Author: Ron2

(This has been used without permission, but I hope if he sees it before I get to that site and ask him, he will be ok with it.)

This is a collection of posts by Ron2 in Netnude (chat forum), presents ideas on nudity, nude legislation, morality and individual rights.

The pagans have a credo; Do as you will, if it harms none. For example, among friends, an errant erection may elicit no response, or several smart aleck remarks, for the edification of all. In another situation, you would be expected to cover it up or remove yourself. I sometimes encounter people at a public park I sometimes sun at who feel some sexual element from nudity. I am not offended. To each his own, the corollary of do as you will, if it harms none. There are those who feel that nudity brings on rampant sex and there's not much that can be done to change them, short of intensive psychotherapy, which may still do no good. They've been raised to see nudity as bad, sex as bad, any equivocation of the two in their minds makes a solid connection. I once knew a church-going person who actually felt that nudity was a sin, sex was a sin, but these were sins that must be tolerated long enough to fulfill God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply. True, such a belief is convoluted and illogical but it sticks stronger than gorilla glue.

Since we can't escape our sexual nature, for we are, after all, animals, and we know that nudity is good and right, perhaps energy is better spent showing that both are good, though I think, still not equal. This is easier said than done. We live in a land where you might walk naked down the street with a Glock 9mm, waving it in a threatening manner and 50 people may call the police. 49 of them will simply say there is a naked man in the street. Nudity frightens them more than a deadly weapon. As I have often pointed out, here in Texas, you may, after certification and training, carry a concealed weapon. You may not walk the street naked without persecution from citizens and police who will detain you without facts in evidence. You will be arrested or detained based on someone else's neuroses and no one seems to want to spend the money or put their legal training up to the task of proving how stupid and unenforcable and religious the anti-nudity laws are.

I have no problem with someone having their own religious beliefs and their right to wear clothes as a sign of the those beliefs. I should have the right to not wear clothes as a sign of my beliefs. I should not have their beliefs thrust upon me by the state.

The original Woodstock showed that people could get together peacefully and everyone was grooving on their own thing. Some wandered naked, others didn’t. Your choice. This gave way to the angry generation today that blames their parents for the "state of the world." They choose to ignore the examples set in the late 60’s of "love, not war." Back then hippies stuck flowers in everything and tried to love you in spite of yourself. At the last Woodstock, they rioted and started burning things and looting.

There is, I think, also, a religious backlash to separation of church and state. The Constitution says that the state, i.e. government (local or federal) shall establish no religion. That is they shall prefer no particular religion over another. At best, religion should be a private matter to the individual. But look at the vitriolic backlash against removing the phrase "under God," from the Pledge of Allegiance. That phrase was added only in 1954 by the McCarthy set.

The framers of the Constitution did not envision requiring people to utter the name of a deity of one religion as a matter of govt. form and function. There is an old recording of Red Skelton teaching kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance, pre-1954. The phrase "under God" was not in there. Technically, it should not have been ratified in 1954. Our money says "In God We Trust." Superior courts, I believe, open with a prayer that ends with "God save this court and this land." The presidential oath of office at inauguration ends with the phrase, "so help me, God," with the president’s hand on the Holy Bible. The government closes down at Christmas and Easter, Christian holidays, and last but not least, local municipalities and most states, have "indecent exposure" statutes, which are simply religious opinion codified into law.

It is religious opinion that a naked body is indecent. It is religious opinion that sex is lewd. It is a common religious opinion that sex and nudity are equal, though others that are not religious may feel that the two are equal.

Exactly how is someone harmed by you being naked? It does not involve you physically attacking them, or even calling them slanderous names.

In cities such as Dallas, where I once lived, it is considered an offense against the public peace, class C misdemeanor. At one time, the statute read that it was a class C misdemeanor to expose or entreat a 3rd party to expose the genitals and/or anus of any person and the nipples of female of the age of 10 for the purpose of raising sexual interest. This means that whoever called the police on you was arroused by your nudity and that offended them. Or, they were offended by your nudity and that arrouses them. Fashion police. In any case, their state of mind controls your body or, conversely, your lack of dress controls their state of mind. In essence, they are victims of their own thoughts and you pay the penalty.

Sociologically, there is nothing wrong with nudity, as is evidenced by numerous historical records or studies of cultures that had public nudity. Nor can science, or even the law itself, point to causal relationship between nudity and a crime against person. The only "harm" is that the person offended by the nudity feels some kind of fear or loathing or sexual thing based on your being naked.

