Yes, when I became a nudist the amount of my laudry was greatly reduced. Also my clothes just generally lasted longer. So, I save money on detergents, on guying new clohtes for those that wear out and on energy and water costs, because of less laudray.

Naturism is definitely a green lifestyle.

A similar lawsuit won in New York a while back too.

I heard that in order to head off such a law suit in Arkansas, they made it illegal for men to go shirtless/topless.

I tend to side with New York court rulings as far as going shirtless goes. If a man can go shirless, a woman should be able to also.

I have been told tht in Arkansas they wen the other way, and made it illegal for men to go shirtless too.

I am in agreement that the law shoudl be equal for both genders, but not that the law should be able to regulate the freedom in deciding whether or not to wear clothing. So, long as the person is nto beign sexually provocative (taking actions with the intent of sexually arousing either themselves or anyone else), laws that require clothing go against the freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed to U.S. citizens under the bill of rights.

@snytiger6 1st Males and females are different, so the sexes can NEVER be equal (no matter how much you wish.) 2nd Freedom of speech does not guarantee the freedom of expression. The current trend of expanding the 1st amendment is being used to give corporations power to do as they chose.

@PhilipK Well, at least we seem to be in agreement in a dislike of hte idea of corporate personhood. It has been my impression that coporations latest arguements do inclues tryign to co-op the freedom of expresion to further the concept of corporate personhood, but I do not think that freedom of expresion shoudl be curtailed for actual people to try ot thwart their efforts.

I am more for the strategy of makign it so that the constitution does not aply to artifical persons. The way corporations got a foothold onto the constitution, was because the original tax system was designed to tax people. rather the add on the taxation of coporate entities, they made coporations "artificial people" for taxation purposes. Ever sine the rise of the railroads, coporations have been tryign to extend constitutional rights to "artificial people".

Before the Civil War all coporations had limited lifespans by law. Most states had a limiation of a 20 year lifespan, and I think one had a 50 year lifsapn (it's been a while since I looked at this). The reasons for this was because of the East india Co0mpany, which had a royual monoploy granted from England before the revolutionary war, which le the East India company import to the American colonies tax free, while small businesses were heavily taxed. Thsi led firs tot he Boston Tea party protest, and eventually the Americna Revolution, because American did nto want to be under coporate rule, and be unfairly taxed. Thus the phrase Taxation without representation" became a motto for the revolution.

It too almos t100 years, but eventually coporations were granted unlimitede lifetimes, because everyone who lived under soporate rule before the American revolytion was dead and nobody alive remembered what it was like.

However, today, peopel are once again learnign wht it is like... some more than others.

@snytiger6 Thanks for the detailed response. "thwart their efforts" Can you name an issue that MUST have the ability to argue with expression beyond words? Where is (speech) expression required?

@PhilipK Freedom of speech is synonymous with freedom of expression.

What do breasts have to do with reproductive ability?

@mooredolezal I am not keeping up with human evolution stuff. Breast indicate how much female reproductive potential a woman has.

If you do not know if it would decrease sexual crimes then why would you be against it?

The World Nake dBike Ride is a protest against our continued use of fossil fuels. It is fun, an dyes, it can be silly at times, but a clothed bike ride would not gain the same publicity about the issue. It is a veyr low bost way to gain publicity for protests in oruj society.

@snytiger6 That's for a good cause.

How do you nude bikers deal with the bugs? Its bad enough with a shirt and shorts. But dealing with them down yonder whilst pedaling?

Or objectively!

In New York, I believe it is just legal for women to go topless.

In Oregon, it is technically legal to be nude, due to an Oregon State Supreme Court ruling, but a lot of the language in teh rulign was pretty gray, which the only circumstances definitively spelled otu is for protesting, although anyone who has been cited for nudity who cites the ruling has the case dismissed. So, technically it is legal, but some localities still act liek it isn't.

I am told that Vermont, although perhaps nto for the same reasons, is kind of like Oregon. Technically it is legal, but localities pretend it isn't. Havent' bene there or red up on Vermont laws.

