People with such delicate sensibilities that they can't stand the sight of a nude human figure should just stay away from public places, and those disgusting art museums as well. If you want to protect your kid from seeing such things, keep them at home.
Thanks for helping my argument. It's clear which of us has the more reasonable request, at least with regard to nudity. You illustrate perfectly why public nudity laws exist.
I tend to think that a lot of the objections to repealing public nudity laws stem from the same type of fear that causes people to object to repealing laws prohibiting the carry of firearms. "It will be like the wild west out there, and you will see some perv shaking his junk at you on every street corner!" As usual, reality does not tend to live up to these hysterical expectations. The State of Vermont does not prohibit public nudity. The only nudity that you occasionally see there are college kids sitting out by the road trying to be rebellious and piss off old folks, and most of them tend to be hot women.
So in the absence of laws against public nudity, there is public nudity. But don't worry, it's only occasional, and right next to public thoroughfares!
You can wear a mini-skirt and a low cut belly shirt that actually reveals skin. This law does nothing to address concerns over anatomy being exposed.
What about the sports bra comparison? We can't have women running around wearing just bra's! Their not even wearing shirts!! How is that ok, but a little sag in your pants so people can see your boxers needs to legislated against!
Just look at the pic seeker posted, there's more nudity from her cleavage than from what you see when some guy lets their pants sag.
There seems to be a misconception that the law can't be valid unless we pretend that the back of some guy's underwear is equivalent to some girl's mid-riff. Or unless we pretend that undergarments are the same as outerwear. And, hey, maybe I don't think women (or men) should feel free to go shirtless. I wear an undershirt and a t-shirt, with long pants, when I run. And I hate hot weather more than anyone, so I wouldn't have much patience for whining about such a requirement.
If you really consider being able to see someone's underpants as indecent exposure, I really don't think there is a point to this conversation. I take it you also see all female bathing suits as indecent exposure?
Obviously, some of them are. Maybe this would be easier, if we could reconsider what should really be acceptable in public, and what shouldn't. Not that I want to ban everything that might be unacceptable, or that I don't like. But there's a huge difference between banning saggy drawers that reveal (a lot of) underwear, and banning, say, some of the more conservative women's one-piece swimsuits. One is socially acceptable and intended for outer wear. Practically speaking, there's no chance those will be banned, without a major shift in what our culture considers acceptable. (Or sports bras, or male toplessness.) (Not to mention that swim-wear could be restricted to pools, beaches, etc.)
Now some will insist that government has to be based on rights and facts, and so on, not on cultural norms or societal expectations. Such ideas are extremely naive. The concepts are not separable. I believe our laws should be limited to protecting the rights of the people. And that's all I'm talking about.
