RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall

RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

absolutchocolat -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/16/2012 6:09:07 PM)
i think the reasons aren't good enough for you, and that's what drives your argument. they're reasonable and quite valid. quote: If you use threats of violence and imprisonment to attempt to coerce me into conforming to your expectations of how I should dress, then we're going to have a problem. none of the nudists are being physically attacked, from what i've read. currently, there's no jail time being enforced, but the proposed legislation would change that. quite frankly, having read the class action suit against the ordinance, i'm convinced this is a tactic employed to sell books and drive traffic to the plaintiffs' websites and professional ventures.

MAINEiacMISTRESS -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/16/2012 7:15:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat clothing provides protection from the elements, safety when performing potentially dangerous activities (i.e. cooking, using sharp objects), and a barrier from other substances and surfaces that can cause injury or disease. how is any of that "arbitrary"? Well, she does have an excellent point there. Clothing is protective in certain situations. I can attest from personal experience that ONE SHOULD NEVER DEEP FRY WHILST NUDE

PeonForHer -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/16/2012 7:18:56 PM)
FR It seems to me that this isn't an issue that's been traditionally dealt with under the rubric of 'freedom', but under the rubric of 'democracy'. It reminds me of what the British Board of Film Censors always used to give as their definition of decency. It was never 'This film offended objective standards of decency that have been worked out. It showed an erect penis rather than a flaccid one, which was why we made cuts in the film'. It was about 'We always think in terms of what the mass of the public will consider decent or indecent'. Apart from cases involving clearly illegal material (and outside of WW2 propaganda), there wasn't any reasoning beyond that: just some group decision about what they thought the public would accept or not accept. Democracy and freedom aren't always wedded well - perhaps surprisingly, since those two terms so often pop up as complements to one another. A case of the majority getting to dictate to the minority. Nonetheless there's generally some recognition of this kind of the dictatorial nature in liberal-democracies such as our own. Here in Britain, for instance, we have the much-celebrated case of Stephen Gough, the naked rambler. Many spells in prison, but also long spells where the authorities have left him alone to yomp all over Britain (including the Scottish Highlands, and in winter - not cosy - I think what he had between his legs would have shrunk so much in that cold that it wouldn't be visible anyway). Incidentally, I don't think dirty groins are a great problem. Naturists just take a towel with them for when they're going to sit down. Or so I'm reliably informed. The sight of acres of unattractive flesh? Well, I've got used to seeing more and more of that over the years anyway. I wouldn't enjoy seeing yet more, but I'd probably learn to put up with it.

theRose4U -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/16/2012 7:32:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam "If you ain't got a great body, do what I do. Cover it the fuck up" Drew Carey. EXACTLY!!! Why is it the people that most want to push their naked in public or everyones a prude ideals on others are the last people in the world anyone wants to see naked!!! Pride here bait & tackle must be covered. Not that nipple stickers, butt floss & a banana hammock is better but it gets the idea across of "family friendly festival" Remember people throwing money & clothing screaming put it on, put it on...DOES NOT make you a stripper!!! ETA leave it to me to get my 4th paddle with a discussion of cover that up!!

Aswad -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/16/2012 7:44:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat i think the reasons aren't good enough for you, and that's what drives your argument. they're reasonable and quite valid. Your essential argument appears to remain that breasts, genitals and anuses must be covered up to avoid offending people. It'd be nice to be clear on your position to say anything about whether it's reasonable and/or valid. Would you care to confirm whether or not I've got the gist of it? quote: none of the nudists are being physically attacked, from what i've read. currently, there's no jail time being enforced, but the proposed legislation would change that. In other words, the proposed legislation would introduce imprisonment and violence (by police and other inmates). Sounds like legislation that should probably be ditched. quote: quite frankly, having read the class action suit against the ordinance, i'm convinced this is a tactic employed to sell books and drive traffic to the plaintiffs' websites and professional ventures. I'm not particularly interested in the plaintiffs. I'm interested in the American obsession with sex and the popular idea that people need the right to do something, as well as general restrictions on people's rights to make choices that aren't needlessly bounded by others' preferences. Arguing what the plaintiffs' motives are in this case amounts to an ad hominem, though it's directed at them, not me; i.e. answering my question by addressing the character of people that are periphereal to it. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/16/2012 7:52:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theRose4U EXACTLY!!! Why is it the people that most want to push their naked in public or everyones a prude ideals on others are the last people in the world anyone wants to see naked!!! Maybe they developed thick skin from being told and shown they're the last people in the world anyone wants to see naked and have thus become comfortable with their own bodies in ways most haven't, or have thought more about bodies than others? I dunno. Seems to me nudists have the same physical diversity as anyone else. Incidentally, what's bad about being labelled a prude? quote: Pride here bait & tackle must be covered. Not that nipple stickers, butt floss & a banana hammock is better but it gets the idea across of "family friendly festival" What could be more family friendly than the human body? I seem to recall it plays a part in making families. IWYW, — Aswad.