Despite nudity beign technically legal in Oregon, most persons who liekt o be naked choose to wear clothes because they either don't wish to offend, or simply to get along better with their neighbors. I think even if public nudity were legal, most people would conform to societal norms.

LOL... I am not sure if that line of reasoning is (completely) sound, but I like the approach.

who made the law about this in the first place

I happen to agree with the State of Oregon Supreme Court ruling that said nudity is a right based on freedom of speech/expression.

Saying that the majority does not desire it, is like saying since the majority of people in the U.S. are Christians it shoudl be compulsory for people to attend church on Sunday, because they don't 'lolike other Penelope staying home.

As our cultural attitudes about nudity are primarily drawn from religion, the same argument of freedom of religious belief can be made for legal public nudity as can be made against the above paragraph.

In Oregon, even though it is technically legal to be nude, very few persons actually choose to go nude. However, the point is that they do have a choice. Wearing clothes is not compulsory. Then again, not too many are aware of the court ruling either.

@snytiger6 no, it is not the same, you are wrong. the right to religious freedom is in the first amendment, the right to nudity is not in any amendment. saying they are the same is ridiculous, it's bullshit.

@snytiger6, @Hercules3000 we do force nudists to wear clothes, Herc, your statement is just false. false statements are not arguments of reason, they are false statements. SOME people wear clothes when they want to, some do it because it is the law. facts matter.

"as our cultural standards come from religion" no, they don't. SOME of them do. some come from evolutionary impulses. acting like "oh, this thing is in a religion, so it must be because of religion" is complete ignorance of reality. I don't deal in ignorance.

@snytiger6 if you equate the completely, and I mean COMPLETELY harmless injunction of wearing clothes to the demonstrably harmful practice of indoctrination into superstitious beliefs, you are wrong. It isn't a question of reasonable debate when you do that.

"well, isn't not letting people be naked the same as not letting them murder other people when they want to" makes as much sense. there is no harm done to someone who is forced to wear clothes, and there is no harm to society done by everyone being clothed in public. NONE.

Although, it may not seem logical, that is true. In both cases those against nudity and those against the Buraq are mostly (often fanatical) Christians tryign ti impose their religious belifs and/or values onto others.

It is true that at clothing optional places it seesm that there are more older generations than yo9unhger. I attribute this to more younger persons are insecure about theri bodies, while as people get older, many mor ewill adopt an attitude of "who cares".

As for sun burns.... I recommend Nutragena sun screens tht come in the little plastic tubes (not the spray on,which doesn't work as well). It is fast drying, meaning you are not oily and greasy all day long. I only have to apply it once at the start of the day, can go in and out of the water without having to reapply it, and I have never been burned when wearign it (I use and SPF of 45 on my body and spf 85 on my genitals). It is more expensive than other sun screens, but it works, and it will let you tan too. Definitely worth the expense.

@snytiger6 Thanks! As a public service, though, I'll remain clothed in public places. You'd thank me...yes, you would!

@LucyLoohoo You'd be surprised. I've met a person who was over weight who also had severe skin disorders several at nudist events. He wasn't pretty to look at, but I did get over my initial reactions, and he seemed like a nice person. His condition wasn't contagious, and by comparison my initial emotional discomfort would never compare to his physical discomfort

I think it is just sad that as a society we want anyone who does not meet the advertisers ideal of physical beauty to feel guilt fear and hame about hwo they look, which in many instances cant' be helped.

@snytiger6 Men have been afflicted with ''snow blindness" having seen me nekkid! Just saying...

@Hercules3000 I would nto have fit into Woodstock. I don't liek mud, don't use drugs, and AIDS was already around by the time I was sexually active, so free love alwasy seemed to come at too high of a cost to me. Is your info really that dated?

Nudist culture predates the counter culture of hte 1960's. Nudists existed both before and after that time period. If you want to criticize, which you seem intent on doing, perhaps you shoudl do more reading to learn more, so you can do it properly. Nudists & Naturists have been a constant subculture for much longer than the last century.

Between that and just a general religious prude attitude....

