Sports Illustrated has swimsuit models who wear nothing but paint. If they went out in public like that, is that considered public nudity? I would think it is legally naked.
You’re asking two different questions.
I doubt anyone would try and argue that paint is clothing, per se, but it certainly doesn’t fall afoul of [Nevada’s nudity statutes:
I guess if the law says clothing is needed then paint is not OK. I wonder how many other states have nudity laws like Nevada.
I checked, and here in NC they use the same definition as Nevada.
I would bet that the legislators were not thinking of pain when they said “fully opaque covering”. I’m sure they were trying to exclude clothing made of plastic or sheer material by adding “opaque”. It would be interesting to see this tested in court.
I think I read that in NY state there is no law against women going topless. There may be local laws against it.
I was really curious about this, so I made a phone call and spoke with Robin, the owner of Skin City Body Painting here in Las Vegas. She says that to avoid any chance of arrest or other legal problems, she and her employees wear a thong and pasties, thus covering their pubic area and nipples. In casino environments, they use what she refers to as “over-sized pasties” and bikini bottoms.
I also spoke with Christian, owner of Naked Sushi Catering, and he also said that yes, when his employees are in a casino or other public place, they wear pasties to cover both nipples and pubic areas.
I have a legal office bookmarked to call on Monday as well; I’m really curious as to how paint like that shown in the Skin City website doesn’t qualify as “opaque”. From a purely aesthetic outlook, however, I can see how the presence of a very obvious nipple would somewhat undermine the illusion that the body paint is trying to achieve.
If bodypaint is indeed adequate coverage under the law, I wonder what would happen if one were to use an opaque covering of paint that precisely matched the corresponding skin tones it conceals. The law cited above says nothing whatsoever about color, only transparency, so it would seem completely legal to venture about this way in a manner visually indistinguishable from total nudity.
By definition #3, if a man is sporting wood under his pants, and it’s “discernible,” he is considered nude?
I was about to comment on that too - apparently in Nevada it’s illegal to get a boner in public whether you’re wearing pants or not!
Don’t know if this is up to date and pertinent but here goes, anyway:
In Louisiana there was a law that said that female nipples had to be covered. If you went into a strip joint in the French Quarter you could see that all the dancers had a piece of transparent whatever that just covered the nipple, not the areola. Talk about a stupid law. It was probably the result of lobbying by 3M, the company that makes Scotch Tape.
Disclaimer: This is not from first hand experience. This was related to me by deviant, morally corrupt characters who related the information to me. 
Well, except that the person would look like a life-size Ken or Barbie doll. But I’ll ask Monday if I can get ahold of someone at the law firm.
No, it’s only the depiction of it that would make it a violation, not an actual boner. At least, that’s how I read it.
ETA: On 2nd read, that doesn’t make sense either. How could a painting or a sculpture of a boner be “nudity”?
I’ve seen some babes wearing skin-tight pants that looked like they were painted on… (crawls back down the gutter).
It qualifies as opaque but does it qualify as “material”? If you go into a fabric store and ask for material they are not going to show you paint. It’s all a matter of what the legislators intended, not what creative ways you might be able to interpret the word.
IANAL and I have no idea what the courts say/have said, which is all that really matters.
I had a quote for a car repair recently, and one of the items under “parts and materials” was paint. Is paint a part?
Here’s the NSFW article in question:
I didn’t spot nipplage, so either they’re wearing pasties or there’s some Photoshopping gone on. Either way the designs and pictures are awesome.
I suppose if you really wanted to push some buttons, you could have yourself painted in skin tones, and then airbrush in pink areolas/nipples, brown pubic hair, etc.
My only contribution to this thread is a Public Service Announcement: The SPF of Blue is…not enough. That is all.
Ow.
You clearly aren’t looking closely enough… especially on the second from the left.
Kate Upton…video…I’ll be in my bunk.
The law wasn’t written with cars in mind, it was talking about covering humans. Of course you can make a case that anything at all is “material,” but what matters is what was intended and how the courts will interpret it.