Naturism should be legal. Period

[Katganistan]

Think of it like this - a guy is drivin down the road gets distracted by topless woman on the pavement and crashes.

Why is it that guys think that other guys are so beyond stupid that they will crash because they see a naked girl? Why is it that women don't think guys are this unable to control themselves?

That reminds of that advert they had to take off Billboards because women kept getting distracted by an advert which showed muscular men with bulging underpants. It would probably happen if they saw a real man with his penis hanging at aswell.

Oh? Source?

[Cabra West]

Yes of course, in warmer/tropical climes there is a greater deal of nudity. But I'm still willing to wager an imaginary pot of gold that they had some clothing even so. Even if it's ceremonial, even if it's warn at night, or when they're sick, or when the ladies are menstruating...

Also, Western Catholic and Islamist values also have had to evolve from somewhere. Calling them 'unnatural' is silly. Calling them painful, boring, annoying and stupid is fair enough. But 'unnatural' they are not!

I think you may be confusing "natural" with "useful" here.
Yes, clothes are useful, most notably so in winter, when exposed to strong sunlight for a longer period of time, and they have cultural significance (usually called "fashion").
Natural they are not, however. It's not a human instinct to feel uneasy when not wearing socks, undies, pants, shirt and shoes.

And as nobody is advocating to force everyone to be naked all the time, clothing would not become any less useful. All that's being said is that there is absolutely no reason to legislate against people who want to walk around without wearing anything.

[Katganistan]

Yes, I am online as of this posting.
Shortly, I shan't be.

[Issas]

it's not true there are tribes in amazzonia or africa that use to wear nothing all day still today

yeah there are only a few but because most of american/africa/oceanic population suffered from enforced christianization(or islamization) during the colonization process that destroyed most of tribal ancience tradition and enforced western catholic(and in some part islamic) values

Yes of course, in warmer/tropical climes there is a greater deal of nudity. But I'm still willing to wager an imaginary pot of gold that they had some clothing even so. Even if it's ceremonial, even if it's worn at night, or when they're sick, or when the ladies are menstruating...

Also, Western Catholic and Islamist values also have had to evolve from somewhere. Calling them 'unnatural' is silly. Calling them painful, boring, annoying and stupid is fair enough. But 'unnatural' they are not!

From what I've seen, they've usually got some sort of skirts or loincloths or something. But then again, when you're in 100+ degree weather you're not gonna want to wear much clothes.

[Issas]

Yes of course, in warmer/tropical climes there is a greater deal of nudity. But I'm still willing to wager an imaginary pot of gold that they had some clothing even so. Even if it's ceremonial, even if it's warn at night, or when they're sick, or when the ladies are menstruating...

Also, Western Catholic and Islamist values also have had to evolve from somewhere. Calling them 'unnatural' is silly. Calling them painful, boring, annoying and stupid is fair enough. But 'unnatural' they are not!

I think you may be confusing "natural" with "useful" here.
Yes, clothes are useful, most notably so in winter, when exposed to strong sunlight for a longer period of time, and they have cultural significance (usually called "fashion").
Natural they are not, however. It's not a human instinct to feel uneasy when not wearing socks, undies, pants, shirt and shoes.

Kids are a good example. Why do you think they're running around naked all the time?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Oh? Source?

Can't remember...
Do you not beleive me?

[Rentalia]

Also, Western Catholic and Islamist values also have had to evolve from somewhere. Calling them 'unnatural' is silly. Calling them painful, boring, annoying and stupid is fair enough. But 'unnatural' they are not!

well even the values of some african tribes where is common have communal orgies should had evolve from somewhere

if you call unnatural be nude i say that is a lot more unnatural be concerned because Britney Spears didn't wear panties or have half nations shocked because Jackson's showed a nipple during the superbowl

[Tiesabre]

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.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

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.

...or not.

[Chimaea]

Because they're kids and haven't developed their natural senses yet?

