One of my favortite T-shirts reads "If we were meant to be naked, We'd have been born that way".

What are your reasons for this opinion?

While visiting a friend in Palms Springs, where the high temperatures were 110-120F, I was introduced to Nutrogena sun screen (I am talking about he creme that somes in a tube, nto hte spray). I found with just one application, I could go in and out of the water all day without burning or having to reapply it. It is expensive, but well worth it. I have never burned while wearing it, no matter how much time I spent in the sun. Abotu a minute after you put it on it is dry to the touch, so you dont' get on clothes if you put clothes on over it. Anyway, if you are fair skinned, it shoudl allow you to be in the sun for much longer. You will still fell warm, but definitely won't be as apt to burn.

I've seen video of topless women walking around New York (being topless is legal there), and although the videos seem to indicate that mos tpeople just ignore it, I am sure there is always those few people who do mess it up often enough to keep others from feeling safe and comfortable doing it themselves.

I know in Portland (OR), where I have been on several naked bike rides, the peopel generally just shrug and go on with their lives.

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?

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.

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.