From a public health perspective, you're exposed to basically the same things sitting on a public toilet that you would be otherwise. Shaving would be problematic, though, as all the little nicks and cuts make you more susceptible to infection. But as a rule, simply being naked doesn't expose you to more potential disease than not being naked.
I think the main difference would be you can easily choose to avoid using a public toilet to avoid the risk of any health problems, whereas it becomes significantly more difficult to avoid a bus, a seat at a restaurant, etc. if full public nudity were legalised. I'm no disease or infection expert, though, so I can't really say much more about this due to lack of knowledge on the subject.
When it comes down to it, laws are created because the majority feel that something is better off not happening or being allowed. In this case, the majority of voters believe that public indecency laws should exist and so they do. If the majority were against these laws then we would overturn them.
If you feel that these laws should not exist then I suppose the best way is to try to convince others and get a vote started to change these sort of laws. I feel that you are likely in the minority though on this matter to be honest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
I thought the opposite would be true - that it becomes uninteresting - as the breastfeeding issue is more or less settled now, at least in the US and New Zealand. Per wikipedia, "All 50 states have passed legislation that either explicitly allows women to breastfeed in public, or exempts them from prosecution for public indecency or indecent exposure for doing so." Here, it's similarly legal.
Or have I misinterpreted you, and you mean that if breasts are allowed to be visible to feed babies, why shouldn't they be allowed to be visible in general?
I mean that asking a woman not to breastfeed her child is a more significant burden on her than just asking her to put on a shirt, so in the balancing act between personal freedoms and public standards there is now appreciable weight on both sides.
Edit: I think the 'men do it too most of the time, even though they don't have to' is somewhat reminiscent of 'Riding at the back of the bus is hardly an onerous requirement. Heck, some people do it even though they don't have to.' Segregation laws existed because of a perceived harm too.
Indecent exposure laws are not a humiliating reinforcement of second-class citizenship.
Devil's Advocate here, but less of a burden doesn't make it okay. Your freedom of expression and comfort are both denied by not allowing a woman to walk topless next to her topless boyfriend, for example. One is more important of an issue, yes, but it doesn't make the other a nonissue.
What is it a matter of, then? Are people not disturbed or uncomforted at the site of a bare breast? Is there something I'm missing (genuinely asking this)?
It's not a fear response. It's a social impropriety response. Calling it "fear", in addition to being inaccurate, implies that it's childish and that you yourself are above it. It's not and you're not.
Pollution laws have a very good reason for existing: quality of water, air, global warming, etc. (basically, it isn't just a "nuisance").
Pollution laws existed long before environmentalism was a serious thing. First and foremost, they're there because people don't want to drink water that tastes bad, breathe air that smells bad, or look at land covered in trash. This would justify their existence even if the pollutants were in fact perfectly healthy.
Noise laws are in place so people can sleep (among other things). Imagine if there were no noise laws. As far as the law was concerned, I could blast music that would prevent anyone from being able to sleep as long as I'd like (without use of sleep aids). Neither of those are nuisances, they're related to public health and wellbeing.
I can have you cited for blasting loud music even if I'm not trying to sleep, or am capable of sleeping through it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There's nothing indecent about a woman's breasts? Cool, I guess it's fine for a manager to have a topless calendar in his office, then.
I'm not sure it'd be appropriate to have a sexy calendar even if the models were wearing shirts. I don't think exposed breast is where the line on that question gets drawn.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think the main difference would be you can easily choose to avoid using a public toilet to avoid the risk of any health problems, whereas it becomes significantly more difficult to avoid a bus, a seat at a restaurant, etc. if full public nudity were legalised. I'm no disease or infection expert, though, so I can't really say much more about this due to lack of knowledge on the subject.
Mafia Stats 2016-2017:
Town: 1-0 | Scum: 2-0 | Neutral: 1-1
If you feel that these laws should not exist then I suppose the best way is to try to convince others and get a vote started to change these sort of laws. I feel that you are likely in the minority though on this matter to be honest.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Indecent exposure laws are not a humiliating reinforcement of second-class citizenship.
Barnes v. Glen Theatre. Inc. explores this in some detail.
It's not a fear response. It's a social impropriety response. Calling it "fear", in addition to being inaccurate, implies that it's childish and that you yourself are above it. It's not and you're not.
Pollution laws existed long before environmentalism was a serious thing. First and foremost, they're there because people don't want to drink water that tastes bad, breathe air that smells bad, or look at land covered in trash. This would justify their existence even if the pollutants were in fact perfectly healthy.
I can have you cited for blasting loud music even if I'm not trying to sleep, or am capable of sleeping through it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
I'm not sure it'd be appropriate to have a sexy calendar even if the models were wearing shirts. I don't think exposed breast is where the line on that question gets drawn.