Is there really any "harm" when it comes to public nudity, especially in regards to children? (crime rates, bias)

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

The problem with applying the pre-historical "argument" to a modern question is that society today is nothing like that.

The point I was making is that nudity, itself, is not the problem. Rampant prudishness in some cultures is the problem (generally linked to religious influences).

Primitive societies where partial nudity is the norm tend to be in temperate climates where there is little need for thermal protection - which is certainly not the case for most of the West.

Even Minnesota has hot days in which some people would enjoy being naked. Of course there's also folks in the Polar Bear club who jump into icy water. The basic point is that nudity in many situations should be a matter of personal choice - not government regulation.

But you also have to consider that primitive societies also have been more permissive of sexual behavior that is impermissible or less permissible in modern society - like homosexuality, pedophilia, polygamy, and rape, as well as other sexual practices considered abusive such as genital mutilation.

True. And to the extent that some of these practices are relatively harmless issues of personal choice they, too, should be issues of personal preference - not matters of social/government concern. Obviously rape, child abuse, and genital mutilation don't fall in this category since it is easy to see that there is significant harm done.

I find it interesting that a lot of the conservative people who are most outspoken against public nudity are often the same people who scream loudest about individual liberties and keeping the government out of our private lives.

[Chefkey]

we're sexual beings by nature, the majority of minds will always gravitate to the sexual nature of exposing one's genitals. That's why society should continue to ban nudity in public. If people want to join nudist places then enjoy it but it should be behind closed doors for only those who want to see. There are exceptions to the rule, I think it's ok in the right context to be dressed sexy but full on nudity with your junk just swinging around is too much for society to function properly.

[the searchers]

Originally Posted by Mircea

That's not really relevant, and anyway, at some point, they began covering their private parts.

I would guess the first experimenting with 'clothing' was due to seeking warmth and not modesty.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

The point I was making is that nudity, itself, is not the problem. Rampant prudishness in some cultures is the problem (generally linked to religious influences).

Agreed...its more the behaviors associated with nudity that are problematic. So whether that will lead to permissiveness or earlier sexualization is more the main issue. And I think that those concerns are valid because in those societies where the views towards nudity are more "relaxed" that's what you see.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

Even Minnesota has hot days in which some people would enjoy being naked. Of course there's also folks in the Polar Bear club who jump into icy water. The basic point is that nudity in many situations should be a matter of personal choice - not government regulation.

But isn't defining what those situations are, basically regulation?

Even here in the US there are municipalities that do not criminalize (or didn't until recently) public nudity. With many nude beaches that the govt is well aware of, cities where its not an offense to be nude in public etc.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

True. And to the extent that some of these practices are relatively harmless issues of personal choice they, too, should be issues of personal preference - not matters of social/government concern. Obviously rape, child abuse, and genital mutilation don't fall in this category since it is easy to see that there is significant harm done.

Many people are uncomfortable with nudity and they don't want to have the public viewscape polluted with shocking examples of naked human bodies. What about people who have been sexually abused or assaulted and may have lingering issues with nakedness or genitalia or people whose naked form resembles that encountered during such an experience? Should we just tell them to suck it up if they don't want to see a big old penis on the bus or at the tot lot in the park?

Also, while the above scenario is possible even when no nudists have any ill intent, how would you police against deliberately (or even unintentionally) inappropriate behaviors in a society where there is no general prohibition on public display of the naked body? Seems rather subjective as to what that standard would be.

Also, regardless of personal opinions over nudity or public display of it, clothing that covers our ano-genital region is a matter of hygiene and public health. We can't just have people spreading pathogens and fecal material all over the public space...its gross. Its filthy enough when people are actually fully clothed. Haven't you seen all the studies on how dirty common places are, that aren't even bathrooms? Like movie theater seats?

I think it would constitute a major health hazard were any significant portion of the population to go around unclothed. You wouldn't be able to trust a single thing in the public space to not be contaminated.

I don't personally have any visceral feelings for or against nudity, except that demanding people be allowed to go around naked when they don't have any reason to, very gratuitously, strikes me as crossing a line.

I just can't imagine how anyone could find themselves in a situation in public where they HAVE to be nude, vs just scantily or partially clothed. Like what utility or purpose would that be serving?

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

I find it interesting that a lot of the conservative people who are most outspoken against public nudity are often the same people who scream loudest about individual liberties and keeping the government out of our private lives.

I don't know about all that....kind of sounds like that would include Libertarians - they tend to be the most outspoken and vocal about those issues and I think they'd come down more on the "do as you please" side.

Also, I think the more mainstream conservative part of the population, like people that identify as Republicans, are more concerned with social order and public decorum in general than "individual liberty" except perhaps with regards to a few special cases - there is a segment of what I would call "constitutional conservatives" who are adamant that the government follow the Constitution and respect the BOR to the letter...but I don't think this is a very visible part of the population.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

Even Stone Age people covered themselves, perhaps also for purposes of modesty and not just protection against the elements.

How do we know it was for modesty though and not for things like - say - early religious narratives or displays of status?

