SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Ashland has become the latest Oregon city to pass a public nudity ban. It joins other cities like Happy Valley, Portland and Eugene in restricting where people can be naked. Portland's ban was challenged but upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals, but the court also found that nudity as a form of protest could be protected.
Case in point: In 2008, Michael "Bobby" Hammond was riding a bicycle nude in Portland as part of the the World Naked Bike Ride, a protest against car culture and oil dependence. Hammond was first charged with indecent exposure but the judge dropped the charges saying his behavior was clearly protected by the Oregon Constitution under freedom of expression. Oregon has greater protections of free speech and expression even than the First Amendment.
Civil libertarians have raised concerns that the Ashland ban on public nudity — unlike the partial ban it passed in 2004 — may be too restrictive and may not pass Oregon Constitutional muster. Some also consider it a kind of slippery slope in terms of restricting freedom of expression. If that form of expression can be banned, what's next?
Does your city have a nudity ban? Who does it protect and from what? Have you ever protested in the nude? Is nudity ever appropriate in a public setting? How is nudity different than other forms of expression? Does it deserve the same protection as other forms of speech?
GUESTS:
- John Strombert: Mayor of Ashland
- Eric Navickas: Ashland City Councilor
- Lauren Regan: Executive Director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center
- John Kinman: President of the American Association for Nude Recreation and former president of the Willamettans
Photo credit: emmerogers / Creative Commons
-
What aren't people allowed to wear?
-
Perhaps there are ordinances somewhere against wearing white after Labor Day? Or wearing Joey Buttafuoco pants... ever?
-
I think that this is a very appropriate topic for the population of Oregon, in particular, considering the sizable nudist culture.
Personally, I think that more nudity could be a useful tool in acquainting people with what average human bodies look like, as opposed to the extreme versions we are normally exposed to through advertising and adult entertainment.
Allowing nudity would not effect the standards that businesses and public institutions (such as schools) are able to require under the law (e.g.: no shoes, no shirt, no service).
Public nudity does not necessarily mean public sex.
I seems like obvious discrimination to allow men to go shirtless and women to not.
If public nudity were only allowed as a form of protest, I think it would still be a useful tool. Last summer I happened upon a naked bicycle event and found it to be attention getting, at the least.
As a form of art, I believe that even partially clad people can be more intriguing to gaze at when a fashion accentuates or over-accentuates attributes that might go less noticed otherwise. I, personally, find the completely nude form to be, generally, uninteresting, even on attractive people. So the saying goes, "If you've seen one, you've seen 'em all."
-
In Oregon, nudity as a form of protest is protected as Free Speach by law.
-
Define "Public". I Bowl, play pool, attend potlucks and parties nude, but it is with nudists in a nudist invironment. When I go to the supermarket I put my pants on. I believe in my right to be a nudist, I also believe in everyone elses right to not have to be exposed to nudity against their will.
People of all ages interested in nude recreation in a safe, family friendly, comfortable, appropriate environment can contact the American Association for Nude Recreation at WWW.AANR.com or 1-800-TRY-NUDE.
-
"If man were meant to be nude he'd have been born that way"
Oscar Wilde
-
Hmm, who came up with the idea that people should be ashamed of their bodies in the first place?
I suggest that their motives ought to be questioned instead of the natural people.
-
Hmm.
What are the clothed people covering up that we ought to be suspicious about?
What are they hiding?
When and how should they be searched?
-
There should be full body scanning machines at every corner to keep us safe! That would sure put an end to this discussion. --Just kidding, I think those things are a terrible idea. But it's probably just a matter of time before they're everywhere. Hey that's it--just tell people that nudity is good for national security and they'll give up their clothes as fast as they give up their civil rights.
-
I wonder if anthropologists have any idea of when humans started covering their bodies not out of religious induced shame but out of just being cold?
What is the history of religious induced shame and guilt and how does it compare to just being cold?
-
nothing like an ice age to motivate the invention of pants
-
Enjoying nudity is like drinking good whiskey, unintended adventures and consequenses usually ensue.
Let's all realize that there is a very small percentage of people over 30 who have bodies that are not cringe-making when unclothed in daylight. Hence the human invention of colorful and comfortable fabrics.
Some folks like to be nude because it is comfortable. Some because it is a form of expression that gets attention. Some because it celebrates the human form. Some because they receive sexual pleasure from flashing victims, including children, which is properly a crime.
That said, as I recall distant college days in the 1970's there were few events more pure fun than the occassional impromptu mass streak on a warm spring evening.
