The Naked Rambler

[semaphore]

Because animal skins and vegetable materials decompose readily there is no direct evidence of when and how clothing developed. However recent studies of human lice suggest that clothing may have become commonplace in human society around 72,000 years ago. This means that for around 128,000 years and the majority of anatomically modern human history, humans may not have worn clothes.

wut

And that proves you were completely, hilariously, wrong. This is what you said: "Only in the last couple thousand years were things like this demonized, not the 200,000 some years before that." You just proved you were wrong, and that you lied about finding a source for the pure nonsense that you made up originally.

It's pathetic to watch you move the goal post in order to pretend your previous lies weren't flat out wrong. For crying out loud, at least wait a few pages before you tried to change what you said earlier on the exact same page. "wut" indeed.

[strossus001]

Clothes are very optional and have been since humans have been around. Anything worn was for function first, form second.

Again, 'wut'.

[Kaleredar]

So what, should we repeal all laws and watch as society crumbles and billions die just because it happened in the past. Obviously a different case, and not related, but I'm sure you can figure out my point.

I'm not entirely sure billions of people will die if some wing dings decide to start walking around naked.

I've never really seen a problem with nudity. There are several things- far worse things- that are flashed around than someone's nether regions. I'll use WoW as an example. People exploding into bloody bits? Check. Attempted Genocide? Check. Nekkid people? Now that's just going too far.

As for the "human history" thing... I'm going to take a whirling crack at it with things that aren't too far-fetched. Clothing likely developed as a means of ornamentation or, in more harsh environments, as a necessary tool for survival. As the centuries rolled on, clothing became more commonplace; something likely to be shed only in either ceremonial or relatively intimate conditions. This, essentially, places meaning on the state of nudity. In public, nudity would be interpreted as having a disregard for this intimacy, or as a lack of status. This would serve to place a sense of shame upon being naked. Now, as I said, this is inference, but I'd like to see someone reasoning out an opposite statement.

Now, I suppose more contemporary nudity may come to serve as a matter of "do we have a right to see or not see things," as in, someone else's nudity.

[bobo333]

i've been to scotland and i certainly wasn't naked. this man deserves a medal, not a criminal record.

fair play to him though. nothing wrong with the human body (unless it's morbidly obese of course)

[semaphore]

Again, 'wut'.

Again, 'wut' indeed.

Only in the last couple thousand years were things like this demonized, not the 200,000 some years before that.

Source for this statement?

---------- Post added 2012-10-06 at 06:38 AM ----------

Clothing likely developed as a means of ornamentation or, in more harsh environments, as a necessary tool for survival.

It's generally to prevent dying of exposure.

That's not really the point though. Most people don't want to see other people's naked body while out shopping or whatever. Have you seen people? We're ugly. Nudists can go to their own colonies and what not. And it's certainly not unreasonable to ask someone to dress up for court, which is what this guy is being jailed for.

[Kaleredar]

It's generally to prevent dying of exposure.

"tool for survival."

But look at societies that don't risk dying of exposure if they don't wear clothing, like some of the more traditional cultures in Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America. Individuals in these cultures wear very little clothing at all, but most still wear something. These are usually for strictly ornamental or ceremonial purposes, meaning that a sense of status or sanctity is placed upon them, and removed if they are removed.

That's not really the point though. Most people don't want to see other people's naked body while out shopping or whatever. Have you seen people? We're ugly. Nudists can go to their own colonies and what not. And it's certainly not unreasonable to ask someone to dress up for court, which is what this guy is being jailed for.

While I do agree that the law is the law, what I take issue with is people's prudishness. You could say "there are ugly people out there, so we shouldn't have to be exposed to them." But do consider what we CAN be "legally" exposed to. I could drive home from the supermarket and see someone barking in favor of the KKK, (unlikely to happen here in California, but it's just an example) and as long as they aren't explicitly moving people towards violence, they can do so all they want. So, like I said, it comes down to "do we have a right to see or not see things?" A woman is breastfeeding her child in a public place, should she not be allowed to because someone feels uncomfortable about it? Or, as was mentioned earlier, two men are kissing one another. If someone has a problem with it, should these two men not be allowed to express their feelings?

[semaphore]

"tool for survival."

But look at societies that don't risk dying of exposure if they don't wear clothing, like some of the more traditional cultures in Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America. Individuals in these cultures wear very little clothing at all, but most still wear something. These are usually for strictly ornamental or ceremonial purposes, meaning that a sense of status or sanctity is placed upon them, and removed if they are removed.