Yes, I most definitely equate 'natural' with 'useful'. That's how we discovered things like fire, nuclear weapons, pizza and the wheel. Yes, we've gone further from the completely use-driven state of being which we were once in, but that moving on is also part of nature and hense also natural.

Do we have an uneasy instinct with nudism? Probably, I don't but I wouldn't say others don't. Do you cann that feeling unnatural? We've learned to feel uneasy in that way from natural socialising processes. To call learned values unnatural doesn't make sense.

Of course, extrapolating from my argument, I suppose you can say it's also wrong to call naturism unnatural, but meh, I can't be assed arguying with myself.

[Discount Liquor World]

But without clothes, you would have no pockets! how could we carry our wallet and cell phone, car keys, cigarettes, cigarette lighter, loose change, Ipod, handgun, breath mints and everything else you need to have on you?

[Cabra West]

But without clothes, you would have no pockets! how could we carry our wallet and cell phone, car keys, cigarettes, cigarette lighter, loose change, Ipod, handgun, breath mints and everything else you need to have on you?

The way we do now. Handbags.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

But without clothes, you would have no pockets! how could we carry our wallet and cell phone, car keys, cigarettes, cigarette lighter, loose change, Ipod, handgun, breath mints and everything else you need to have on you?

The way we do now. Handbags.

Wouldn't backpacks itch your back...make them sore?

[Cabra West]

Because they're kids and haven't developed their natural senses yet?

Yes, I most definitely equate 'natural' with 'useful'. That's how we discovered things like fire, nuclear weapons, pizza and the wheel. Yes, we've gone further from the completely use-driven state of being which we were once in, but that moving on is also part of nature and hense also natural.

Do we have an uneasy instinct with nudism? Probably, I don't but I wouldn't say others don't. Do you cann that feeling unnatural? We've learned to feel uneasy in that way from natural socialising processes. To call learned values unnatural doesn't make sense.

Of course, extrapolating from my argument, I suppose you can say it's also wrong to call naturism unnatural, but meh, I can't be assed arguying with myself.

You know, if you include nulear weapons and pizza in you definition of "natural", your definition of the word is so far removed from that generally agreed one as to be useless in this discussion.

[Meoton]

But without clothes, you would have no pockets! how could we carry our wallet and cell phone, car keys, cigarettes, cigarette lighter, loose change, Ipod, handgun, breath mints and everything else you need to have on you?

MAN PURSES!!!!
aka The Satchel

Women usually carry stuff in their purse anyway.

[Chimaea]

well even the values of some african tribes where is common have communal orgies should had evolve from somewhere

if you call unnatural be nude i say that is a lot more unnatural be concerned because Britney Spears didn't wear panties or have half nations shocked because Jackson's showed a nipple during the superbowl

Your writing makes my eyes water

Look, I'm not taking this stuff very seriously But really, these values are all subjective--even Issas view is subjective although he may not think it is...!

You can call anything unnatural or natural, that's the point. Calling nudism 'naturism' is just putting a subjective value on it. When you remove human values from the world... then terrorism, paedophilia, the bogeyman and every horrible thing that exists in life is, in the end, quite natural.

Gross to think about but the universe doesn't care.

However... we're a subjective people. You think nudism is right. I think I don't want to see nude people. I just happen to be in the powerful majority. =/

[Cabra West]

But without clothes, you would have no pockets! how could we carry our wallet and cell phone, car keys, cigarettes, cigarette lighter, loose change, Ipod, handgun, breath mints and everything else you need to have on you?

The way we do now. Handbags.

Wouldn't backpacks itch your back...make them sore?

I wouldn't know, I can't stand backpacks. I've got a handback I can sling over one shoulder, and that suits me just fine.

[Meoton]

Fanny Packs
Briefcases
Lunch boxes
Duffle bags
Knapsacks
Surgically implanted abdominal pouches

[Katganistan]

Oh? Source?

Can't remember...
Do you not beleive me?

People make all kinds of claims that are flat-out not true, or that they've heard from less than truthful sources. I find it hard to believe that there was a billboard that caused people to crash. Surely if it's true it shouldn't be hard to back up?