absolutchocolat -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/16/2012 8:36:28 PM)
there are differing opinions and principles when it comes to nudity. not everyone, self-included, opposes public nudity on the basis of believing the body is inherently sexual or shameful. my arguments in favor of clothing: quote: clothing provides protection from the elements, safety when performing potentially dangerous activities (i.e. cooking, using sharp objects), and a barrier from other substances and surfaces that can cause injury or disease. my argument is, for health and safety reasons, folks should wear clothes. the majority attitude in this area is that public nudity should be regulated, and i'm all for regulation rather than outright restriction. perhaps that was unclear. i'm not interested in convincing the world that all americans aren't prudes. you're certainly allowed to your opinion on that front.

DesFIP -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/16/2012 8:53:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad See, around here, people don't spread excrements and exudates on seats in buses and movie theatres, so it's kind of a non-issue. What kind of people live in your area? IWYW, — Aswad. Normal people, who get excited and have precum drip. Who occasionally fart and have small amounts of excrement pass. Women with uneven periods who don't know when it's going to start. Perhaps where you live there are only robots without fallible bodies? Must be interesting.

ResidentSadist -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/16/2012 9:12:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: poise Next thing you know, someone will argue that urinating is a normal bodily function and people should have the right to do so in public. [:-] You mean that the USA will catch up with rest of the world and start pissing in public like they do in the UK, Netherlands, France, Philippines and etc? Do you think we'll see these in the US streets one day? [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Public_Urinal.jpg/450px-Public_Urinal.jpg[/img] [img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41082000/jpg/_41082512_toilets300.jpg[/img]

Aswad -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/16/2012 10:04:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat my argument is, for health and safety reasons, folks should wear clothes. the majority attitude in this area is that public nudity should be regulated, and i'm all for regulation rather than outright restriction. perhaps that was unclear. I've no problem with your arguments in favor of wearing clothes. I wear clothes. My question is whether you feel that clothes should be mandatory, and this enforced by police. If you feel that it should be up to each individual whether or not to wear clothes (aside from any concerns about effects on the health of others), then we agree. If you feel that people should be fined or incarcerated for choosing not to wear clothes, then we disagree. quote: i'm not interested in convincing the world that all americans aren't prudes. you're certainly allowed to your opinion on that front. I'm not interested in having an opinion on it. I'm interested in bringing my perceptions into agreement with reality. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/16/2012 10:06:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Normal people, who get excited and have precum drip. Who occasionally fart and have small amounts of excrement pass. Women with uneven periods who don't know when it's going to start. And these people don't take steps to prevent causing problems in public? Also, are breasts part of this problem? quote: Perhaps where you live there are only robots without fallible bodies? Must be interesting. Okay, I guess I went begging for that one. IWYW, — Aswad.

absolutchocolat -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/16/2012 10:23:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad I've no problem with your arguments in favor of wearing clothes. I wear clothes. My question is whether you feel that clothes should be mandatory, and this enforced by police. If you feel that it should be up to each individual whether or not to wear clothes (aside from any concerns about effects on the health of others), then we agree. If you feel that people should be fined or incarcerated for choosing not to wear clothes, then we disagree. my personal belief is that folks should wear whatever makes them comfortable. go nude, cover up...whatever floats your boat. we agree on that. where we differ is how nudity should be regulated -- you seem to be in favor of no regulation, and i think minor regulation is necessary. no big deal. quote: Also, are breasts part of this problem? in this particular ordinance, being topless for the sake of breastfeeding is an exception to the rule. as it should be.