Good luck to anyone trying to discern the exact motivation behind someone's behavior when the clothes come off. I say better safe than sorry, keep the clothes optional events behind privacy walls.
-
Well said.
-
If the Mayor thinks nude people are weirdos we, the public, need protection from, what better way of identifying the weirdos than letting them run around naked?
-
Can we all stop thinking of the children?
I'm pretty sure we are destroying our children through all this thinking about them.
-
any society that stops thinking about the welfare of its children is doomed
-
There's a difference between thinking about the welfare of children and "thinking of the children."
Thinking of the welfare of children is making sure we invest in education, making sure healthcare is always available, providing libraries, museums, and parks, providing after-school programs, etc. etc. etc.
"Thinking of the children" is passing ill-conceived, poorly-defined, knee-jerk laws that are unenforceable, easily abused, and/or step on the rights of others in attempt to insulate kids from aspects of life a small number of loud-mouthed parents find objectionable and have no real negative impact on children in reality. And, it's actually this attempt at insulation itself that I think harms children far more than the objectionable thing ever could.
I was referring to the second.
-
I think there's too much debate between religion and such, and less people focus on whether or not they are bothering someone else for whatever reason. Why would your opinion be a better one than mine?
I don't want to see people running around naked, and I'm not a religious person. I just don't think genitals are attractive, and I think that's all that matters. Some people don't like it, and it doesn't matter why. You can be nude other places.
You don't need to protest fossil feuls by being nude, but they also don't need to ban it outright.
Either way, banning it outright or saying it should be okay in any situation is just trying shove your opinion in someone else's face.
Can't both sides respect each other?
-
While this law does not seem to be any more restrictive than the existing laws, it does trouble me in terms of moving towards a more conservative society. Nudity and the human form is celebrated in European society, used in advertising, etc. If children were exposed to nudity at an earlier age, we would have less stygma about and therefore maybe less sexual crimes.
-
I knew that about European ads and, hmm, ad-itudes towards nudity and I'm glad you reminded us of it.
I wonder what their problems and laws are in regard to sexual crimes, I wonder how your hypothesis, "If children were exposed to nudity at an earlier age, we would have less stygma about and therefore maybe less sexual crimes", works out in Europe. It seems like commonsense to me but I wonder what the facts on the ground are.
-
Nudity is highly linked to sexuality because of messages we have received from popular media. This discussion cannot be had without at least mentioning the powerful messages that loosely regulated movies, sitcoms, magazines, and music give to our bodies. Children and adults see and hear that our bodies are made for attracting people of the opposite sex, for giving sexual pleasure, or for humiliation every day, every minute. Even popular kid's shows like the Simpsons and Family Guy show only one asinine and basal picture of what our bodies mean. While I believe that nudity in itself is benign and simply a matter of not putting clothes on, we cannot ignore the loaded messages that the greater population has about our naked bodies.
-
It is not the schools job to protect the children. The schools should be exposing students to the outside world. Too many issues are driven by the argument to "protect children". These are the same parents who allow their children to watch TV; exposing thier children daily to a world that does not exist, and to expectations that can never be met.
Sex education exemplifies this attitude; a few parents can hobble the education provided. This has led to a higher teen pregnancy rate.
We should not pander to the supposed needs of the children, the children should adapt to the world.
-
As someone that has been nude all over the beaches of (Europe, Central American, Australia, Canada), I think it is such a non issue. Once again the children are being hauled in as pawns in this argument. If these parents didn't teach shame and that nudity = sex, we'd all be better off.
-
Decency is not an uptight religious stand. If people want to be nude in public, there are public places designated for that. To reverse that and only provide public places where nudity is not allowed is an affront to MOST parents of children. Children's ideas of sexuality should be in the hands of THEIR parents. A parent should not have to avoid areas outdoors because the only places nudity isn't allowed is schools and playgrounds... this is asinine.
-
There is a difference between nudity and sexuality. You don't have to be nude to have sex and you don't need to have sex when you're nude. Where is the logic?
-
Concerning Portland's World Naked Bike Ride, it has roughly doubled in size every year since its inception, from about 100 in 2003 to over 5000 last year.
Can 5000 people freely choosing to ride nude really be an affront to the public? They are the public.
-
It's not the right of the city to give the right to be nude in public. It has nothing to do with childhood sexual abuse. It has everything to do with protecting the parent's right to decide!!!!!
-
@ Tikveh
Right to decide what? How exactly does a parent ever have control over anything to which their children are exposed?
