[arel]

If I move to Brattleboro, I will keep my clothes on.

And it won't be a political statement, either. It will be simple personal modesty.

[MRVphotog]

Originally Posted by PatrioticReader

Let's be "conservative" and conserve the status quo. Vermont has had no anti-nudity laws for, um, how many centuries has it been since man first walked that land? Bare in mind too, that the laws they push for go well beyond trying to control the ruse behavior of walking around downtown in the buff. The ordinance they have in mind, in place in a few other VT towns, restricts theater, art, women in white blouses who happen to get caught in rainstorms, women with low tops who might happen to bend over and reveal a glance of a nipple that looks just like any man's, and public breastfeeding.

Let's also not be fooled by the group that identifies itself as "conservative" who has been pushing for this useless and unnecessary law. Aren't they really radicals? Reactionaries? Authoritarian control freaks? Nut cases? All of the above?

Who are these extremists? Follow the names. They are the same who littered our landscape with "Take Back Vermont" signs a few years back. When these non-natives and mostly out-of-town-ers tried to exercise their control, the term "Burka promoting crusaders" described them pretty well. When they attempted the same in Whitingham, the selectboard provided the appropriate lecture that reminded the community that it had no means of costly policing and wouldn't afford one, ended by Ben Franklin himself who said, "Those who will give up liberty for security will have and deserve neither." And the very same, if you follow the names, after that fine chewing out, had the gall to complain about the "Nude Men of Brattleboro" and "Nude Women of Wilmington" calendars of the communities most prominent decked out in fig leaves as a way to raise money for charitable causes.

Hold on- it gets worse. When these lunatics don't get their own way, they play dirty. They will make a problem, real or perceived, until they get their own way. Rumor is that one of these crusaders was frequently seen sneaking around the woods in Wilmington seeking people who might urinate, defecate, or enjoy sex in the woods. When none were found, the location in question which was not far from a camp owned by the son-of-a-crusader was suddenly advertised as a sex cruising place. Condoms (unused) suddenly grew like weeds and were fertilized with KY jelly packets. Having nothing to photograph but these articles, a photo-display of these was presented at the polls and mailed to voters along with a few pictures of unknown, and presumably non-consenting adults.

Does this creation of a problem ring home in Brattleboro? I think we all can accept that, legal or not, every town in America has had a streaker of 6, or a random nut who forgets to dress before going to the store to buy the months grocery supply. If you never noticed, I suggest that odds are high that you didn't happen to be there that day- and no one made a public scene over a non-issue. Heck, it wasn't too many years ago when a group of Brattleboro women did in fact, try to create publicity in a downtown demonstration of topfree equality rights for women demonstration- but no one noticed and no one called in Bill O'Rielly to make a spectacle of our town.

So why the sudden and very few impolite naked people in Brat? The crusaders made a scene, protested the non issue of bored kids doing their "slow streaking" act on one of those rare hot days, got the attention of the Selectboard and the sensation of national news. Yes, they, the crusaders, built the scene, and the naked folks came to test that scene.

Our selectboard was wise to skirt this issue, to find a way to not create a new and permanent law. I hope they will act so wisely in the future if and when the issue comes to the table again. If "build it and they will come" holds true, "ignore them and they will go away" will work as well. If the town fathers simply respond the next time, with "Old business, covered last year, - next issue please" the community can return to our former state of freedom and nudity where any individual has the right to look the other way and any business has the right to establish it's own dress code.

Interesting post but your description of the folks who put "Take Back Vermont" couldn't be more off. Longtime Vermonters were PROTESTING the then new Civil Union law which was pushed by the "non-native and mostly out-of-towners".

The controversial civil unions law passed in the Vermont General Assembly in 2000 was passed as a response to the Vermont Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Vermont requiring that the state grant same-sex couples the same rights and privileges accorded to married couples under the law. It was passed without a vote by the people of Vermont that's why longtime native Vermonters put up the signs "Take Back Vermont"

There are still some signs around Vermont mostly on barns. 90% of the civil unions performed in Vermont since the law was enacted are for folks who live out of state. BTW some now want to get divorced which is a sticky wicket legally.

I also find several of your other points to be equally flawed.

[PatrioticReader]

Originally Posted by MRVphotog

Interesting post but your description of the folks who put "Take Back Vermont" couldn't be more off. Longtime Vermonters were PROTESTING the then new Civil Union law which was pushed by the "non-native and mostly out-of-towners".

The origin or residency of those involved with TBV is difficult to quantify, and evidence to support this is anecdotal at best. IOW, for every "native" who had one of those signs out, I can point out as many imports. Not that it really matters since most were residents, imports or otherwise. (One may note that many of Vermonts most prominent citizens just happen to be of the imported brand and ones place of birth does not make the person.)

What is quantifiable is the financial support for political and legal activity in support of TBV, most coming from southwestern organizations such as The Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona (the same folks behind the disruption of FL court decisions in the Terry Schiavo case.) Follow the dollars. That is what is spent to create influence and it is no secret that the "bluist" of States is under constant attack by interests from the "redist."

If you want to make the "native resident" argument you can go through the Reformer and search out the names of the most vocal who initiated the campaign for a law in Brat. You will note that these people are from Guilford, Vernon, and some even from The Northeast Kingdom, many are also imports to the state, and although they may have created a local following, few of the antagonists are from Brat. I'm not xenophobic enough to make that sort of argument, it's the mentality of the highly radical southwestern religious right and authoritarian political values that are foreign to Vermont. Isn't the native and traditional value one of independence and non-authoritarianism? And isn't that a value that causes many of our "imports" to flock to Vermont where they support the same?

There are still some signs around Vermont mostly on barns. 90% of the civil unions performed in Vermont since the law was enacted are for folks who live out of state. BTW some now want to get divorced which is a sticky wicket legally.

Of course! Vermont, which has ALWAYS been a leader in progress of equality issues, had a short lived monopoly on the equality of civil unions. And although it was never sold as such (because Vermont human rights values are never for sale), there was a considerable unexpected economic impact in civil union tourism. Then MA caught up with the same making that economic impact a short blip of a few dollars in time.

Yes, divorce is always a legal sticky wicket. So should marriage or other partnership contracts be banned too? Or should we put partners to death if they happen to part?

I also find several of your other points to be equally flawed.

Gee, that's interesting. Not very substantive, but interesting. OK, I'll be blatantly honest. The comment wasn't even interesting. Do you have a point to make?

[PatrioticReader]

Originally Posted by arel

If I move to Brattleboro, I will keep my clothes on.

And you deserve that right to dress or not dress as you please.

And it won't be a political statement, either. It will be simple personal modesty.

Other than the top freedom women of Brat (who got almost no attention), I don't think many Vermonters go naked as a political statement. Many do as a practical habit though, such as wandering out to get the paper on a hot day where there is little risk that such action would be perceived as impolite if someone did happen along and catch a glimpse of butt cheek. And the same can be said for hikers, townies, judges, politicians and farmers who skinny dip- just like they have for centuries (and as they especially did prior to the days when rural Vermont wasn't electrified to pump heated water for the Saturday night bath), in a polite and non-imposing way. And there are the naked skiiers sitting in the dark hottubs of the tiny resorts that dot the landscape. And a few nudists who bring their tourist dollars to Vermont to exercise their freedom in non-imposing manner in a few scattered and well known places. And the highly popular naked calendar fundraisers of the most prominent (who weren't really "naked" but they used the word and got protested by the crusaders for it anyway.)

Practicality is fine and so is modesty (whatever that is, gym class broke me of that and taught me that eyes of another don't cause pain so I can't relate). The Brat issue is really one of bad manners (especially by those who came from MA and AZ just to test and flaunt the system after being drawn by the crusader initiated publicity.) I'm quite afraid that if we use law to control manners, we will also open a door to destroy individuality and choice (including the choice to be "modest.") I'd much sooner live with my own values and let my neighbor live with his. If you move to Vermont, I hope that it is because you respect that quality of life that prevails.

[MRVphotog]

The uproar from folks in Bratt is not about the fact that

Many do as a practical habit though, such as wandering out to get the paper on a hot day where there is little risk that such action would be perceived as impolite if someone did happen along and catch a glimpse of butt cheek. And the same can be said for hikers, townies, judges, politicians and farmers who skinny dip

It's about being naked in downtown Bratt, a totally diferent situation

especially by those who came from MA and AZ just to test and flaunt the system after being drawn by the crusader initiated publicity.)

Why pick on folks from MA and AZ, what about other states. You first say it's not a political statement but then you say it is a politically motivated. You can't have it both ways.

Bratt officials represent all citizens of Bratt, they came up with a compromise, props to them IMHO.

[arel]

Think about it. Why would someone want to go naked in a public place?

To push the envelope of acceptable behavior?

Do break boundaries?

To get attention?

To make a political statement? And if so, what?

To assert oneself by refusing to conform to social norms?

To act out some sexual problem, such as exibitionism?

To avoid wearing itchy underwear?