I don't know about strictly ornamental, those seem to cover areas that could use a little extra protection from infections, insect bites and what nots.

While I do agree that the law is the law, what I take issue with is people's prudishness. You could say "there are ugly people out there, so we shouldn't have to be exposed to them." But do consider what we CAN be "legally" exposed to. I could drive home from the supermarket and see someone barking in favor of the KKK, (unlikely to happen here in California, but it's just an example) and as long as they aren't explicitly moving people towards violence, they can do so all they want. So, like I said, it comes down to "do we have a right to see or not see things?" A woman is breastfeeding her child in a public place, should she not be allowed to because someone feels uncomfortable about it? Or, as was mentioned earlier, two men are kissing one another. If someone has a problem with it, should these two men not be allowed to express their feelings?

Which is why public indecency laws varies so much with time and place. It is not whether one or two people finds something uncomfortable, but rather what society, as a whole, considers decent. It's not like most people find breastfeeding in public disturbing anyway, and there's considerable difference between "uncomfortable" and "alarming", the latter being what seems to me the basis for delcaring public nudity a breach of peace.

I guess I just don't think it is a big deal if society sets a minimum standard of behaviour in a general public area.

[Kaleredar]

I don't know about strictly ornamental, those seem to cover areas that could use a little extra protection from infections, insect bites and what nots.

The restraint to which clothing covers these areas can vary a good deal, however.

Which is why public indecency laws varies so much with time and place. It is not whether one or two people finds something uncomfortable, but rather what society, as a whole, considers decent. It's not like most people find breastfeeding in public disturbing anyway, and there's considerable difference between "uncomfortable" and "alarming", the latter being what seems to me the basis for delcaring public nudity a breach of peace.

I'd consider a KKK or neo-nazi rally genuinely more alarming than a naked person. Yet the former two are legal.

I guess I just don't think it is a big deal if society sets a minimum standard of behaviour in a general public area.

I question why this persists as a standard

[Trassk]

People in todays society have a very jaded view on male nudity.

For example, you can have in a national gallery images of the male nude for people to study in artistic reference calling them works of art:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/20...b__200x284.jpg
http://www.elite-view.com/art/Darkro...le-Posters.jpg

But you so much as show a naked male in the real world and people freak out:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2223/...df6de8c767.jpg

[Deleted]

He's an idiot, purposefully doing it in order to annoy the law and to prove some ridiculous point about nudity. I don't think people mind if he goes walking in the countryside naked, but when he's walking around the town it's pretty stupid.

Nudists irritate me. "But we were born naked, it's natural" is the most stupid logic I have ever heard. It'd be natural for me to come around your house and then shit in your garden. Doesn't mean I get to do it.

Pretty much this. If he goes around the country by himself or with some friends? Fair enough. But walking around town is deliberately asking for trouble and pulling the "bawww, this isn't fair!" card when he knows what he's doing would get him funny looks. I don't have an issue with nudity per say, but I don't pretend he's doing it for any other reason than trying to make a point.

[Ethes]

The additional charge is there for the exact point you mentioned, respect for the law and law enforcement. If anyone is free to disobey the law whenever or however they please then it makes it practically impossible to enforce the laws without then resorting to more extreme measures.

As for the last bit in the quote - the problem is that the man is actively going against long established laws in the least productive/constructive way possible. Instead of tackling the issue through the appropriate channels he is throwing it in the faces of anyone he can. I have absolutely no respect for this man, particularly because regardless of whether or not you mind seeing naked people walking around, I guarantee you the vast majority do; in walking around nude he is infringing on the rights of others and before you say "well what about his rights?", his rights oppose the established law and instead of tackling it like an adult, he's prancing about acting like he his rights are more important than everyone else's.


Hygiene is a big one. Then there's personal security. I'd be interested to know whether the number of rapes would increase or decrease in a nude society...

The point is, why can I call my neighbour a dickhead and it would just be an insult, where if I would call the judge a dickhead I will be charged for contempt of court. I thought every man was equal, but I guess some are more equal than others. That is exactly my problem with this!

I still wonder how this exactly disturbes the peace. As that is what he is locked away for. It's not that he does anything insulting, he just walks around. Doesn't touch people, doesn't make noises, etc.

Sure, there will be people that won't like it. But he doesn't infringe their rights to do whatever they want. I don't like it when my neighbour cooks wierd food cause it smells bad. But it's his right to make food if he likes as long as he doesn't poison me or makes it unable for me to live in my house. He just walks by, naked...

