket statements. What? You think everyone should be forced to be naked? Where's those liberal views of choice and respect? All I'm saying is that public nudity is illegal for a reason. If you want to naked in the middle of 5th avenue then do so and see what happens. Not everyone wants to be naked. And you shouldn't force everyone to like nakedness. Not every girl wants to be topless. Be naked at home or in a nudist colony, not in a family public.

No man, it should stay illegal

It is illegal for a reason.

[Emerald Dream]

Let's try to keep this on topic please, and not get so personal.

[Karkat]

No, you insulted me and all Christians in blanket statements. What? You think everyone should be forced to be naked? Where's those liberal views of choice and respect? All I'm saying is that public nudity is illegal for a reason. If you want to naked in the middle of 5th avenue then do so and see what happens. Not everyone wants to be naked. And you shouldn't force everyone to like nakedness. Not every girl wants to be topless. Be naked at home or in a nudist colony, not in a family public.

Implying that I'm a liberal. Which I'm not. I'm politically neutral. I don't choose sides, partially because a ton of politics is bullshit, partially because a lot of political views are bullshit, partially because no one side is ever 100% right. On anything. Seriously. There will always be truth and untruth to something. That's just the way the world works.

Christianity is by definition prudish. Is "prude" a little bit of a slang term? Is it a bit derogatory? Yes, a little. I'm sorry. However, there are not many other words to stick in place of that. So we'll go with "Unwilling to view sex as something that should be used for anything other than reproduction, and accordingly judgmental, and possibly even oppressive of others as a result."

Back to the topic at hand, the reason no one does that is because it's illegal. In some places in New York (apparently) it IS legal, and therefore yes, women do go around topless. John Travolta's daughter, I think, tried to take Instagram by storm, suggesting that naked breasts should not be pornographic. (Because they really aren't? Most classical art isn't considered pornographic or sexually explicit, and there are TONS of full frontal views of flaccid penises and testicles. Pubic hair. Butts. All inherently more sexual than a naked breast.) (#freethenipple was started by her, I think?)

Once again, you seem to be forgetting that there IS indeed a difference between the legality of something, and the enforcement of something. This is like arguing that the 2nd amendment should be removed because "not everyone wants to own a gun". Legality ≠ enforcement. Enforcement = enforcement. This part of your argument is extremely invalid, I don't know why you keep using it.

Ah, but

1. You are not female, biologically. You have no right to speak for women.

2. Some girls do. That's the point here.

Also, nudity is natural.

There are tribes in Africa where women do not wear shirts. It's fucking hot there, and I'm glad they have the common sense to wear climate-appropriate clothing.

We are born naked.

Doctors see naked breasts from women and men of every age, every color, every shape and size, non-sexually, non-sensually, all the time. Sure, gynecologists do the same with vaginas, but vaginas are a part of the reproductive system directly. They directly make a child. The only reason that female breasts are biologically a part of the female reproductive system is to wean young. They CAN be used for sexual stimulus, but so can forearms, necks, lips, inner thighs, as well as a TON of other non-sexual places.

We gonna ban those too now? For being sexually explicit because ONE of their functions CAN be sexual stimulation?

[Lovelife090994]

Implying that I'm a liberal. Which I'm not. I'm politically neutral. I don't choose sides, partially because a ton of politics is bullshit, partially because a lot of political views are bullshit, partially because no one side is ever 100% right. On anything. Seriously. There will always be truth and untruth to something. That's just the way the world works.

Christianity is by definition prudish. Is "prude" a little bit of a slang term? Is it a bit derogatory? Yes, a little. I'm sorry. However, there are not many other words to stick in place of that. So we'll go with "Unwilling to view sex as something that should be used for anything other than reproduction, and accordingly judgmental, and possibly even oppressive of others as a result."

Back to the topic at hand, the reason no one does that is because it's illegal. In some places in New York (apparently) it IS legal, and therefore yes, women do go around topless. John Travolta's daughter, I think, tried to take Instagram by storm, suggesting that naked breasts should not be pornographic. (Because they really aren't? Most classical art isn't considered pornographic or sexually explicit, and there are TONS of full frontal views of flaccid penises and testicles. Pubic hair. Butts. All inherently more sexual than a naked breast.) (#freethenipple was started by her, I think?)

Once again, you seem to be forgetting that there IS indeed a difference between the legality of something, and the enforcement of something. This is like arguing that the 2nd amendment should be removed because "not everyone wants to own a gun". Legality ≠ enforcement. Enforcement = enforcement. This part of your argument is extremely invalid, I don't know why you keep using it.

Ah, but

1. You are not female, biologically. You have no right to speak for women.

2. Some girls do. That's the point here.

Also, nudity is natural.

There are tribes in Africa where women do not wear shirts. It's fucking hot there, and I'm glad they have the common sense to wear climate-appropriate clothing.

We are born naked.

Doctors see naked breasts from women and men of every age, every color, every shape and size, non-sexually, non-sensually, all the time. Sure, gynecologists do the same with vaginas, but vaginas are a part of the reproductive system directly. They directly make a child. The only reason that female breasts are biologically a part of the female reproductive system is to wean young. They CAN be used for sexual stimulus, but so can forearms, necks, lips, inner thighs, as well as a TON of other non-sexual places.

We gonna ban those too now? For being sexually explicit because ONE of their functions
CAN be sexual stimulation?

