Another Look at Public Nudity

People that walk around in the nude really are amazing people, they're so comfortable with their bodies they're willing to show themselves fully to the world. I respect that, although I don't necessarily like looking at a naked person that I don't personally find attractive, I don't think their right just be taken away from them just because they're not pleasurable to look at.

Who knows really, I certainly don't disagree with it, but if I had a daughter and she was under ~12 or so, I personally wouldn't want her seeing some guy's junk bouncing back and forth, no not at all.

AND .. Britney's attractive body and face persuaded people that her personality and character were equally attractive (and of course they may be).Text


Hahahaha, I don't know rather to laugh or just agree with you on that one. I mean she's a blonde, everyone thought of her personality being that of the typical dumb blonde, but at the same time, it's quite obvious today that she has a TERRIBLE and messed up personality.

I don't care if you want to run around naked, but what do you do with your keys?

That's the real issue.

Would you have to invent some pockets that you wrap around your neck?

Don't even suggest a man bag.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I cannot imagine sitting on a bus or train with standing room only, and having somebody's junk hanging in my face.

The filth and unhealthiness spread from having someone doing something as natural as passing gas while naked in a crowd is also revolting. Not to mention seeing their butt-cheeks rumbling as they pass it...

Funniest post ever! LOL Thanks for the chuckle.

reply to post by fraterormus


Most people don't care if there is a nude beach somewhere, they just don't want it in their faces where they don't expect it.

Those who walk around town nude ruin it for the others and give the Nanny State advocates ammunition.

And the plot thickens...

The ACLU got involved in the Partial Nudity Ban in this Southern Oregon City and now the City Council has invoked "Executive Privilege" and is holding a closed-door executive session to decide upon the Ban, without public scrutiny.

City nudity debate closed to public

Under Oregon law, executive sessions are closed to the public. Members of the media can attend, but cannot report on the proceedings. Oregon public record law also exempts internal advisory communications from public disclosure. Councilors would not be legally allowed to engage in verbal discussions of the nudity ban.

Commissioner Colin Swales sent a message to the council's public e-mail board saying he could find no provision under Oregon's laws on executive sessions that would permit the closed-door discussion of nudity.

"I can find nothing (excepting '... current litigation or litigation likely to be filed ...'), that would allow such an unnecessarily secret cover-up of this matter," Swales wrote.

Ralph Temple, who has spoken to the council in the past on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, joined with several other residents in "protesting against an executive session based on protecting the city from exposing itself to a justified lawsuit. What is this — the Bush Administration?"

I guess Municipal Governments learned a thing or two from the previous and current Presidential Administrations, and decided to try out their Play Book.

The irony is that although the City Council is supposedly trying to prevent "giving people information about the best ways to file lawsuits against the city" over this Partial Ban on Nudity, they are opening themselves up for a law suit from the people for misusing and abusing Executive Sessions. This is of course in addition to the inevitable lawsuits that will be filed if they do go forward with extending the Partial Ban on Nudity. Now that the ACLU is involved, that is pretty much a given at this point.

If local government becomes self-serving and no longer serves the interest of the will of the people, how can we expect a larger federal government to do the same? Something is horribly wrong when public servants, even on such a small scale as a small town of 20,000, can't serve the public interest and have to hide behind closed doors and "Executive Privilege" to keep from their constituents from finding out what it is that they are doing.

I find it rather humorous, personally, that the proverbial straw to break the camel's back in this city wasn't Taxes, or Jobs, or something infinitely more important, but a matter of the Right to Run Amok Naked if you want to, even though only 2 out of 20,000 ever would.