I didn’t say that they were the same- only pointing out that “traumatized” isn’t the only possible harm.
Is that because of the nudity, or because there is a strange man acting in a strange way in your presence?
It’s not really the nudity, is it? I mean, that’s what’s strange, but if he was acting strange in other ways, that’d make you uncomfortable or frightened, too, right?
What part of what he’s doing is strange other than the nudity? Nothing at all strange about a man I don’t know sitting next to me at the bus stop.
ETA Yes, strange in other ways would have the same effect - so yes, nudity in an environment where it wasn’t strange would be different . But that’s not your typical suburb.
Seems like the woman who wrote the letter and her husband are the ones who want to play the “I’m not touching you” games.
First, it’s very difficult to imagine a hypothetical in which this occurs in our society and the man isn’t engaged in predatory activity. I’m not sure what such circumstances would be. The harm in this situation would be from the near-certainty that the man had malicious intent, or else was suffering from a psychotic break that rendered him dangerously unpredictable. If you can imagine a circumstance where this would happen and the kid would have no reason to think the guy was any more dangerous than a clothed man, can you explain that? Otherwise, I don’t think it’s analogous to the hot tub situation, where the naked people don’t seem especially dangerous.
Second, I return to my question. I know plenty of people who were traumatized, or at least frightened or deeply disturbed, by sexual behavior of other people that they were exposed to as children. I’ve never met, or heard anyone talk, about being traumatized or seriously frightened or deeply disturbed by encountering nonsexual nudity, even though I know plenty of people who encountered that (whether it was seeing a breastfeeding mother, or walking in on their granddad changing clothes, or seeing someone peeing in public, or seeing people hottubbing naked, or something else).
So, do you know anyone who was traumatized or seriously frightened or deeply disturbed by the nonsexual nudity they encountered as kids?
I didn’t want to speculate on various strange things that he could be doing, but he could be leering at you, or he could be talking to himself. Hell, he could be masturbating, and he doesn’t even have to be naked for that.
You are not frightened by the nudity, but by the threat that he poses. And I would agree that a naked man approaching you in a place where nudity is not common can be rightly perceived as a threat.
I also think that’s lightyears away from being naked in your own backyard.
I mean, it’s not that strange to be nude on your own property. And it’s certainly no threat.
Once again, we would find it acceptable for them to be wearing a few square inches of fabric that is as close to nudity as to make very little difference.
It seems that by your refusal to address k9bfriender’s and my retorts to your being offended that you don’t really have an answer to this yourself. I mean when you tell me that you don’t like seeing my naked body which I thought was private, that you are really intending no offense?
Where did they say that?
Seem like that homosexual couple who got married even though they knew I’d be offended by it are the ones who want to play “I’m not touching you” games.
What don’t you understand here? If I do something with the intent to offend, then that’s my intent. If I do without the intent to offend, even if it does so, then that’s not my intent.
Unless you are a mind reader, it’s hard to tell. But not always impossible. If they only go out in the nude while their neighbors are having a family BBQ, then it would be a reasonable presumption that their intent is to offend. If they go out in the nude whenever it is a nice day, which sometimes coincides with your BBQ, then their intent is not to offend.
Now, I also say “cause no harm” without the intent modifier, as harm can be caused without that being my intention. If I cut down my tree and it falls on you, I have caused harm, even though that wasn’t my intent. So, if you can demonstrate what actual harm is caused by someone being naked in their backyard, then I would agree that it should be restricted.
But if we go that route, I would be more afraid of a guy dressed up wearing a vinyl purple dachshund outfit than being naked. It’s just that we so sexualized nudity that in that scenario the person is conditioned to think: he’s naked next to me => he’ll sexually assault me.
It is, though. If you can easily be seen. If that weren’t true, then you would see a lot more naked people in their yards. But you don’t.
There’s a reason why the law that Dinsdale mentioned defines a public place based on being able to be seen. It doesn’t define it based on whether the property is privately or publicly owned.
I would say that being naked where other non-consenting people can see you is generally assumed to be sexual. There’s a reason why the fact the people in the letter want to be seen by their neighbors is being described as them being exhibitionists.
There’s an unspoken assumption in society (i.e. social contract) that being nude without making an effort not to be seen by others who did not consent is most commonly a sexual thing. That’s why nudist beaches are labeled so everyone there is consenting. It’s why people put up privacy fences or live rurally feel more comfortable being naked on their property than someone living in the middle of a city.
You can argue it shouldn’t be that way. But that’s the way it currently is. Nudity is expected to be something you do in private.
Intent isn’t the reason that homosexual marriage is okay. It’s a fundamental right. The people who are offended by it are bigots—bad people. That’s why their concerns don’t matter.
Society doesn’t judge you by your actual intent. It judges your actions based on certain assumptions about intent. The assumption is that someone who is nude in a place where they know they’ll likely be seen is doing so in order to be seen.
Not due to some special right, or because of some core aspect of who they are.
Could you have it the wrong way around, and that it is the law that means that people don’t feel they are allowed to be nude on their own property?
I would say that’s a bad assumption.
Where did it say in the letter that they want to be seen?
If it’s unspoken, then how did we come to agree to such a ridiculous thing?
Once again, you would find it acceptable if they wore a few square inches of cloth, that do virtually nothing to conceal their breasts, buttocks or even genitals, leaving only the coloring, but not shape or texture, of such items to the imagination.
Are those few square inches of cloth really all that keeps society from crumbling?
Right, because if you don’t, the prudes will complain.
There’ve been lots of “unspoken assumptions” in society that came about because people would complain about things like having to eat at the same lunch counter as a Black man. That doesn’t make them right.
People who are offended by nudity are prudes, and their concerns don’t matter.
Yeah, it does. That’s what the whole mens rea thing in law is all about.
That’s a faulty assumption, and that’s all it is, an assumption. It has nothing to do with reality.
We all are fundamentally nude under our clothing.
Well, there goes my Halloween costume.
Just don’t sit next to me at a bus stop or I promise to be offended.
They don’t say so implicitly, but what they do say leaves that as a possibility
and the columnist (Amy Dickinson), reading between the lines, suggests
You can always add on words that someone didn’t say to create possibilities.
Now, I’ll agree that they probably aren’t stupid and clueless, and are aware that their actions may offend their prudish neighbors. What I don’t see is justification for the assertion that their reason for doing so is to offend their neighbors.
Yes, I saw where the columnist also made assumptions and lept to conclusions that were not based on the words that were actually used.
I don’t know that that proves anything other than people are quick to judge.
I see a big difference between saying “Here’s what must be going on” and “Here’s what might be going on.”
The former is jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. The latter is an entirely appropriate part of what a good advice columnist does, and it’s what Amy was doing here, as I interpret it.
So start bridging the gap between them.
Say, a twenty year old woman and a naked man who absolutely has no sexual intent sitting at the bus stop. He just doesn’t agree with the social contract and he likes being naked.
Or say, a hot tub in the front yard, by the sidewalk.
I’m trying to get to the part of the social contract that essentially says, ‘do your best not to upset people’.
I deny your antecedent in your unwritten social contract. I’ll go with k9bfriender’s “Don’t intend to upset people.” like my neighbor who puts up the Confederate battle flag to celebrate Juneteenth just to upset the non-racists. But if it upsets you that I wear a red shirt because I like red shirts, that’s your problem and I’ll wear a red shirt when I want to and you can be over there upset demanding to see my manager.