Naturism should be legal. Period

[Allied Governments]

Can someone explain what we would do once we lose our functionality of clothing? Say, pockets, the aid in temperature regulation, UV protection, protection from sharp pointy objects, etc.

Also, I laughed at the OP's Appeal To Nature Argument.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Oh yeah I forgot it's not illegal to go naked in the U.K. 'Depending on certain conditions and if you inform the authorities before you do it'.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

There are more much more immoral thing like TV show where children are tought to be greedy materialistic consumistic drone,film with random explicit sex scenes or conservative propaganda that teach children that war is something to be proud of

do you mean that in Catalonia people can go to the mall naked?

Don't waste money on a plane ticket.

[Poliwanacraca]

I think it is entirely reasonable to require that the genitals and anus be covered when in public, because there are inherent health risks in letting people rub their assholes on things. It has been correctly pointed out that there are also inherent health risks in letting people breathe on things - the rather important distinction is that there are pretty darn obvious reasons to let people breathe in public; there really isn't a reason that anyone needs to bare their ass in public.

There really isn't a reason that anyone needs to go around topless in public, or to bare their arms or legs, or to have their face uncovered.

Your point being?

That in a society, we have to balance safety with liberty. Things should, by default, be legal, unless there is a compelling reason to ban them, and even then only if there is not a MORE compelling reason to allow them. There is no compelling reason to ban toplessness. Toplessness presents no particular safety risk. Therefore, it should be legal. There is a compelling reason to ban exposed anuses in public. They present a safety risk. There is no particularly compelling reason to allow them, since the only major reason is "but I like having an exposed anus." Therefore, it is reasonable for exposing your anus in public to be illegal. There is a compelling reason to ban public breathing - it spreads disease. There is a more compelling reason to allow it, namely "it is really not practical to demand that everyone purchase and wear gas masks and oxygen tanks while going about their daily lives." Therefore, it should be legal. This is how a functional society works - we ban things only if they cause harm and the ban does not create an undue burden on those affected. Pretty simple, really.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

Can someone explain what we would do once we lose our functionality of clothing? Say, pockets, the aid in temperature regulation, UV protection, protection from sharp pointy objects, etc.

Um. You don't lose any of those advantages, since no-one makes you go naked.

It's someone else's problem, right? The one who goes naked?

[Andorias]

I don't see why not. I mean sure, there would be an adjustment period. Eventually you'd get over the fact the guy sitting by you on the train is at full attention or not think much of seeing a chick with a huge rack talking about the business proposal.

Course till then there'd be a whole lot of blushing and inability to hide one's true thoughts and intentions.

Just think, people would learn a little self control.

AHAHAHAH ! You're right !!

One thing in favour of panties for men and bras for women is that when you move and run a lot, it's fastidious to leave certain parts of the body loosened

[Natapoc]

I don' t think anyone is saying it should be illegal to wear clothes. Just that it should not be illegal to not wear clothes. I often worry about how homelessness is effectively illegal due to laws like this.

Imagine you are homeless and you need to clean yourself but if you are caught you will go to jail. So you walk around for miles looking for a really discreet place. You take off your pants and underwear to start cleaning... and just then a police car drives by

You get charged with indecent exposure and after being let out of jail it is even harder for you to find a job then before and the downward cycle of poverty and hopelessness continues...

Can someone explain what we would do once we lose our functionality of clothing? Say, pockets, the aid in temperature regulation, UV protection, protection from sharp pointy objects, etc.

Also, I laughed at the OP's Appeal To Nature Argument.

[Saint Clair Island]

Congratulations. You are in favour of the burqa.

Hang on, aren't you kinda middling on the burqa?

Hang the fuck on. You are in favour of the enforcement of the burqa, with legal sanctions, on public streets.

Because society is uncomfortable with the display of a woman's face, and hence should be permitted to ban the display of a woman's face.

Certain societies are, yes. In those societies,enforcement of the burqa is perfectly okay.

