"Member," "Wiener"...the jokes just write themselves. (And, yes, it's pronounced "weener.")
(Unless he's 3 years old.)
In Ontario, Canada it's perfectly legal for women to go topless down the street.
Canada.
Yeah, don't see a lot of that. But we have the right.
(Just not the right weather...)
but I'd like to know if there's any established evidence of harm from passive exposure before I encouraged a legislator of mine go off on this kind of tangent.
Nudity is not exhibitionism.
Nudity is not a fetish.
This sounds a lot like "I don't want to see gays kissing in public. If they want to kiss, they should do it at home."
It most certainly can be. Of course, not all nudity or public displays of nudity are examples of exhibitionism, but some absolutely are. It depends on the intent of the person doing it. But, it's incorrect to assert that "All A are not B."
Wrong again. It certainly can be what's known as a "situational fetish" once it crosses into exhibitionism. Exhibitionism can then cross the line into a paraphilia.
Actually, it doesn't sound anything like that. I certainly don't think it sounds like that to Mr. Wiener because, being gay himself, I doubt he'd propose anything with homophobic intentions, especially not in San Francisco. He'd most certainly be committing political career suicide.
Most often it is indicitive of neither. People who show exhibitionist and fetish (that is, sexualized) behavior in nudist camps are routinely ejected. For most nudists, it has nothing to do with sex or "getting off".
And by implication, public nudity is just as harmful as public masterbation?
Cultural norms and majority preference? Really? Blacks riding in the back of the bus was defended as cutural norms and majority preference. Refusing gays marriage is defended as cultural norms and majority preference. It's really easy to use that argument when you're part of the majority, isn't it?
And yet you're willing to view all cases of public nudity equally by saying "Go be naked at home."
Yet, that in no way rebuts your incorrect statement that "(All) Nudity is not exhibitionism."
Much like you're willing to view all cases of public nudity as harmless?
No, you've got it backwards. Exhibition may involve nudity, but nudity does not require exhibitionism. Therefore saying "nudity is not exhibitionism" is logically true. They are not equal.
Indeed they are.
I never said that nudity requires exhibitionism. Your generalized statement says, by its construction, that nudity is never an example of exhibitionism. That is inarguably wrong. If that's not what you meant, then perhaps you should choose your phrasing more carefully in the future when putting forth arguments.
No, it's really not correct to say that in this case.
Supervisor Scott Weiner is not on any crusade. His legislation was in response to escalating complaints from the citizens and merchants in the ultra liberal, mostly gay Castro district.
The point about nudist camps is that in thousands of them around the world, sexualized behavior is not allowed. Therefore nudism is not sexualized behavior because nudists themselves to not allow it.
Obviously. It's a false equivalency. There are people (millions of them) who believe that a woman who shows her face in public is as bad as a prostitute. I disagree with that as well.
