View Full Version : Scott Weiner proposes public nudity ban
tailfins
11-20-2012, 12:12 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/san-francisco-lawmakers-set-vote-nudity-ban-17765727#.UKu5hob4LxM
Because
a) The human must always be considered a sexual object
b) We should be ashamed of our bodies.
jimnyc
11-20-2012, 12:37 PM
Because
a) The human must always be considered a sexual object
b) We should be ashamed of our bodies.
Yeah, let's let everyone walk around with their wieners hanging out. It's about self respect, protecting our children and common decency. You would have children in public places seeing grown men walking around naked?
Yeah, let's let everyone walk around with their wieners hanging out. It's about self respect, protecting our children and common decency. You would have children in public places seeing grown men walking around naked?
The same children that would see their parents/brothers/sisters naked? Yes.
jimnyc
11-20-2012, 12:42 PM
The same children that would see their parents/brothers/sisters naked? Yes.
Most families aren't in the habit of walking around showing off their body parts like a trophy to their kids - and even if a kid does see, they are taught about privacy. Maybe people don't care about common decency and such where you live, but here in the States we tend to respect one another and especially one anothers children.
jimnyc
11-20-2012, 12:43 PM
Take a picture of yourself - fully naked - Noir, and post it on your FB page - with your face showing to prove it's you. If it's ok to you, and should be with everyone else, you should be able to do this.
Thunderknuckles
11-20-2012, 12:54 PM
Because
a) The human must always be considered a sexual object
b) We should be ashamed of our bodies.
I think liberals argue this just to be argumentative. This isn't about sex or fear of nudity or whatever scripted response liberals have on this. It really boils down to hygiene and decorum.
Is putting on a pair of shorts really too much to ask of someone? Jeez.
Most families aren't in the habit of walking around showing off their body parts like a trophy to their kids - and even if a kid does see, they are taught about privacy. Maybe people don't care about common decency and such where you live, but here in the States we tend to respect one another and especially one anothers children.
See how bias your own thinking is, a parent can't just be naked they have to be 'showing off body parts like a trophy'. And again, we are made to feel shameful of our bodies by being told they are an affront to 'common decency'.
Take a picture of yourself - fully naked - Noir, and post it on your FB page - with your face showing to prove it's you. If it's ok to you, and should be with everyone else, you should be able to do this.
Sadly the only result of this would be a) Profile being deleted and b) losing my job.
The irony in the knowledge of those two results shouldn't be lost on you.
jimnyc
11-20-2012, 01:59 PM
Sadly the only result of this would be a) Profile being deleted and b) losing my job.
The irony in the knowledge of those two results shouldn't be lost on you.
No irony, the point is that the rest of the world understands common decency and respect, including FB and your employment.
jimnyc
11-20-2012, 02:00 PM
See how bias your own thinking is, a parent can't just be naked they have to be 'showing off body parts like a trophy'. And again, we are made to feel shameful of our bodies by being told they are an affront to 'common decency'.
Then go ahead and expose yourself, do it privately and send just to the ladies here of the board for verification. Don't just claim to be above everyone else, prove it.
Then go ahead and expose yourself, do it privately and send just to the ladies here of the board for verification. Don't just claim to be above everyone else, prove it.
If you want a pic of me naked your more than welcome to one. Send me your email address and i'll take one just for you.
jimnyc
11-20-2012, 02:16 PM
If you want a pic of me naked your more than welcome to one. Send me your email address and i'll take one just for you.
I said the ladies if you read correctly, I have no desire to see another man naked, whether online or in public. Either way, our opinions technically don't matter, but I will say that I am glad to live in a country where common decency and respect for one another prevail over those who think they should be able to do as they please.
I said the ladies if you read correctly, I have no desire to see another man naked, whether online or in public. Either way, our opinions technically don't matter, but I will say that I am glad to live in a country where common decency and respect for one another prevail over those who think they should be able to do as they please.
Oh, i read it as send one to you and 'the ladies' for verification, in any case, the point of being free, is that you're free to offend and be offended.
You may find the idea of a naked body offensive (or indecent/disrespectful etc) but there are also cultures out there were being able to view a womans bare skin and hair (or indeed - anything except her eyes) is deemed offensive/disrespectful.
And the common denominator is both situations is the sexualization of the human body.
jimnyc
11-20-2012, 02:25 PM
Oh, i read it as send one to you and 'the ladies' for verification, in any case, the point of being free, is that you're free to offend and be offended.
You may find the idea of a naked body offensive (or indecent/disrespectful etc) but there are also cultures out there were being able to view a womans bare skin and hair (or indeed - anything except her eyes) is deemed offensive/disrespectful.
And the common denominator is both situations is the sexualization of the human body.
If you're cool with it, so be it, but in a civilized world, what is in the best interest of the PUBLIC comes first. Just like I have no issue whatsoever with PRIVATE nude beaches, as the PUBLIC can therefore avoid having their kids around.
If you're cool with it, so be it, but in a civilized world, what is in the best interest of the PUBLIC comes first. Just like I have no issue whatsoever with PRIVATE nude beaches, as the PUBLIC can therefore avoid having their kids around.
'In a civilised world, all women would be covered except their eyes, i take no issue with what happens in PRIVATE, but in PUBLIC, especially when kids can see, skin should not be visible at all.'
aboutime
11-20-2012, 02:40 PM
If you want a pic of me naked your more than welcome to one. Send me your email address and i'll take one just for you.
Noir. The only person who would want such a photo of anyone, including yourself would be YOU.
Try posting one of yourself here, nude. It's an instant way for jimnyc to ban you, and everyone else would THANK HIM.
fj1200
11-20-2012, 03:05 PM
Because
a) The human must always be considered a sexual object
b) We should be ashamed of our bodies.
I'd say you're missing an obvious c) option when it's 1. in San Francisco, and 2. in the Castro District.
Scott Wiener, the supervisor who represents San Francisco's predominantly gay Castro District, introduced the measure in response to escalating complaints about a group of men whose dishabille is an almost daily occurrence.
aboutime
11-20-2012, 03:07 PM
I'd say you're missing an obvious c) option when it's 1. in San Francisco, and 2. in the Castro District.
"THAN FRAN THISCO". Nuff said.
Noir. The only person who would want such a photo of anyone, including yourself would be YOU.
Try posting one of yourself here, nude. It's an instant way for jimnyc to ban you, and everyone else would THANK HIM.
I am ceaselessly amazed by how often you just don't seem to get the point of the conversation. Whether i should be amazed in awe or despair I have yet to decide.
In any case, you'll be pleased to know i'm not going anywhere (:
I'd say you're missing an obvious c) option when it's 1. in San Francisco, and 2. in the Castro District.
What would be the c?
The only thing i know about Castro district is what was included in the Harvey Milk film, but of course that was a film.
jimnyc
11-20-2012, 03:44 PM
'In a civilised world, all women would be covered except their eyes, i take no issue with what happens in PRIVATE, but in PUBLIC, especially when kids can see, skin should not be visible at all.'
Your play on words doesn't even come close, as since the beginning of time the "private" parts have always been the same. Someone's face, arms, hands, feet, legs and such are not considered private parts. Your argument is a dud and basically the entire world, at least the civilized portions, agree with me on the stance of public nudity. There are extremely limited places where this is allowed and it's for good reason.
But hey, how about sending me some nude pictures of your girlfriend? I do know what she looks like, so I'll know if they're real or not!
aboutime
11-20-2012, 03:46 PM
I am ceaselessly amazed by how often you just don't seem to get the point of the conversation. Whether i should be amazed in awe or despair I have yet to decide.
In any case, you'll be pleased to know i'm not going anywhere (:
Not as ceaselessly amazed as I am of you. Being so undecided as to whether you think I am pleased.
Marcus Aurelius
11-20-2012, 03:56 PM
I fully support a ban on Scott Weiner being nude in public.
aboutime
11-20-2012, 04:09 PM
I fully support a ban on Scott Weiner being nude in public.
Marcus. I'll support that ban as well. When I first heard the name....this came to mind....4062
gabosaurus
11-20-2012, 04:10 PM
Yeah, let's let everyone walk around with their wieners hanging out. It's about self respect, protecting our children and common decency. You would have children in public places seeing grown men walking around naked?
I have to agree. I wouldn't want my daughter to see Jim walking around naked. She knows too many vienna sausage jokes already. :p
Not to mention how weird it is for someone named Weiner to present a bill prohibiting public weiners.
tailfins
11-20-2012, 04:38 PM
I have to agree. I wouldn't want my daughter to see Jim walking around naked. She knows too many vienna sausage jokes already. :p
Not to mention how weird it is for someone named Weiner to present a bill prohibiting public weiners.
It makes him the BUTT of countless jokes.
Marcus Aurelius
11-20-2012, 05:13 PM
It makes him the BUTT of countless jokes.
I see what you did there.
jafar00
11-20-2012, 06:27 PM
Common decency for normal people aside, the fact that they had to enact an ordinance aimed at gay men mincing about naked in the streets is quite frankly disturbing.
aboutime
11-20-2012, 06:44 PM
Common decency for normal people aside, the fact that they had to enact an ordinance aimed at gay men mincing about naked in the streets is quite frankly disturbing.
jafar. TWO of your favorite spots on Earth where you can always be FRANKLY disturbed....if you want to, are CALIFORNIA, and the Grand City of Gays By the Bays...San Francisco.
They have fewer ordinances there, and if you are looking for common decency. That is not the place to be.
gabosaurus
11-20-2012, 09:43 PM
It makes him the BUTT of countless jokes.
Poor Weiner. Someone is always dicking him around...
fj1200
11-21-2012, 06:04 AM
What would be the c?
c) that even some people can take it to far and can be limited by what is socially acceptable.
The only thing i know about Castro district is what was included in the Harvey Milk film, but of course that was a film.
You should do a little research then.
c) that even some people can take it to far and can be limited by what is socially acceptable.
But what they were doing was legal, yes?