Really? You are honestly OK with a law which decrees that for women, NO PART of the body can be shown in public?

Yes -- if said law were supported by the supermajority (at least) of citizens.

Morality and rights derive solely from consensus. Killing is wrong only because everyone agrees that it is wrong; those who disagree are viewed as deviants. If enough people agreed that women should not be allowed to display any part of their body in public, it would become "moral" or "right" for women to wear burqas in public, and those who thought women should expose any of their skin would be viewed as the deviants.

And, I mean, I'd be perfectly fine with covering up all of my skin if society said I had to. I see nothing wrong with that; I don't wear burqas (for obvious reasons -- although I do usually wear long pants and long-sleeved shirts, only exposing limbs during times of exceptionally high temperatures), but I could if society required me to. It's not like wearing it hurts me or something.

In the Anglosphere, in what we'd call "American society" or "English society" or "Australian society", display of women's faces is quite acceptable, so enforcing burqas is just silly.

Moreover, society's opinions change. Two hundred years ago enslavement of black people on the basis of skin colour was acceptable and legally justifiable. Nowadays, it's totally immoral and wrong.

*cough*

I would hope that you and myself would not, two hundred years ago, have kept a slave. That if we gained any benefit from the keeping of slaves, that we would try to liberate ourselves from that odious advantage.

Why wouldn't we? Who would tell us that slavery is wrong? Who would tell us that black people were not actually of a different species than white people, justifying their enslavement? (As lots of people believed until Charles Darwin came along.) If we were raised in a society where slavery was acceptable, we wouldn't see anything wrong with it.

You said a stupid thing. Best you just retract it, I think.

It makes perfect sense to me. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.

[Saint Clair Island]

I think it is entirely reasonable to require that the genitals and anus be covered when in public, because there are inherent health risks in letting people rub their assholes on things. It has been correctly pointed out that there are also inherent health risks in letting people breathe on things - the rather important distinction is that there are pretty darn obvious reasons to let people breathe in public; there really isn't a reason that anyone needs to bare their ass in public.

There really isn't a reason that anyone needs to go around topless in public, or to bare their arms or legs, or to have their face uncovered.

Your point being?

That in a society, we have to balance safety with liberty. Things should, by default, be legal, unless there is a compelling reason to ban them, and even then only if there is not a MORE compelling reason to allow them. There is no compelling reason to ban toplessness. Toplessness presents no particular safety risk. Therefore, it should be legal.

Well, the thing is, society does offer a compelling reason to ban it (at the moment, anyway -- this can and probably will change): it's widely viewed as immoral or indecent. The proportion of people who would do it to people who would be disturbed by it means that not only will the non-topless people become unhappy or uncomfortable, but the topless people would also be stigmatized or ostracized or looked strangely upon, leading to their becoming unhappy or uncomfortable; it is not in accordance with the greatest happiness principle, since it is likely to make more people unhappy than it pleases. Once this changes, of course, there is no longer any good reason for it to remain illegal.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

I think it is entirely reasonable to require that the genitals and anus be covered when in public, because there are inherent health risks in letting people rub their assholes on things. It has been correctly pointed out that there are also inherent health risks in letting people breathe on things - the rather important distinction is that there are pretty darn obvious reasons to let people breathe in public; there really isn't a reason that anyone needs to bare their ass in public.

There really isn't a reason that anyone needs to go around topless in public, or to bare their arms or legs, or to have their face uncovered.

Your point being?

That in a society, we have to balance safety with liberty. Things should, by default, be legal, unless there is a compelling reason to ban them, and even then only if there is not a MORE compelling reason to allow them. There is no compelling reason to ban toplessness. Toplessness presents no particular safety risk. Therefore, it should be legal. There is a compelling reason to ban exposed anuses in public. They present a safety risk. There is no particularly compelling reason to allow them, since the only major reason is "but I like having an exposed anus." Therefore, it is reasonable for exposing your anus in public to be illegal. There is a compelling reason to ban public breathing - it spreads disease. There is a more compelling reason to allow it, namely "it is really not practical to demand that everyone purchase and wear gas masks and oxygen tanks while going about their daily lives." Therefore, it should be legal. This is how a functional society works - we ban things only if they cause harm and the ban does not create an undue burden on those affected. Pretty simple, really.