All parents can do is educate their children.
-
I think sometimes we take the idea of public 'expression' a little too liberally. Let's face it... if i decided that my idea of public expression was to scream at the top of my lungs for hours on end, I'd likely be arrested for public disturbance.
The truth is, I'd probably rather jab an icepick in my eye than be exposed to someone's private parts swinging in the breeze. However someone thinks they have a right to 'express' themselves with nudity, I believe i have a right to not have to see some pasty behind or worse when I'm out in public. Children aside...
It's selfish to put one's desire to be expressive with nudity over the perferences of society in general. Face it, 99% of the population probably doesn't really want to see someone's flab.
-
Really? THAT is your concern? This conversation shouldn't include the thoughts of the shallow... Perhaps you should turn the radio station to Z100, you know something the teenagers listen to, instead of wasting our time.
-
@moninek
What's with the one person attempt at intimidation and censorship?
-
One could argue, the best way to immunize children from the naked human form is by allowing them to see it, by allowing nudity. Repressing the human body is not a way to protect children---it is a way to make the nude form a victim of shame, embarrassment and perversion.
-
Oregon Public Indecency Statute reads -
A person commits the crime of public indecency if while in, or in view of, a public place the person performs: an act of sexual intercourse: an act of deviate sexual intercourse; or an act exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person.
Would it not have been easier to address the few instances of inappropriate behaviors on a case by case rather than impose an ordinance that could potentially have unintended consequences?
Could not the Oregon Public Indecency law have been used in the instance of the man being nude by the schools?
When we talk about protecting children where do we stop? Nudity in school art books? Nudity in the PE locker rooms?
Shirley Gauthier-Long time nudist
-
I agree. This sounds like another case of government overreacting as they try to protect us. As one of the guests said on the air, people should exercise their right to walk away from things they don't like. We can't and should not be "protected" from everything that might offend us. Otherwise we may as well never leave the house.
Simply being nude, or seeing nudity, is not the problem, it's the behavior of those who are nude that counts.
-
When does the "right to decide" stomp on my rights? The rights of people should be upheld before the wants of a few are passed into law.
-
Can we ditch the Victorian era sensibilities?
If children are inadvertantly exposed to adult nudity, then it's the responsibility of parents to use that as a teaching moment.
-
We should step back a little and look at how America treats nudity compared to the rest of the world. Most other cultures, even ones much more socially "conservative" than ours, don't see nudity as such a big deal as many do here.
In countries where public bathing is commonplace like Japan, children grow up seeing strangers in the nude all the time. This produces a culture where people aren't ashamed of their nakedness and respect an environment where people can enjoy being in their purest, natural state.
I think Americans need to grow up a bit and get over the shyness and perversion so many associate regarding nudity.
Jarod
Portland -
What about hygiene? I for one do not want to sit on a bench or whatever if some naked butt has been on it. I thank God for clothes - there are some ugly bodies out there that I sure don't want to see and I don't want anyone seeing mine!
-
Well, if YOU chose to keep your clothes on then you would be protected from such...this is what you have to contribute to an intelligent conversation?
-
One point that seems obvious, is that if public nudity is used as a protest, the reason it is thus used is that there is something inherent about nudity that is on some level at least inconvenient for the public; this is why it is used as a form of protest. If there were nothing negative about it, it could not be seen as a protest. There are many things in life that are not inherently harmful, but the usage of which is definitely age-dependent. Is it ok to introduce your neighbor's child to the moderate use of alcohol? Sex itself is healthy and right there in the book of Genesis as blessed by God! Is it ok to introduce your neighbor's child to this healthy behaviour? My understanding of a "right" is that my rights stop where your nose begins.
-
There is nothing inherently, or otherwise, negative about nudity. It works as a form of protest because our society has restrictions upon it, just as our society once had restrictions upon minorities and women. A black person protesting by sitting at the front of the bus, didn't mean there was something inherently wrong with black people in the front of buses! It meant there was something negative about our laws or social traditions---clearly, not the other way around.
-
About the issue of the rights for parents to determine when their child can be exposed to adult nudity or whether there is an issue of abuse. I think the conversation could be clarified if one were to use an issue other than nudity. For example, guns. I, as a parent, feel that guns and violence are far more damaging than adult nudity. Do I have a right to protect my child from seeing a gun in public? At a school? Absolutely not. And if I sought to protect my child by passing an ordinance forbidding guns to be carried in public spaces, the NRA would explode.
So, I must agree with the gentleman that says that protecting children for things when there is no scientific evidence that they actually harm children, like adult nudity, should not become law.
-
There are other behaviors that are not legally proven to be harmful to children, but many believe are.
What about a parents right to choose that their children are damaged and thus should be protected from other behavior, such as seeing other parents verbally abusing their own children, as in a supermarket where a parent is yelling threats at their own disruptive children ? Should the abusive parent be arrested, taken to court and then have to prove that they were not being abusive ? -
Peripheral to this discussion are the many occurences of nudity that are clearly expressions of free speech. One of the best such are the worldwide naked women for peace gatherings. Check it out on Google as well as the Righteous Mothers song "Old Fat Women For Peace"
-
This entire matter is a consequence of our society's absurd and idiotic attitudes about our own bodies. There is no shame in the human form unless and until you put it there.
Unfortunately, the Puritans who helped found our country (and others whose religious beliefs consider the human body shameful) brought their own religious prejudices with them, left us a legacy of societal psychosis and were, sadly, able to translate their religious beliefs into public policy.
There is no shame in the human body and the sooner we acknowledge it and get used to it the sooner we can do away with a host of absurdities that beset us in everyday life. The obsession with bodies, sex, cosmetic aesthetics, etc. is entirely founded upon this nutty notion that we have something to hide.
ktkatekate's comment, for example, is a point well-taken. Our current pop-culture bombards us with body-centric images and sexual content specifically because of the concept of shame and the consequential idea that we have something to hide and that it is therefore forbidden and therefore to be sought out. As Helen Fisher (anthropologist at Rutger's) points out, people are terribly motivated by something that they can't quite get.
The solution, though, is to simply remove the ban on the human form and allow people the freedom to dress (or not) as they please. As people get used to allowing others the freedom to be who they are, this dysfuntional phobia about the human body can, finally and to the benefit of all, fade away.
-
thank u for saying that, this is the most down to earth argument ive seen yet. total acceptance its a nessesary step toward a healthy world. as a society its time that we grow up.
-
I'm less concerned about the effects of nudity on children and more more concerned about the criminal aspects of nudity laws. A friend of mine got a ticket for skinny dipping. He was then facing sex offender registration in terms of moving to a new community. That is just wrong.
-
What? That is ridiculous! No wonder Europe looks to us like the country is made of a bunch of crackpots.
-
Ahem!
With tongue in cheek, how about addressing this problem from the other side, how about banning Social Conservatives from being allowed in public? That would solve an awful lot of problems connected to religious induced guilt, shame, judging others, and all the rest of the problems created by Conservative Religions.
They could create private "Social Conservative" Parks out of the public eye, where they could socially judge and condemn others for what they wear, how they look, what they do, how they think, and all the rest of the fear-mongering things that Social Conservatives do to themselves, their children, and other humans.
Henh!
-
Great idea!
-
yes!! we can call them, "consevative colonies"
-
Your guest Lauren Regan, while providing some good info, goofed in a way that will mislead most listeners about federal vs. state laws. She said that laws start at the federal level and that state laws cannot disagree with those. That's false.
In some areas, state law is the primary source of regulation--traditional areas are health and education. It was this very misunderstanding of the federal/state relationship that led to the former US Attorney General's loss in the US Supreme Court a couple years ago, when the feds claimed supremacy over Oregon as to use of certain drugs in our Death With Dignity statute.
The feds do not always have the right to tell people what to do. The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution makes this clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Interesting show, overall.
-
Good show, good topic, good points.
-
I recall a case a few years ago in Boston where some nude women won their case because a womans genitals are internal and so were not showing in public.
-
I'm an avid outdoorsman. I run, swim, bike, scuba dive; you name it out in our great western lands. I'm frequently at a trailhead or beside the highway in sweaty, grimy gear. I strip down and change into clean cotton before I jump in my car to drive wherever.
I change my kids' diapers on the tailgate if need be.
I'm discrete when I can be, and I don't choose to have my nether-regions seen, I just don't go to extremes to NEVER show the area between my waste and my mid-thigh.
NOBODY should legislate my ability to change my, or my kids clothes, wherever that needs doing.
We have laws in place to protect us (including children) from harm--let those stand.
This idea of outlawing nudity is absurd and insulting to me. I have no interest in expressing myself through nudity. I use nudity as the state between dress, and I'm not really sure how to take one pair of underwear off, and get new ones on any other way than to get naked in between.
