Should public nudity and public sex be legal?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:50:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should public nudity and public sex be legal?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
Poll
Question: Regarding public nudity and public sex, I think:
#1
Only public nudity should be legal
 
#2
Only public sex should be legal
 
#3
Both shoud be legal
 
#4
Neither should be legal
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 146

Author Topic: Should public nudity and public sex be legal?  (Read 24863 times)
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 17, 2011, 04:57:59 AM »

Discuss
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2011, 05:16:45 AM »

I will add my view to start things off. I think they should both be legal.

You can't ban me from wearing certain clothes (note: I don't support the burqa ban in France) so why should you be able to ban me from wearing nothing? The justifications for these bans boil down to one thing: people don't want to see it.

Well guess what my friends? That's censorship. Nobody has a right not to be offended and even if you did, my right to free speech trumps that.

Certainly people will bring forth reasonable arguments for restricting these activities in certain areas such as prohibiting people from having sex on public buses/transit seats as it's not sanitary or prohibiting members of the national legislature from working in the nude (not saying I agree with these restrictions) but we should not have blanket bans.

Who is harmed by people walking down the street naked or by a couple openly having sex in the park? Nobody.
Logged
Cincinnatus
JBach717
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,092
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2011, 07:33:49 AM »

Well guess what my friends? That's censorship. Nobody has a right not to be offended and even if you did, my right to free speech trumps that.


The courts wouldn't agree with you on that. 

As for the debate;  I'm not opposed to nude beaches, or topless women/men.  However, I can't say I support complete nudity permitted anywhere.  If people want to join some nude club, or a spa, or whatever it is they do to shed their clothes out of public view, that's cool.  If they own beachfront property, and want to enclose some of it for sunbathing, awesome.  I won't deny their right to enjoy their nudity in privacy, or with those who openly welcome it and join in.  As for sex in public anywhere?  No, sorry.  In the words of one forumite, I'm far to prude to accept such an idea..
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2011, 07:59:19 AM »

Well guess what my friends? That's censorship. Nobody has a right not to be offended and even if you did, my right to free speech trumps that.


The courts wouldn't agree with you on that. 


As if the courts are unanimous and the perfect arbiters of justice? There's plenty of things the courts should be striking down (laws banning prostitution, gay marriage, obscenity, etc) that they haven't done. Courts aren't perfect.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So that's a good enough justification? You don't want to see it so therefore you can ban it?
Logged
Roemerista
MQuinn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 935
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2011, 08:42:18 AM »

Courts are perfect arbiters of Justice.

We already live in such a sex saturated society, why do we need to make it even more there? As Allan Bloom long ago pointed out, our debasement of this intimacy has made us lose the capacity to transform just "sex" into eros--giving relationships consequence. Certainly exhibitionism wouldn't be giving our relationships any more depth...
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2011, 03:10:16 PM »

The quick easy and smart responses:

1. People are too fat for toplessness to be legal for either gender.
2. Being legal would take all the fun out of public sex.

That is all.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2011, 09:32:55 PM »


2. Being legal would take all the fun out of public sex.

That is all.

I can't think of a better response than this.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2011, 10:19:37 PM »

Wherever did you get the idea that censorship was inherently wrong?
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2011, 10:41:53 PM »
« Edited: September 17, 2011, 10:45:13 PM by greenforest32 »

Wherever did you get the idea that censorship was inherently wrong?

Government censorship is pretty much only justified when it comes to things like child pornography or national security and even then you can go too far (thinking of military secrets that the public should know about like torture/secret prisons or stupid laws that define pictures of anybody under 18 as child pornography so somebody gets thrown in jail for years for having pictures of a 17 year-old).
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2011, 10:49:36 PM »

The quick easy and smart responses:

1. People are too fat for toplessness to be legal for either gender.
2. Being legal would take all the fun out of public sex.

That is all.

Yeah...I'll go with that. Seriously. Its usually the old, fat weirdos who don't wear clothes.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2011, 10:57:59 PM »

I think I have the right not to see you naked (or not to see you have sex).
Logged
Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese
JOHN91043353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,570
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2011, 02:43:12 AM »

I'm in favour of public nudity for good-looking men under 40. The rest better keep their clothes on.   

[Napoleon and TJ says it like it is]
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2011, 03:25:31 AM »

     Even if public nudity were legal, I doubt many would engage in it. We have a pretty strong sense of shame about such things, & it is virtually unheard of for men to walk the streets shirtless, a perfectly legal activity. Not to mention weather hardly permits such an activity in most of the country.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 18, 2011, 03:30:41 AM »

It should be allowed for good looking women between ages 16 and 35, others should be fined.

Wink

Seriously: I`m a hippie, so yeah, I have no problem with people running around naked.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 18, 2011, 05:05:38 AM »

Call me a "social conservative" (LOL) if you want, but I don't see any reason to allow it and plenty of reason not to allow it (except for particular places like beaches etc.).
Logged
Cincinnatus
JBach717
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,092
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2011, 07:47:15 AM »

Wherever did you get the idea that censorship was inherently wrong?

Government censorship is pretty much only justified when it comes to things like child pornography or national security and even then you can go too far (thinking of military secrets that the public should know about like torture/secret prisons or stupid laws that define pictures of anybody under 18 as child pornography so somebody gets thrown in jail for years for having pictures of a 17 year-old).

Yes, and letting children run around nude is somehow justified...
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 18, 2011, 08:20:15 AM »

Wherever did you get the idea that censorship was inherently wrong?

Government censorship is pretty much only justified when it comes to things like child pornography or national security and even then you can go too far (thinking of military secrets that the public should know about like torture/secret prisons or stupid laws that define pictures of anybody under 18 as child pornography so somebody gets thrown in jail for years for having pictures of a 17 year-old).

Yes, and letting children run around nude is somehow justified...

You understand the difference between nudity and sex right? Children can't consent to sex and that wouldn't change even if public nudity and public sex were legal. The justification for banning/censoring child pornography is that, if it's legal, people will have a financial incentive/market to create more.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2011, 11:18:20 AM »

illegal but largely unenforced.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2011, 11:31:01 AM »
« Edited: September 18, 2011, 11:36:44 AM by angus »

The quick easy and smart responses:

1. People are too fat for toplessness to be legal for either gender.
2. Being legal would take all the fun out of public sex.

That is all.

Yeah...I'll go with that. Seriously. Its usually the old, fat weirdos who don't wear clothes.

I liked the post except for the word topless, which is why I only quoted the second item.  I have stayed at a clothing optional resort (Hedonism II in Negril) and I felt so foolish.  I spent the whole time walking around covering my genitals with my hands.  Like those pictures of people of Auschwitz just before the cyanide showers.  And I always found it hard to take naturists/nudists seriously.  I found myself constantly giggling at myself and others.  But when I tried to wear a swimsuit around, I felt so awkward and out-of-place, like I thought I was better than everyone else, or I was trying to hide something.  Never would do that again.  I'll stick with the normal hotels and beaches.

But topless is another matter.  I don't care much to have to look at some skank's bush while I'm trying to eat fish, or at someone's schlong when I'm trying to choke down a bratwurst, but nipples, whether men's or women's don't bother me while I'm trying to eat.  And I feel comfortable being topless, with just swim trunks, when I'm at a pool or beach.  And I can take others seriously if they're wearing trunks, but not tops.  I will say that I still think the same rules ought to apply to men and women.  If a man can walk down fifth avenue topless without being cited for indecent exposure, then a woman should have the same right.  Anyway that part of the question was about nudity, not toplessness.  Those are two different things.  Topless is okay.  Nudity is creepy.

Under no circumstances should we legalize public sex.  That's just nasty.  Get a room.  Most of those public benches are wretched enough as it is, coated with bat guano and ABC gum and snot, but having to wipe off someone's love juices would be a bit too much for me.  Not the world I want to live in.
Logged
Cincinnatus
JBach717
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,092
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 18, 2011, 07:52:11 PM »

Wherever did you get the idea that censorship was inherently wrong?

Government censorship is pretty much only justified when it comes to things like child pornography or national security and even then you can go too far (thinking of military secrets that the public should know about like torture/secret prisons or stupid laws that define pictures of anybody under 18 as child pornography so somebody gets thrown in jail for years for having pictures of a 17 year-old).

Yes, and letting children run around nude is somehow justified...

You understand the difference between nudity and sex right? Children can't consent to sex and that wouldn't change even if public nudity and public sex were legal. The justification for banning/censoring child pornography is that, if it's legal, people will have a financial incentive/market to create more.

Pornography doesn't consist of only sex.  I'd imagine a pedophile would have no problem walking out of his door to take a glimpse at Johnny across the street whose letting it hang out because public nudity is "Ok, and not the same as sex".
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2011, 12:16:25 AM »

Wherever did you get the idea that censorship was inherently wrong?

Government censorship is pretty much only justified when it comes to things like child pornography or national security and even then you can go too far (thinking of military secrets that the public should know about like torture/secret prisons or stupid laws that define pictures of anybody under 18 as child pornography so somebody gets thrown in jail for years for having pictures of a 17 year-old).

Yes, and letting children run around nude is somehow justified...

You understand the difference between nudity and sex right? Children can't consent to sex and that wouldn't change even if public nudity and public sex were legal. The justification for banning/censoring child pornography is that, if it's legal, people will have a financial incentive/market to create more.

Pornography doesn't consist of only sex.  I'd imagine a pedophile would have no problem walking out of his door to take a glimpse at Johnny across the street whose letting it hang out because public nudity is "Ok, and not the same as sex".

Well you know if public sex was legal, it wouldn't be a problem for people to masturbate in public.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2011, 12:10:11 PM »

Again, where does this right to nudity come from?  Why do you feel that this is something people should be permitted to do?
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,716
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2011, 12:18:25 PM »

It should be legal only for non-obese women between age 18-40.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2011, 12:27:29 PM »

Well you know if public sex was legal, it wouldn't be a problem for people to masturbate in public.

One time, about fifteen years ago, my bicycle was stolen in Central Square in Cambridge.  I was living in Somerville at the time and had left my bicycle at a friends door only for a minute while I went inside to get him.  So I called the Cambridge PD and reported the bicycle.  Anyway, a cop shows up and takes me around in her squad car to places where she thought it was likely to be.  Alleys where homeless thieves had been known to park stolen bicycles temporarily.  As we were making the rounds, I see her jerk her head over toward a park bench and say, "Sonofabitch!  I can't believe he's doing that."  And she drives quickly to the other side of the road, to the bench, where I could now make out this old, black dude frantically beating off.  He was going after it hard and angry and fast, with his face contorted in such a way as to make me think that his moment of arrival was nigh.  And she slams the car in park and leans out the window and barks at him.  "Hey man!  You can't do that here!  Get a room!"  Like that.  So he looks around and realizes that he better put mister happy away and pull his pants up.  And then she drives off, cursing under her breath, as we continue to look for my bicycle.

Never found it.  
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2011, 01:15:45 PM »

Both.  Here's my logical argument:

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 14 queries.