Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
Well, let's just say, I'm not one to trust everyone's ability to keep themselves, uh, clean, in their private areas....so unless I start carrying around a bunch of wipes with bleach to wipe down every surface that I sit on. Not to mention fabric seats, yikes, how do we clean those. And stds? The more I think about this....no, just no.
So, some anxieties and aversions, but not a lot of facts.
When I run through my own list of reasons for something and turn up something like that, it tells me to be skeptical of my conclusions. I assume you see how this might be prudent. Can we agree that it would be a good idea to actually at least then formulate the law in actual health related terms, and that a legislator should consider whether your concerns are legitimate, rather than assume they are?
Incidentally, sweat is probably a far higher concern, and clothes are veritable petri dishes.
Almost every monocellular organism requires a very specific environment to live. The main factors are, roughly in order of descending importance: UVB, UVA, pH, oxygen, water, temperature, nutrients and surface structure. In a dry, sunlit, aerated environment, there's virtually no opportunity for monocellular organisms to survive. Viruses are even more sensitive, due to lack of any metabolism of their own. And survival is not the same as viability, to say nothing of the actual degree of exposure required to have any effect on humans.
The e. coli bacterium, for instance, is more likely to be inhaled than contracted from a surface.
Add to this that clothes increase sweating and that "primitive" populations tend to catch their pathogens from the environment, rather than from each other, despite lack of clothing, the evidence would seem to support the notion that clothes are a greater health concern than a lack of clothing. To boot, it's uncomfortable to sit bare-assed on metal, concrete and wooden surfaces, so I would assume most would be bringing along a towel or whatever if they want to sit in such a place; this is likely far more hygienic than sitting down with sweat soaked, bacterially overgrown clothing that is in constant contact with your body.
Just saying: the more I think about this, the more clothing seems like the health risk.
It's probably okay to wear clothes when it's cold, though.
quote:
Have you spent any time in a city like New York?
No. Is it warm enough there that you expect any significant number of people to wear nothing?
quote:
Trust me. We just don't want underwearless subway riders, bar stool users, movie theatre watchers, the list goes on......maybe you Norwegians are a cleaner, disease-free lot.....
Hell, no. Which is part of the reason I'm sure it's not a problem.
But my position isn't that people should be permitted to rub a sweaty crotch on whatever they want. It's that people shouldn't be forced to wear a set amount of clothing on the altar of decency. That legislation about this should be tied to other concerns that aren't just a matter of taboos. And, notably, that we can't both do it ourselves and complain when other cultures take it to the next logical level, such as in the Middle East.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Nude-In at San Francisco's City Hall - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread