|
Aswad -> RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall (11/15/2012 5:22:58 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat
reactance is a term i'd use to describe this protest
It's a term I'd use to describe the instinct for freedom, which is notably weaker in women than in men (hey, I was as surprised as anyone). To me, it matters if something is restricted or not, regardless of whether I want to pursue it. To you, not so.
quote:
i wouldn't call restrictions on nudity arbitrary.
Ah, but nobody calls their restrictions arbitrary, yet none are able to produce an objective set of criterion that don't come down to what happens to be the prevailing notions of "decency" in their own culture.
quote:
there are health concerns (clothes keep bodily fluids and germs contained),
I see nothing about gloves, which are far more relevant, and no laws about properly covering a sneeze.
And if bodily fluids are leaking, it seems appropriate to do something about that, and I suspect a nudist with oozing genitals would cover them until the problem was dealt with.
Again, though, the laws aren't defined in terms of this, and I suspect you won't be satisfied if I walk around in a transparent biohazard suit.
quote:
and there are concerns about public indecency
But the human body isn't in itself indecent. Also, you're not demonstrating a benefit to restrictions in the name of decency.
quote:
(how would public urination or masturbation laws hold up if public nudity is approved?).
If they're only contingent on decency, they should go.
Me, I would pin those two on littering, which is a matter of terms of use for shared ground. If we built it together, and use it together, we should maintain it together, and a part of that is to keep it clean together. I don't wank or urinate in the park, your kids don't drop their ice cream cones there, and people pick up whatever their dogs leave behind. That seems perfectly reasonable.
quote:
unfortunately, majority opinion prevails in situations like these. that's how democracy works.
Which is why, when a majority feels that blacks and women shouldn't vote, or that jews belong in a furnace, that carries the day.
quote:
as for me being a prude or being "intolerant", i think that's a matter of your perspective.
That's what I said.
The terms are used in a relative sense, most of the time.
In a relative sense, I'm more perverted than you, and you're more prudish than me.
If we want to use the terms in an absolute sense, we need to redefine them, in which case prudery might be redefined to mean having taboos about the human body and human sexuality that are superfluous, and I think we would both probably classify as prudes by that definition, as I have a couple of taboos that the TOS prohibit mentioning that are quite possibly superfluous (going by the evidence, but the evidence is scant).
quote:
there are plenty of ways to be body-positive without being nude in public.
And there are plenty of ways you could've been politics-positive, even politically active and concerned with women's issues, without actually having suffrage. But, really, no, if you take away the core right to live a certain way, then those that wish to do so aren't quite there yet. It doesn't suffice for it to be okay not to hide yourself on designated days. If you want to be able to be you, fully and openly, then you need to be free of persecution for expressing yourself, etc.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
|
|
|
|
