Public Nudity Should be Legalized

Response to rebuttal 1: 1) My rebuttal caused you to alter your previous argument of "Nudity is a basic right" to "nudity should be a basic right". Even so, I'll address your new argument. "Even if a majority was disgusted by pink hair, it should still remain legal, as outlawing pink hair would violate the first amendment. The same argument goes for public nudity." 2) pink hair is not a valid comparison to public nudity. The reason is because nudity has the following consequences which are not shared by pink hair because nudity will cause: increased sexual tension, increased risk of contracting disease, increasing pervert activity, increased hygienic problems, and increased accidents of genitalia touching other people (possibly on faces or in contact with other genitalia) in crowded rooms. Pink hair is also not a fair comparison because using common sense we know that hair color is the only changing factor, not many other factors public nudity has: the sight of weight, pubic hair, vaginal bleeding (period), whether or not the person is aroused, and not sharing the same smells and other characteristics of dirty vaginal or penile areas. This is not even close to being grossed out by someones hair color. Response to rebuttal 2: 1) the initial act of legalizing public nudity would create a "shock" effect and only a "forbidden fruit" status can be reached over time. 2) there are legal "nudist colonies" and people who want to be in the company of other nudists can live there without affecting anyone else in society. Rebuttal 3: You have still completely failed to address my "competely focused statement on the sun" argument at all. In regards to your others: 1) clothes constrict blood flow and decrease our range of motion: Loosely worn clothes or strechy material do not affect either blood flow or our range of motion. Gymnasts wear spandex and bend in all sorts of ways. 2) "clothes offer a perfect breeding ground for [parasites, fungi, and bacteria]. Source? I don't believe that is true. Many clothes are made out of cotton or polyester, materials none of those would thrive in. Rebuttal 4: 1) again, you are adding additional criteria to satisfy my previous round argument. So now: "Private businesses still maintain the right to enforce a dress code, ...there may need to be restrictions on seating, ...busses can be equipped with disposable seat protectors, movie theaters can require pants" "Disposable seat protectors" would cost our public transit system a lot of tax-payer dollars because they'd have to be changed after each person uses it. It would also waste a lot of time for each protector to be thrown away and changed after each stop. Certain business creating different laws and standards would be an enormous complexity for each person in society to know what is acceptable and what is not. "One is more likely to stub his toe wearing sandals. Should we ban those as well?" Stubbing your toe is a little bit different from contracting aids or other lethal diseases by risking bodily fluid transfers resulting from no barrier of contact. Rebuttal 5: "However, in a world where nudity is accepted as a regular part of daily life, it would be brushed off. As long, of course, as the man isn't trying to gain sexual arousal, the incident would be quite inconsequential. Furthermore, children would become more used to the sight of naked adults. As long as it remains non-sexual, the child would not be harmed by the incident, as he is already used to the sight." So you are fine with nude people whacking kids in the face with their penises if it's by accident because they would be accustomed to it. The "forbidden fruit" factor argument doesn't hold because it still takes time to be accustomed to seeing naked people in society, and that would not happen for some time. I rest my case. Rebuttal 6: "As I said in my last rebuttal, children would become used to the sight of naked adults, and vice-versa. " That is wrong on so many levels. You are promoting a law which makes it legal for perverts and scum bags to legally view children naked. What would stop them from staring at little kids? Again, you want a law that makes it OK for children to roam around naked for anybody to see, even perverts. "Children who are used to nudity have less inhibitions about it, feel more comfortable in their own skins, and could therefore report inappropriate behavior much easier." I disagree. Many overweight or ugly people try to hide their bodies with sweatshirts or strategically patterned clothing. Some parents would force their children to be naked because some parents are controlling and make their kids do what they want them to do, regardless if the child wants to. If an insecure child is made to walk around naked, they would only feel more shame and be less likely to report sexual harassment. In conclusion: 1) you have changed or added some of your arguments with additional criteria in response to my arguments, 2) you are promoting a law where children can be legally exposed to perverts 3) a very confusing sub-system of laws following hygienic practices that differ for each business 4) a costly system or trying to maintain hygiene on public transit 5) still an increased risk of contracting diseases such as AIDS because there are no barriers to transfer 6) a "forbidden fruit" appeal will still be in effect for some time after the law initially passes because only time can cause that allure to go away 7) there are already nudist colonies where people can go 8) there is a certain "gross out factor" that can not be compared to other taboo customs of society because of the vivid sights, smells, and health concerns