Laws requiring clothing

Sexualization and lewdness are symptoms of behavior caused by clothing compulsiveness in society. This fact is supported by the profusion of values present in Naturist/Nudist culture as compared to the diminished values apparent in society at large.

The creation of laws requiring clothing only exacerbates and does nothing to solve the problem. There are laws against lewd and dangerous behavior. These laws (if enforced) are adequate to protect society without the need to require clothing. Criminalizing the [natural] human form only promotes shame, disgust and intolerance.

Intolerance of the [natural] human body causes discriminatory practices toward a [minority] percentage of the population (estimated at 13%) that prefer not to wear clothing unnecessarily. This causes us to sequester in seclusion from the [majority] population to mitigate the likelihood of being persecuted or prosecuted [only] for being the way we were created. In all but one state the practice of Naturism / Nudism is legal but generally laws require clothing in public and are often vague as to their application.

What happened to equal rights? Why are we not free to practice that which we believe? There is no evidence that nudity causes any [actual] harm to an observer at any age. The shock (of which some proclaim) comes from the intolerance due to the sequestration discussed above. This is supported by the fact that Naturist children are not shocked at the sight of a nude body of any age. It is natural to them because they have not been taught to expect the body to be [unnecessarily] covered by clothing.

Then there is the religious argument. There is ample evidence to any open minded person that this is at the very least debatable. The values of Naturists are not in opposition to most religions and certainly not in opposition to Christian values. Consider the message on this bumper sticker.

However, the separation of church and state would seem to argue against laws based on the [perceived] morality of any religion. Laws are to protect members of society from harm not appease the uninformed views and insecurities of any group.

There is a simple workable solution to all of the points presented above.

  1. Throw out all laws requiring clothing as they ARE discriminatory.
  2. Enforce laws that protect people from [actual] harm.

–< R JNatural >–

 

 

 

4 Responses to Laws requiring clothing

  1. It’s a lot easier to pass laws than to enforce them, and society feels that naked people cause problems. Much easier to arrest naked people than to find and prosecute every other potential violation related to what naked people do. Too expensive and difficult to prosecute ‘lewdness’, for instance, but easy to prove and prosecute nudity! Hell, they can’t even DEFINE lewdness!
    .
    I’d be interested in the source of that figure of 40 million Americans who ‘don’t like to wear clothes unnecessarily’; sounds questionable and the wording is even more-so. We’ve seen some ‘surveys’ that equate having skinny-dipped once in one’s youth with being either a ‘nudist’ or in support of nude recreation, and that’s bogus. I doubt if that number is anywhere near 1%, let alone 13%.
    .
    So, nobody’s going to throw out all clothing laws anytime soon (even less likely with SF’s example) and they’re not going to enforce all laws; have a Plan B handy? 😉

  2. Sorry.
    I have no plan B that could be expected to happen in our lifetime. My last post expressed that for the laws to change we need to change the attitudes of people. That would be plan B. First we must communicate just how ludicrous the situation is at present. Your post called “I’m Going to Scream Now and Keep Screaming Until There is Justice in the World!” communicates another example. There are many people who do not consider or call themselves Nudists/Naturists but do not like to wear clothes unnecessarily. It may not be social nudism … who knows if it was not illegal … The estimate represents all of those people as well. I would like to think it is an underestimated number.

  3. If there was a Boss of Words I’d ask them to define ‘naturism’ solidly and to toss ‘nudism’ out as a overall term to mean ‘anything done naked’, including naturism, just to simplify things for everyone!
    .
    But there is no Boss and the terms nudist and naturist are so inexorably intertwined and equally misunderstood that they are becoming meaningless. It would be great to be able to separate the behaviors and activities from the philosophy by using different words, but with no one to lead the way, it won’t happen. That leaves us to keep trying to educate folks as to what they mean, convoluted though it is.
    .
    My turn to apologize, I read ‘not wearing clothes unnecessarily’ literally as in, they’re nude when it’s not necessary to be dressed. If it’s meant to include getting nude only on special occasions it could well be accurate. Hey, there might well be that many flashers alone out there! Or strippers, or chorus girls, or models… 😉
    .
    Plan ‘b’ – If the original Plan had worked (love one another), we wouldn’t have needed ANY more plans…

  4. I love your sense of humor.
    I think the whole terminology thing gets confusing on blogs because they are not local. Other countries do not share the same history when it comes to any topic much less a topic like social nudity. The “word boss” will need to have authority over the words used in other countries as well. Case in point (the ladygod1va argument)…
    I like the original plan (love one another) the best of all…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *