All cultures cover up. Lots of reasons. Nudity is not really very popular in northern Minnesota in January, for obvious reasons.

And even in hot climates, you have mosquitoes and ticks. Ever see National Geographic, where “primitive” people cover themselves with red ochre or mud?
My favorite is the New Guinea tribe who let the men go naked except for wearing a long gourd youknowwhere.
Why would they do that? Ever treat a snake bite or poison ivy in that sensitive area? Sunburned nipples? sand fleas? Scorpons?
Women, of course, have a different reason to wear something down below, at least for one week a month.

As for topless women, in many countries, the breast is for babies. Usually any woman over age 18 has one or two, and sags. And few of the feminists who take such cases in the US to court would ever be featured in playboy.

The following was written addressed to the editor of the Beloit Daily News, whose editorial is linked as part of the above blog comment. For the record, it’s not just violations of topfree equality or naturism and related religious rights which indirectly result in the status quo of violent oppression via bad laws and cops in many jurisdictions, but all mala prohibita (loosely, the class of laws called victimless crimes) which make drug policy, sex or “lewdness” regulation, speech codes, and “nudity” laws all Constitutionally defective in the USA. They’re not healthy for us as people either. Naturism is a religion for some people, and an element of religious practice for many more, and is overdue to be so recognized in law. Topfree equality is merely a civil rights stepping stone in many cases, not a “wardrobe malfunction”.

===

I wonder if the BDN editor would get it if someone suggested he’d
advocated his own kidnapping at gunpoint by men with truncheons,
firearms, and a radio linked gang capable of rounding up anyone like him?

After all, that’s about what happened to the victim of the false arrest
in NYC, and what he’s advocating is in effect using the same government
mercenaries to deprive more people of civil rights, whether related to
their own religious or cultural beliefs, or to impose his prejudices and
bigotry on others. It matters not whether that perverse version of
so-called “decency” is his conscious, malicious intent, or if as was the
core issue of People v. Santorelli, Schloss, et al (the uncited NY state
topfree equality case), his bigotry motivating advocacy of organized
criminal conspiracies to deprive topfree females and naturists of our
civil rights is based on subconscious prejudices and bigotry he advocates
violently imposing on others.

Of course newspapers are entitled to pander such yellow fishwrapper
tripe. It’s their civil right to do so. Free of being shut down, or
having editors or staff kidnapped at gunpoint, and free of coerced
psychiatric review for choosing controversial forms of fully legal speech
or actions. It’s equally the right of naturists for whom that is an
element of religious practice to be free of coerced infringement of their
rights, whether some bigot editor likes it or not, or understands why and
how he’s motivated by overt or institutionalized prejudices sometimes
confused with social norms. It’s also the right of naturists for whom it
isn’t necessarily an element of personal religion to live as a naturist
openly in society, free of bad laws or recklessly negligent violations of
clearly litigated precedent as in the discussed NY wrongful arrest case,
when those laws are based on warped Abrahamic dogma misapplied by
government. True bible scholars, unlike most malicious or religiously
illiterate bigots, know that bible dogma states that its jurisdiction
only applies to its own adherents, and not the “other people”
constituting the majority of humans (though one might wonder about bible
thumpers, who certainly don’t act like Christians even though they claim
to be).

It’s only decent, in terms of basic human respect and dignity, to avoid
using dogmatic notions like “indecency” as an excuse for violent thuggery
to deprive neighbors of civil rights. To act otherwise is in effect
advocacy for ignoring the rule of law, in which case, firebombing the
Beloit Daily News or kidnapping the editor at gunpoint, is about as
justified as what this cowardly thug of an unnamed editor advocates.