I never said anything about sex. And you sound sexist. So no man can be naked or show anything? People just assume all men are pedophiles and that no woman will ever be. Penises are more sexual? By your logic it's natural so why call it worse? We all have a butt. What about people like me who hate being naked? Or do you call us disturbed? I don't seee women as sexual, at all. I'm not even attracted to women. I don't see sex being a factor here with me. It's about courtesy and not turning every place into a nude fest around every single person in the country.

[kylem1229]

It is a very controversial issue. I can see both sides of this issue, and there are good arguments on both sides. One of the main concerns is from parents trying to raise their children based on family and religious beliefs. There was definitley a time in the past where it could have changed, stating that nudity is no big deal. However in the current times, It may be harder to change.

[Karkat]

I never said anything about sex. And you sound sexist. So no man can be naked or show anything? People just assume all men are pedophiles and that no woman will ever be. Penises are more sexual? By your logic it's natural so why call it worse? We all have a butt. What about people like me who hate being naked? Or do you call us disturbed? I don't seee women as sexual, at all. I'm not even attracted to women. I don't see sex being a factor here with me. It's about courtesy and not turning every place into a nude fest around every single person in the country.

Ok, for one thing, that was your logic in the beginning, so that's complete bullshit. I'm not being sexist, and if you think I am, you either misunderstood me, or you're nuts.

Your arguments against it literally boil down to "I don't like it". And that is never a good enough answer.

[Celtics]

Because some people shouldn't be seen naked. Would you lake to 80 year olds naked, I would never go out in public again.

[Lovelife090994]

Ok, for one thing, that was your logic in the beginning, so that's complete bullshit. I'm not being sexist, and if you think I am, you either misunderstood me, or you're nuts.

Your arguments against it literally boil down to "I don't like it". And that is never a good enough answer.

No, they boil down to "You should never enforce something that many will not comply with." Public nudity is illegal for many reasons. You are so blinded by assuming sexism that you don't see it. And do not use profanity when I can talk to you with civility. You are an educated girl, you're better than this to be fighting over nudity. Partake in nudity at home, not in the street and enforcing it to all the world. You'll only get hurt or end up with cut feet.

Because some people shouldn't be seen naked. Would you lake to 80 year olds naked, I would never go out in public again.

Thanks.

[Gamma Male]

Because some people shouldn't be seen naked. Would you lake to 80 year olds naked, I would never go out in public again.

A lot of people don't enjoy seeing fat people in bathing suits. Should we make it illegal for fat people to wear bathing suits?

Seriously, your argument basically just boils down to "people shouldn't be allowed to have control over their own bodies because I don't want to see a bunch of ugly fatasses, and somehow my uncomfortableness supercedes their control over their own bodies."

[Karkat]

No, they boil down to "You should never enforce something that many will not comply with." Public nudity is illegal for many reasons. You are so blinded by assuming sexism that you don't see it. And do not use profanity when I can talk to you with civility. You are an educated girl, you're better than this to be fighting over nudity. Partake in nudity at home, not in the street and enforcing it to all the world. You'll only get hurt or end up with cut feet.

Excuse me? There is nothing sexist about anything I've said. You can stop your botched assumptions anytime.

SEXISM

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

(Google)

Stop throwing lies around just because you don't agree with what I have to say.

You refuse to even acknowledge what the actual debate is here, so I'm not even going to further this. There is no argument about ENFORCEMENT.

ALLOWING SOMETHING TO BECOME LEGAL DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE HAS TO PARTAKE IN IT. Nudity would OBVIOUSLY be optional. You lack the fundamental reasoning required to even make a semblance of a solid argument in this case! And yes, it really just boils down to you not wanting it! You haven't given another reason that isn't riddled with logical fallacies or isn't incoherent.

A lot of people don't enjoy seeing fat people in bathing suits. Should we make it illegal for fat people to wear bathing suits?

Seriously, your argument basically just boils down to "people shouldn't be allowed to have control over their own bodies because I don't want to see a bunch of ugly fatasses, and somehow my uncomfortableness supercedes their control over their own bodies."

Exactly! This is LITERALLY the only argument that is being made by anyone in opposition at this point! It's not up to them. I'm sure disfigured people, amputees, obese people, etc. are not attractive to some people- doesn't mean we should ban or shame them in public! What about people who think dark-skinned people are ugly? Or who don't find men attractive? Grow up! You do not matter in the scheme of things. You are not so high and mighty that you should have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do with their bodies!

But unfortunately, some people don't seem to get that.

[Lovelife090994]

Excuse me? There is nothing sexist about anything I've said. You can stop your botched assumptions anytime.



Stop throwing lies around just because you don't agree with what I have to say.

You refuse to even acknowledge what the actual debate is here, so I'm not even going to further this. There is no argument about ENFORCEMENT.

ALLOWING SOMETHING TO BECOME LEGAL DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE HAS TO PARTAKE IN IT. Nudity would OBVIOUSLY be optional. You lack the fundamental reasoning required to even make a semblance of a solid argument in this case! And yes, it really just boils down to you not wanting it! You haven't given another reason that isn't riddled with logical fallacies or isn't incoherent.



Exactly! This is LITERALLY the only argument that is being made by anyone in opposition at this point! It's not up to them. I'm sure disfigured people, amputees, obese people, etc. are not attractive to some people- doesn't mean we should ban or shame them in public! What about people who think dark-skinned people are ugly? Or who don't find men attractive? Grow up! You do not matter in the scheme of things. You are not so high and mighty that you should have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do with their bodies!