Originally Posted by Chefkey

we're sexual beings by nature, the majority of minds will always gravitate to the sexual nature of exposing one's genitals. That's why society should continue to ban nudity in public.

There is two assumptions in there that I do not think are valid however.

The first is the circular argument founded on the notion that exposure of something usually covered up causes certain thoughts. It is just as likely that it being covered up is what causes those thoughts when it is exposed. If exposure was very much more common - the sudden drifting to sexual thoughts would likely be lessened too.

The second however is that preventing "minds gravitating to thoughts of a sexual nature" is a useful agenda in the first place. You seem to pre-suppose that such thoughts are automatically bad and therefore pre-assume that we should be continuing anything that prevents them. Sex - sexuality - and sexual thoughts are not de facto a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Chefkey

If people want to join nudist places then enjoy it but it should be behind closed doors for only those who want to see.

There is another errored assumption built into what you say here too. You appear to assume that such "nudist areas" are even for people "who want to see". That is not the goal or agenda of anyone I know who has been in nudist areas - nudist colonies - or clothing optional areas like beaches. It has absolutely nothing at all - for these people - to do with what they want to see.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

Agreed...its more the behaviors associated with nudity that are problematic. So whether that will lead to permissiveness or earlier sexualization is more the main issue. And I think that those concerns are valid because in those societies where the views towards nudity are more "relaxed" that's what you see.

There probably is a correlation between legalized public nudity and more relaxed sexual views. But, as I said earlier, these are empirical questions for which one ought to be able to offer evidence. Statistically speaking, do modern industrialized nations with more relaxed attitudes toward nudity show higher rates of sex crimes? Or higher rates of disease? Overall, what makes average people living in those societies worse off than average Americans?

But isn't defining what those situations are, basically regulation?

One major source on on-going confusion and unnecessary tension running rampant throughout many topics and thread here in C-D is an "all or nothing" or a simplistic black&white mentality. Repealing general laws against public nudity does not mean that you would instantly have a bunch of people riding naked on city buses. There would be nothing to prevent businesses and municipalities from requiring clothes in certain situations (variations on the "no shirt, no shoes, (no pants),no service" signs). I've already listed the types of places where nudism makes sense: beaches, private property (with permission of the owner) - including business property (if the business managers allow it) - and possibly some nature parks.

BTW: Even if riding naked on the city bus was allowed, I doubt you'd see many more naked people on the bus than you do now. In reality, most nudists wouldn't feel comfortable being alone in a sea of people who are wearing clothes. Anyway, relaxing nudity laws does not necessarily imply a complete repeal of every conceivable nudity law. I've been in European countries with more relaxed views of nudity, and I don't ever remember seeing a single example of anyone riding the bus naked, or walking down a street naked. I'm not saying it never happens. I'm just saying that for the average person on an average day, there would not be very many drastic differences if nudity laws were relaxed. Perhaps the biggest difference might be nudity in advertising, and perhaps a few naked sunbathers in some city parks.

Many people are uncomfortable with nudity and they don't want to have the public viewscape polluted with shocking examples of naked human bodies.

For some people, some increased level of tolerance would be required, but experience has given me good reason to believe that the "shock value" wears off fairly quickly. Also, I strongly suspect that most people - even most people who feel offended by the thought of seeing naked bodies - discover that the feeling of actually being naked and/or being in a situation where there are lots of naked people is vastly different in actuality than it is in imagination. In reality, the actual atmosphere of a situation like that tends to be "shockingly comfortable" for most people and even rather mundane after just a few minutes of getting used to it. I can speak from personal experience here. I've been in several situations like that (e.g., Spencer Tunick photo shoots in Cleveland and Buffalo, as well as nude beaches, etc.). The most common reaction I've heard is along the lines of "Wow! I can't believe how quickly I got used to this!" Women tended to be the most shocked by the sense of comfort and freedom that comes from being naked in a sea of naked bodies. Women, in many situations, live with a nearly chronic sense of potential danger. For some reason, in these mass-nudity situations they felt suddenly relieved from this burden. In some cases they had become desensitized to the burden, so the sudden release was surprising - sorta like you're unconsciously used to a constant buzz from something in your room, and then you suddenly notice it when it stops. Of course these were all voluntary situations, so I can't generalize with complete confidence to a wider public full of people who feel offended by the very thought of nudity, but I have anecdotal evidence for thinking that the "freeing" feeling is mostly generalizable.

What about people who have been sexually abused or assaulted and may have lingering issues with nakedness or genitalia or people whose naked form resembles that encountered during such an experience? Should we just tell them to suck it up if they don't want to see a big old penis on the bus or at the tot lot in the park?