[Deleted]

Really, when you've been arrested that many times and are still doing it, it has to be a much longer sentence.

[Schmiggy]

The point is, why can I call my neighbour a dickhead and it would just be an insult, where if I would call the judge a dickhead I will be charged for contempt of court. I thought every man was equal, but I guess some are more equal than others. That is exactly my problem with this!

My scenario stands. Respect for the law is paramount, I can't understand how you don't see this as important. If one person verbally abuses an authoritative figure and doesn't receive any punishment, other people then may think it's acceptable because they can get away with it. As soon as that respect is loss, what's stopping people from all out refusing to accept any punishments handed out? To then regain that respect and then ability to enforce law, they would need to take an extremely heavy handed approach.

I still wonder how this exactly disturbes the peace. As that is what he is locked away for. It's not that he does anything insulting, he just walks around. Doesn't touch people, doesn't make noises, etc.

Sure, there will be people that won't like it. But he doesn't infringe their rights to do whatever they want. I don't like it when my neighbour cooks wierd food cause it smells bad. But it's his right to make food if he likes as long as he doesn't poison me or makes it unable for me to live in my house. He just walks by, naked...

At this point I'm not sure if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, or because you genuinely don't understand.
I mean.. this man is purposefully continuing to do this to incite a reaction from people - he knows its against the law, he knows it upsets people but he continues to do it anyway. I don't understand how you can wonder "how this exactly disturbs the peace" and then follow up in the following paragraph by acknowledging that it upsets people. It doesn't just upset some people either, it would upset the VAST majority, and guess what, we live in a democracy.

It is infringing on peoples rights because he has removed any form of choice for the people he is exposing himself to. They have absolutely no warning, they are forced to see the naked man when he crosses their field of vision. He is in fact forcing them to make a choice they would other wise not have to make. The single greatest factor that makes me oppose this man's actions is that he has the options to pursue this through the appropriate channels and being respectful of other peoples beliefs/feelings/ideals, but he is choosing to put his selfish desires before that of the majority.

[Ech0544]

This guy is from around where i live, tho i haven't, thank god, seen him around. If he wants to walk around naked thats fine, if he decides to walk around naked near childrens play grounds, expect to get arrested, no ifs, no buts, your ass deserves to be in jail if not for the nudity for pure stupidity, with the ammount of evil people in this world and the horrific things they do, causing the children/ parents who immediatly think peedo/kidnapper/rapist that sort of stress/ panic willfully and for such a lame reason as "i should be able to" is disgraceful

[Trassk]

This guy is from around where i live, tho i haven't, thank god, seen him around. If he wants to walk around naked thats fine, if he decides to walk around naked near childrens play grounds, expect to get arrested, no ifs, no buts, your ass deserves to be in jail if not for the nudity for pure stupidity, with the ammount of evil people in this world and the horrific things they do, causing the children/ parents who immediatly think peedo/kidnapper/rapist that sort of stress/ panic willfully and for such a lame reason as "i should be able to" is disgraceful

To be fair the guy is obvious none of these things and its just irrational parents who think it. Children will make less of a deal from it then an adult would.
But in a way I agree, full on nudity is something that well we have places for such things (nude beaches, bath houses, cluds and so on) that it conflicts with socities ideal is something else.

I want to pop this off topic question, and don't troll it please, but if two men walk past a crowded area, maybe a school or playground, and are holding hands or even kissing, what would be your reaction to that?

[Deleted]

People in todays society have a very jaded view on male nudity.

For example, you can have in a national gallery images of the male nude for people to study in artistic reference calling them works of art:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/20...b__200x284.jpg
http://www.elite-view.com/art/Darkro...le-Posters.jpg

But you so much as show a naked male in the real world and people freak out:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2223/...df6de8c767.jpg

I'm not homosexual, but i honestly don't think people would freak out if that individual would walk around naked. That said, i honestly couldn't care less as long as people don't bother me personally. We have designated nude zones here in The Netherlands where people can do whatever they want and it's accepted.

[N-7]

I want to pop this off topic question, and don't troll it please, but if two men walk past a crowded area, maybe a school or playground, and are holding hands or even kissing, what would be your reaction to that?

Me? if they're hot I'll take a sneak peak if not I'll mind my own business. I've long accepted the fact that gays have the same right is everyone else.