Thunderknuckles
11-21-2012, 10:21 AM
But what they were doing was legal, yes?
Yes it was. They took it too far and the community got fed up and now it is not legal with the exception of parades and festivals where they will still be allowed to run around nude.
Yes it was. They took it too far and the community got fed up and now it is not legal with the exception of parades and festivals where they will still be allowed to run around nude.
How can you take being legal too far?
If someone is legally allowed to walk down a street nude, does it matter if they only go nude once a week, or five times a week?
fj1200
11-21-2012, 10:38 AM
But what they were doing was legal, yes?
There are many things you would be able to do while naked that you can't normally do while clothed; do you think all of those should be legal? Your assumption that this is being considered because of prudishness really has no basis in reality considering the locale.
There are many things you would be able to do while naked that you can't normally do while clothed; do you think all of those should be legal? Your assumption that this is being considered because of prudishness really has no basis in reality considering the locale.
You've genuinely lost me, are you taking about acts of sex or something? Mehtinks you're weaving together a strawman...
jimnyc
11-21-2012, 10:48 AM
But hey, how about sending me some nude pictures of your girlfriend? I do know what she looks like, so I'll know if they're real or not!
I wonder why this went ignored?
fj1200
11-21-2012, 10:52 AM
You've genuinely lost me, are you taking about acts of sex or something? Mehtinks you're weaving together a strawman...
Nope, just trying to figure out if even you have a line in the sand as it seems that even the Castro has one.
I wonder why this went ignored?
Genuinely didn't see lol, i know she's posted nudes/semi-nudes online before though idk what she's kept up, but ill ask for you.
Though its your job to explain to your wife if you start getting another woman's nudes in your inbox.
Abbey Marie
11-21-2012, 10:56 AM
One might ask why these gay men feel the desire to expose their genitals to the public on almost a daily basis. If there ever was a group that was hyper-sexualized, they are it. We used to call such people perverts and exhibitionists. Sad that some now actually champion this.
Nope, just trying to figure out if even you have a line in the sand as it seems that even the Castro has one.
My line exists outside of the realm of the sexualised body. Which is the concern of this thread.
So keeping to this thread, rather than my preferences, the gist is, that the right to be nude has been removed, because some folk were using that right.
One might ask why these gay men feel the desire to expose their genitals to the public on almost a daily basis. If there ever was a group that was hyper-sexualized, they are it. We used to call such people perverts and exhibitionists. Sad that some now actually champion this.
But this is my point exactly, we are in effect socially engineered to think of a naked body as a sexual object. To the extent that a non-sexual naked body makes us feel uncomfortable.
jimnyc
11-21-2012, 11:04 AM
Genuinely didn't see lol, i know she's posted nudes/semi-nudes online before though idk what she's kept up, but ill ask for you.
Though its your job to explain to your wife if you start getting another woman's nudes in your inbox.
Hmmm... Lemme know before you send them, I may change my mind and have them go to someone else for verification. But quite frankly, it's almost as disturbing to me that you WOULD share nudes of your girlfriend with others! I don't mean to offend you THAT much, but no way in hell I share nudies of my woman with other men, and not sure I would want my woman to be willing to do so!
Abbey Marie
11-21-2012, 11:05 AM
But this is my point exactly, we are in effect socially engineered to think of a naked body as a sexual object. To the extent that a non-sexual naked body makes us feel uncomfortable.
Until we stop using penises and vaginas to have sex, our genitals are sexual.
fj1200
11-21-2012, 11:05 AM
My line exists outside of the realm of the sexualised body. Which is the concern of this thread.
So keeping to this thread, rather than my preferences, the gist is, that the right to be nude has been removed, because some folk were using that right.
That may be your version of this thread but that does not apply to all. Better said is that their "right" has been removed because some folks were abusing that "right" in the eyes of the local elected officials. That it occurred in less than prudish SF is telling to me.
Until we stop using penises and vaginas to have sex, our genitals are sexual.
Right, (at the risk of seeming vulgar, but then we are adults) just like our fingers and tongues?
Hmmm... Lemme know before you send them, I may change my mind and have them go to someone else for verification. But quite frankly, it's almost as disturbing to me that you WOULD share nudes of your girlfriend with others! I don't mean to offend you THAT much, but no way in hell I share nudies of my woman with other men, and not sure I would want my woman to be willing to do so!
And in some islamic country, some guy would find it disturbing that i would share pictures of my gfs bare legs if she's wearing a dress etc.
That may be your version of this thread but that does not apply to all. Better said is that their "right" has been removed because some folks were abusing that "right" in the eyes of the local elected officials. That it occurred in less than prudish SF is telling to me.
And i would like to know how a legal right can be abused.
Edit - also apoligies in the mutli-posts, but as far as i can tell, its not possible to multi-quote via the forum runner app.
Abbey Marie
11-21-2012, 11:14 AM
Right, (at the risk of seeming vulgar, but then we are adults) just like our fingers and tongues?
There is a vast difference there. You can use almost anything in a sexual way, but nothing approaches using those two body parts. As I am sure you know.