To avoid anything touching one's skin, either because of heat or because of a rash, allergy or sensitivity?

To be more comfortable on a hot day? After all, a nice breeze on your butt cheeks feels better than hot clothes.

To escape boredom by stirring up something interesting?

In some cultures, nudity is acceptable and it is not seen as sexual. It's just how people carry themselves. In the west, however, there is some statement made by nudity, and it is often sexual. Here, we speak of private parts; private means not public. Exposing one's genitalia to a person is considered a perversion.

I don't know how I feel about Brattleboro nudity. I believe in live and let live, but I also feel there are limits. One should not intrude on others. I find other's nudity, other than in a designated place where people normally go nude, can be seen as an intrusion.

[quickdraw]

Most people don't realize it, but you can walk around nude anywhere in Burlington except a city park.

[Dwatted Wabbit]

I wish the US had a more European than Mideastern view of clothing.
And depending on the state and locale, apparently we do.
The things you can get arrested for and get a lifetime label as a sex criminal are pretty absurd, and will surely give archaeologists a good hardy harr harr when they dig it up in 5000 years.
A co worker once remarked to another (slightly uptight) colleague, Hey Ralph, do you go out to get the paper naked? (Paper is 1/2 mile down the driveway.) I always do. I added, Yeah, and if the paperboy missed us, I head for the town newsstand!
All in good fun. Folks should lighten up.
The uninhibited will always be with us, as will the more inhibited.
Isn't tolerance one of today's most PC words?

[PatrioticReader]

Originally Posted by arel

Think about it. Why would someone want to go naked in a public place?

To push the envelope of acceptable behavior?

Probably, as I believe was the case of the Harmony "slow streaking" kids that sparked the controversy. But why? To get someones goat?- which they surely did with the crusaders. To get attention? It was actually the fuss of the crusaders that brought national news attention to the matter. To break up the boredom by sparking controversy? Again, those who made the fuss gave them exactly what they wanted while partnering in the same.

To make a political statement? And if so, what?

Probably not in this case, but the World Naked Bike Ride to bring attention to dependence on oil is all about that, as were the many naked war protests. I think any form of expression is valid- and so did the framers of the US constitution.

To assert oneself by refusing to conform to social norms?

Yes, probably in the case of the AZ and MA men who saw the news fuss and traveled to VT just to be imposingly naked.

To act out some sexual problem, such as exibitionism?

I tend to doubt it, at least not unless they are creating an instant shock effect or predation with the action. Nude does not generally relate to sexual activity and social-sexual problems are far more complex than that.

To avoid wearing itchy underwear?

To avoid anything touching one's skin, either because of heat or because of a rash, allergy or sensitivity?

To be more comfortable on a hot day? After all, a nice breeze on your butt cheeks feels better than hot clothes.

Those sound reasonable and many of us like to strip down to a comfort level that is limited to cultural acceptance.

To escape boredom by stirring up something interesting?

Yep, thats what the kids were up to. Isn't that the nature of youth? At least they weren't being violent or destructive as is so often the case.

In some cultures, nudity is acceptable and it is not seen as sexual. It's just how people carry themselves.

I'm nude in the shower every day and it's unfortunately, not very sexual. Sexual usually takes 2 consenting partners, an intimate attachment, hormone stimulation, mood, and a whole lot more.

In the west, however, there is some statement made by nudity, and it is often sexual. Here, we speak of private parts; private means not public. Exposing one's genitalia to a person is considered a perversion.

I'd say exploitive of human sexuality if you are talking about media and using skin to sell products. That is contrived and would lose all effect in a naked culture.

One should not intrude on others. I find other's nudity, other than in a designated place where people normally go nude, can be seen as an intrusion.

Exactly, and other than the MA and AZ men, I don't think anyone argues that. You don't suppose they were planted by the crusaders, do you? One letter in the reformer from a Florida man threatening to come to VT to be imposingly nude most likely was a plant.

[goatwoodward]

Originally Posted by nhyrnut

Think the real question would be why would a adult want to hang it all out, where there are children present. You want to wander nude, do it where there are no children present. Tell ya If I had my kids there and someone walked in front of them nude, I would call the cops and press charges for lude and lascivious conduct with a child. Nudist have rights yes, But not in a public place with minors. Of course I am also the guy that would toss out a $5 if the kids are not with me and ask them to dance. Can you drink in public there as well. LOL

It's legal to walk around Burlington naked, so long as you're not acting in a sexual manner, stripping, or in a public park/Church Street Marketplace. The cops wouldn't do anything unless the person was actually being lewd, not just nude. Dancing naked would be illegal though.