Public Nudity wrong and immoral?

Public Nudity wrong and immoral?

Created by The Zero Void Show on Sep 16, 2008

132 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes it is immoral

No it is not immoral

Yes it is wrong

No it is not wrong

Allow Public Nudity

Ban Public Nudity

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“You never really know.”

Since: Apr 07

North Hollywood, CA/NY,NY

#1 Sep 16, 2008
With the Naked Guy at Berkley and the Naked Cowboy and Naked Cowgirl in Times Square. the huge debate going on over California Nude beaches and the big debate over Public Breast Feeding. I say we argue over this social norm line. Public Nudity. Do people have the right to go out in public totally naked?

“Stop Global Whining”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#3 Sep 16, 2008
I think it should be allowed but there should be ordinances which regulate it. Like, for example, there are ordinances which are applied to make sure that a building measures up to certain esthetically pleasing standards. A person wanting to go nude must conform to a certain height vs girth ratio, for starters. They should be between 18yrs and 38yrs old (but can apply for a variance if older but also particularly hot). Basically within certain parameters, I don't see a problem with it.

“We Have Lost Our Minds”

Since: Jul 08

Kent, Ohio

#4 Sep 16, 2008
It is the evil mind that makes nudity immoral not the beauty of the body.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#5 Sep 16, 2008
This is a tricky subject similar to smoking, because it deals with the rights of two people, not just one.
At first blush I say, "bring it on!" But then I think about those people, who for whatever reason, have a problem with other peoples' nudity. And there are A LOT of these people. So if we grant the nudists the right to traipse around with no clothes, aren't we then infringing on the rights of others not to have to see them?
Unlike sex or violence on TV, we cannot tell someone to just change the channel on a nudist in public.
So, while I don't mind it, and I don't think it's wrong, I'm going to have to say that until over 80% of the population in this country is either nudist or okay with nudists, nudists will have to stay on their ranches.
Steven

Alvarado, TX

#6 Sep 16, 2008
I have to agree with this last post. It is a sticky issue any time you deal with the rights of more than one person. Generally speaking anyone should have the right to do anything they want right up to the point where that infringes on the rights of someone else. That is where we have to draw the line. The only problem is that line gets really fuzzy and hard to follow at times. In essence I say we have to go with the rights of those who prefer not to have to see nudists. As long as they stick to what has been considered the social norm for so many years. But this would be a different argument if they started wanting to not have to see peoples faces. The only thing that makes this ok at the moment, is that wearing clothing is considered normal.
Of course the new argument will be how much clothing is required. I mean what everybody started going around wearing a string and called it clothing?

“You never really know.”

Since: Apr 07

North Hollywood, CA/NY,NY

#7 Sep 16, 2008
Hold please wrote:
This is a tricky subject similar to smoking, because it deals with the rights of two people, not just one.
At first blush I say, "bring it on!" But then I think about those people, who for whatever reason, have a problem with other peoples' nudity. And there are A LOT of these people. So if we grant the nudists the right to traipse around with no clothes, aren't we then infringing on the rights of others not to have to see them?
Unlike sex or violence on TV, we cannot tell someone to just change the channel on a nudist in public.
So, while I don't mind it, and I don't think it's wrong, I'm going to have to say that until over 80% of the population in this country is either nudist or okay with nudists, nudists will have to stay on their ranches.
Very well said. I totally agree.
groundhog9

Rossford, OH

#8 Sep 16, 2008
No I don't think it would be a good idea.I recall a couple situations where I walk into a business and there's a woman SITTING behind the counter and she has like MASSIVE CLEAVAGE hanging out and it's distracting,and there I am of course looking at the ladies tits while she's typing up my order or whatever.THAT is bad enough.What would it be like if they were butt naked?I think this is not a good idea.

Or I am at the mall and some young woman walks by in those WAY TOO SHORT DAISY DUKES with like 99% of her ass hanging out.It's bad enough I have to watch her jiggling buttcheeks until she is out of view,but what if I'm with my wife? No way should I have to deal with 600 totally naked women walking by while I'm eating an ice cream cone.

“Stop Global Whining”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#9 Sep 17, 2008
groundhog9 wrote:
what if I'm with my wife?
Well that depends on how you handle the situation. Good: Act nonchalant like you don't care, ask her how her day was; Bad: Look at the naked girls, sigh, ask your wife why she doesn't use that treadmill you bought her.
Ghost Rider

Albuquerque, NM

#10 Sep 17, 2008
Scoff wrote:
I think it should be allowed but there should be ordinances which regulate it. Like, for example, there are ordinances which are applied to make sure that a building measures up to certain esthetically pleasing standards. A person wanting to go nude must conform to a certain height vs girth ratio, for starters. They should be between 18yrs and 38yrs old (but can apply for a variance if older but also particularly hot). Basically within certain parameters, I don't see a problem with it.
This is a biased way of looking at things. A person should have the right to go nude in parks, swimming pools, Camping and hiking areas, on beaches, and at home in their yards. No strings on being a certain height, size, etc. If someone doesn't want to see a person that is overweight, then they know how to turn their heads the other way.
Ghost Rider

Albuquerque, NM

#11 Sep 17, 2008
Big Tiny wrote:
It is the evil mind that makes nudity immoral not the beauty of the body.
A standing ovation for this person. I agree.
Ghost Rider

Albuquerque, NM

#12 Sep 17, 2008
groundhog9 wrote:
No I don't think it would be a good idea.I recall a couple situations where I walk into a business and there's a woman SITTING behind the counter and she has like MASSIVE CLEAVAGE hanging out and it's distracting,and there I am of course looking at the ladies tits while she's typing up my order or whatever.THAT is bad enough.What would it be like if they were butt naked?I think this is not a good idea.
Or I am at the mall and some young woman walks by in those WAY TOO SHORT DAISY DUKES with like 99% of her ass hanging out.It's bad enough I have to watch her jiggling buttcheeks until she is out of view,but what if I'm with my wife? No way should I have to deal with 600 totally naked women walking by while I'm eating an ice cream cone.
What you people don't realize is after you get used to seeing people nude, you don't really pay any attention to it. When I first became a nudist, after the first 5 minutes I didn't pay any attention to the other person's nudity.
whitehair

Louisville, KY

#13 Sep 17, 2008
We have laws put in place by the voting public.Since the majority rules,and since the laws are in place,do as the law requires. It is still nice to see clothing on a lady and she is sexy and you can guess just how beautiful she really is.Kinda sneaky like!!Out f the corner of your eye-she knows your looking but both of you act like you don`t????

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#14 Sep 17, 2008
The Zero Void Show wrote:
With the Naked Guy at Berkley and the Naked Cowboy and Naked Cowgirl in Times Square. the huge debate going on over California Nude beaches and the big debate over Public Breast Feeding. I say we argue over this social norm line. Public Nudity. Do people have the right to go out in public totally naked?
Kenneth Ray Thompson, from Parkland, WA; aren't you BANNED as a condition of your PAROLE from using the internet for the discussion of "sex" at all? Your fake TV show, magazine, presidential campaign, and FAKE military record all showed you for what you were, and then you got popped for "wrongful contact with a minor under the age of 12" for groping that little boy, served 4 months, and somehow got out of a serious jail term.

I'm surprised you got off at all, and especially without a ban from using the Internet for life. I'll contact your PO since you won't. Guess you're SOL, huh?

Oh, before you go to enjoy butt-sex for the next 25-40, please enlighten everyone where to ACTUALLY buy a t-shirt, copy of your magazine, or your "show" without a deadend, looping link that says "Under Construction" on every damn link.

You are so full of yourself it's sickening.
groundhog9

Rossford, OH

#15 Sep 18, 2008
Ghost Rider wrote:
<quoted text>What you people don't realize is after you get used to seeing people nude, you don't really pay any attention to it. When I first became a nudist, after the first 5 minutes I didn't pay any attention to the other person's nudity.
Lady,just because you got used to it doesn't mean I would.
Ghost Rider

Albuquerque, NM

#16 Sep 19, 2008
groundhog9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lady,just because you got used to it doesn't mean I would.
Groundhog9, I don't like having to burst your bubble, but I'm not a lady.
groundhog9

Rossford, OH

#17 Sep 19, 2008
Ghost Rider wrote:
<quoted text>Groundhog9, I don't like having to burst your bubble, but I'm not a lady.
You said it,not me.
Ghost Rider

Albuquerque, NM

#18 Sep 21, 2008
groundhog9 wrote:
<quoted text>
You said it,not me.
Groundhog9, I am not female. Maybe you can understand that. I am a guy. Either you are dumb or obnoxious.

“Hidee ho peoples”

Since: Jul 07

right here

#20 Sep 21, 2008
It's fine. Just keep it in it's place. I don't need pubics in my soup!
Hoffmeister

United States

#21 Sep 21, 2008
Steven wrote:
I have to agree with this last post. It is a sticky issue any time you deal with the rights of more than one person. Generally speaking anyone should have the right to do anything they want right up to the point where that infringes on the rights of someone else. That is where we have to draw the line. The only problem is that line gets really fuzzy and hard to follow at times. In essence I say we have to go with the rights of those who prefer not to have to see nudists. As long as they stick to what has been considered the social norm for so many years. But this would be a different argument if they started wanting to not have to see peoples faces. The only thing that makes this ok at the moment, is that wearing clothing is considered normal.
Of course the new argument will be how much clothing is required. I mean what everybody started going around wearing a string and called it clothing?
We have all seen in public those with disfiquered faces.What about a ban on that then?Is it not offensive to see,people who don't want to see such faces in public?When in a restaurant to look at someones face that is "unattractive".Must they be required to wear a mask then?Just as distasteful to gaze upon,maybe more so,than a nude person that is at least average looking.One man I saw in a hardware store,with all those lumps,I believed is called elephantitist,covered all of what is seen by the public.I give this man much credit for being able to be in public with that condition.Grateful I don't have it.I'm average looking,been to nude beaches and felt as if I should'nt be with so many better looking people,then I saw those worse looking than me nude,then I was comfortable.so,anyone wants to go nude is ok by me.
kedro

Castro Valley, CA

#22 Sep 21, 2008
Steven wrote:
I have to agree with this last post. It is a sticky issue any time you deal with the rights of more than one person. Generally speaking anyone should have the right to do anything they want right up to the point where that infringes on the rights of someone else. That is where we have to draw the line. The only problem is that line gets really fuzzy and hard to follow at times. In essence I say we have to go with the rights of those who prefer not to have to see nudists. As long as they stick to what has been considered the social norm for so many years. But this would be a different argument if they started wanting to not have to see peoples faces. The only thing that makes this ok at the moment, is that wearing clothing is considered normal.
Of course the new argument will be how much clothing is required. I mean what everybody started going around wearing a string and called it clothing?
a right not to see?
i gonna need to work on that one

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min 2all 654,537
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 15 min PELE78 64,970
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 46 min Steve III 516
News Sarah Palin going on 'Oprah' (Oct '09) 1 hr Chump University 708
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr The Hangman 973,981
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Peace_Warrior 618,750
women watching men naked on webcam (Mar '12) 2 hr Ableviking 60
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr MUQ2 281,965
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 3 hr RiccardoFire 45,313
More from around the web