Noir, you can try to logically argue your way out of this, but it's rather silly. Genitals are sexual. That's all there really is to it.
fj1200
11-21-2012, 11:18 AM
And i would like to know how a legal right can be abused.
You said it yourself.
... the sexualised body.
Once it goes beyond just nudity. As far as I'm concerned SF can make that determination on their own.
Thunderknuckles
11-21-2012, 11:18 AM
How can you take being legal too far?
Easily. I don't think you are putting enough honest thought into this and just arguing from an idealist perspective.
Here's an example from the city of Glendora where my mother-in-law lives:
Glendorans love their RVs. It was perfectly legal to park your RV along the street in your residential neighborhood. BUT, things got out of hand. Their started to be too many RVs parked along the streets and it became a nuisance. Other Glendoran residents complained about the problem and the city council changed the laws and stated RVs could no longer be parked on the street which meant you either had to park your RV in your own RV parking or pay to have it stored at a local storage area.
There's a number of other examples I could cite but don't have the time to research here at work.
To the point of nudity in the Castro district. These gay nudists were becoming a nuisance to the residential community and local business owners to the point that the rest of the gay community had had enough and started to complain about it to the point that the gay city supervisor introduced a measure to ban public nudity.
There is a vast difference there. You can use almost anything in a sexual way, but nothing approaches using those two body parts. As I am sure you know.
Noir, you can try to logically argue your way out of this, but it's rather silly. Genitals are sexual. That's all there is really to it.
Forgot to say in my last post - Good to see breasts were not on your list
Though again and again your just reinforcing my point, you cant see a naked body and nothing think of it sexually.
jimnyc
11-21-2012, 11:21 AM
And in some islamic country, some guy would find it disturbing that i would share pictures of my gfs bare legs if she's wearing a dress etc.
And in no country, barely, is it acceptable for residents to walk around nude amongst the children. And in no country, barely, is it acceptable to share nude pictures of ones wife or girlfriend with others.
Easily. I don't think you are putting enough honest thought into this and just arguing from an idealist perspective.
Here's an example from the city of Glendora where my mother-in-law lives:
Glendorans love their RVs. It was perfectly legal to park your RV along the street in your residential neighborhood. BUT, things got out of hand. Their started to be too many RVs parked along the streets and it became a nuisance. Other Glendoran residents complained about the problem and the city council changed the laws and stated RVs could no longer be parked on the street which meant you either had to park your RV in your own RV parking or pay to have it stored at a local storage area.
There's a number of other examples I could cite but don't have the time to research here at work.
To the point of nudity in the Castro district. These gay nudists were becoming a nuisance to the residential community and local business owners to the point that the rest of the gay community had had enough and started to complain about it to the point that they gay city supervisor introduced a measure to ban public nudity.
Fair dues, that's a good analogy.
Abbey Marie
11-21-2012, 11:25 AM
Forgot to say in my last post - Good to see breasts were not on your list
Though again and again your just reinforcing my point, you cant see a naked body and nothing think of it sexually.
Right, because it is. And a whole porn industry exists on it.
And in no country, barely, is it acceptable for residents to walk around nude amongst the children. And in no country, barely, is it acceptable to share nude pictures of ones wife or girlfriend with others.
First point, mostly true, heck, america went insane when jannet jackson exposed a nipple on tv (think of the children!) Hows this for an experiment - Raise a group of children in an environment without clothes, but they are taught that eating infront of someone is rude to the point of disgusting. And what them scuttle off to private quarters to eat their food...
As for the second point, idk what country you think you're living in lol, but its not the one i know.
Right, because it is. And a whole porn industry exists on it.
And in my opinion its not.
The porn industry is a resulting of the fact that the human body can be sexual. Just like you said before.
...to put this another way, idk if you have any sons or anything, but say you do have one, and after playing college football or whatever the team take to the showers, do you consider your son, and those other boys to be exposing themselves sexually? Or are they just showering?
Thunderknuckles
11-21-2012, 11:43 AM
Hows this for an experiment - Raise a group of children in an environment without clothes, but they are taught that eating infront of someone is rude to the point of disgusting. And what them scuttle off to private quarters to eat their food....
If that is the basis of your culture then that is perfectly OK. I can think of a few African tribes not far off the mark. It all boils down to what your culture considers sensible, moral, and decent. It's mostly subjective with a few exceptions. The bottom line is that the US is not a culture that considers public nudity acceptable. However, we do have have a gay sub-culture that does and these nudists in the Castro district have to have gone pretty far to insult the moral sensibilities of their fellow gay residents.
tailfins
11-21-2012, 12:16 PM
Spend some time in NYC. If you observe long enough, there will be somebody attempt to push the limit irrespective of what that limit is. If for example, you legalize pot on the subway, someone will try to do cocaine on the subway.
Abbey Marie
11-21-2012, 12:46 PM
And in my opinion its not.
The porn industry is a resulting of the fact that the human body can be sexual. Just like you said before.
...to put this another way, idk if you have any sons or anything, but say you do have one, and after playing college football or whatever the team take to the showers, do you consider your son, and those other boys to be exposing themselves sexually? Or are they just showering?