It’s not just topfree equality as is widely protected on the streets in
many states and universally in Canada which must be protected to honor
basic human and civil rights, but full so-called “nudity”. Where they
exist, rather than being fabricated by arbitrary interpretations of
Disorderly Conduct and similarly problematic laws, “nudity” definitions
in Constitutionally defective laws are based on certain body parts seen
by some dehumanizing and unrealistic sects with Calvinist roots as if
sexual, and as if that’s “evil”. That is not a valid basis for any US
law, and honest courts would have long ago found the notions defined in
“Pacifica” (so-called “indecency”) about as incapable of legitimate
regulation by US laws as Jacobellis v Ohio found religious right
malicious efforts to have courts define and censor pornography, dating to
1964 law.

The only “decent” thing to do is for misguided bigots to learn the roots
of their prejudices, and do the sometimes difficult emotional growth to
get over them and respect civil rights of neighbors, near and far. That
includes newspaper editors, who profit from the same 1st Amendment others
merely demand be used to protect their rights to live free of overt or
institutionalized bigotry others espouse as if an excuse for violent
oppression.

We could talk about how indoctrinated body phobias and reliance on
textile costumes and retail face paints increase teen suicides,
particularly for girls, and long term emotional traumas for many adults,
in effect causing many commercially promoted common parenting and school
patterns to be child abuse. We could talk about how nudist raised kids
by teen years show on average 18 months greater developmental maturity in
key areas, like personal identity concepts, boundary awareness, and
decision making skills, than kids indoctrinated to define themselves
around external costumes. But, those issues of social psychology are
complex, and far easier to dismiss without serious study, than to think
about how mature parents, schools, and churches would look closely at
what about nudist parenting styles in the US and Europe are healthier for
kids than indoctrinated phobias and self deprecating body images.

I guess it’s true that fewer people are watching television these days. Some of the cable channels have discovered a source of free, sexually explicit programming. It’s called Spring Break. Take a camera to any one of a hundred beaches in Florida during this period and you’ll find females of all ages and sizes bearing their breasts to anyone who might possibly be with a TV production company. There seems to be an urge, a compulsion, an uncontrollable drive to uncover the old mammaries whenever the glint of a camera lens is pointed their way. This is wny laws against bare breasts in public are so coercive and unfair - these laws seek to remove an insistent drive in women stronger than the urge to bear children or seek political office. It’s the absolute need to flop them out wherever crowds might gather. None of these “documentaries” show a bathing suit top in sight. In many cases the bottoms are gone too. Producers sell these gems of cinematography to the TV outlets. The outlets sell commercials to the advertisers (increasingly, the makers of those cell phone that also take pictures). The advertisers then target the hapless couch potatoes watching the screen through a beery glaze. Is this a great country or what?

Nude beaches should be there, I guess, for the perverted people of the world who like that kind of thing (to each there own as long as they are not hurting anyone), but bringing kids to them should be illegal. That could end up hurting them. (I had a step sister who used to take her daughter to a nude beach and t). They have no say in whether they go or not…someone justs drags them there. Also, it’s disgusting for them to see all those adult private parts on display (that’s an adult world) and they shouldn’t be unclothed for other perverts or pedophiles to gawk at them with disgusting thoughts in their minds (and don’t tell me they don’t think about that stuff). That just fuels the sex abusive ways of thinking in adults. If it’s all “no big deal”, as people always like to say, then why not go to regular beaches? People go to nude beaches (not private, but with others’ around) because they want to show off their bodies to others and gawk at others nakedness. Let’s face it. It’s a porno adult thing. What is the big thing about being naked at a beach? Why would anyone desire to take their clothes off at a beach? What, a little piece of material (bikini, etc.) is too much for you? Give me a break! I also, don’t understand, why someone would go to nude beaches and ‘not’ take their clothes off (it should be mandatory then). It’s obvious why they are there. They just want to look at everyone else naked..ewww. Why would someone want to see fat pervey people naked anyway? especially at a beautiful place like a beach. Why would you want your spouse or whatever gawking at others’ bodies that are better than yours, etc.? It’s just so gross. Kids should not be aloud at those beaches. I don’t know why the government don’t protect the children in this? That’s crazy! I suppose these so called ‘parents’ of these kids are also sexually abusing them or being pervey with them. I don’t understand the sickness. People are seriously whacked!