Aswad -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/17/2012 8:25:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat my personal belief is that folks should wear whatever makes them comfortable. go nude, cover up...whatever floats your boat. we agree on that. where we differ is how nudity should be regulated -- you seem to be in favor of no regulation, and i think minor regulation is necessary. no big deal. Sounds like we agree in the main, yes. I figure minor regulation is fair enough, at least if it's a significant problem. What I pose as a requirement for regulation, though, is figuring out what to regulate, how, and on what grounds, plus making sure the regulation makes a difference. quote: in this particular ordinance, being topless for the sake of breastfeeding is an exception to the rule. as it should be. Being topless doesn't seem to have any problems that require regulation. IWYW, — Aswad.

theRose4U -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/17/2012 11:16:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad See, around here, people don't spread excrements and exudates on seats in buses and movie theatres, so it's kind of a non-issue. What kind of people live in your area? IWYW, — Aswad. Normal people, who get excited and have precum drip. Who occasionally fart and have small amounts of excrement pass. Women with uneven periods who don't know when it's going to start. Perhaps where you live there are only robots without fallible bodies? Must be interesting. There absolutely is excriment drip where he comes from, some more public than others...leave it to a prude to notice. Damn never $20 hood & a stack of clothes when you need it!

theRose4U -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/17/2012 11:22:55 AM)
RS am I the only person noticing these all seem to be designed for men to piss in public? Why is this the case? -because women are more conservative -because women pissing in public is less acceptable -because men are pigs & these were situated to save shrubery -all of the above?

CynthiaWVirginia -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/17/2012 12:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat the examples you're giving -- segregation, suffrage, religious freedom -- are completely different than having the right to shake your dick in public. i don't take my nieces and nephews to the castro because i've had nude folks come up to me and make suggestive and inappropriate comments. i'm not a prude, i think nudity is great. i just don't wanna see your junk when i'm taking my babies to the park or getting them ice cream. the people here just want attention. there are plenty of nudist camps, colonies, and beaches where people can flaunt their assets. I agree with both sides of this, as there are people in the world who walk around naked and it's normal for their villiage or whatever. However, I don't live THERE, I live here, and I have to look at the repercussions of passing something like this. For instance, the dude who shows up at an elementary school wearing a trench coat...and suddenly exposes himself to the kiddies...this wouldn't be illegal anymore. (Yep, trenchcoat guy appeared at my elementary school.) If our entire city went naked...imagine the many people sitting on city bus seats all day long. Pubic hair on a McMuffin would be commonplace, unless shaving off body hair became a requirement or an all body hair net was mandated among food servers. (That guy who frottered my upper arm while I sat on the city bus...at 17, trying to be invisible until it was my time to get off the bus...so that nobody would see how humiliated I was that this fifty year old was grinding his clothed privates into my upper arm. What's next?) Would a bare cock be pressed against my arm? Would a naked hard on be poking me upside the head? If a fellow passenger is having a great daydream, would I have to clean pre-cum off of my coat or blouse? If he is incontinent...or sharts...??? All of this just to ride a city bus??? In some cities, it is common for kids to take city busses to school... In a perfect world people wouldn't be indulging thier fetishes non-consensually. If I had been walking young kids around and some naked asshat walked up to me with some "suggestive and inappropriate comments" I would have been PISSED. My slave is a nudist and his running around the house while doing chores or relaxing is just part of life. Around my son or other vanillas he puts on shorts. He is not the least bit conscious about "butt juice" and bare nekkid genitals sharing the same couch space within a 10 minute interval. Even putting a towel down makes it pointless if everyone nakkie keeps parking their privates on the same blessed towel.

LaTigresse -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/17/2012 3:30:09 PM)
What I find amusing is that people have the delusion that a thin layer or two of fabric is protecting them from fecal matter. Trust me when I say, it really is........all around us.

Aswad -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/18/2012 9:03:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse What I find amusing is that people have the delusion that a thin layer or two of fabric is protecting them from fecal matter. Quite. Thank you. It's the placebo/pacifier thing on this point: clothes as a ward against evil. [:D] IWYW, — Aswad.

GotSteel -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/18/2012 12:22:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Well, let's just say, I'm not one to trust everyone's ability to keep themselves, uh, clean, in their private areas....so unless I start carrying around a bunch of wipes with bleach to wipe down every surface that I sit on. Not to mention fabric seats, yikes, how do we clean those. And stds? The more I think about this....no, just no. Have you spent any time in a city like New York? Trust me. We just don't want underwearless subway riders, bar stool users, movie theatre watchers, the list goes on......maybe you Norwegians are a cleaner, disease-free lot.....[:D] Do you use public toilets?

GotSteel -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/18/2012 12:35:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat the people here just want attention. there are plenty of nudist camps, colonies, and beaches where people can flaunt their assets. Those people may well be looking for attention. Doesn't change the fact that they have a point, or that their goal is desireable. I think it does change whether they have a point. If it's some sort of exhibition or humiliation fetish then I do think chocolat has the right not to be a participant in them getting their kink on. My understanding is that's the general consensus around here.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.859375E-02