But unfortunately, some people don't seem to get that.

Public nudity should stay illegal for mental cases, to protect minors, to protect the person, and to quiet those like you whose views are a little extreme. If we all went naked it would be scarring to leave your house, and unsanitary. What you want is impossible. What do you know about values? If you had them, you'd see why public nudity is to be banned. You won't change my mind on this, not even in a hundred years. I respect your opinion no matter how much I disagree with it, trust me I do. But I ask you do the same.

Calling me incoherent and unaware of my surroundings is no way to get your point across. This isn't Congress, and I am not the elephant in the room. I'm still here and see whatever you type. I've acknowledged everything brought to me at least once but the problem is that what I say isn't what you want to hear. So you ignore it and call it "dodging the bullet." Haven't you once considered that we all don't share the same views? That nudity is controversial whether it should be or not? And FYI Ms. Patriotic "We all matter in the grand scheme of things." You have no right to change that. You can say it, but saying it exposes your arrogance. You're no better than me so you can get that out of your head right now and come crashing down off of your pedestal.

That in a world like this public nudity opens the door to depravity and ignores the other side's opinions and vote? Have you considered the repercussions? What about the city conditions? Cleanliness is hard to keep as is so nudity would not help it. Maybe forcing nudity would eliminate obesity as people would want to look more "presentable" in their natural form. But, I digress, I've been ignored, reshuffled, and insulted enough this week to last me a lifetime. Have a pleasant evening. Note I won't respond to any more inappropriate colloquialisms. I hoped we could agree to disagree, but you have an Activist's Mind, and I can't compete with that. Good Night.

[lyhom]

WARNING: LONG POST

Public nudity should stay illegal...to protect minors, to protect the person

Unless if you're talking about the sanitation issue (which is pretty much the only reason why I'm hesitant to be 100% for allowing OPTIONAL public nudity), then I genuinely don't know what valid thing there is to protect.

(No, some people getting slightly uncomfortable over the sight of human anatomy isn't "valid".)

and to quiet those like you whose views are a little extreme.

Wanting to silence the opposition.

Classy.

What you want is impossible.

It really isn't.

I really don't need to explain why.

What do you know about values? If you had them, you'd see why public nudity is to be banned.

I personally find that "Nudity isn't inherently bad" is a much better value than "Nudity = Bad", but whatever.

You won't change my mind on this, not even in a hundred years.

I understand why you wouldn't change your mind over here (Most people on here don't really do that, and if and when they do, it usually takes quite a while), but if you're going to try to debate, at least try to understand why the opposition feels the way they do.

I respect your opinion no matter how much I disagree with it, trust me I do. But I ask you do the same.

Earlier in the post, you basically claimed that Ren had no values because of his/her/their opinion. You clearly don't respect it, or else you wouldn't be this scathing in your opposition.

Calling me incoherent and unaware of my surroundings is no way to get your point across.

Assuming that Ren has said that in this thread, I don't blame anyone for thinking you are. In a lot of your posts, I really either can't understand what you are saying, or I genuinely wonder if you know what you are talking about.

I've acknowledged everything brought to me at least once but the problem is that what I say isn't what you want to hear.

It isn't that you aren't addressing most of the argument, it's that your rebuttals are weak as hell.

Haven't you once considered that we all don't share the same views?

I think literally everyone here knows that.

And FYI Ms. Patriotic "We all matter in the grand scheme of things." You have no right to change that. You can say it, but saying it exposes your arrogance.

I think you meant to quote when (s)he said "You don't matter in the grand scheme of things.", but I think (s)he was meaning that no matter how many opinions of a thing there are, positive or negative, it doesn't change how a thing is actually right or wrong.

You're no better than me so you can get that out of your head right now and come crashing down off of your pedestal.

Wait...

What do you know about values? If you had them, you'd see why public nudity is to be banned.

You constantly do this "u dunt hav valyooz or moarilz" thing to people you disagree with on this forum, and frankly that smacks of you being on a pedestal, so I had to freaking laugh at those last two quotes.

That in a world like this public nudity opens the door to depravity and ignores the other side's opinions and vote?

Because you know, "depravity" doesn't happen now, or anything.

(By the way, I fail to see how OPTIONAL public nudity is "ignoring" the other sides opinions when they aren't forced to comply, but whatever.)

But, I digress, I've been ignored, reshuffled, and insulted enough this week to last me a lifetime.

I have no clue how you are being ignored when your posts get quite a few replies, and I think you take a few too many things as insults, but whatever.

I hoped we could agree to disagree, but you have an Activist's Mind, and I can't compete with that.

If you wanted to agree to disagree, then you could've just said so.

Anyways, I hope you have a good day, because frankly if you don't get my post or at least agree to disagree we'll go nowhere. :P

[Lovelife090994]

WARNING: LONG POST



Unless if you're talking about the sanitation issue (which is pretty much the only reason why I'm hesitant to be 100% for allowing OPTIONAL public nudity), then I genuinely don't know what valid thing there is to protect.

(No, some people getting slightly uncomfortable over the sight of human anatomy isn't "valid".)



Wanting to silence the opposition.

Classy.



It really isn't.

I really don't need to explain why.



I personally find that "Nudity isn't inherently bad" is a much better value than "Nudity = Bad", but whatever.



I understand why you wouldn't change your mind over here (Most people on here don't really do that, and if and when they do, it usually takes quite a while), but if you're going to try to debate, at least try to understand why the opposition feels the way they do.



