Sunday, December 01, 2013
The right to be nude in public is being infringed by government
Public opinion in the last eight years have turned in favor of (at least) a plurality of a majority supporting public nudity.
So why is the government continuing to ignore We the People?
In a word (or two, in this next paragraph), corporate interests.
If judges actually starting doing their jobs and ruling bans on public nudity as unconstitutional in every state except West Virginia (and such bans really are unconstitutional – runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause due to some exposure of a woman's breast, such as in breastfeeding, being legal in 49 of the 50 states), it would begin to cripple the corporate thugs at the American Legislative Exchange Council and Koch Industries, who relies on a high prison population to keep making serious profits. That is not a stretch to make this contention.
Then, there is the bogus trope/argument that is made about children.
As mentioned in the previous paragraph, breastfeeding – which at times expose more than a man's penis – is legal in 49 of the 50 states. If children are not traumatized by a woman nursing her young, then it is obvious that they will not be the slightest bit traumatized by the sight of a naked man with his penis showing!
Then, there is an equally bogus argument about housing/property values.
Property values in New York City are still amongst the highest in the nation, and clear proof that public nudity – which has been legal in the Empire State for 21 years now – did not devalue the property values even one cent. Conversely, in South Carolina, where it is a crime to be naked even inside your own home – even if you are bathing, property values have been continuously devalued year after year. It is more proof that perverting the Bible's text in an effort to justify the anti-Christian activity of banning public nudity has backfired on South Carolina.
And finally, another bogus argument that is quite often made by government officials such as Scott Weiner is about exhibitionism.
There is a major difference between a man who shows up naked and a man who knowingly exposes his genitals under circumstances that in fact are likely to cause affront or alarm. The former is no harm no foul, where as the latter is indecent exposure since the act is intended to arouse someone else.
Just like with the anti-abortion zealots, when you dissect the arguments, and peel back the layers – the gymnophobes have nothing left other than to force their immoral, unnatural and anti-Christian beliefs on those of us who enjoy being in our natural state. The issue with nudity for me is not about cleanliness, it is about civil rights – rights that have been denied for far too long.
P.S. it is why I no longer feel comfortable talking about bathing because far too many view the naked body outside of washing as something dirty and to be ashamed of despite the fact that we are all born naked. It is also why, starting today, I won't be blogging about bathing, nor will I allow for such discussions to take place on this blog until people realize that talking about nudity and nudist rights are very much appropriate for the same reason as bathing – it is natural. Consider this action my first resolution of the New Year, even though that does not start until January 1, the only day out of the whole year in which this blog will be closed all day every year.