Can we legitimately enforce "decency"?

Great Debates
1

After browsing through this thread, which sets up a scenario of people being arrested for having sex in a public park, I started thinking about the concept of laws prohibiting indecent exposure. Personally, I’ve absolutely no desire to run around naked in public (I’m actually kind of prudish), but it seems to me that such legislation can be interpreted as a tyranny of the majority.

The historical origin of these laws is speculative on my part (perhaps someone would wish to enlighten me), but it seems likely that they were initially established to either cater to specific religious tenets, to protect the husband’s “property rights” over his woman/women, or to prevent the corruption of children. All of these arguments fail on grounds of simple fallacies: the first two are appeals to authority, while the last is a slippery slope argument that rests upon the presumption that public sexuality is somehow improper.

So what legitimate arguments exist for such laws? The only one I can think of is that of public health and sanitation. Surely naked people are out spreading germs and defecating in unseemly manners. Yet even this argument is presumptive and assumes that nudity implies uncleanliness, that the nude person in public is guilty of spreading germs about the populace merely by the fact that he or she is unclothed.

Certainly there are places where public nudity seems like it would be hygenically inappropriate–dining establishments being the most obvious–and if private owners or employers wish to impose dress codes for those individuals on their own property, they should be entitled to do so. But the fact is that whether we get dressed or don’t, we’ll still be spreading germs about, still have people who don’t wash their hands and then use the water fountain or elevator. If public health is truly the issue, we’d probably be better advised to start fining the general public for not using soap or for sending their sick children to school. It seems to me that there is no sufficient reason for sweeping public prohibitions of something that technically harms no one, only because a fair percentage of us are merely uncomfortable with it.

2

Good question.

The best answer I can think of right now for why there should be laws against public nudity is that it could be very distracting. If girls came to class naked, or walked down the street topless when I was driving, I would find it very hard to concentrate on what I was doing, due to the Hypnotic Power of Boobies. Maybe after a while I’d get used to it, but I don’t think I’d want to get so blase that the sight of a good-looking woman showing off her assets wouldn’t get me excited.

Come on, plenty of people (and I’m thinking especially of male-type people here) have a hard* enough time as it is going about our business without our brains trying to distract us with “Sex. Sex! Hey, sex. Mmmm, sex.”

*no pun intended

3

If men can walk around topless, women should be able to as well. However, people should be able to use public restrooms without fear of being solicited or stumbling into people having sex; and we shouldn’t have to worry about children being exposed to that kind of thing either. Enforcing a socially mandated level of public decency is civilized.

4

There are about as many opinions on sex in the bushes as there are ways to have sex in the bushes. I just think it’s a little overblown compared to other things that go on undetected in the park.

5

I fail to see how your distraction or personal preferences creates a legitimate basis to inflict punitive legal action on other parties.

You’re just stating your opinion, and that’s fine, but you don’t seem to be providing a real rationale.

You might not like to see people having sex. You also might not like to see people exposing their ankles in public. Different people have different limits based on cultural norms. But if it’s only a matter of being “civilized”, that’s merely a definition. One could easily argue that the more civilized position is tolerance, and that would include tolerance of naked people.

You say you shouldn’t have to worry about children “being exposed to that kind of thing”, but clearly, you already are. I don’t think they should be purposely exposed to hard-core porn, but the chance exists already. The world is full of sexual creatures–it’s a pretty hard thing to hide. The fact that children can actually learn the reality first-hand that people have sex doesn’t justify forcibly removing it from their potential presence as a public policy.

6

If you ever spend time at a nudist club, you will soon see that naked ness is not in and of itself distracting, no matter how beutiful or ugly the naked person you see is. There is a major hygene issue with people being naked though, many people seem incapable of keeping clean even when wearing clothes, the sort of dirt left arround by such a person whilst naked is TMI. Also expected or required nudity would be as bad an affront to freedom as required clothedness.

7

Yes, Bippy, I agree that hygiene is the most reasonable basis for establishing some sort of legal guideline, and furthermore that required nudity would be an idea very poorly conceived (unless perhaps if you’re reading Heinlein’s The Puppet Masters). But I could certainly imagine a far more tolerant law that would allow for personal freedom within reason while at the same time protecting public health.