Earlier in the post, you basically claimed that Ren had no values because of his/her/their opinion. You clearly don't respect it, or else you wouldn't be this scathing in your opposition.



Assuming that Ren has said that in this thread, I don't blame anyone for thinking you are. In a lot of your posts, I really either can't understand what you are saying, or I genuinely wonder if you know what you are talking about.



It isn't that you aren't addressing most of the argument, it's that your rebuttals are weak as hell.



I think literally everyone here knows that.



I think you meant to quote when (s)he said "You don't matter in the grand scheme of things.", but I think (s)he was meaning that no matter how many opinions of a thing there are, positive or negative, it doesn't change how a thing is actually right or wrong.



Wait...



You constantly do this "u dunt hav valyooz or moarilz" thing to people you disagree with on this forum, and frankly that smacks of you being on a pedestal, so I had to freaking laugh at those last two quotes.



Because you know, "depravity" doesn't happen now, or anything.

(By the way, I fail to see how OPTIONAL public nudity is "ignoring" the other sides opinions when they aren't forced to comply, but whatever.)



I have no clue how you are being ignored when your posts get quite a few replies, and I think you take a few too many things as insults, but whatever.



If you wanted to agree to disagree, then you could've just said so.

Anyways, I hope you have a good day, because frankly if you don't get my post or at least agree to disagree we'll go nowhere. :P

Wow, you spent nearly half a page to tell me how incoherent and wishy-washy I am. Nice. I'll just say, half the time I'm two people, the other time I'm what's left of what used to be me. But I know what I'm talking about. So I lack empathy sometimes? Yeah that's happened a lot to me over the years. No use changing that now when I can't. All I say is my opinion. If not allowed that then why say it? But like so many you don't get me at all, but that's fine. No one will probably. I agree to disagree on this one. You're not the angel here, so that won't work either. And for the record, I don't have a pedestal to stand on, I'm so broken I'm flat on the ground.

[Celtics]

A lot of people don't enjoy seeing fat people in bathing suits. Should we make it illegal for fat people to wear bathing suits?

Seriously, your argument basically just boils down to "people shouldn't be allowed to have control over their own bodies because I don't want to see a bunch of ugly fatasses, and somehow my uncomfortableness supercedes their control over their own bodies."

You want a more serious answer? Young kids will start having sex and not knowing what there doing and could get hurt. Diseases could spread easier if everyone was naked. Guys and some girls will just start peeing everywhere, Rapes will go up and kidnaps. I gurantee the rapes and kidnap will go up. If you want to go nude, go to a nudist camp. I don't go around nude for a reason, since I know people don't want to see me naked.

[Karkat]

You want a more serious answer? Young kids will start having sex and not knowing what there doing and could get hurt. Diseases could spread easier if everyone was naked. Guys and some girls will just start peeing everywhere, Rapes will go up and kidnaps. I gurantee the rapes and kidnap will go up. If you want to go nude, go to a nudist camp. I don't go around nude for a reason, since I know people don't want to see me naked.

I'm sorry, but this argument is so weak and unfounded that there really isn't anything I could say to counter this.

A lot, a LOT of this is irrelevant to nudity, or already happens.

Aside from that, we are now on the topic of women being topless, not full nudity.

[Cats123]

It seems that in the next 20 years or sooner women will be able to legally show their breasts.

[Celtics]

I'm sorry, but this argument is so weak and unfounded that there really isn't anything I could say to counter this.

A lot, a LOT of this is irrelevant to nudity, or already happens.

Aside from that, we are now on the topic of women being topless, not full nudity.

Ok I have a idea for people for both sides. In public there are areas where nudity is allowed and not allowed. So people have a choice, so people can be comfortable. I think that would be the best, I don't see this ever happening since the media thinks people should starve themselves and spend thousands and thousands of dollars to try to look "perfect", which makes people self confidence go way down and make them feel shitty about themselves constantly.

[Gamma Male]

Ok I have a idea for people for both sides. In public there are areas where nudity is allowed and not allowed. So people have a choice, so people can be comfortable. I think that would be the best, I don't see this ever happening since the media thinks people should starve themselves and spend thousands and thousands of dollars to try to look "perfect", which makes people self confidence go way down and make them feel shitty about themselves constantly.

Okay, how about this. We desegregate some areas in public, but keep other areas whites only so if you're not comfortable sharing a water fountain with a black person you have a choice.


Same basic logic you're using. That it's okay to deprive someone of their right to be somewhere regardless of appearance so long as they sti have the right in other, smaller, usually worse areas.

Women should be allowed to be topless everywhere men should be allowed to be topless.

[chrisawesome]

I think we should have the right to buy condos or small houses in nudist colonies as secondary homes. Affordable At low prices that is. Then have a background check and filter out all the sex offenders and rapists. Then we could show off our proud bodies and air out the sack or rack or pussy crack without anyone caring. -small accounts of indecent exposure should be less enforced. If a girl accidentally shows her pussy when getting into a car from going commando then let her be. If I'm swimming and have to piss like a firehose and don't want to dry off for 5 minutes and then go in the freezing house just to get shrinkage why do I have to worry about shielding my dick and acting discreet when I pee in the grass so I don't have to worry about being considered a sex offender or something. C'mon we all got to piss.

[Lovelife090994]

Calm down. It was just a simple analogy, I wasn't saying discrimination against topless women is as bad as racism. If you don't like that example I'll explain my position differently.

There is absolutely no reason it should be illegal for men to go topless but not women. Breasts are not inherently sexual. Lots of people do think of them sexually, but lots of people also think of male breasts as sexual, and elbows, and abs, and legs. But it's legal to display those things in public. The difference between breasts and genitalia is that genitalia are actually necessary for reproductive sex, whereas breasts are used to feed babies. The fact that you are uncomfortable around breasts is irrelevant, you don't get to tell people what they can and can't wear just because it makes you uncomfortable. That's what I meant with the racism analogy. Lots of white would be uncomfortable sharing a swimming pool or bathroom with blacks, but it doesn't matter. Black people should still be allowed to use all the public services whites can because personal freedom>the uncomfortableness of others. There is absolutely no reason women shouldn't be allowed to go topless in all of the areas men can go topless.

Actually there is a reason and sex isn't it. There is something called decency. Feeding or not, breasts are covered because of how they are. They are different than pecs and flop around. If a person is uncomfortable around that then they have every right to be. You shouldn't force everyone to live by your rules or opinions. The other side matters too.

[Gamma Male]

Actually there is a reason and sex isn't it. There is something called decency. Feeding or not, breasts are covered because of how they are. They are different than pecs and flop around. If a person is uncomfortable around that then they have every right to be. You shouldn't force everyone to live by your rules or opinions. The other side matters too.

Do you support making it illegal for men to go topless in public?

[Lovelife090994]

Do you support making it illegal for men to go topless in public?

No, because that is how it's been done for a long time. Women often want to cover up, also remember it is uncomfortable for a woman to have her breasts out all of the time. And you have no right to turn every beach or public pool into a nude beach and topless affair. Breasts are not pecs, one flops, one doesn't unless fat then should be covered. It should only be legal on a topless beach or in a nudist colony.

[Gamma Male]

No, because that is how it's been done for a long time. Women often want to cover up, also remember it is uncomfortable for a woman to have her breasts out all of the time. And you have no right to turn every beach or public pool into a nude beach and topless affair. Breasts are not pecs, one flops, one doesn't unless fat then should be covered. It should only be legal on a topless beach or in a nudist colony.

So in other words you think it should be legal for men to go topless but not women, and you haven't actually given a good reason why.

That's how its been done for a long time? Not a good enough reason by itself.

Women's breasts are larger? So? How is that relevant?

[Lovelife090994]

So in other words you think it should be legal for men to go topless but not women, and you haven't actually given a good reason why.

That's how its been done for a long time? Not a good enough reason by itself.

Women's breasts are larger? So? How is that relevant?

They are different. Think about it. Do you know how weird that would be if women went around topless? Some people hate the idea of a man in a speedo let along a woman in a thong, although both can border to adult wear. You can't make every pool have topless women or beach either. Not everyone wants that. Women can already go topless at a nude beach, nudist colony, or nudist resort.

[Korashk]

They are different. Think about it. Do you know how weird that would be if women went around topless? Some people hate the idea of a man in a speedo let along a woman in a thong, although both can border to adult wear. You can't make every pool have topless women or beach either. Not everyone wants that. Women can already go topless at a nude beach, nudist colony, or nudist resort.
Lovelife, nobody except you is talking about forcing people to walk around naked.

[Lovelife090994]

Lovelife, nobody except you is talking about forcing people to walk around naked.

Nobody isn't mentioning either. Also, no one seems to understand what I am saying. I'm shocked you aren't trying to be colder.

[Babs]

I think it should become more acceptable for female breasts to be exposed. I think they're overly sexualized. When it gets to the point that breastfeeding (they're intended purpose) in public is frowned upon based on the fact that people find them sexual, that's where it's gone too far.
I don't think that genitals should be exposed though. People can do whatever they want with their own bodies, so I guess my opinion on that is irrelevant, but I think it would be really unsanitary, even if people kept good hygiene down there.

[BigStaats]

I think nudists should have their own designated areas, like they already do.

[EvanGr]

Well, humans started as animals, according to Darwin and became homo universalis +++++ . This means that they found a harmony between id and superego, the ego, according to freud. My perception is, in case everyone becomes naked, superego will become stronger again in the view of the sexual organs.

[mychalo]

Nobody isn't mentioning either. Also, no one seems to understand what I am saying. I'm shocked you aren't trying to be colder.

Sorry, but I don't really understand your point.
We all have opinions on what is acceptable to us as individuals, and decency is one of them. You mention how things have been done a certain way for a long time but does that mean it's the only way it can be done?

[Karagor]

My perception is, in case everyone becomes naked, superego will become stronger again in the view of the sexual organs.

Can you explain this a bit more please? It sounds really interesting, and the only actual argument I've read on here that genuinely favours illegal nudity in a sensible and reasonable way.

[EvanGr]

Can you explain this a bit more please? It sounds really interesting, and the only actual argument I've read on here that genuinely favours illegal nudity in a sensible and reasonable way.

You know, Freud created three categories of our psychic apparatus:

1. id, it's what our nature want us to do, which means to act like animals, search for food by hunting and killing like wild animals, protect our territory e.t.c., I think you understand what I mean.

2. superego, it's the limitations the community imposes, so that we can act different from animals. This involves not fightingwith others for claiming their territory, restrain our physical needs(like sexual) and not show them in public and with whoever we want. It's in fact, what the society wants from us to be the perfect people.

3. ego, it's the balance of the previous two categories. Of course, no one can be perfect, so this means that superego is infeasible. But we can achive some of its characteristics, while at the same time we have some characteristics from id.

What I am saying is, right now, people belong to the ego category. By starting showing off our reproductive organs, this MAY lead us to lean more to the id category. So we will gradually stop being seperate species of the mother nature and start acting more like animals, ehich would be a result of our hormones. A man would see a woman and go straight to her to do what he wants to do sexually.

This is my perspective.

[Charleigh]

Oh dear oh dear. I really do think you should think before you post about stupid shit.

If I had a child, and someones dick was in front of my childs face or anywhere near me or my child, I'd ramove it with my bare hands.

It isn't appropriate, there's a time and a place. If we didn't have clothes we wouldn't have identity and style, and because there are sick cunts who could be led on by someone walking nude.

If public nudity were to become legal, the consequences would be disasterous.

[EvanGr]

Oh dear oh dear. I really do think you should think before you post about stupid shit.

If I had a child, and someones dick was in front of my childs face or anywhere near me or my child, I'd ramove it with my bare hands.

It isn't appropriate, there's a time and a place. If we didn't have clothes we wouldn't have identity and style, and because there are sick cunts who could be led on by someone walking nude.

If public nudity were to become legal, the consequences would be disasterous.

That's also a correct apporoach for me. If you were talking to me, I would like to tell you I just approached the whole thing psycologicaly. But still, you are right. This is what I would also do, if I had a child.

[rtw1997]

I think people are losing sight of the fact that we are a society, and a society follows societal norms. I don't see what good would come of legalizing public nudity, personally.

[Michelle_Stilt]

I think it should become more acceptable for female breasts to be exposed. I think they're overly sexualized. When it gets to the point that breastfeeding (they're intended purpose) in public is frowned upon based on the fact that people find them sexual, that's where it's gone too far.
I don't think that genitals should be exposed though. People can do whatever they want with their own bodies, so I guess my opinion on that is irrelevant, but I think it would be really unsanitary, even if people kept good hygiene down there.

Totally agree with ya! :yeah:

[Svan]

I believe that public nudity should be generally illegal, but I DO believe there should be certain places that it's allowed. Strip clubs, obviously, nude beaches, nudist colonies. But out in the regular world, children and young people don't need to grow up around that indecency.

[Chuck_M8]

I am a libertarian and am very much for the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they are not infringing the rights of others. Though, I think there are plenty of reasons as why it should be illegal in any area that is not a private residence or a specified public place for people to go to in the nude.

The First Amendment is not absolute. I am sure you have heard the you can't go into a movie theater and yell "fire", or that you can't go into a hospital and pull a fire alarm because you did not like your stay. While these are different circumstances, the same general principles apply.

You can't walk around naked because being naked is sexual and literally has been since the cavemen were around. I don't know if the argument has been made that it's somehow not, but it is. Quite simply I don't know how the argument can be made that the penis and vagina, two human sexual organs, are not sexual.

If a teacher was to walk into a children's playground, fully clothed, and plays basketball or something with a young boy you would not think anything of it. If they were to be naked it changes everything. Why a young boy? Why naked? This very instance would be sexual harassment because you would be subjugating a child to a possible sexual scenario, regardless of the adults intent.

If nudity was legal, it would really diminish the lines between what is and is not sexual harassment and it would create a host of new issues. I suppose I would support the notion that someone could be nude where ever they wanted as long as it in no way shape or form violates anyone around said person.

I do agree with the women and their top thing. Women wearing upper under-garments is Victorian in root, I think, and is not in anyway sexual.

[Vlerchan]

The First Amendment is not absolute. I am sure you have heard the you can't go into a movie theater and yell "fire", or that you can't go into a hospital and pull a fire alarm because you did not like your stay. While these are different circumstances, the same general principles apply.
You'll find that this is not allowed because it creates a likelihood of bodily harm occurring to one or more individuals.

Unlike nudity.

You can't walk around naked because being naked is sexual and literally has been since the cavemen were around.
Define: "sexual".

Explain why something being "sexual" is wrong.

Quite simply I don't know how the argument can be made that the penis and vagina, two human sexual organs, are not sexual.
I've made arguments previously in regards to woman's breasts.

I have no idea if they are applicable though because I'm unsure whether we are defining 'sexual' the same way.

This very instance would be sexual harassment because you would be subjugating a child to a possible sexual scenario, regardless of the adults intent.
Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment

It doesn't seem like your definition of 'sexual harassment' matches up with the one generally accepted in courts.

---

It should be noted that in the US sexual harassment is only illegal in the workplace:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment.

[...]

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:
submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment;
submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or;
such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+harassment

If nudity was legal, it would really diminish the lines between what is and is not sexual harassment[1] and it would create a host of new issues[2].
[1]: Please explain. Thank you.

[2]: Please expand. Thank you.

[DeadEyes]

No, it shouldn't be, it's just another taboo.

[pjones]

in the USA it will probably never be legal except in specific places. but that's OK because those who want to be can go and those who don't want to can stay away.

[asrlem]

I believe that it should be legal because there is nothing with the human body i mean da vinci is all about it with the vivitruin man or however you spell it. But i can see how it can be disgusting on the other side

[James Dean]

In my personal opinion, it shouldn't. Sadly, I can't go into politics about it. Just we wear clothes and not wearing clothes is a no no. Not that I have a problem with nudists or people who prefer if we didn't have to wear clothes.

[mrpieface2]

I don't have anything against public nudity, but I doubt it would ever be legal.

[kryptonite]

Honestly? I don't think it'd be a good idea with the way society is now. Unfortunately, that would leave women SO much more open to rape and slut-shaming. If people weren't a bunch of fucking molesters, it'd be a different story.

I just feel like people would abuse the privilege by sexually assaulting everyone willy nilly. It's not like a lot of men, and a fair amount of women don't do that now.

Plus, people might try to use it as an excuse to jack off in public, which is just...no. Nobody wants to see that.

Ideally, if people weren't sick-minded, I'd agree 100%, but with the way society is now, I think it's best reserved to private homes, and nudist camps and beaches.



Oh god. This too. It's not like they aren't already trying to do this.


But wait a minute. I'm not saying either side is right, but:

Couldn't you say that it's society that has sexualized various body parts? Everyone has breasts, including men.

If we didn't put sex (and sex organs, etc) on some sort of pedestal, who knows... could a sexual body part just be like an elbow or shoulder? Who knows.

[Karkat]

But wait a minute. I'm not saying either side is right, but:

Couldn't you say that it's society that has sexualized various body parts? Everyone has breasts, including men.

If we didn't put sex (and sex organs, etc) on some sort of pedestal, who knows... could a sexual body part just be like an elbow or shoulder? Who knows.

...Each sex, each individual has erogenous zones that aren't sexualized. If the were, we'd all be wearing turtleneck sweaters, we'd never be able to show midriffs or forearms, etc.
Some people have fetishes for non-sexual places. Like feet, or backs, or armpits. But we don't necessarily shun these from being uncovered in public. And when we do, it's usually not so much about the fact that it's considered indecent as it's gross/etc.

Not to mention that butts can also be highly sexualized, but you see cartoon butts on tv all the time. No one freaks out as much if a thong is on daytime television as if a topless woman were to be.

It's really all a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be to begin with.

[Uranus]

Probably cuz there'd be a shit ton of boners all over

[Miserabilia]

Probably cuz there'd be a shit ton of boners all over

I don't really think so.
In a nudist colony, it's not like eveyrone is always aroused i assume. It's our feeling that nudity is automaticaly linked to sex because for most people it's the only time they are nude around each other.
If you are always nude around each other this mental link is less strong so the "kick" would be out of.
tl;dr, you'd get used to seeing nude people if it was legal.

[Uranus]

I don't really think so.
In a nudist colony, it's not like eveyrone is always aroused i assume. It's our feeling that nudity is automaticaly linked to sex because for most people it's the only time they are nude around each other.
If you are always nude around each other this mental link is less strong so the "kick" would be out of.
tl;dr, you'd get used to seeing nude people if it was legal.

Well I got no problem with women and....well fuck it, all females having freedom to do public nudity. But I know there'd be alot of boners first. And alot of sexual predators. And since, yea it'd be normal after awhile if it were legalized. But what about guys my age? Especially my irl friends. Shit ton of boners!

[Miserabilia]

Well I got no problem with women and....well fuck it, all females having freedom to do public nudity. But I know there'd be alot of boners first. And alot of sexual predators. And since, yea it'd be normal after awhile if it were legalized. But what about guys my age? Especially my irl friends. Shit ton of boners!

That's a 100% true; however there are two sides that could fix this

- This transiation from the way we live now to a society where public nudity is accepted will have to be slow, or else we will have more issues with things like sexual predetors as you said

- It's normal for teenage boys; and if we are open and honest about our bodies, it wouldn't be as awkward. It'd be concidered a normal thing.
I udnerstand your concern though :lol:

[Uranus]

It's not really a concern. I got no problem seeing some bigass boobies!

[Gamma Male]

Well I got no problem with women and....well fuck it, all females having freedom to do public nudity. But I know there'd be alot of boners first. And alot of sexual predators. And since, yea it'd be normal after awhile if it were legalized. But what about guys my age? Especially my irl friends. Shit ton of boners!

Violently forcing people to wear clothes against their will isn't going to prevent the existence of boners. People are going to get boners regardless and they're not going to hurt anything.

[Vlerchan]

Violently forcing people to wear clothes against their will isn't going to prevent the existence of boners.
I don't see what's so bad about coercion once you stop believing in free-will.

[Gamma Male]

I don't see what's so bad about coercion once you stop believing in free-will.

I honestly don't see how the logical impossibility of free will is relevant to the current discussion.

[Vlerchan]

I honestly don't see how the logical impossibility of free will is relevant to the current discussion.
You oppose forcing people to do stuff with the threat of violence. Or at least that's the argument you just tried to use. You're a hard-determinist though. If you don't believe that free will exists then why care if someone is being unsubtle in their application of force?

Everything results as a reaction to some force, violent or otherwise.

---

Free Will also isn't a logical impossibility. But let's not get into that.

[Gamma Male]

You oppose forcing people to do stuff with the threat of violence. Or at least that's the argument you just tried to use. You're a hard-determinist though. If you don't believe that free will exists then why care if someone is being unsubtle in their application of force?

Everything results as a reaction to some force, violent or otherwise.

Lack of free will doesn't take away your ability to decide to do something, it just means that it was impossible for to have done anything else. But you are still the cause of your actions. You just aren't the cause of "you". So we can will ourselves to do things, but that will isn't free, it's predetermined.


But physically restricting someone takes away their ability to control their bodies. Instead of their will determining how their bodies interest with the world, your will is deciding how their body interacts with the world. But neither will is "free" in a metaphysical sense since our wills our predetermined by genetics and the environment in which we are raised.