So you agree that it is sexual. Then you understand why it is unacceptable to have exposed genitals on the street.
As for your example, every one of those buys joins a team knowing that they will be communally showering and most likely seeing others' naked bodies. If they don't like it, they don't join the team or skip the shower until they get home. But when I and my young daughter walk down the street, we've agreed to no such thing.
So you agree that it is sexual. Then you understand why it is unacceptable to have exposed genitals on the street.
No, i agree it can be sexual, not that it always is (as you do)
As for your example, every one of those buys joins a team knowing that they will be communally showering and most likely seeing others' naked bodies. If they don't like it, they don't join the team or skip the shower until they get home. But when I and my young daughter walk down the street, we've agreed to no such thing.
A+ for not answering the question. If you view a naked body as always being sexual, is not a shared shower a sexual occasion (regardless of the circumstances surrounding it)
Trigg
11-21-2012, 04:18 PM
My line exists outside of the realm of the sexualised body. Which is the concern of this thread.
So keeping to this thread, rather than my preferences, the gist is, that the right to be nude has been removed, because some folk were using that right.
I would venture to say, based on the article, that the reason people had a problem with the men's "right" to be nude is because they were walking around DAILY.
Another article had to do with sanitary issues. Who wants to sit at a chair recently vacated by a naked ass?
Like many things that USED to be legal. Someone took advantage of the situation, made people uncomfortable enough to complain, and the law was changed.
Robert A Whit
11-21-2012, 04:26 PM
I can be in SF in 40 minutes. The news I get comes from either SF or San Jose.
This has been all over our local news.
I have but one question.
Guys, would you ban public nudity as it pertains to the awesome women who might be naked in SF?
Fortunately the Castro in SF is a small area and one can easily avoid it. I doubt those gorgeous women are naked up an down Market St or at Fisherman's wharf.
Some of those old men get naked though and hang around the court house and women are upset about it. They want to feel safe when walking with their kids.
Abbey Marie
11-21-2012, 04:31 PM
No, i agree it can be sexual, not that it always is (as you do)
A+ for not answering the question. If you view a naked body as always being sexual, is not a shared shower a sexual occasion (regardless of the circumstances surrounding it)
D- for not seeing the point. I absolutely did answer the question by getting to the real issue, which is the voluntary aspect of the shower, vs the involuntary viewing of the sidewalk genital display.
A communal shower may be sexual, as can anywhere, though primarily in gay establishments (color me surprised) from what I've heard. But it is primarily for taking a shower, and as I've said, voluntary, which whether or not you acknowledge it, is the point.
Abbey Marie
11-21-2012, 04:33 PM
I would also add that given the fact that we defacate and urinate with those same parts, it behooves everyone to cover them. Lord knows what you might see otherwise.
aboutime
11-21-2012, 04:42 PM
I would also add that given the fact that we defacate and urinate with those same parts, it behooves everyone to cover them. Lord knows what you might see otherwise.
Abbey. Those who insist on showing such parts of the anatomy do so, because their miserable life without a brain is defined in bold, naked truth. Stupidity, Ignorance, and Hatred of self.
Robert A Whit
11-21-2012, 04:58 PM
One might ask why these gay men feel the desire to expose their genitals to the public on almost a daily basis. If there ever was a group that was hyper-sexualized, they are it. We used to call such people perverts and exhibitionists. Sad that some now actually champion this.
It had to be around 1955 when I got my drivers license. Some of the time i would gather my pals and we drove to San Francisco.
We were walking around North Beach where we often as underaged guys would sit in clubs and soak up the Jazz music. And servers served us booze.
I can still see this as if it was yesterday.
Some hippy types were going up and down this one street and me and my pals were window shopping.
This guy was walking up the hill and in a loud voice asking for Gordy. I never did see Gordy.
This young girl was standing next to a store window and suddenly this guy stops in front of her and they embrace and get into some heavy kissing. As suddenly as it started, it stopped and he walked away.
Then as he stood with hands on hips yelling for Gordy, two SF cops walk up to him and one per side grabbed his arms on his hips and took off with him.
Probably to book him for being drunk.
In those days, I was not aware that homosexuals lived in SF. I really wasn't sure what a homosexuall was.
That vision of those cops lifting him up and carting him away is so funny to this day.
I am not sure he realized he was being carted off by two cops. That dude was very drunk.
At that time I think most of the unwashed in SF thought they were all artists.
SassyLady
11-22-2012, 12:00 AM
My line exists outside of the realm of the sexualised body. Which is the concern of this thread.
So keeping to this thread, rather than my preferences, the gist is, that the right to be nude has been removed, because some folk were using that right.
Noir, I like keeping the body sexualized. If I saw naked bodies every day I would become bored.
SassyLady
11-22-2012, 12:05 AM
Though again and again your just reinforcing my point, you cant see a naked body and nothing think of it sexually.
Noir, there are lots of naked bodies that don't make me think of sex ... they make me think of vomiting. So, not all naked bodies evoke thoughts of sex. Perhaps people don't want to look at naked bodies because they want to keep their lunch down. Every think of that?