Religions just associate nudity with sex. Most Americans have no experiences with nudity outside of sex or bathing.

Body image has a lot to do with it too. Unless a person feels insecure about how they look, advertisers won't be able to sell us a bunch of stuff that we really dont' need, which is supposed to make us look better, whether it be clothes cosmetics, skin care products, bogus weight loss products or whatever.

@Hercules3000 You can't get a sexual transmitted disease off a bar stool or a toilet!

@Hercules3000 nope, not forgetting. you know what? those people are attacking us even when we're fully clothed. i don't see nudity as a further problem.

g

@Hercules3000 i think people will get used to nudity and those erections will happen less and less, but if overcrowding is a problem that way, maybe more subways cars will be built to ease crowding. i don't see this as a huge problem, really, apart from the fact that the crowding itself is.

g

@Hercules3000 nope, not even remotely like that. complete false conflation. that's just silly. are you trying to imagine potential problems? is there something else on your mind you're not revealing, regarding public nudity?

g

@Hercules3000 pretty much everything, including breathing! my skin is particularly sensitive, as it happens. but one doesn't have to have a problem in order to benefit from nudity. but that's not the point. the point is whether or not people should be forced to cover up whether they want to or not, just because SOME people might be titillated.

g

@Hercules3000 pretty much everything, not the special cases you named. as for children, they frequently ARE naked! what's the big deal?

g

@Hercules3000 neither are grownups. what's your point? we're not talking about whether nudity IS permissible in public. we're talking about whether it SHOULD be. if it were, then yes, children would be naked in shopping malls, and not getting erections either.

g

@Hercules3000 omg you're obsessed with danglies!

if everyone was nude, nobody would be looking all the time at the danglies! and if people were seated their danglies wouldn't really be dangling.

the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy says: always know where your towel is.

g

I really appreciate it when people think out and explain their answers, and take the time to make thier answers worth reading. Thank you.

@Hercules3000 I don't think you understood my point. I've answered in a far broader sense than the context of your response. Ask yourself this: should an adultery be criminalized? In some countries they are. Should what is illegal in one society be illegal in all others? Or the other way around? My answer assumes the society in question can reach a consensus about "morality." We may or may not be able to. I was simply casting my vote on the perspective on morality. I won't forcibly impose my sense of morality on others.

@Hercules3000 If you had taken time to read the original post, you would know that the legality is exactly what we were discussing. More specifically what role should our sense of morality in criminalizing behavior. You want to skip the difficult question and go straight into what you believe to be moral or immoral. That's a different question. You have already formed your own subjective morality and you are shocked and scandalized when others disagree. That's a common response, but also an uninteresting one. But as atheist, we should learn to question whether our subjective sense of morality should be universally accepted.

@Hercules3000 no but they can blast your genitals right off! melt them, actually.

so it's all about genitals (and fitness)?

is a person just all about his or her genitals?
g

@Hercules3000 i'm not the one who brought up nukes. i do not associate nudes with nukes. i was just responding to what you said about them.

g

@Hercules3000 we only get one body. why hide it? what's so horrible about having a body? do we have to be perfect before being allowed to free it?

g

@Hercules3000 perhaps not ... but neither is it all about nudes, And nudes are far less dangerous than nukes... Just look the other way and nudes are no problem.

@genessa I thought nukes and nudes were too good to be missed because of the spelling ... and of course the fact the USA has a rather unhealthy relationship to military violence but shies away from nudity.

@PontifexMarximus i liked the play on words.

g

@PontifexMarximus, @Hercules3000 i am not venessa, i do not respect comments that, rather than being sincere, are meant to get someone off your back -- it decreases your credibility -- and i am therefore not off your back. you bid me farwell nicely but this statement was NOT nice.

g

@genessa an nuke sounds cute.

@PontifexMarximus given what some people think nudism is about, maybe it should be spelled nookie!

g

Probably wont' happen in my lifetime. One hopes that eventually rationality and reason will prevail, but thern I remember , this is the country that elected Bush... then later Trump... which is why I say probably not in my lifetime.

@snytiger6 Most regimes don't concede defeat without a fight.