Free Will also isn't a logical impossibility. But let's not get into that.
Yes it is.

[Vlerchan]

Lack of free will doesn't take away your ability to decide to do something, it just means that it was impossible for to have done anything else.
If there was never a choice in the first place were you ever deciding on anything?

But you are still the cause of your actions.
You're just a cog in machine. The machine is society.

You just aren't the cause of "you".
If it's 'me' that makes decisions but 'me' is determined by things around 'me' then who's really making the decisions (or is the cause of my actions)?

But physically restricting someone takes away their ability to control their bodies.
If everything is predetermined then we're never in control.

We just believe we are.

Instead of their will determining how their bodies interest with the world, your will is deciding how their body interacts with the world.
And?

Is it also wrong to convince and/or manipulate people to do things? impose my will on them that way?

But neither will is "free" in a metaphysical sense since our wills our predetermined by genetics and the environment in which we are raised.
Which is sort of my point.

Yes it is.
Given current levels of evidence it's just quite unlikely.

[Buddy 912]

If people have the confidence to be naked, let them.

[dakeep18]

no it should be fully legal if not encouraged ;) lol

[Uranus]

I suppose it would not be a bit issue. But there would be a major debate and arguments against it. A lot of religious organizations would be completely against it. And a lot of parents too I'd it were legalized for younger people. And even if it was, I feel a lot of women and girls would be very uncomfortable with it because so many young guys would have boners all over the place.

[DeadEyes]

You know, if it was legal and people started to randomly go around nude in public places, after a while people would just get used to it and not even notice it anymore.

[Jay-Rosie]

It should be legal

[Arkansasguy]

Edit: BTW, I am not, nor have I ever been, nor do I plan on becoming in the future, a nudist.

I've been thinking about it a lot, and I honestly can't come up with a single good reason why public nudity should be illegal. There's nothing inherently wrong or bad about the human body, and the only justifications I've found to support laws against public nudity are "But it makes me uncomfortable" which isn't reason enough to make something illegal, and "but that's just the way things are!"/ some bullshit appeal to meaningless social traditions that have no basis in reality.

Also, the fact that men are allowed to go shirtless but not women is sexist. The only difference between men's chests and women's chest is the presence of(typically) larger breasts, and the idea of women's breasts somehow being "bad" or "inappropriate" but men's breats being "normal" and "appropriate" is grounded not in logic or rationality, but in pointless and arbitrary social customs that are both completely unnecessary and detrimental to society as a whole and the individual rights of people.

Honestly, this is the kind of thing that one hundred years from now people will look back on and say "not being clothed in public used to be ILLEGAL? :lol: What a bunch of prudish savages".

Public nudity would be an occasion of temptation to lust, which is bad.

[Gamma Male]

Public nudity would be an occasion of temptation to lust, which is bad.

So your right not to get horny supercedes my right to bodily autonomy?

https://fbcdn-photos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-0/10881600_1514196492194448_7733703839599253919_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=25c1ba0756d1306851fe44ff4b241d75&oe=55392E8C&__gda__=1426127846_c5c3a27ef261a5e23191e203dfbc54e7

[Arkansasguy]

So your right not to get horny supercedes my right to bodily autonomy?

image ( https://fbcdn-photos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-0/10881600_1514196492194448_7733703839599253919_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=25c1ba0756d1306851fe44ff4b241d75&oe=55392E8C&__gda__=1426127846_c5c3a27ef261a5e23191e203dfbc54e7)

I don't consider there to be a right to be naked in public.

[normalperson]

we have come too far without it for it to work now... i'm open to it.

[Wyatt 13]

Yes, should be too many creeps around

[jssixna]

It's not going to be allowed because children "shouldn't" be exposed to that. Also people will look at others sexually and with lust. Reason why girls can't show their boobs is because men view it sexually nowadays. Everyone will be self conscious and religion will oppose and clothing brands/companies might close down. Therefore public nudity will be illegal and always will be unless their is a drastic change in our culture.

[amgb]

Well thinking about it, millions (or billions idk) of years ago we were walking around in naked bodies with nothing on but our body hair, so taking that into consideration I don't see anything wrong with being nude around other humans. But nowadays we have laws, the standards and expectations of society, and the idea of 'appropriate' or 'strange'. Being nude in public is very out of the ordinary, does not conform with normal behaviour and appearance in public, and it's simply something that we're not comfortable with seeing. But I don't think being nude in public should be a crime, I mean it's not harming anyone. I think that although we need to cover up and wear clothing in public, public nudity should not be illegal

[Meh Guy]

It's mostly about censorship and such, like the exposing of our intimate parts is somehow socially taboo, even though many situations force us to be naked around others yet that is considered normal (I.e gym locker rooms) I guess it's also somewhat of a hygiene issue. And the thing with women not allowed to go topless, is probably more of a protective thing then a sexist thing. Like women already get victimized for wearing skimpy outfits and then getting raped, why do we want them wandering around nude?

I do tend to agree that public nudity shouldn't be illegal, because even if it wasn't, I doubt the masses would be stripping down. It'd probably be a few here and there. I for one, wouldn't be naked publicly just because of certain factors. I mean, I love being naked, even in front of others, I just wouldn't want to walk around naked all the time.

Either way, I live in Toronto where you can be wearing just your underwear and get away with it. Even if you're a girl ;)

[dirtyboxer55]

should be legal, but not a norm