[Barringtonia]

I think it would have a profound effect on society if everyone was to go naked, couldn't put a good/bad ratio to it but the effects would be deep and powerful,

[Chimaea]

You know, if you include nulear weapons and pizza in you definition of "natural", your definition of the word is so far removed from that generally agreed one as to be useless in this discussion.

I was being silly, but... why aren't they natural? Pizza is natural, it's made from natural ingrediants and mmmm tastes so good.

Nuclear weapons are natural. We built them, we're natural. We built them out of natural materials. We used nature in creating the concept...

I think what you mean is, 'nuclear weapons aren't nice'. In which case I wholeheartedly agree.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

And nothing. People ought to be allowed to show however much or little of themselves they want.
Just because some people are ugly as fuck is no reason to legally force everyone to wear clothes... especially since clothes usually don't improve the problem one bit.

Think of it like this - a guy is drivin down the road gets distracted by topless woman on the pavement and crashes.

I guy is driving down the road and gets distracted by a hot babe in spandex causing him to crash.

Won't be a problem twenty years from now.

Nobody will "drive down the road." In future, car drives you.

Honestly. So many anomalies of law exist for road-users (and primarily motorists) and it will all get a lot simpler when use of that public space no longer involves issues of individual competence to drive (age, mental competency, ownership of a car, drug or alcohol impairment.)

Also, taxis will be cheaper for most people than owning a car. No driver you see. And no parking fees, 'cos the car goes off and drives someone else where they want to go.

And ... and ... when cars drive themselves (or more precisely: are driven by the network of cars) they will be much safer, and therefore can be smaller. The will have less car-on-car accidents you see, and therefore the passengers can safely travel without eight square metres of steel around them to protect them from their own mistakes or those of others.

It will happen very suddenly. The rich will buy the safe, self-driving cars. Then the rich will lobby to have the yobbos who drive their own "car" taxed off the roads. Then, at eighty percent or so of road users being driven in robotic cars, the manually driven car will be banned. It will happen inside five years.

And that's not even my dream scenario. In that one, cars are free to citizens, and the infrastructure which makes a "pod" (unpowered car) work on the "road" (a powered conveyance system for pods) is provided by government. I call it a "right to thoroughfare."

There is already a maximum limit to speed on most roads. Let's bring the minimum for anyone (regardless of age, mental competence, criminal status, or citizenship) up to that standard. Why shouldn't kids have cars? Why shouldn't the poor have cars? How is it in any way fair, that public land is set aside for the exclusive use of those who can afford to buy and license a car?

Free cars for the people! Or for die-hards like myself, a free pony!

[Cabra West]

You know, if you include nulear weapons and pizza in you definition of "natural", your definition of the word is so far removed from that generally agreed one as to be useless in this discussion.

I was being silly, but... why aren't they natural? Pizza is natural, it's made from natural ingrediants and mmmm tastes so good.

Nuclear weapons are natural. We built them, we're natural. We built them out of natural materials. We used nature in creating the concept...

I think what you mean is, 'nuclear weapons aren't nice'. In which case I wholeheartedly agree.

atural

• adjective : existing in or derived from nature; not made, caused by, or processed by humankind. ...

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/natural?view=uk

Going by the standard definitions and understanding of the word "natural", neither nuclear weapons nor pizza meet the criteria.
The usual understanding is a juxtaposition between what we consider "natural" and what is man-made. And man-made here does mean made from natural materials of all kind. But the moment something has been processed or altered by humans, it falls outside the definition of "natural".
Hence, clothes are not natural whichever way you look at them.

[Ifreann]

Surely it doesn't matter to anyone whether its natural or not. Right?

[Cabra West]

Surely it doesn't matter to anyone whether its natural or not. Right?

Not in the least. Natural doesn't equal good, and good doesn't equal natural.
But it has been claimed that naming the movement "naturism" was a misnomer, since so many humans tend to clothe themselves, thereby associating wearing clothes with human instinct.