Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Public Indecency law

tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 3:25:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why are these laws exactly here? I thought the government cannot dictate what you choose to do with your body? There probably a good reason, but I do not know it, so could someone please explain.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 7:06:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 3:25:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Why are these laws exactly here? I thought the government cannot dictate what you choose to do with your body? There probably a good reason, but I do not know it, so could someone please explain.

Puritans
FullMetal.Alchemist
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 7:11:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 3:25:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Why are these laws exactly here? I thought the government cannot dictate what you choose to do with your body? There probably a good reason, but I do not know it, so could someone please explain.

Isn't this something that would belong in the society or politics forum?

And you're mistaken. There isn't "probably a good reason". Sometimes in places where there is a religious majority, they are able to push their values into the region's politics.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 7:19:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 7:11:35 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 3:25:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Why are these laws exactly here? I thought the government cannot dictate what you choose to do with your body? There probably a good reason, but I do not know it, so could someone please explain.

Isn't this something that would belong in the society or politics forum?

And you're mistaken. There isn't "probably a good reason". Sometimes in places where there is a religious majority, they are able to push their values into the region's politics.

So, people should be allowed to do it?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
FullMetal.Alchemist
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 7:21:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 7:19:26 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:11:35 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 3:25:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Why are these laws exactly here? I thought the government cannot dictate what you choose to do with your body? There probably a good reason, but I do not know it, so could someone please explain.

Isn't this something that would belong in the society or politics forum?

And you're mistaken. There isn't "probably a good reason". Sometimes in places where there is a religious majority, they are able to push their values into the region's politics.

So, people should be allowed to do it?

Sure. Why not?
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 7:24:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 7:21:07 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:19:26 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:11:35 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 3:25:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Why are these laws exactly here? I thought the government cannot dictate what you choose to do with your body? There probably a good reason, but I do not know it, so could someone please explain.

Isn't this something that would belong in the society or politics forum?

And you're mistaken. There isn't "probably a good reason". Sometimes in places where there is a religious majority, they are able to push their values into the region's politics.

So, people should be allowed to do it?

Sure. Why not?

Well, I thought about it. Technically the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate what people do, but I realized some people in the public maybe children, and there really isn't anyway of shielding them from that. Children shouldn't be exposed to this material at a young age. I'm torn on the issue.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
FullMetal.Alchemist
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 7:32:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 7:24:29 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:21:07 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:19:26 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:11:35 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 3:25:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Why are these laws exactly here? I thought the government cannot dictate what you choose to do with your body? There probably a good reason, but I do not know it, so could someone please explain.

Isn't this something that would belong in the society or politics forum?

And you're mistaken. There isn't "probably a good reason". Sometimes in places where there is a religious majority, they are able to push their values into the region's politics.

So, people should be allowed to do it?

Sure. Why not?

Well, I thought about it. Technically the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate what people do, but I realized some people in the public maybe children, and there really isn't anyway of shielding them from that. Children shouldn't be exposed to this material at a young age. I'm torn on the issue.

But that's a subjective value judgment. Many others would disagree that it is wrong for children to be exposed to "indecency". Unless you can demonstrate that "indecent exposure" brings some sort of actual harm to children (like second-hand smoke, for example), there is no rational basis for making it illegal.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 7:36:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 7:32:59 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:24:29 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:21:07 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:19:26 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:11:35 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 3:25:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Why are these laws exactly here? I thought the government cannot dictate what you choose to do with your body? There probably a good reason, but I do not know it, so could someone please explain.

Isn't this something that would belong in the society or politics forum?

And you're mistaken. There isn't "probably a good reason". Sometimes in places where there is a religious majority, they are able to push their values into the region's politics.

So, people should be allowed to do it?

Sure. Why not?

Well, I thought about it. Technically the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate what people do, but I realized some people in the public maybe children, and there really isn't anyway of shielding them from that. Children shouldn't be exposed to this material at a young age. I'm torn on the issue.

But that's a subjective value judgment. Many others would disagree that it is wrong for children to be exposed to "indecency". Unless you can demonstrate that "indecent exposure" brings some sort of actual harm to children (like second-hand smoke, for example), there is no rational basis for making it illegal.

May begin to shape a child's sexual values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours:

May prematurely sexualize a child
May incite a child to experiment with sexually explicit behaviour to make sense of it
May increase a child's social acceptance of high-risk behaviour
May shape a child's expectations in relationships
May shape a child's expectations of physical appearances and certain sexual acts
May increase a child's risk of victimization, as it may blur boundaries
May increase a child's health risks (i.e. sexually transmitted infections, sexual exploitation, etc.)
May increase a child's risk of problematic sexual behaviour against other children in an effort to experiment
May interfere with a child's healthy sexual development

http://www.thedoorthatsnotlocked.ca...

I can't really search this for some reason. Why ever I type explicit sexual with the word children, I automatically get 0 results.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
FullMetal.Alchemist
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 10:49:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 7:36:39 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:32:59 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:24:29 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:21:07 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:19:26 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:11:35 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 3:25:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Why are these laws exactly here? I thought the government cannot dictate what you choose to do with your body? There probably a good reason, but I do not know it, so could someone please explain.

Isn't this something that would belong in the society or politics forum?

And you're mistaken. There isn't "probably a good reason". Sometimes in places where there is a religious majority, they are able to push their values into the region's politics.

So, people should be allowed to do it?

Sure. Why not?

Well, I thought about it. Technically the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate what people do, but I realized some people in the public maybe children, and there really isn't anyway of shielding them from that. Children shouldn't be exposed to this material at a young age. I'm torn on the issue.

But that's a subjective value judgment. Many others would disagree that it is wrong for children to be exposed to "indecency". Unless you can demonstrate that "indecent exposure" brings some sort of actual harm to children (like second-hand smoke, for example), there is no rational basis for making it illegal.

May begin to shape a child's sexual values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours:

May prematurely sexualize a child
May incite a child to experiment with sexually explicit behaviour to make sense of it
May increase a child's social acceptance of high-risk behaviour
May shape a child's expectations in relationships
May shape a child's expectations of physical appearances and certain sexual acts
May increase a child's risk of victimization, as it may blur boundaries
May increase a child's health risks (i.e. sexually transmitted infections, sexual exploitation, etc.)
May increase a child's risk of problematic sexual behaviour against other children in an effort to experiment
May interfere with a child's healthy sexual development

http://www.thedoorthatsnotlocked.ca...

That article seems to be referring to the negative effects of regular pornography use in younger adolescents. It's not really the same thing as seeing a few nude people while out and about. I'd also like to see the "research" that the article refers to. It seems pretty sketchy and speculative to me, especially with all that "may"-ing. Not all studies properly draw a solid causal link between the two variables being analyzed - it is very plausible that the correlation is actually caused by sexually unstable adolescents having a tendency to watch pornography, rather than the other way around.


I can't really search this for some reason. Why ever I type explicit sexual with the word children, I automatically get 0 results.

LOL. I'm not sure if you meant that as a joke or not...
WAM
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 6:02:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I will assume you are talking about the "Indecent Exposure" Laws.

Obviously it's there for a reason... Kids are obviously there for one, but on the other hand I myself as an 'adult' don't need to see individuals flashing their private parts around in public, nor do I want to see sexual intercourse in public. Or do you?
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 8:49:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 6:02:18 AM, WAM wrote:
I will assume you are talking about the "Indecent Exposure" Laws.

Obviously it's there for a reason... Kids are obviously there for one, but on the other hand I myself as an 'adult' don't need to see individuals flashing their private parts around in public, nor do I want to see sexual intercourse in public. Or do you?

why? what is it that makes you think that it is bad, societal standards??
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 1:00:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 8:49:35 AM, Preston wrote:
At 7/16/2015 6:02:18 AM, WAM wrote:
I will assume you are talking about the "Indecent Exposure" Laws.

Obviously it's there for a reason... Kids are obviously there for one, but on the other hand I myself as an 'adult' don't need to see individuals flashing their private parts around in public, nor do I want to see sexual intercourse in public. Or do you?

why? what is it that makes you think that it is bad, societal standards??

Public health concerns.
FullMetal.Alchemist
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 1:35:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 1:00:39 PM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/16/2015 8:49:35 AM, Preston wrote:
At 7/16/2015 6:02:18 AM, WAM wrote:
I will assume you are talking about the "Indecent Exposure" Laws.

Obviously it's there for a reason... Kids are obviously there for one, but on the other hand I myself as an 'adult' don't need to see individuals flashing their private parts around in public, nor do I want to see sexual intercourse in public. Or do you?

why? what is it that makes you think that it is bad, societal standards??

Public health concerns.

Such as?
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 1:51:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 10:49:42 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:36:39 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:32:59 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:24:29 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:21:07 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:19:26 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:11:35 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 3:25:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Why are these laws exactly here? I thought the government cannot dictate what you choose to do with your body? There probably a good reason, but I do not know it, so could someone please explain.

Isn't this something that would belong in the society or politics forum?

And you're mistaken. There isn't "probably a good reason". Sometimes in places where there is a religious majority, they are able to push their values into the region's politics.

So, people should be allowed to do it?

Sure. Why not?

Well, I thought about it. Technically the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate what people do, but I realized some people in the public maybe children, and there really isn't anyway of shielding them from that. Children shouldn't be exposed to this material at a young age. I'm torn on the issue.

But that's a subjective value judgment. Many others would disagree that it is wrong for children to be exposed to "indecency". Unless you can demonstrate that "indecent exposure" brings some sort of actual harm to children (like second-hand smoke, for example), there is no rational basis for making it illegal.

May begin to shape a child's sexual values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours:

May prematurely sexualize a child
May incite a child to experiment with sexually explicit behaviour to make sense of it
May increase a child's social acceptance of high-risk behaviour
May shape a child's expectations in relationships
May shape a child's expectations of physical appearances and certain sexual acts
May increase a child's risk of victimization, as it may blur boundaries
May increase a child's health risks (i.e. sexually transmitted infections, sexual exploitation, etc.)
May increase a child's risk of problematic sexual behaviour against other children in an effort to experiment
May interfere with a child's healthy sexual development

http://www.thedoorthatsnotlocked.ca...

That article seems to be referring to the negative effects of regular pornography use in younger adolescents. It's not really the same thing as seeing a few nude people while out and about. I'd also like to see the "research" that the article refers to. It seems pretty sketchy and speculative to me, especially with all that "may"-ing. Not all studies properly draw a solid causal link between the two variables being analyzed - it is very plausible that the correlation is actually caused by sexually unstable adolescents having a tendency to watch pornography, rather than the other way around.


I can't really search this for some reason. Why ever I type explicit sexual with the word children, I automatically get 0 results.

LOL. I'm not sure if you meant that as a joke or not...

No, I'm serious. Try typing the words child and nude together. You probably get 0 results. If you didn't post a screenshot, I want to see.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 1:57:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 1:35:51 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/16/2015 1:00:39 PM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/16/2015 8:49:35 AM, Preston wrote:
At 7/16/2015 6:02:18 AM, WAM wrote:
I will assume you are talking about the "Indecent Exposure" Laws.

Obviously it's there for a reason... Kids are obviously there for one, but on the other hand I myself as an 'adult' don't need to see individuals flashing their private parts around in public, nor do I want to see sexual intercourse in public. Or do you?

why? what is it that makes you think that it is bad, societal standards??

Public health concerns.

Such as?

You don't think people having sexual organs, with various juices excreting, could possibly be a health concern? Not to mention the general blood, sweat, and STD exposure? If people can get an STD at the gym, then why couldn't a child licking the ice cream off a bench get it? Or, is a shirt and shoes being required in a restaurant also due to social standards and Puritans?
FullMetal.Alchemist
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 2:00:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 1:51:15 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 10:49:42 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:36:39 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:32:59 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:24:29 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:21:07 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:19:26 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:11:35 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 3:25:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Why are these laws exactly here? I thought the government cannot dictate what you choose to do with your body? There probably a good reason, but I do not know it, so could someone please explain.

Isn't this something that would belong in the society or politics forum?

And you're mistaken. There isn't "probably a good reason". Sometimes in places where there is a religious majority, they are able to push their values into the region's politics.

So, people should be allowed to do it?

Sure. Why not?

Well, I thought about it. Technically the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate what people do, but I realized some people in the public maybe children, and there really isn't anyway of shielding them from that. Children shouldn't be exposed to this material at a young age. I'm torn on the issue.

But that's a subjective value judgment. Many others would disagree that it is wrong for children to be exposed to "indecency". Unless you can demonstrate that "indecent exposure" brings some sort of actual harm to children (like second-hand smoke, for example), there is no rational basis for making it illegal.

May begin to shape a child's sexual values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours:

May prematurely sexualize a child
May incite a child to experiment with sexually explicit behaviour to make sense of it
May increase a child's social acceptance of high-risk behaviour
May shape a child's expectations in relationships
May shape a child's expectations of physical appearances and certain sexual acts
May increase a child's risk of victimization, as it may blur boundaries
May increase a child's health risks (i.e. sexually transmitted infections, sexual exploitation, etc.)
May increase a child's risk of problematic sexual behaviour against other children in an effort to experiment
May interfere with a child's healthy sexual development

http://www.thedoorthatsnotlocked.ca...

That article seems to be referring to the negative effects of regular pornography use in younger adolescents. It's not really the same thing as seeing a few nude people while out and about. I'd also like to see the "research" that the article refers to. It seems pretty sketchy and speculative to me, especially with all that "may"-ing. Not all studies properly draw a solid causal link between the two variables being analyzed - it is very plausible that the correlation is actually caused by sexually unstable adolescents having a tendency to watch pornography, rather than the other way around.


I can't really search this for some reason. Why ever I type explicit sexual with the word children, I automatically get 0 results.

LOL. I'm not sure if you meant that as a joke or not...

No, I'm serious. Try typing the words child and nude together. You probably get 0 results. If you didn't post a screenshot, I want to see.

Maybe it's a safeguard against pedophiles? Lol...
FullMetal.Alchemist
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 2:03:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 1:57:17 PM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/16/2015 1:35:51 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/16/2015 1:00:39 PM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/16/2015 8:49:35 AM, Preston wrote:
At 7/16/2015 6:02:18 AM, WAM wrote:
I will assume you are talking about the "Indecent Exposure" Laws.

Obviously it's there for a reason... Kids are obviously there for one, but on the other hand I myself as an 'adult' don't need to see individuals flashing their private parts around in public, nor do I want to see sexual intercourse in public. Or do you?

why? what is it that makes you think that it is bad, societal standards??

Public health concerns.

Such as?

You don't think people having sexual organs, with various juices excreting, could possibly be a health concern? Not to mention the general blood, sweat, and STD exposure? If people can get an STD at the gym, then why couldn't a child licking the ice cream off a bench get it? Or, is a shirt and shoes being required in a restaurant also due to social standards and Puritans?

Ah. Yeah I didn't think of STDs... Reconsidering my stance on this O_o
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 2:17:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 2:00:22 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/16/2015 1:51:15 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 10:49:42 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:36:39 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:32:59 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:24:29 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:21:07 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:19:26 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/15/2015 7:11:35 PM, FullMetal.Alchemist wrote:
At 7/15/2015 3:25:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Why are these laws exactly here? I thought the government cannot dictate what you choose to do with your body? There probably a good reason, but I do not know it, so could someone please explain.

Isn't this something that would belong in the society or politics forum?

And you're mistaken. There isn't "probably a good reason". Sometimes in places where there is a religious majority, they are able to push their values into the region's politics.

So, people should be allowed to do it?

Sure. Why not?

Well, I thought about it. Technically the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate what people do, but I realized some people in the public maybe children, and there really isn't anyway of shielding them from that. Children shouldn't be exposed to this material at a young age. I'm torn on the issue.

But that's a subjective value judgment. Many others would disagree that it is wrong for children to be exposed to "indecency". Unless you can demonstrate that "indecent exposure" brings some sort of actual harm to children (like second-hand smoke, for example), there is no rational basis for making it illegal.

May begin to shape a child's sexual values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours:

May prematurely sexualize a child
May incite a child to experiment with sexually explicit behaviour to make sense of it
May increase a child's social acceptance of high-risk behaviour
May shape a child's expectations in relationships
May shape a child's expectations of physical appearances and certain sexual acts
May increase a child's risk of victimization, as it may blur boundaries
May increase a child's health risks (i.e. sexually transmitted infections, sexual exploitation, etc.)
May increase a child's risk of problematic sexual behaviour against other children in an effort to experiment
May interfere with a child's healthy sexual development

http://www.thedoorthatsnotlocked.ca...

That article seems to be referring to the negative effects of regular pornography use in younger adolescents. It's not really the same thing as seeing a few nude people while out and about. I'd also like to see the "research" that the article refers to. It seems pretty sketchy and speculative to me, especially with all that "may"-ing. Not all studies properly draw a solid causal link between the two variables being analyzed - it is very plausible that the correlation is actually caused by sexually unstable adolescents having a tendency to watch pornography, rather than the other way around.


I can't really search this for some reason. Why ever I type explicit sexual with the word children, I automatically get 0 results.

LOL. I'm not sure if you meant that as a joke or not...

No, I'm serious. Try typing the words child and nude together. You probably get 0 results. If you didn't post a screenshot, I want to see.

Maybe it's a safeguard against pedophiles? Lol...

LOL I know that, but I can't really find data on this particular topic.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 2:23:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most people simply find it unpleasant to see naked people (especially older/fatter people). On the whole, society is more pleasant if indecent exposure is illegal.
WAM
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 2:47:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 8:49:35 AM, Preston wrote:
At 7/16/2015 6:02:18 AM, WAM wrote:
I will assume you are talking about the "Indecent Exposure" Laws.

Obviously it's there for a reason... Kids are obviously there for one, but on the other hand I myself as an 'adult' don't need to see individuals flashing their private parts around in public, nor do I want to see sexual intercourse in public. Or do you?

why? what is it that makes you think that it is bad, societal standards??

I don't define things as 'good or bad' and never have. As a simple question, do you want a naked guy sitting next to you on public transport with an erection/touching himself? I've seen this kind of stuff before, though personally I don't really care, however I do know that things like this will impact children, as well as the general population who also do not want to see this.

On the other hand I do not have a problem when I am in a place where nudity is accepted, such as a nudist beach, as it is expected there, however, as said before, I do not want to go shopping and see nude individuals standing around.

Also, as a rational person, I do not see a point in nudity in public. There is a reason humans have worn clothes for thousands of years. As well as the factor that the majority of people part in the nudist movement or people who commit indecent exposure are the kind of people nobody wants to look at and they basically rub their body into your face. People with no self esteem, or people that simply don't think twice how their actions impact others.

I would assume, personally, that the majority of indecent exposure would be public urination, sexual acts and things like that. If you want to piss, do it where nobody needs to see you, and not on a storefront window. And once again, I do not want to see intercourse in public. Why would I, that's the better question.
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 2:50:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 2:47:03 PM, WAM wrote:
At 7/16/2015 8:49:35 AM, Preston wrote:
At 7/16/2015 6:02:18 AM, WAM wrote:
I will assume you are talking about the "Indecent Exposure" Laws.

Obviously it's there for a reason... Kids are obviously there for one, but on the other hand I myself as an 'adult' don't need to see individuals flashing their private parts around in public, nor do I want to see sexual intercourse in public. Or do you?

why? what is it that makes you think that it is bad, societal standards??

I don't define things as 'good or bad' and never have. As a simple question, do you want a naked guy sitting next to you on public transport with an erection/touching himself? I've seen this kind of stuff before, though personally I don't really care, however I do know that things like this will impact children, as well as the general population who also do not want to see this.

Do i want to? honestly i dont care, so long as he washes his hands and doesnt engage in sex im fine. But honestly children are only impacted because we make a big deal of it.
On the other hand I do not have a problem when I am in a place where nudity is accepted, such as a nudist beach, as it is expected there, however, as said before, I do not want to go shopping and see nude individuals standing around.

So what if this was the standard?
Also, as a rational person, I do not see a point in nudity in public. There is a reason humans have worn clothes for thousands of years. As well as the factor that the majority of people part in the nudist movement or people who commit indecent exposure are the kind of people nobody wants to look at and they basically rub their body into your face. People with no self esteem, or people that simply don't think twice how their actions impact others.

no they havent, only in cold areas have they worn cloths, african and native tribes are known for wearing little to no cloths.
I would assume, personally, that the majority of indecent exposure would be public urination, sexual acts and things like that. If you want to piss, do it where nobody needs to see you, and not on a storefront window. And once again, I do not want to see intercourse in public. Why would I, that's the better question.

Yea, the urinating i get being bad, but its more because its unsanitary not because of the nudity.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
WAM
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 3:11:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 8:49:35 AM, Preston wrote:
Do i want to? honestly i dont care, so long as he washes his hands and doesnt engage in sex im fine. But honestly children are only impacted because we make a big deal of it.
As far as I know masturbation is messier than sex.. What if it 'squirts' onto you? Is 'washing his hands' going to impact you then? Also, you are incorrect, children are not only impacted because we make a big deal out of it. If you had a child or were one, would you want that someone would expose themselves to you for sexual arousal? Individuals do this, and it can scar children for life. And not because 'we make a big deal out of it'. A friend of mine worked in a cinema, where a man was banned from entering because all he would do is go into a children's movie and start to masturbate. Is this something you want to be exposed to? I don't assume so. So why would you want children exposed to it?

So what if this was the standard?
It is not, however.

no they havent, only in cold areas have they worn cloths, african and native tribes are known for wearing little to no cloths.
Incorrect. Even natives that have not had any contact with civilization cover themselves because it is practical. Ever tried to do hard labour naked or inappropriately dressed? Maybe once, but then never again.

Yea, the urinating i get being bad, but its more because its unsanitary not because of the nudity.
That is correct, however it is part of 'Public Indecency'
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 3:13:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 3:11:55 PM, WAM wrote:
At 7/16/2015 8:49:35 AM, Preston wrote:
Do i want to? honestly i dont care, so long as he washes his hands and doesnt engage in sex im fine. But honestly children are only impacted because we make a big deal of it.
As far as I know masturbation is messier than sex.. What if it 'squirts' onto you? Is 'washing his hands' going to impact you then? Also, you are incorrect, children are not only impacted because we make a big deal out of it. If you had a child or were one, would you want that someone would expose themselves to you for sexual arousal? Individuals do this, and it can scar children for life. And not because 'we make a big deal out of it'. A friend of mine worked in a cinema, where a man was banned from entering because all he would do is go into a children's movie and start to masturbate. Is this something you want to be exposed to? I don't assume so. So why would you want children exposed to it?
touching yourself and masterbation are a little different, if a guy isnt going at it then its fine, if he is then its no longer just nudity. and i wouldnt have a problem with it, society is what creates the whole, being scared of nudity thing.

So what if this was the standard?
It is not, however.
its a what if.

no they havent, only in cold areas have they worn cloths, african and native tribes are known for wearing little to no cloths.
Incorrect. Even natives that have not had any contact with civilization cover themselves because it is practical. Ever tried to do hard labour naked or inappropriately dressed? Maybe once, but then never again.

Yea, the urinating i get being bad, but its more because its unsanitary not because of the nudity.
That is correct, however it is part of 'Public Indecency'
yea, and it shouldn't be, it only is due to religious affiliations.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
WAM
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 3:30:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 8:49:35 AM, Preston wrote:
touching yourself and masterbation are a little different, if a guy isnt going at it then its fine, if he is then its no longer just nudity. and i wouldnt have a problem with it, society is what creates the whole, being scared of nudity thing.
In my books 'touching' yourself and masturbation are the same. It is both sexual arousal for the reason of sexual pleasure. Or is it not? Or is there a reason for having your 'hands down your pants' in public?
It is not, however.
its a what if.
It's not. I have demonstrated why we wear clothes, so it is unreasonable to be nude..
yea, and it shouldn't be, it only is due to religious affiliations.
I do not know in what context you have put this down. Whichever context it is, however, it has no relation to 'religious affiliation', I can tell you that already.
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 3:42:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 3:30:12 PM, WAM wrote:
At 7/16/2015 8:49:35 AM, Preston wrote:
touching yourself and masterbation are a little different, if a guy isnt going at it then its fine, if he is then its no longer just nudity. and i wouldnt have a problem with it, society is what creates the whole, being scared of nudity thing.
In my books 'touching' yourself and masturbation are the same. It is both sexual arousal for the reason of sexual pleasure. Or is it not? Or is there a reason for having your 'hands down your pants' in public?
adjusting yourself is still touching yourself, this is what i thought you were referring to.
It is not, however.
its a what if.
It's not. I have demonstrated why we wear clothes, so it is unreasonable to be nude..
yea, and it shouldn't be, it only is due to religious affiliations.
I do not know in what context you have put this down. Whichever context it is, however, it has no relation to 'religious affiliation', I can tell you that already.
Really, so what drives it, because france accepts much more nudity and people have no issues with it.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
WAM
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 4:02:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 3:42:06 PM, Preston wrote:
adjusting yourself is still touching yourself, this is what i thought you were referring to.
I don't think I have ever had the need to have 'my hand down my pants' for prolonged periods of time, if any, for that reason. There is a big difference.

Really, so what drives it, because france accepts much more nudity and people have no issues with it.
Ok, so you do mean wearing clothes. As already established, it is impractical for humans not to wear clothes, I think that is more of a reason than 'religious affiliation'.
Also, France does not accept much more nudity. Have you even ever been to France? I have been plenty of times, I can't remember a single nude person that I would've seen though... Also, http://europe.newsweek.com...
FullMetal.Alchemist
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 5:47:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 2:23:45 PM, Philocat wrote:
Most people simply find it unpleasant to see naked people (especially older/fatter people). On the whole, society is more pleasant if indecent exposure is illegal.

Society would also be more pleasant if picking your nose, coughing without covering, and loudly belching were illegal.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 9:44:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 3:25:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Why are these laws exactly here? I thought the government cannot dictate what you choose to do with your body?
Why do you agree with this premise? :)
There probably a good reason, but I do not know it, so could someone please explain.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 12:12:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 4:02:07 PM, WAM wrote:
At 7/16/2015 3:42:06 PM, Preston wrote:
adjusting yourself is still touching yourself, this is what i thought you were referring to.
I don't think I have ever had the need to have 'my hand down my pants' for prolonged periods of time, if any, for that reason. There is a big difference.

you said touching yourself no time period implied, wacking off is different.
Really, so what drives it, because france accepts much more nudity and people have no issues with it.
Ok, so you do mean wearing clothes. As already established, it is impractical for humans not to wear clothes, I think that is more of a reason than 'religious affiliation'.
So its practical to wear shorts?? underware doesnt cut it? one layer to protect the junk if not something less, no shirt needed because there isnt a war with swords where they are gonna lop you in half. we are over sexualizing nudity, just as the Quakers did.
Also, France does not accept much more nudity. Have you even ever been to France? I have been plenty of times, I can't remember a single nude person that I would've seen though... Also, http://europe.newsweek.com...

I have and germany, Saw nude people in both places. More in germany but you know,
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
WAM
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 1:14:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/17/2015 12:12:33 AM, Preston wrote:
you said touching yourself no time period implied, wacking off is different.
What is this now, kindergarten? What are you even trying to state or imply? Simply said, there is no reason to have your hands down your pants in public, period. Stop trying to shift the topic to ridiculous things like 'adjusting yourself'.

So its practical to wear shorts?? underware doesnt cut it? one layer to protect the junk if not something less, no shirt needed because there isnt a war with swords where they are gonna lop you in half. we are over sexualizing nudity, just as the Quakers did.
Again, what a stupid argument. There are more things that can hurt you in life, other than swords. Or how does a shirt protect you from swords? Ever been actually camping for about a week, or even a day? Walking through brush? Please, do it right now, only in underwear though, and then tell me that you don't want to wear a shirt and pants. And let me guess, your next argument is going to be 'this isnt the wild' or something like that. Sorry to explain it to you again. It is not practical for humans to be nude. We do not have fur. Our skin gets hurt very easily. If I was to walk around outside without a shirt every day, I can be sure to have skin cancer in a couple of years. But as you said 'no shirt needed'. So how fallacious is your next argument going to be? Also, please, tell me, how is nudity being oversexualized? Watch 20 minutes TV or anything like that and then tell me that again..

I have and germany, Saw nude people in both places. More in germany but you know,
What a great argument. Now I will give you one. I've lived in Germany most of my life. I can tell you right now that nudity in public is not accepted there. If you want to see nude people there you basically have to go to the nudist section of the local swimming pool or some nudist camping-grounds, but those are quite rare. Or where did you see naked people walking around in 'public'?