Autonemesis

Who wants to sit their bare butt on the same plastic chair at the McDonald's where someone else's bare butt was just sitting? Ewww.

I vote for clothes.

tronvillain

There is nothing inherently wrong with nudity, but then there is nothing inherently wrong with anything. Still, as far as I know, absolutely no society on the planet is nudist, even in climates that would be condusive to it, and I suspect this is because humans do not find genitalia aesthetically pleasing. Beyond that, clothing is a form of social and sexual display, and extreme variations from the norm tend to affect us significantly.

Amen-Moses:
Of course, that crowd is a self-selected group of people who apparently enjoy gawking at a naked man. Others presumably did ignore him and someone presumably called the police. Also, he is at a significant distance - the same people who cheered him might be extremely uncomfortable if he were to approach and talk to them.

Now, should nudity be illegal? Well, if most of us are less bothered by the idea of arresting people who are naked in public than we are by the idea of people being naked in public, then yes. I suspect that what we are willing to live with would be what is tolerated in the most scantily clad of cultures - coverage of the genitals. It is likely that many people would not take advantage of such freedoms, preferring the display and concealment of clothing.

echidna

Oddly enough that’s the same revulsion most Asians feel about western sitdown toilets. Mutual hygiene is another good reason for underwear at least.

But while squat toilets are cleaner and physiologically healthier, I think even cultures not averse to nudity, would still prefer to crap in privacy despite there being nothing morally wrong with public crapping either.

Glory

It seems that most of you have trouble imagining a happy medium between the status quo and complete nudity all the time. Personally, I am in favour of repealing laws against public nudity. They are ridiculous. I don't expect that such an act would result in the abolishment of clothing.

Restaurants, for example, require shoes and shirts on their patrons for very good reasons. Most states have health code requirements which dictate clothing on guests and employees as well.

Most occupations have clothing requirements for safety and to reflect the attitudes of the profession and employer.

Clothing has its purposes and its fun. Contrary to popular belief, clothing makes the body more sexually provocative, not less.

That said, why can one not bare as much or as little of one's body as they see fit at any given time? One does not wear the same attire to the beach as one does to work. Would doing away with a nudity taboo change that? I doubt it.

All of you imagining a world full of naked people in all circumstances are not being realistic. Nudity for nudity's sake need not be crime. That does not mean that clothing is not necessary or desirable.

Lastly, GET OVER THE BOOBS! There is no good reason to object to a bare chest on a women in situations which do not require a shirt on a man. As for breast feeding, GROW UP! I breast fed my daughter in public everyday for a year. The only comments I got from strangers were complements on my beautiful baby and commiseration from people who thought that I should have beeen provided with a chair by the establishment I happened to be patronising at the time. People in Sonoma have evolved that much at least.

Glory

Keith Russell

Glory:

As an artist, I find the human body one of the most beautiful objects in the universe. I have a large collection of art and photography books (including a couple by Mapplethorpe). I am certainly not a prude.

As for being 'evolved', you are partly correct. There are parts of any major city where women (even fully clothed) dare not venture alone. I'm not saying this is right (it isn't), just that it is the reality of the situation.

While people ought to be able to control themselves regardless, it's only too true that many of them cannot (or will not).

I teach life drawing, and am often in the close company of attractive, naked men and women. While the model is posing, the nudity seems utterly non-sexual, non-threatening--almost clinical.

Yet, for breaks--even if they stay in the studio--I've yet to meet a model who will walk around talking with the students, without donning a robe.

It helps to establish and maintain boundaries.

Keith.

Ab_Normal

To zag a bit off topic: My (then) eight year old daughter was flashed last year. Actually, flashed isn't the word for it; he unlimbered his penis and started masturbating at her. This was at a public event (a gaming convention), but he and my daughter were the only ones in the area at the time. After the shock wore off, she got my husband, who got security, who called the cops, and the man was arrested and taken away. He ended up pleading guilty and getting a suspended sentence.

My daughter has not had any obvious problems after this. I think my husband and I are more disturbed about it than she is.

Given that story, I do not equate nudism, especially with a group of like-minded people, with flashing or pedophilia. I do believe we place too much emphasis on ideals of physical beauty, and demonize the body too much, for nudism/naturism to ever be a mainstream behavior here in the US.

MadMordigan

There are a shit load of behaviours I would throw people in jail for (slowing down on freeway on ramps, stopping at the top of escalators, cell phones in cinemas) before I would get around to locking up people just for hanging their bare ass out. It just seems like such a trivial thing to criminalize.

Glory

Question: What is the difference between flashing and mooning? Why is one considered a sex crime and the other a prank?

Glory

Kieth,

I agree that clothing creates boundaries. This is one of its many uses. What I disagree with is the notion that nudity, full or partial, is immoral or inherently dangerous or bad. The fact that women, and men for that matter, are vulnerable to crime is not an answer. This argument can be and has been used to justify making it illegal for someone to allow their arms, legs, ankles, or even face to be bare. What one is or isn't wearing has little bearing on wether or not it's safe to walk in the park at night. The point is that it is silly to arrest someone because of a bare hand, a bare belly, or a bare breast.

Tom Sawyer

Public nudity can be both good and bad, depending on the situation. As an example, I'll talk about a trip I took to the South of France when I was 16.

We went to a topless beach in Nice and I was horrified to see that (after all my anticipation of finally going to a topless beach) there were no topless women around except for ugly, old ones. It was very disappointing. Then I turned arounda nd saw that my two teenage, female cousins had taken their tops off. After quickly turning around and gouging my eyes out, I went to another part of the beach, where the scenery wasn't much better.

Then we went to another one in Monaco and it was filled with young, attractive woman who were sunning themselves, taking showers and other great stuff. It was most impressive.

So to sum up my view on public nudity:

Old, ugly people / relatives : Nudity bad

Young, attractive people : Nudity good