A personal opinion: Anti-nudity is a religious opinion. Anti-nudity laws are a case of the state enforcing the opinion of a certain religion upon the general public, a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

How can we achieve this? Well, there’s always a direct challenge to the law. That only takes money and good lawyers. For goodness sake, Texas Statute 21.06, the "sodomy law," has been overturned, by means of law and a correct interpretation of the Constitution. The notion that certain sexual acts between consenting adults is wrong is a purely religious opinion. To have such a law in place is to enforce the beliefs of one religion upon the general public. But they’ve been fighting that fight for about 30 years.

As for presenting the "right" image of nudism, that only works with open-minded people. Others will continue to believe that nudists are degenerate regardless of how conservative and church-going we may be.

Another quick option is for the Dept. of Homeland Security to realize that a naked population is easier to police. Then, they could issue directives to municipalities not to prosecute nudity and even offer govt. fund incentives for repealing nudity laws. The last would bring the quickest results. When it comes to getting money, the govt. will literally move mountains.

Another option is for all nudists or whatever to simply, en masse, quit wearing clothes. A movement among the people can be awfully hard to stop. Which brings us back to challenging the law. We, the people, have rights. I think freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Repealing anti-nudity laws would free up police and court time. A cop could see a naked person and say, "Well, at least he/she isn’t carrying a weapon" and go on to pull over a speeder that happens to be a terrorist transporting component pieces of a suitcase nuke.

The subject of nudity is one I've approached from as many perspectives as I can see. Not once, during the Fall of Man in the Holy Bible, does God condemn Man for being naked. He created him that way. He makes clothes so that man will feel more comfortable in his sin and does punish man but not once does He say, "Thou shall wear clothes for the rest of thy days." Yet a political majority of those who believe in Him think that his greatest creation is obscene. The obscenity is in their own minds and is a sign of the deepness of their own sin. They continue to sin against God by denying His creation. They make their sin into a law, forcing their religious opinion and sin upon the general public who may not share their beliefs. Your salvation or damnation does not depend on you wearing clothes or not. And the human body and its functioning is not obscene.

I have a correction to make. Dallas has changed the wording of their code. It is called "Obscene Conduct." It is defined as displaying or touching the anus or genitals of anyone or the nipples of any female over the age of 10. They dropped the sexual intent and simply decided that the naked body is obscene, regardless of intent.

I had not thought of expressing pro-nudity as a religious belief of mine, though I feel that modern religion slaps God in the face by saying that His creation is indecent.

The naked human body is not indecent and the display of such does not constitute a crime against persons. To me, arresting someone for being nude is as ludicrous as arresting them for having the wrong hairstyle, which used to happen in the 60's. Guys with long hair were subject to persecution. Suppose someone wears an outfit I don't like. The color and cut of the clothes repulse me. Can I have them arrested? No. And I don't think they should have me arrested for my lack of fashion.

Nor should I be arrested on the basis of someone else's screwed-up view of sex. For they see the nudity as a sex thing and thinking inductively, assume that nudity is bad since they have connected it with sex, which they primarily feel is bad. These are their beliefs, founded mostly on religious upbringing and certain elements of society. And so, their neuroses are enforced by police officers through a technically unenforcable law.

The current Dallas code defines "Obscene Conduct" as displaying or touching the genitals or anus of anyone or the nipples of any female over the age 10. That is, they define the naked body as obscene, regardless of intent. So, the police may arrest for nudity, with or without erection or "lewd" behavior. This may or may not be good. For the code does not define exactly why nudity is obscene.

Imagine that. The crowning creation of God is obscene. Perhaps, a challenge could be made. Either a petition to the city atty. or a suit filed in superior or even supreme court demanding a definition as to why the human body is obscene. The Constitution says that all men are created equal. It does not say equal and equally obscene. Again, the notion that nudity is obscene is a religious opinion. Dallas' "obscene conduct" code is unconstitutional and should also be struck down and not replaced with some other gobbledygook. And exactly why are female nipples not obscene before the age of 10 and then, (for some reason), obscene thereafter? (What a difference one "day" can make.....Mark)

Why is the anus obscene? Why are genitalia obscene? Exactly what is it about God's creation ( if you believe in God ) that is obscene? Did God make a mistake? The Dallas code says He did. As for evolution, the banned parts are very necessary for the function of the human animal and are neither divine nor profane. They simply are parts of an animal called Man. So, the Dallas code wishes to define the creation of God or evolution as obscene. The obscenity is the minds of those who think the body is obscene. And yet, their personal religious opinion becomes law, to be forced on others who may not share their religious beliefs.

     Return to Home Page