[semaphore]

I'd consider a KKK or neo-nazi rally genuinely more alarming than a naked person. Yet the former two are legal.

That's almost apples and oranges. The legal reasoning I gave ('alarming') was for the United Kingdom, where the Naked Rambler is located. From your inclusion of KKK I'd suppose you are talking about the United States, where those are legal because freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaraunteed right. Most other western countries have no problem declaring neo-Nazis illegal. In the United States, the criteria would be incitment of violence or something like that.

[Sunseeker]

What a load of bullshit. People are ok with other people backstabbing each other, throwing garbage to the floor, or pirating stuff on the internet, but when it comes to this rules must be obeyed? Why? Because someone else ages ago decided walking around naked would be a poor idea? Why should anyone care about such rules? Societies evolves when rules are broken, not when the state of things remain unchanged.

Pretty piss-poor argument you've got there. A lot of people are okay and not okay with a lot of different things. But the rules of society are established because that's what most of the people agree on most of the time. That's how society works.
Backstabbing, trashing, and pirating are also violations of the social codes of conduct in most places and by most people. Don't confuse not caring with approving.

In modern society, walking around naked can be seriously unhealthy for you. The "loin cloth" has been around for so long and is so wide-spread because even in primitive cultures, exposing your genitals to the elements generally does not serve you well.

he can't just walk around? now walking around and existing contrary to society's desires is somehow illegal?

Walking around NAKED, yes.

[Ethes]

My scenario stands. Respect for the law is paramount, I can't understand how you don't see this as important. If one person verbally abuses an authoritative figure and doesn't receive any punishment, other people then may think it's acceptable because they can get away with it. As soon as that respect is loss, what's stopping people from all out refusing to accept any punishments handed out? To then regain that respect and then ability to enforce law, they would need to take an extremely heavy handed approach.

No, what I disagree with is the fact that judges and law enforcement have more rights than the rest of us. I generally think you should not insult people verbally. I agree with your point of respect for the law, but that doesn't mean that other people doesn't deserve the same treatment. My question remains, why can I call my neighbour a dickhead, while I can't call a judge that. Maybe I phrased it badly, but it basically means there is a difference between the judge and my neighbour while all people are equal. Yet they're not! I understand this is a problem with ideology (as ideologies never tend to work in real life (look at communism for a good example)), but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. In the case of this man, he walks around naked. Gets arrested and therefore ends up in court, to make a statement he's still naked which insults the judge somehow and he gets charged with contempt of court. I understand the process, I understand your point and I agree with the fact that a judge needs a certain amount of respect in order to do his job. But in this case, the acused being naked doesn't actually effect the judge his ability to perform his work. So this heavy handed approach you're talking about isn't relevant at all!

At this point I'm not sure if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, or because you genuinely don't understand.
I mean.. this man is purposefully continuing to do this to incite a reaction from people - he knows its against the law, he knows it upsets people but he continues to do it anyway. I don't understand how you can wonder "how this exactly disturbs the peace" and then follow up in the following paragraph by acknowledging that it upsets people. It doesn't just upset some people either, it would upset the VAST majority, and guess what, we live in a democracy.

It is infringing on peoples rights because he has removed any form of choice for the people he is exposing himself to. They have absolutely no warning, they are forced to see the naked man when he crosses their field of vision. He is in fact forcing them to make a choice they would other wise not have to make. The single greatest factor that makes me oppose this man's actions is that he has the options to pursue this through the appropriate channels and being respectful of other peoples beliefs/feelings/ideals, but he is choosing to put his selfish desires before that of the majority.

As for the second part of your post, being exposed to something isn't actually per sé an infringment of someone's rights. I just pointed out that some people won't like it. Plenty of people don't like plenty of things, that doesn't mean that those things are an infringement of their rights. If everything I didn't like would be locked away, the world would be a whole lot more quiet and if everything everybody doesn't like would be locked away then there wouldn't be a world left to live in! Dealing with minor inconviences is part of life, if you don't like this person walking around naked than that is an minor inconvenience for you. Deal with it! I'm kind of sick of all the protecting the state does for things we don't need protection from!

Do you actually think that this person walking around naked traumatises people? Or harms people?... Before you say yes, please look into what expert psychologists say about being exposed to seeing a naked body (not sexually, but just naked). You will find out that this isn't the case!

Does this man cause a minor inconvenience for other people? Absolutely!
Is that rude? Absolutely!
Should he be locked away because of this? Definitly not, people are rude to eachother all the time and cause eachother inconveniences..