>The bathers of both sexes romp, laugh, and perform all kinds of antics in which the actual nudity of the men is infinitely less offensive to our sense of decency than the modest immodesty of the clinging gossamer vestment in which the females cover, without hiding, their forms.
Wow, what a double standard. A woman wearing wet clothes is considered more scandalous, than a totally naked man?!
> I tell people that if they would be considered brave for being without a shirt at the beach, then they are an at risk population.
Yet it affects males more than females. Hmmm. When you say "people" do you mean "male people"? Or when you say "beaches" do you mean "topless beaches"?
> Two naked sunbathers were also fined for breaching coronavirus restrictions after they were startled by a deer and ran into a forest, where they became lost and had to be rescued.
Absolutely, the idea that a naked human body is inherently obscene, and that we need to protect people from viewing it, is ridiculous. It's the sign of an immature society whose practices are still based upon ancient superstitions.
> In the one year I've been to SF, I've ran into butt-naked people numerous times (in contexts ranging from them just walking down the street to them running the Bay-to-Breakers marathon).
During B2B a couple years ago I actually asked an officer about that. Apparently it's 100% legal to be naked in SF, as long as you're not being too sexual... I don't know what the actual line is legally, but that's what I was told.
Allowing women to dress inappropriately has a societal cost greater than the life of one child. Many lives could be ruined by the moral failures encouraged and enabled by bare flesh.
> Either you're going to be the type of person who thinks it's shameful, or the type of person to ogle them and make them uncomfortable, or the type of person who now has to try very hard not to ogle them. None of those are good reactions. Personally if I were in a place with topless women I would leave. Not looking would take too much willpower.
Are you certain that shame and ogling are the only reasonable choices (while on a topless beach)?
Also, the latter seems like the result of objectification (the focus of the article).
> Well, clothes are mostly down to weather and laws on public decency
Where I live, there are no laws against public nudity (as long as the nudity isn't "salacious" in nature). And yet, very nearly 100% of the people are clothed at all times.
> practice of regular nude exercise together in the gym enhanced group coherence among these men
Makes sense, clothes and fashions separate us whereas nudity emphasizes our similarity. And when you are naked you can not hide weapons. You are what you are.
If society wasn't so prudish about naked bodies, it'd be less of a problem. It's one of those shoot the hostage situations. We could defuse a lot of our concerns if we'd relax our self imposed constraints and it would give us more time to worry about the things which matter more.
>But the damage was done. Afterwards, everyone was afraid of being filmed without consent again.
Devil's advocate, but isn't the point of being nude in public that you are destigmatizing it? I know you mentioned this was a "private lake" but it is unclear of if you mean legally private or de facto private. In case of the latter, even creepers have a right to be there and film.
I used to visit a nude beach and there was always some clothed weirdo with their phone out. They would get unfriendly looks by everyone though, and I think the ostracization kept them on the outskirts of the community.
Or it may cost the rescuer quite a bit when a woman regains consciousness half-naked with a man on top of her.
reply