Is paint considered clothing?

[Quartz]

@Spud

You clearly aren’t looking closely enough… especially on the second from the left.

You are quite correct. The painting is very clever and designed to hide the nipples, but yes, a closer look and they’re clearly there.

[Spud]

@CookingWithGas

Of course you can make a case that anything at all is “material,”

Which was my point, and what any lawyer worth their salt would argue.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@panache45

By definition #3, if a man is sporting wood under his pants, and it’s “discernible,” he is considered nude?

Since the text of the law says “the depiction of …”, it seems to be meant to cover photos/paintings of this. And possibly public performances, like male dancers.

I doubt that you could actually get a jury to convict anyone on the simple situation you describe: “a man is sporting wood under his pants”.

[Bartman]

I do body painting in and around Denver. Here is my take. The law is very ill defined in most jurisdictions. And it is very fragmented as well. Locally the defining laws are generally set county by county. And they are generally not written with paint in mind. So while working we tend to treat our models as if they were stripping, and paint over the top of the same level of dress as they would have to have if they were stripping in the same facility.

Generally that means a thong (minimum of 1" wide in the back in Denver) and pasties (unless the facility has a proper burlesque license). There are facilities that have the proper licensing where we can have the models go full nude. And there are events where it is considered “private” and they can go full nude again. Interestingly in Denver, I generally have to paint over pasties on top, because most clubs aren’t licensed to have topless entertainment… but if the model leaves and goes to the club next door, she doesn’t have to wear pasties because it is legal to be topless in Denver. It just isn’t legal to “perform” topless without the proper licenses.

[Little_Nemo]

@Bijou_Drains

I think I read that in NY state there is no law against women going topless. There may be local laws against it.

There can’t be any local laws against it. It was a state court decison overturning a local public nudity law - it said laws like this were violations of the state’s equal protection rights.

The situation was different in Brattleboro, Vermont. Vermont apparently has no state law regarding nudity - it’s left up to the local communities. And there was no law against public nudity in Brattleboro. So a few years back there was a fad of students at a local college walking around town fully nude. Some people suggested enacting a law against it but as far as I know public nudity is still legal there.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Little_Nemo

The situation was different in Brattleboro, Vermont. Vermont apparently has no state law regarding nudity - it’s left up to the local communities. And there was no law against public nudity in Brattleboro. So a few years back there was a fad of students at a local college walking around town fully nude. Some people suggested enacting a law against it but as far as I know public nudity is still legal there.

No need to pass a law against it – just wait a bit, and Winter will take care of the problem!

[Leo_Bloom]

It would depend on the state’s safety laws as well. See Goldfinger vs. That Girl in The Beginning of "Goldfinger."

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@CookingWithGas

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.

Hmmmm. Could you point out where in the statutes for Nevada it says “material”? Because I don’t see that word anywhere in there.

@CookingWithGas

IANAL and I have no idea what the courts say/have said, which is all that really matters.

IANALE, which is why I said I’d try and get in touch with someone who is a lawyer here in Nevada when their office opens this week.

[ralph124c]

Interesting thread.I wonder how the laws pertain to “Modelling”.
When I was an undergrad, I had a friend, who made some money modelling (naked) for art students.
He said the money was good, but it was a little chilly (the studios were usually not heated well). He said that after a while, it was like any job-taking off your clothes was just part of it.

[CookingWithGas]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Hmmmm. Could you point out where in the statutes for Nevada it says “material”? Because I don’t see that word anywhere in there.

My bad, you are absolutely right. My mind must have synthesized that word. I guess then it comes down to “covering.”

[Irishman]

@Snowboarder_Bo

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:

You’re looking at the wrong section of the statutes. That section is under “EXHIBITION AND SALE OF OBSCENE MATERIALS TO MINORS”. It is about displaying artwork, movies, paintings, pictures, etc. Actual people are not covered by that section. You need to look two sections up under “LEWDNESS AND INDECENT EXPOSURE”, which refers to the section below defining “OBSCENITY”.

**

NRS **201.220 Indecent or obscene exposure; penalty.

1. A person who makes any open and indecent or obscene exposure of his or her person, or of the person of another, is guilty:
   (a) For the first offense, of a gross misdemeanor.
   (b) For any subsequent offense, of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
2. For the purposes of this section, the breast feeding of a child by the mother of the child does not constitute an act of open and indecent or obscene exposure of her body.

[snip]

4. “Obscene” means any item, material or performance which:
   (a) An average person applying contemporary community standards would find, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest;
   (b) Taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value; and
   (c) Does one of the following:
   (1) Depicts or describes in a patently offensive way ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.
   (2) Depicts or describes in a patently offensive way masturbation, excretory functions, sadism or masochism.
   (3) Lewdly exhibits the genitals.

[snip]

**NRS ****201.253 Obscene, indecent or immoral shows, acts or performances; penalty. **Except under the circumstances described in NRS 200.710, every person who knowingly causes to be performed or exhibited, or engages in the performance or exhibition of, any obscene, indecent or immoral show, act or performance is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(Added to NRS by 1967, 482; A 1995, 952)

Underlining added.

Sporting wood in your trousers does not constitute obscenity, lewdness, or nudity.

Showing pictures of men sporting wood in their trousers to minors seems to be illegal.

The status of going in public only in body paint is not clear from those statutes. There’s lots of fuzzy terms about community standards, etc.

@R.P.McMurphy

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.

Not sure the current status as there were legal cases pending when I last checked, but in Houston there was a law about nude entertainers getting licensed or else being required to have full bottom panties and pasties. This was met by the strippers wearing liquid latex on their nipples. So you can see contours, but not color.