Allowing naked people in an outdoors park (for example) does not necessarily mean that the law could not prohibit against flagrant sexual displays specifically meant to offend or nudity in enclosed public spaces where diseases might easily be spread like in a bus or subway. Still, I’d think as a society we might view actively harassing behavior (insistently calling a random passerby a “fat pig” perhaps) as at least as detrimental as a passive naked body outdoors, yet generally the latter is illegal while the former is not unless it is threatens physical violence or penetrates personal space.

8

The standard for things like that, like public indecency or what constitutes obscenity in general, tends to be community standards, as far as I know…if the community in which the thing occurs finds something offensive, it can be banned. It can’t be banned just because people outside the community find it offensive. There’s a presumption that a community has the right to enforce certain basic standards of behavior that it’s members share.

9

What defines a community? What if there aren’t actually shared basic standards?

10

mrblue, to me it’s a question of relative costs to the majority and the minority. I’d be willing to wager a significant sum of money (and since you refer to the “tyranny of the majority”, I don’t think you contest this) that most people would be uncomfortable with the idea of public nudity on a large scale being legal. I would be, for that matter. I can’t explain why, rationally - and perhaps that’s a sign of a bad law and moral standard, when it’s not something that can be explained with reason. But the fact remains.

So, here’s the question. What is the cost to the majority in allowing the minority to be nude in public if they so choose? What is the cost to the minority in being compelled to wear clothes? I’d argue that the cost to the majority in allowing nudity would be significant, in terms of discomfort, whereas the cost to the minority in being legally compelled to wear clothes is miniscule. Wearing clothes causes no embarassment, no social awkwardness. It is [I>polite* to be clothed in public, it keeps most people comfortable and functioning well. It isn’t unreasonable for this standard to be enforced by the state.

The essence of “tyranny”, as I understand the modern usage, is the use of excessive power to accomplish tasks not justified by any sort of law or custom - the random, whimsical use of power. The nudity taboo, and it’s place in the law, does not qualify as “tyranny of the majority”.

11

I think a community is defined as the composite of the jurors who would be called if there were a court case.

12

That is the underlying debate–drawing the line between personal freedom and public demands.

I think the presumption begs the question: why should the community standards (in this case, regarding nudity) be universalized, particularly in those cases where no direct harm can be demonstrated nor indirect harm be rationally inferred by necessity?

For example, laws against jaywalking impinge upon personal freedom somewhat. Jaywalking by itself may not constitute a direct harm, but if even a relative few people jaywalked on busy city streets, there is a safety issue, and traffic could grind to a chaotic standstill, so there is a definitive indirect or potential harm. It seems that there’s a clear and practical reason for such a law. (Yet even there, there’s room for amendment, as jaywalking across an empty or nearly empty street seems completely non-harmful.)

Decency laws, on the other hand, are more frequently based on far more nebulous assertions that the community will be somehow damaged, that social/family structures will be degraded. But as long as there are still reasonable limits, it seems rather unlikely that a few naked bodies in a few public places would somehow cause any significant ills. (I mean, not everybody’s going to suddenly run around nekkid if the law is modified, especially in Michigan winters…) In fact, some might think that it would actually improve society if people were less embarassed by human sexuality.

To me, I think the costs either way are quite small. As Bippy points out, the distraction could very well be simply a matter of conditioning. And again, the simple discomfort of others seems a poor rationale to limit freedoms.

You may indeed have a point here, though I’m not using as strict a definition of “tyranny” in this case. If you’d care to suggest a semantic alternative, feel free–but tyrants are always defined in the eye of the beholder. Technically, even seemingly random use of power can find justification in custom and/or law. (The taxes on American colonists, for example, were not entirely unreasonable in retrospect, yet King George was regarded as a tyrant.)

13

Mr. Blue, you keep talking about how the nudity taboo limits freedoms, and the tyranny of the majority, and so forth. Let me ask you this, then: Do you, personally, have a strong desire to be nude in public? Not to have the right to, but to actually do the thing yourself. If not, then your freedom isn’t being infringed at all, is it? You’re really arguing that other people are having their rights infringed. Which is odd, because as you say, “Tyrants are always defined in the eyes of the beholder.” If you aren’t personally interested in wandering around nude, then the indecent exposure laws don’t effect you in any way - so how are you the “beholder”?

You claim there’s a civil rights issue here - fine. Get an actual nudist to say so. :slight_smile:

14

Ahem. The 70’s. Big collars.

I rest my case. :smiley:

15

Already answered that question in the OP.

