And, I am inclined to ponder again, why is partial nudity allowed in many places while the ***female ***nipple must be somewhat obscured?
Some men have some relatively gross nipples and they are permitted to be seen in many places where the view of female nipple is not allowed.
Only young, fit women should be nude. Making such a law would run into equal protection issues. So it’s better to outlaw public nudity altogether than to allow people I don’t want to see naked to run around that way.
As for the men’s and women’s nipple thing, it is kind of stupid. But it’s the situation people are used to, making change difficult. It’s not so much the nipple itself as what it’s attached to.
The pro-nudity movement satisfied my only possible objection when they accepted the “towel” rule. Nudists would carry a towel, and put it on chairs or bus-seats or other places, so their naked sit-em-downs won’t leave poop-stains.
Stay with that, and I’m on their side.
Anyone here believe in “Natural Rights?” What in hell could possibly be a greater natural right than to be au naturel?
Any libertarians? How dare the government put an unfunded mandate on me? They not only compel me to perform behavior I do not desire to, but make me pay for the clothes, too!
Aesthetics? There are a lot of people out there who are damned ugly even wearing clothes. Maybe they should be compelled to wear veils or masks?
It’s legal for two people to have a nasty, cussing, rude, emotional fight in public. It’s legal for two people to have a big wet smoochy kiss in public. It’s legal for a street preacher to tell me that God hates me and is going to burn me in hell forever…in public. Seems to me that being naked is less offensive than any of those!
ETA: no, actually, the big wet smoochy kiss doesn’t offend me at all. There are other people who find it offensive, but I’m not one. Sorry. Bad example.
Yes, I agree with this statement 100%. However, I would like to make a small change to it and add the words: “fit men and women”
You crack me up, TriPolar
At first, yeah, probably. Very short “hot pants” worn by women probably caused more traffic accidents that very short pants worn by men.
On the other hand, a man’s genitals in plain sight would probably cause more traffic accidents than a woman’s genitals, because the man’s are in so very much more plain sight. So it all events out, right?
Can we say AWKWARD? It’s tradition in amongst nearly all societies to have some form of clothing. Changing it now for a handful of weirdos in the minority? No point.
Government only enforces it because WE the people put it into legislation.
It may be societal, but I think it is also hardwired into human nature that men are a lot more easily aroused then women, and since most men are straight, a convention of women maintaining more modest dress has evolved.
In less structured/polite/restrained societies, most men would be physically capable of raping an attractive woman. It is not a stretch that primitive cultures would evolve toward modest dress for women. I think that many women, and men who are not rapists, assume the crime is motivated by sexual attraction so you have the primitive notion that an immodestly dressed woman is “asking for it”. A wrong idea on many levels, but one that is apparently impossible to kill.
And that, I think, is the biological basis of the double-standard as far as nudity.
Hey, if you want to walk around essentially nude, you really only have to cover up an extremely tiny part of your body. Women just need a couple of pasties and a skimpy thong, guys just need a cock sock.
Considering that those states are technically legal, but are rarely ever seen, it would appear there just isn’t a very large demand for people to want to walk around nude.
One word you left out: “visually”. Men find it easier to be attracted visually.
And rape is at least partly caused by sexual lust. Whether than justifies the norm is debatable (as some say more exposure means less lust), but the idea that rape is completely about violence is false. It’s just that violence and lust are fairly easy to get intertwined, oddly enough.
Male nudity always raises the question of intent. Is the person a flasher that’s getting gratification by showing off his junk? Or a harmless nudist. It seems in the majority of cases it is a pervert that eventually could escalate to more serious crime. Flashers have been considered sexual criminals for a long, long time.