It's not simple, but you explained it well.

I would argue that liberty ("I want to expose my anus") is a basic level of entitlement (as you said, the default,) which requires not just a nominal but a reasonable level of harm to others, to be banned. Thus, for something which is not at all harmful to others (eg, the showing of the face) there is no need to show a countervailing benefit. Rather, those who would claim it is harmful to themselves or to some third party, need to prove that the harm is legally significant (at the level of a crime, not merely "I dunt like it".) There is no onus on the "perpetrator" to prove anything in defence.

Presumption of innocence. For the win.

[S C R U S]

For me, I'm just not sure I want to walk around all day with a boner. Would I eventually become immune to the natural reaction on seeing sexual organs, eyes rubbed raw with familiarity, maybe but there would still be an adjustment period.

You've obviously never been to a nudist place. Believe me, they are very non-erotic. Try it sometime. (Unless of course you blunder into a 'nudist' swingers place...)

Excuse me if I prefer not to share seating with someone whose anus is leaking.

That's what properly educated nudists use towels for.

A bunch of naked girls swimming around is very erotic to me.

[Unterzagersdorf]

Deleted

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

Certain societies are, yes. In those societies,enforcement of the burqa is perfectly okay.

Really? You are honestly OK with a law which decrees that for women, NO PART of the body can be shown in public?

Yes -- if said law were supported by the supermajority (at least) of citizens.

Yeah, well you can shove that crap. The "supermajority" is an undemocratic, antidemocratic, bullshit piece of bad law, introduced by a bullying "supermajority" from the days when your hillybilly democracy relied on horses.

And don't even bother asking what I think of Democracy in America nowdays. "It sucks a dog's dick" would be putting it politely.

Morality and rights derive solely from consensus. Killing is wrong only because everyone agrees that it is wrong; those who disagree are viewed as deviants. If enough people agreed that women should not be allowed to display any part of their body in public, it would become "moral" or "right" for women to wear burqas in public, and those who thought women should expose any of their skin would be viewed as the deviants.

You should have retracted, really. This "deviants" thing sits very poorly with your previous statements about "society, the majority."

And that "supermajority" lark. I won't let you live that down. It's on your permanent record!

And, I mean, I'd be perfectly fine with covering up all of my skin if society said I had to. I see nothing wrong with that; I don't wear burqas (for obvious reasons -- although I do usually wear long pants and long-sleeved shirts, only exposing limbs during times of exceptionally high temperatures), but I could if society required me to. It's not like wearing it hurts me or something.

But you don't. It doesn't hurt you, but you don't.

For "obvious reasons."

State those reasons, please.

In the Anglosphere, in what we'd call "American society" or "English society" or "Australian society", display of women's faces is quite acceptable, so enforcing burqas is just silly.

Moreover, society's opinions change. Two hundred years ago enslavement of black people on the basis of skin colour was acceptable and legally justifiable. Nowadays, it's totally immoral and wrong.

*cough*

I would hope that you and myself would not, two hundred years ago, have kept a slave. That if we gained any benefit from the keeping of slaves, that we would try to liberate ourselves from that odious advantage.

Why wouldn't we? Who would tell us that slavery is wrong?

Perhaps The Speaker of the House of Lords, Lord Chief Justice and Privy Counsel, William Mansfield.

Only, you wouldn't pay any attention to him, 'cos he was a Pom.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

A bunch of naked girls swimming around is very erotic to me.

Welcome back Secruss. It's nice to agree with your about something.

I have no objection to naked girls. In fact, I approve nudity for everyone!

[Saint Clair Island]

Really? You are honestly OK with a law which decrees that for women, NO PART of the body can be shown in public?

Yes -- if said law were supported by the supermajority (at least) of citizens.

Yeah, well you can shove that crap. The "supermajority" is an undemocratic, antidemocratic, bullshit piece of bad law, introduced by a bullying "supermajority" from the days when your hillybilly democracy relied on horses.

Actually, that's exactly what democracy is. Mob rule. I find it rather hypocritical to get all upset when 51% of the population oppresses the other 49%, but to consider it perfectly okay when 95% of the population oppresses the other 5%.

Which is all that morality and rights are. 95% of the population enforcing its will on the other 5%. The other 5% being the group of people who believe it's acceptable to murder, keep slaves, steal, pirate music, and do the other things the rest of the people consider unacceptable. If you support democracy, I see no reason you should support public nudity considering that only a very small proportion of the population thinks it's acceptable in many Western nations, making it unlikely to ever get voted into law.

Or are you going to argue that rights don't derive from consensus? You're against democracy, in that case? And where do rights derive from then?

And, I mean, I'd be perfectly fine with covering up all of my skin if society said I had to. I see nothing wrong with that; I don't wear burqas (for obvious reasons -- although I do usually wear long pants and long-sleeved shirts, only exposing limbs during times of exceptionally high temperatures), but I could if society required me to. It's not like wearing it hurts me or something.

But you don't. It doesn't hurt you, but you don't.

For "obvious reasons."

State those reasons, please.

1) There's no law stating I have to; 2) I really don't like shopping for clothes and would rather avoid it if unnecessary; 3) It's generally unacceptable in society unless you're a Muslim woman, which I'm not; 4) There's no other compelling reason (health, safety, modesty, the like) for me to do so.

*cough*

I would hope that you and myself would not, two hundred years ago, have kept a slave. That if we gained any benefit from the keeping of slaves, that we would try to liberate ourselves from that odious advantage.

Why wouldn't we? Who would tell us that slavery is wrong?

Perhaps The Speaker of the House of Lords, Lord Chief Justice and Privy Counsel, William Mansfield.

Only, you wouldn't pay any attention to him, 'cos he was a Pom.

And prior to the time of Lord Mansfield's rulings? What about if I lived in a different country, where slavery remained legal?

Appeal to authority, anyway.

[KaIashnikov]

No.

1. The Human body is a dirty place, it will make everything else dirty if it wasn't for underwear.

2. I don't want to be in a dirty place.

3. I don't want to see your 40 year old Junk, while I'm enjoying dinner.

4. I don't want to see your junk, period.

5. Only people who shouldn't be in the public nudity business, are the ones usually in the public nudity business.

[JuNii]

If you are oozing fluids all over, then I don't think casual wear is going to protect anyone.

yeah... that's why bandages are used. because they don't protect the wound from infection as well as help prevent the spread of infection body fluids.

[JuNii]

Excuse me if I prefer not to share seating with someone whose anus is leaking.

See, personally, I'd like to be able to tell that just by looking at that person, and the seat.
As it is, I'm pretty sure there's an awful lot of leakage that goes entirely unnoticed because it can be hidden by clothes to some extend.

yep. and all the places are soo well lit... you can see those little drops of fluids on those seats in the theatre, on the bus/train/plane... on the ground as you're walking by...

[Allied Governments]

Most people who are die-hard Nudists are old hippies and the occasional fanatic young person anyway.

[Andorias]

For me, I'm just not sure I want to walk around all day with a boner. Would I eventually become immune to the natural reaction on seeing sexual organs, eyes rubbed raw with familiarity, maybe but there would still be an adjustment period.

You've obviously never been to a nudist place. Believe me, they are very non-erotic. Try it sometime. (Unless of course you blunder into a 'nudist' swingers place...)

Excuse me if I prefer not to share seating with someone whose anus is leaking.

That's what properly educated nudists use towels for.

A bunch of naked girls swimming around is very erotic to me.

If you see them 24/h x day you can even become used to it I suppose

[JuNii]

Excuse me if I prefer not to share seating with someone whose anus is leaking.

You would carry around a folding seat cover, they'd be a thing. Grandmother's would always be making them, they'd give you seat covers with some kind of grandma-pattern. Later you'd probably buy your own, if you're rich and status-obsessed you could buy a Versace seat cover, you'd probably have one sponsored and handed out free by some beer company at Uni open day.

They'd be a discussion point: 'Oh, I bought a new seat cover today, left my last one in a taxi', 'oh really, what'd you get?', 'I got the Bathing Ape seat cover...'

You could have a smart one for work, a casual one for going out, that comfy, old yet disgustingly dirty one for home,

Like mobile clothing.

This assumes that you'd need to carry a bag/satchel, given no pockets,

great idea...
tho... as you said, carrying it around is rather ineffective...

now... if it were designed so that all you need to do is sit and it will cover the parts of the body that will touch the dirty seats say... straps to hold this cover at the shoulders, back, waist and legs...

these straps would have to be soft and supple for comfort... flexable to move with the body... and easy to remove and put on...

hmm... but what of public bedding... say the ground or rest areas where people can lie down... so I guess it will have to protect the front as well...

hmm...if only we could design such a thing...

[JuNii]

there's another argument for clothes. sometimes I just like to lie on the grass and take a nap... last thing I want is ants and other critters finding a nice moist, and warm burrow to crawl into while I'm off in La la land.

[Allied Governments]

there's another argument for clothes. sometimes I just like to lie on the grass and take a nap... last thing I want is ants and other critters finding a nice moist, and warm burrow to crawl into while I'm off in La la land.

Usually when you start to argue the functionality and practicality of wearing clothes, people tend to retreat to the classic, "Well, not a lot of people would do this" argument.

[Saint Clair Island]

Excuse me if I prefer not to share seating with someone whose anus is leaking.

You would carry around a folding seat cover, they'd be a thing. Grandmother's would always be making them, they'd give you seat covers with some kind of grandma-pattern. Later you'd probably buy your own, if you're rich and status-obsessed you could buy a Versace seat cover, you'd probably have one sponsored and handed out free by some beer company at Uni open day.

They'd be a discussion point: 'Oh, I bought a new seat cover today, left my last one in a taxi', 'oh really, what'd you get?', 'I got the Bathing Ape seat cover...'

You could have a smart one for work, a casual one for going out, that comfy, old yet disgustingly dirty one for home,

Like mobile clothing.

This assumes that you'd need to carry a bag/satchel, given no pockets,

great idea...
tho... as you said, carrying it around is rather ineffective...

now... if it were designed so that all you need to do is sit and it will cover the parts of the body that will touch the dirty seats say... straps to hold this cover at the shoulders, back, waist and legs...

these straps would have to be soft and supple for comfort... flexable to move with the body... and easy to remove and put on...

hmm... but what of public bedding... say the ground or rest areas where people can lie down... so I guess it will have to protect the front as well...

hmm...if only we could design such a thing...

I have an even better idea -- in the interests of convenience, let's make the covers in separate layers.

For instance, there can be one cover that protects your back and chest, then a separate one protecting everything from the waist to the legs.... and maybe another, longer form of cover to cover up the legs themselves, if it gets cold....

That way, for instance, if it's cold out in the morning, you can start out with layers protecting your arms and legs, then when it gets warmer, remove those layers so that you've got only the layers protecting your back, torso, rear end, and front end. Which, of course, you'd keep on, for hygiene's sake. Genius!

[JuNii]

there's another argument for clothes. sometimes I just like to lie on the grass and take a nap... last thing I want is ants and other critters finding a nice moist, and warm burrow to crawl into while I'm off in La la land.

Usually when you start to argue the functionality and practicality of wearing clothes, people tend to retreat to the classic, "Well, not a lot of people would do this" argument.

not alot of people like to walk around naked.

and almost everone has, at one point or another, sat on the ground or on something that is permemently fixed on the ground.