Funny, I’d think that as one who stands to gain nothing from the position, you should think I’d be the more objective for it. (And if you’d say I want to see potentially unattractive people naked, I’ll politely suggest that you are wrong. As for the attractive ones, I can already see more than I want on the internet…)

I don’t see how that’s particularly relevant, although I’m sure I could find one on these boards if you really need the confirmation. There are those who go naked or have sex in public for the thrill of breaking the taboo, but that doesn’t mean we should pass laws specifically so people can enjoy breaking them. Perhaps you’d like to opine on why we make any laws in the first place, and then we’ll explore which premises are sound and which are not.

16

>You say you shouldn’t have to worry about children “being exposed to that kind of thing”, but clearly, you already are. I don’t think they should be purposely exposed to hard-core porn, but the chance exists already. The world is full of sexual creatures–it’s a pretty hard thing to hide. The fact that children can actually learn the reality first-hand that people have sex doesn’t justify forcibly removing it from their potential presence as a public policy.<

So is this all a euphemistic way of saying that you see nothing wrong in a child walking into a public restroom and encountering a couple having sex?

17

[Life of Brian] We support your right to be a woman, even if you can’t actually be a woman[/Life of Brian]

Sua

18

mrblue92, you do not ascribe rights to the majority.

To my reasoning, the benefits to the individual members of each group - wannabe public nudists and the public - of getting their way on this issue are about equal. Nudists get the right to express themselves if public nudity and sex were legal, and the public get the right to choose when they wish to view the expression of the naked human body and sexual activity if public nudity and sex remain illegal.

Adding up the numbers, more people’s rights are violated if public nudity and sex is legal than in the status quo.

You call this “tyranny of the majority.” You assume that such a “tyranny” is a bad thing. Why? That is the essence of democracy. A limited number of rights are protected from the tyranny of the majority by the US Constitution. The other rights aren’t, and are subject to the determinations and limitations placed upon them by the majority, through their elected representatives.

In a democratic system, that is the definition of legitimacy. So yes, we can legitimately enforce “decency.”

Sua

19

C’mon, Sua. The American system is not a pure democracy, nor even a purely representative one. If the majority creates an unjust law, the courts have the power to strike it down. Witness the current Supreme Court case over sodomy laws. I don’t see anything wrong with that particular Constitutional check in our system, though I might have disagreements with certain decisions from time to time…

Oh, and if we’re going to get into semantics, let me reiterate that I said such laws can “be interpreted as a tyranny of the majority”. I’m not really trying to call people names here. “Tyranny” might be a loaded word, but I was just using the historical phrasing.

The better point in my estimation is the right of the majority to not view certain things… but that’s a rather peculiar point. It could be a curious way of establishing law if as a general rule we depended on the majority opinion to determine when and where we should be able to simply view a particular thing. Pro-life advocates, for example, have used pictures of aborted fetuses in public. We might think it in very bad taste, but is that a legitimate reason to make it illegal? I must admit I don’t think it is, even if I disagree with the use, and that seems to be far more offensive an image to me than nakedness or sex. If we are out in public I suppose there are certain expectations, but I don’t see why one’s expectations need be enforced because otherwise we might not like it.

Allow me to stress this point: Shouldn’t laws prohibit things because those things do real harm or have the serious potential to harm, rather than simply because most of us do not like them?

Arcana: If a child sees two birds having sex, we would not generally have a problem with that, though some of us might blanche a bit at explanations. If a child sees two people kissing passionately in public, some might be upset, but few people would advocate a ban on kissing because of it. And though nudity and/or sex presented to children might send people into shock, there is the ultimate question of why. After all, a child is confronted with his or her own nakedness on a regular basis. I expect some people will decry the loss of innocence, yet none should deny that all must lose innocence eventually–I would argue that innocence is actually ignorance in the clothing of youth. We might claim that children will not be able to understand, but who can rightfully claim to understand everything at first glance? I’m certainly not saying kids should be encouraged to have sex; to the contrary, but we would be well advised to educate rather than hide and mystify. One could argue that kids might be led to sexual activity before they are ready, but the same is said of violent images on TV without any definitive causative links.

It seems to me that such taboos are more about what we’re comfortable with and what we’ve been taught is “common sense” than any sort of keenly analytical or logical law-making.

20

OK, that was really ugly grammar. Let’s rephrase that as:

“If we are out in public I suppose there are certain expectations, but I don’t see why public expectations need be enforced simply due to majority preference.”