Should public nudity be legal?

[Yared]

But insisting that this "harms no one" is patently false, unless your standard of harm includes only direct financial or physical, and not mental, damages. (Which is both ethically and legally dubious, at best) It may be that this level of harm does not warrant legal prohibition, but that does not make it nonexistent.

I think you need to elaborate on what you mean with "mentally damaged", because I honestly can't understand how one would be mentally scarred (however tiny it might be) by seeing boobs (or a male chest, since you're against partial-nudity for males as well).

edit: oooops, didn't notice this post:

(I'm curious: What were your previous screennames? You can PM if you'd rather not post it publicly)

I didn't say that I would "flip out." I probably would not react in a particularly observable way. (I tend to not make a scene when bizarre looking people or gross public displays of affection appear before me, either) I said it would disturb me, which I do think is a certain form of harm.

I do think it's quite coherent to argue that since this harm is internal, it's effectively impossible to measure or protect against, so it's irrelevant as far as what laws should regulate. (I'm providing you with the ammunition to refute my own argument, should you be interested) All I'm contesting is the argument that this is an activity that, by it's nature, is "harmless," when that's not necessarily the case, assuming a reasonable definition of what "harm" consists of.

Affected? Yeah, as in "disturbed". Harmed? No.

My mom is disturbed by the local punk rock kids, in the same way I'm presuming you'd be disturbed by partial-nudity. But I wouldn't say she gets harmed by it - not by my definition. Maybe agitated at worst; a little stressed or disbelieving of it all.

 

[civ_king]

I think you need to elaborate on what you mean with "mentally damaged", because I honestly can't understand how one would be mentally scarred (however tiny it might be) by seeing boobs (or a male chest, since you're against partial-nudity for males as well).

edit: oooops, didn't notice this post:



Affected? Yeah, as in "disturbed". Harmed? No.

My mom is disturbed by the local punk rock kids, in the same way I'm presuming you'd be disturbed by partial-nudity. But I wouldn't say she gets harmed by it - not by my definition. Maybe agitated at worst; a little stressed or disbelieving of it all.

Maybe he dislikes fat men or want to be fair, after all wouldn't it be equal if they both had to wear something to cover their chest ?

 

[Mise]

I'm afraid I'm not following. (Or rather, I think I might be, but I'm hoping that your argument isn't as lame as it sounds, and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt)

from wiki: "In England and Wales the offence of "indecent exposure" and other sexual offences were replaced by the more specific and explicit Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Act does not mention nudity as such and is worded so as not to apply to skinny dipping, nude sunbathing, and similar activities. It applies only to aggressive genital exposure with intent to shock those who want not to see the genitals."

You don't see people walking around naked all the time, not because the law forbids it, but because it's a really, really dumb thing to do, and approximately 99.99999999% of people won't do it. Your objections that people will all suddenly walk around naked as a jailbird all the time if public nudity were legalised, and that this would be some huge problem that would put children at risk, is simply ridiculous, and is disproven by the sheer fact that, in many places in Europe, it's not illegal to walk around naked, but people don't do it anyway.

At the same time, the UK has crafted perfectly consistent laws that allow for public sunbathing or walking down the high street topless on a hot day, for example, but still consider "aggressive genital exposure with the intent to shock those who want not to see the genitals" illegal -- i.e. it's still illegal to thrust your willy in someone else's face, even if you don't touch them with it. It's still illegal to flash someone, it's still illegal to show your prick to children, and it's still illegal to get on a crowded train without any clothes on.

If you had just clicked the link I gave you...

 

[Yared]

Maybe he dislikes fat men or want to be fair, after all wouldn't it be equal if they both had to wear something to cover their chest ?

Aha, I see.