Clothing Optional Question

What, restrict people’s rights to dress (or not) as they choose, depending on your idea of what’s pleasing to you? What’s next? Bags over people’s faces if you don’t approve of said faces aesthetics?

Penis, boobs, and buttocks I can see, but what is someone doing that gives you an unfettered view of their anus?

I wouldn’t care one way or the other, of course, 'round here, outdoor clothing isn’t really all that optional for at least 4 months a year.

Don’t think I would participate myself, as a public service. I don’t even really like being nekkid in the privacy of my own home.

When I was in San Fransisco a few years ago I was walking in the Dolores/Mission area and past a man nonchalantly walking down the sidewalk stark naked except for footwear.

The friend I was staying with said it was perfectly legal to be nude in public in San Fransisco,as long and you were not sporting wood.

There was a nudity fad in Brattleboro, Vermont a few years back. Some college students were in a local park on a hot day and decided to strip down. Other students began doing the same in the next few days. Local law enforcement checked and found that there was no local law against public nudity. So some people started walking around town naked and the rest of the people just got used to it.

A lot of people assumed the trend would die out when the weather got cold but it turned out the disappearance of public nudity was just temporary. When spring arrived, some people began going nude again. So a local law was passed banning public nudity and people went back to wearing clothes.

My approval of or disdain for public nudity is entirely contingent on the aesthetic gender and qualities of my surrounding citizens.

Squatting or bending over to pat a dog? I don’t know, maybe I haven’t been behind enough squatting, bending, naked people :smiley:

Nah, doc. Most people couldn’t get a date based only on their personality.

Just a thought, what about all those early teenage boys. The wind blows and the dick is hard. Should all teens, boys and girls, be forced to wear clothing. My opinion is yes because of different rates of maturity in those teen years. It could be pretty traumatic for the early bloomers as well as the late bloomers.

The “bikini baristas” don’t seem to have any noticeable problems with that sort of thing. I don’t know how common such problems are–perhaps the average barista will never have to deal with that.

There are a LOT of people in this world that I really, REALLY don’t want to see naked. So yeah, I’d have a problem with this. Having no public clothing-optional areas isn’t good IMHO, but having everywhere be clothing-optional would be even worse AFAIAC.

I’d like to see a lot more public areas where clothing is optional. Be nice if, on each coast, there was one public clothing-optional beach every 50 miles or so. And maybe some clothing-optional areas of national forests and whatnot in the interior.

But I’d like to be able to choose to go to them if I wanted, and I’d like to be able to avoid them if I wanted. It’s that simple.

Having had a client/coworker whose idea of “casual Fridays” included clothes normal people would have thrown away and getting way too close to the women on Fridays…

… and too many experiences of the guys whose leopard speedos were almost covered by their bellies also being the ones who wouldn’t take “no” for an answer… (as opposed to the guys in regular swimwear, belly or no belly)…

yes. Not because of aesthetics, but because some people, if you call 'em pigs you’re insulting porcines, and for some reason a lot of them associate the misbehavior with the misclothing (the first jerk mentioned kept appropriate distances M-Th).

Once again, only fit young women should be naked. I don’t want to see anyone else without clothes on. That should be the law.

I’ve never quite been able to figure out how any man can jog naked. The bits flop wildly, and it looks like there’s a risk of getting danglies pinched/scissored between the legs. It just looks dangerous!

That’s true, alas. But, then, it’s also true of freedom of speech…

Yes, exactly. The whole point is to give people the choice of what clothes to wear or not to wear. Other people’s aesthetic views about whether they look good naked shouldn’t be a factor.

“You’re ugly to me, so you should be required by law to cover up” is a rather reprehensible idea.

A naked bike ride seems like one of the most uncomfortable things in the world.

I certainly wouldn’t participate and while I have nothing against nudity as far as morality is concerned, there are too many people out there I would not want to see naked. Especially considering the hygiene issues so many people have. Think of all the people who don’t bother wiping properly, for example! :eek: Or at least people who scratch themselves have clothing on top – now they’d be scratching bare skin. Ew.

(Is it shallow? Well, yeah. I know I don’t have a model body, which is why I wouldn’t participate.)

That sounds wildly inconvenient. You have one hand always occupied by carrying a towel. I would think that people would get tired of holding towels all the time, and solve this by tieing them around their waists, thus reinventing the skirt.

Anyone who’s ugly naked is probably ugly fully-clothed, too. I don’t see that it makes much difference.

I’d think you’d put it over your neck and shoulders, like a shawl, if standing/walking, or hang it somewhere in easy reach if engaging in some activity.

Took the words right out of my mouth!