DragonStryk72
11-22-2012, 12:27 AM
Common decency for normal people aside, the fact that they had to enact an ordinance aimed at gay men mincing about naked in the streets is quite frankly disturbing.
Actually, it was the gay community at large that put pressure on him to WRITE the bill, so I don't see why it would be "disturbing" that he did what his constituency told him to.
Kathianne
11-22-2012, 12:44 AM
D- for not seeing the point. I absolutely did answer the question by getting to the real issue, which is the voluntary aspect of the shower, vs the involuntary viewing of the sidewalk genital display.
A communal shower may be sexual, as can anywhere, though primarily in gay establishments (color me surprised) from what I've heard. But it is primarily for taking a shower, and as I've said, voluntary, which whether or not you acknowledge it, is the point.
I must agree. Plenty of times have been in locker rooms changing and showers at health club, schools as a student, the Y, no one was 'sexualized.' Some more modest than others, but not so much after HS.
jafar00
11-22-2012, 05:40 AM
Actually, it was the gay community at large that put pressure on him to WRITE the bill, so I don't see why it would be "disturbing" that he did what his constituency told him to.
You get me wrong. I support the bill. What is disturbing is that it is actually needed.
Common sense and decency should keep you from waltzing down the street with your junk out on display. They used to call it flashing and it was illegal (indecent exposure).
fj1200
11-22-2012, 05:43 AM
Actually, it was the gay community at large that put pressure on him to WRITE the bill, so I don't see why it would be "disturbing" that he did what his constituency told him to.
What? Those prudish, non-enlightened gays? Say it ain't so.
logroller
11-22-2012, 06:01 AM
Noir, there are lots of naked bodies that don't make me think of sex ... they make me think of vomiting. So, not all naked bodies evoke thoughts of sex. Perhaps people don't want to look at naked bodies because they want to keep their lunch down. Every think of that?
I've seen some clothed bodies that made me think of vomiting. Case in point--
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpaq0zmz02y9Rf9LSgrSzeH7pOqfvGW AgLM-oZTMnczoazwz1GgeCY0dMekA
Ever think of averting you eyes? (I know, its like a train wreck)
What? Those prudish, non-enlightened gays? Say it ain't so.
Perhaps their members extoll the public's phalic insecurities. I doubt highly a naked women would be treated with such disdain.
fj1200
11-22-2012, 06:13 AM
Perhaps their members extoll the public's phalic insecurities.
http://www.scappoinbrasile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/futurama-fry-billy-west.jpg
I doubt highly a naked women would be treated with such disdain.
In Castro? Probably. :poke:
logroller
11-22-2012, 06:28 AM
http://www.scappoinbrasile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/futurama-fry-billy-west.jpg
Oooh. sensitive subject? my bad.
In Castro? Probably. :poke:
I was with my (nuclear white bread) family on a trip to Canada long ago and we, unbeknownst to us, traversed into a gay district in Vancouver. We were admonished by a passerby "you're in the wrong part if town." We just left and it always bothered me... until now. I always thought we weren't welcome, but now I wonder if it was a good advice. Perhaps they should post signs http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002872871/41259674_clothing_optional_xlarge.jpeg
fj1200
11-22-2012, 06:47 AM
I was with my (nuclear white bread) family on a trip to Canada long ago and we, unbeknownst to us, traversed into a gay district in Vancouver. We were admonished by a passerby "you're in the wrong part if town." We just left and it always bothered me... until now. I always thought we weren't welcome, but now I wonder if it was a good advice. Perhaps they should post signs
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002872871/41259674_clothing_optional_xlarge.jpeg
With my nuclear white bread family, and relatives of similar nature, on a trip to Martha's Vineyard we happened upon a cliff overlooking Gayhead Beach and through the tourist oversized binocular contraption I noticed two young men playing hacky sack naked. The reason for the name of the beach is clear to me now. :eek:
logroller
11-22-2012, 06:49 AM
With my nuclear white bread family, and relatives of similar nature, on a trip to Martha's Vineyard we happened upon a cliff overlooking Gayhead Beach and through the tourist oversized binocular contraption I noticed two young men playing hacky sack naked. The reason for the name of the beach is clear to me now. :eek:
Retrospect is 20/20...indicating an ill placement for said binocular contraption.
fj1200
11-22-2012, 06:56 AM
Retrospect is 20/20...indicating an ill placement for said binocular contraption.
:laugh: That might have been the only one of those things to result in an actual payback of investment. I just know it wasn't my quarter.
logroller
11-22-2012, 07:02 AM
:laugh: That might have been the only one of those things to result in an actual payback of investment. I just know it wasn't my quarter.
Pay it forward.:laugh2:
tailfins
11-22-2012, 08:27 AM
Oooh. sensitive subject? my bad.
I was with my (nuclear white bread) family on a trip to Canada long ago and we, unbeknownst to us, traversed into a gay district in Vancouver. We were admonished by a passerby "you're in the wrong part if town." We just left and it always bothered me... until now. I always thought we weren't welcome, but now I wonder if it was a good advice. Perhaps they should post signs http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002872871/41259674_clothing_optional_xlarge.jpeg
There's a huge difference between being not welcome and warned to have a "thick skin". I'm able to tune out almost anything, but hostile treatment and being pressured to leave is another story. I do have a question for others on this forum: Which would make you cringe more: Uninhibited homosexuals in your midst or a drunken slum dweller beating his wife/girlfriend where the police are corrupt?
I would venture to say, based on the article, that the reason people had a problem with the men's "right" to be nude is because they were walking around DAILY.
Another article had to do with sanitary issues. Who wants to sit at a chair recently vacated by a naked ass?
Like many things that USED to be legal. Someone took advantage of the situation, made people uncomfortable enough to complain, and the law was changed.
I still don't get the 'daily' argument. I mean, if something is legal, its legal, and if some guys and dolls want to be naked everyday, they were well within the law to do so.
As for sanitation, nude goers carry with them wipes etc to clean chairs et al before and after using them.
As for the last bit, if people were uncomfortable with some nude people everyday, would they of been okay with nude people every other day? Or once every three days? There is an expectation of clarity which just doesn't seem to be on the side of those who wanted the law repealed, either its okay to be nude or its not. For now they've decided its not.
D- for not seeing the point. I absolutely did answer the question by getting to the real issue, which is the voluntary aspect of the shower, vs the involuntary viewing of the sidewalk genital display.
A communal shower may be sexual, as can anywhere, though primarily in gay establishments (color me surprised) from what I've heard. But it is primarily for taking a shower, and as I've said, voluntary, which whether or not you acknowledge it, is the point.
No. You missed the point. In the team shower room you remove all aspect of the sexual body, because you are cleaning. By not viewing the human body through a sexual default, their is no issue.
The same can be said for the action of breast feeding, the breast is being used for only as a feeding aid, but we have sexualised women's breasts to the point that being exposed for any reason, is seen as wrong by many.
As for the voluntary/involuntary argument - You coukd say the same for just about anything you find disgusting/that you'd rather not see. If you're sat on the train with your daughter, you may be horrified that the women opposite you are kissing and holding hands etc, it may be something you don't want to see, or want your daughter to see, but you don't have a choice over what other people can do, only what you can do, so stick your eyes in a book or look out the window.
If you're offended by the human body, fine, be offended, but when your offence comes to curtailing the rights of others...you're gonna need to have a pretty water-tight case IMO.
Noir, I like keeping the body sexualized. If I saw naked bodies every day I would become bored.
Really? How many people have husbands/wives that they see naked most days, for years or decades, and yet they don't get bored, and still find their partners arousing.
I'd put it quite the other way (and i have heard it well argued) that constantly being beaten over the head with sexualisation of the human body (be it in TV shows, Adverts, Movies, professional pornography, Magazines (esp women's mags) etc.) is a much greater cause of boredom, by exposing yourself to hyper-stimulus.
jimnyc
11-26-2012, 03:45 PM
I still don't get the 'daily' argument. I mean, if something is legal, its legal, and if some guys and dolls want to be naked everyday, they were well within the law to do so.
As for sanitation, nude goers carry with them wipes etc to clean chairs et al before and after using them.
As for the last bit, if people were uncomfortable with some nude people everyday, would they of been okay with nude people every other day? Or once every three days? There is an expectation of clarity which just doesn't seem to be on the side of those who wanted the law repealed, either its okay to be nude or its not. For now they've decided its not.
What if they didn't, should others have to clean every seat the find, just in case someone else placed their bare ass there? What if they don't groom, and then I sit somewhere amongst pubic hairs? Just the price we pay for the freedom to be naked and disrespectful to others?
jimnyc
11-26-2012, 03:46 PM
Really? How many people have husbands/wives that they see naked most days, for years or decades, and yet they don't get bored, and still find their partners arousing.
I'd put it quite the other way (and i have heard it well argued) that constantly being beaten over the head with sexualisation of the human body (be it in TV shows, Adverts, Movies, professional pornography, Magazines (esp women's mags) etc.) is a much greater cause of boredom, by exposing yourself to hyper-stimulus.
Myself and my wife still completely cover up when showering or using the facilities. Don't get me wrong, not like we never see the other one naked, but we also don't walk around as if at a nudist colony either. I think a lot of women in America use towels when coming/going from the shower and are a little more discreet in flaunting their bodies, even to their hubbies.
aboutime
11-26-2012, 09:47 PM
Myself and my wife still completely cover up when showering or using the facilities. Don't get me wrong, not like we never see the other one naked, but we also don't walk around as if at a nudist colony either. I think a lot of women in America use towels when coming/going from the shower and are a little more discreet in flaunting their bodies, even to their hubbies.
jimnyc. Same here. We're coming up on 44 years together, and we still respect each other's privacy. It's called Mutual Respect. That's about it.
logroller
11-26-2012, 11:00 PM
Myself and my wife still completely cover up when showering or using the facilities. Don't get me wrong, not like we never see the other one naked, but we also don't walk around as if at a nudist colony either. I think a lot of women in America use towels when coming/going from the shower and are a little more discreet in flaunting their bodies, even to their hubbies.