I think it is safe to say that rarely, if ever, in all of human history, has there been a law passed, or a law repealed, where passage or repeal has not caused harm or discomfort to some group of people. Some people were harmed by the repeal of alcohol prohibition laws - some people probably even died who might not have otherwise died - but I don't think that most of us today would favor another round of prohibition. In this case, anyone who has been sexually traumatized should be getting help because there is guaranteed to be more going on that just a bad reaction to nudity. If they are not getting help with this, then I would suggest that they seek help in learning to deal with these fears. That's not a perfect solution to the problem, but that's because virtually no problem of social/cultural importance has a perfect solution. Virtually no one does anything in life that is 100% agreed upon by everyone. Every law and every social custom has some who benefit, and some who don't.

In general, any laws that restricts individual liberty should carry the burden of proof as to why this particular restriction of liberty is necessary for some greater good. In the case of nudity, a great deal of tradition - mostly stemming from religious sentiments - has flipped this general rule upside-down. I'm suggesting that, rationally, the burden of proof should be on laws against nudity to show good reason for their necessity. In cases like restaurants, city streets, etc., some reasonable justifications can be given, but in cases like beaches and private property, the justifications for anti-nudity laws are meager, at best.

[Sonic_Spork]

Shock value is so easy to get over, you get desensitized really quick. I had my sons, just prior to adolescence, watch a documentary about a tribal people, it had TONS of nudity. They were awkward and snickery for less than ten minutes and then they got interested in the human stories and the culture and the actual point of what we were watching. If all you ever see, are naked people in sexual contexts and situations, you're going to link those things inordinately in your mind. The more you see nudity that is utterly non-sexual, the more you shrug and let go of that and just don't care. We also had a friend who was a nursing mother who would come over every weekend for our gaming group, and she was one who did not believe in hiding or covering up (good!) and she'd just go for it and my sons, who were young teenage boys by then, prone to hormonal silliness if anyone is, didn't make the slightest thing of it. They did not stare, gasp, lose their trains of thought, have a hard time talking to her, or anything. It just was not a thing of any importance. They followed the lead of everyone else in the room, in how to act, which was to act as though there is not a naked boob hanging out 5 feet away. To just be chill and act normal. I think this is mostly because I raised them to be polite to other people, in general, and accepting.

What's funny to me, is that there are people who would point to the offense some take at various things, and say, "Oh, you're OFFENDED?? Tough! Ya snowflake! You need a thicker skin! The world doesn't exist for you to always be comfortable!" when it's a matter of them throwing their weight around and imposing on the sensibilities of other people, yet the minute it's something that pushes THEIR buttons? Oh, well, society should be protected from that which offends me!! Modesty and morals oh my!

As to for instance assault survivors being triggered by a nude man in public. I don't think that argument is valid, and I am an assault survivor. You could be just as easily triggered by the sight of a man who resembles your attacker, or the smell of the same cologne or deodorant that he wore. More so, I'd imagine. But I don't for one minute think I get to ban everything from the world around me that might push my buttons and give me a discomfort. One must heal and move on, ya know? I once had a close friend who was epileptic, and could have seizures if exposed to flashing lights. I paused in my usual Halloween decorating and said, "You know...I never thought of this, but I should ask you, maybe I should not use my light displays, I mean...if they could give someone a seizure, that's not cool..." She replied, "No, do what you want. Epileptic people like me have learned to manage our condition, it's our responsibility to avoid those triggers, not yours to avoid using them. We don't expect the world to revolve around us."

Also, I've another friend who was raised by hippie parents on a farm, and they all (parents, her, and her little brother) ran around naked all the time growing up. She's one of the most delightful, pleasant, mentally and emotionally healthy people I've ever known. She was never abused. Growing up around naked people clearly did not scar her.

[Eumaois]

Originally Posted by YuMart

I am not saying to go out and expose yourself to children, but what I am saying is in many different countries there are different laws about public indecency and the like, especially when it comes to children. However, do you really believe there's really anything wrong with it, that it can somehow cause harm? Up until very recently, it was par for the course for everyone, including children to see naked men and women and view it as no big deal. Nowadays at least in the US you will get arrested for showing your "private" parts.

Honestly though, do you think beyond the puritanical views there really is anything wrong with it? If both adults and children were to regularly see naked men and women all the time out and about or otherwise do you honestly believe it would harm them in some way (assuming they weren't brought up with said puritanical views)?

Maybe not legally in certain areas, but morally/ethically/religiously is another story. However, that can of worms applies to many other social behaviors.

[redguitar77111]

I'm sure everyone here would find the things that were once said about women's ankles and flappers interesting. Also interesting is that countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia consider women showing their hair to be "nudity".

[Those Who Squirm]

My objection to the prevailing view on nudity is that there is so little room for accommodation or exception. I'm not sure that there still exists a single truly legal nude beach anywhere in California; Blacks Beach in San Diego is "legal" only by virtue of a decades-old internal memo of the California State Parks department, and that could conceivably be revoked by the stroke of a pen at any time. You'd think there'd be at least one beach per county where nudists could be nude, and it would be incumbent on others not to look at them, but we can't even have that.

The last inland club in Los Angeles County, in hip, trendy, and live-and-let-live Topanga Canyon yet, closed down about twenty years ago due ultimately to the ongoing pressure from the hip, trendy, and live-and-let-live neighbors in Topanga Canyon.