A lot maybe, but I've known plenty who are a little less discreet. It was shocking at first, but not disgustingly so. I mean, every guy has had that guy at the gym who walks about unnecessarily naked; but I'm not troubled by it. So I don't know if it's a function of right or wrong necessarily; it varies with the individual, context and/or culture. Some people oppose shorts, t-shirts, a bare midriff, no flip-flops... a female's uncovered face...you get the point. Who's to say what's right for anyone but themselves. I can't think of something which I would find offensive when done nude that I wouldn't find offensive, (admittedly, perhaps, less so), than if done clothed.
Kathianne
11-26-2012, 11:16 PM
A lot maybe, but I've known plenty who are a little less discreet. It was shocking at first, but not disgustingly so. I mean, every guy has had that guy at the gym who walks about unnecessarily naked; but I'm not troubled by it. So I don't know if it's a function of right or wrong necessarily; it varies with the individual, context and/or culture. Some people oppose shorts, t-shirts, a bare midriff, no flip-flops... a female's uncovered face...you get the point. Who's to say what's right for anyone but themselves. I can't think of something which I would find offensive when done nude that I wouldn't find offensive, (admittedly, perhaps, less so), than if done clothed.
How did you segue from women to men? I missed that.
logroller
11-26-2012, 11:56 PM
How did you segue from women to men? I missed that.
Oops.sorry you missed it. Feel free to insert; "It's not just opposite sex contexts which can result in conflicting feelings on nudity." :thumb:
jimnyc
11-27-2012, 11:58 AM
A lot maybe, but I've known plenty who are a little less discreet. It was shocking at first, but not disgustingly so. I mean, every guy has had that guy at the gym who walks about unnecessarily naked; but I'm not troubled by it. So I don't know if it's a function of right or wrong necessarily; it varies with the individual, context and/or culture. Some people oppose shorts, t-shirts, a bare midriff, no flip-flops... a female's uncovered face...you get the point. Who's to say what's right for anyone but themselves. I can't think of something which I would find offensive when done nude that I wouldn't find offensive, (admittedly, perhaps, less so), than if done clothed.
Wanna bet on that? I have men at the gym all the time, bending over near me to pick up weights, ties their shoes or in the midst of a particular exercise. No problem with me. Then in the sauna, a completely naked man enters, and not only wants to enjoy the sauna, but would like to stretch his sore muscles, by bending over and touching his ankles, with his back turned to me. No, his ankles weren't touching, they were about 2 feet apart.
When you invite nudity, you have little choice but for opportunities such as that to happen. Leave private things for the privacy of the home, and it clears up any possible sanitary issues AND others having to sometimes see the black hole or the swinging hot dog.
gabosaurus
11-27-2012, 12:15 PM
Americans are way too prudish about nudity. If you go places were nudity is acceptable, you take it for what it is.
Not that I am in favor of public nudity. Clothes were invented for a reason.
jimnyc
11-27-2012, 12:20 PM
Americans are way too prudish about nudity. If you go places were nudity is acceptable, you take it for what it is.
Not that I am in favor of public nudity. Clothes were invented for a reason.
Looks like you just took both sides of the debate.
gabosaurus
11-27-2012, 12:29 PM
I am making two different points.
You go to England or Germany and they have topless women in the newspapers and nudity on TV after a certain time. It's almost acceptable.
Doesn't mean I am personally in favor of it. It just doesn't offend me.
At the same time, I believe all men should have to wear shirts in public. Unless they look like David Beckham. :cool:
aboutime
11-27-2012, 04:16 PM
Who would like to answer this question?
Does anyone taking part with this thread know of any human being born...wearing clothes?
Modesty, and the need to keep the body warm, or cool were the obvious reasons clothes were invented, or used.
Otherwise. I'm sure. Since the beginning of Modern times. Human beings have always found ways to handle public nudity.
Look at how far we've all come. Some of us prefer always wearing clothes. And others prefer not wearing clothes.
What can any of us accomplish here? Will any of us make any difference to the proposed nudity ban by Weiner?
If anyone knows what good this thread will do. Please let us all know.
WiccanLiberal
11-27-2012, 05:51 PM
Interesting thread. I personally have little problem with nudity of any sort. I have been to both topless and nude beaches and generally tend to be comfortable wandering around with nothing on at home so long as the drapes are closed. I prefer to sleep in the nude - less restrictive. That said, I believe clothing is something necessary for our western society. I would never dream of extending my naturist tendencies to a city street or taking a drive in my car. Americans particularly are of such disparate origins in terms of their viewpoints that it is way too easy to offend someone with a view of what they may consider a private body part, to say nothing of the hygienic and safety issues. It is simply common sense to say you can't walk around naked in public on a casual basis and if people refuse to use common sense, as a society we have to legislate it.
BTW for anyone who hasn't tried it, the clothing optional beaches are generally more pleasant and quieter than the family ones. Smaller crowds and the lack of clothing somehow seems to make people more concerned with basic politeness.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.