I am willing to bet alot of money that some of the people pushing for this anti-nudity law are the same people that complain loudly about too much government spending and waste.
Legislating nudity and the resulting enforcement required would be a real waste and an insult to my civil liberty.
Come on!
-
I fully agree with you on all of your points. I wish I had written what you wrote so concisely and well.
-
clothing can just be a hastle in some situations and itd simplify our lives to be free of the limitation.
-
Nudity can be a positive aspect of civic life.
I am a beach activist at Rooster Rock and Sauvie Island's nude beaches. I'm also a member of the American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR.com). AANR is an excellent resource for information on family-friendly, social nude recreation.
My local group, the Rooster-Sauvie Volunteers, holds regular beach cleanups and sports events. These events help to build a community of people who enjoy simply being nude in nature. We hand out information cards with Park Rangers and Sheriffs Dept. to raise awareness that public indecency will not be tolerated on our beaches. We've also partnered with SOLV and Columbia Riverkeeper to raise awareness that nudists are good citizens and care about the environment.
Mark
-
Concerning judging other peoples imperfect bodies; there was a travel program a few years ago about the beaches around Rio in Brazil, and I was impressed that the women were not ashamed of their bodies, although they were not nude they had the courage to wear thong bikinis, and even obese looking women who must have weighed well over 250 pounds wore those thongs. I was delighted that they would just go out and have beach fun wearing the same fashion of the time that the perfect people wore.
There is nothing like a confident woman no matter what her body looks like!
-
Who are the ones acting like children? I agree with a previous post that we, in this society, need to grow up. Our bodies are not dirty, shameful, or evil. Children are born with a healthy connection to our bodies. It is through our sick and psychotic adult society that they "are taught" to fear and be ashamed of their bodies.
This law is typically heavy-handed, reactionary and sends the wrong message. I also agree with one of the speaking guests who suggested that laws should be applied conservatively, meaning in a minimal nature and with common sense. This law is neither!
-
It sure would be nice if the art gallery had a huge showing.
Check it out at http://madashellgallery.wordpress.com/
Shirley Gauthier-Springfield, Oregon
-
Eric, I don't want to see "you and yours" naked in public. Take your thing else where! Have a child, then get back to all of us as to how you feel about any old thing being put out there. Yeah, it's "natural" so is taking a sh%t..is that OK....in public. Sex is "natural" you want this thing to happen openly in PUBLIC. Get a grip...grow up...you have NO IDEA what anothers intentions are. May be you feel "free", the rest of us don't want to see it.
Open this door to the perverts...aka pedifiles and what will happen?
City council man, have you nothing better to do with your time...poor, hungry, education..unemployed.
What a waste of space.
-
zebrahead
slow down, sh^ts will still be in tiolets and sex will be in the all the same places. the numer of perverts and pedifiles wont change and niether will thier motives. the only difrence is i can walk around town naked and you and your kid can chose to feel angery or indifrent about it its realy up to u.
-
I'm usually on the fence about the quality of the show. I moved here from Boston and listened to WBUR's incomparable "The Connection" all through the Chris Lydon glory years and spectacular flameout. It still pains me to think that NPR is still having trouble topping Ray Suarez on "Talk of the Nation". This is by way of explaining where I set the bar for good call-in shows, with hosts, callers, and guests that are worth putting on the air instead of simply ceding more time to Opb Music.
I am writing to thank Mayor Strombert for his comments. His calm, careful, patient, and wise differentiation between protecting children and protecting parents' rights to choose what (or should I say whom) their children are exposed to, was striking. This show may be called "Think Out Loud," but it is astonishingly poor at taking one strand of thought and following it for more than 90 seconds, or having two interlocutors volley a single point back and forth for more than a couple moments of talking past one another.
I happen not to agree with Mayor Strombert; I think that anyone who raises their children to feel "damaged" by something they see at a distance, in public, instead of simply laughing or looking away--these people are doing their children a disservice. They are raising their children to be wimps or prudes. Be that as it may, he made his point wonderfully carefully and persistently. The citizens of Ashland are lucky.
An honorable mention goes to Mr. Navickas as well. Also, commendably patient and well spoken.
Really, the whole topic of the show was ridiculous. I initially thought I'd be writing in to fulminate about what sorts of nitwits thought that this topic should be aired ahead of any a long list of topics that actually might matter, ever, to anyone, in any substantial way. For example, forget their clothedness: what have the protesters been protesting?
But, credit where credit is due. Mssrs. Strombert and Navickas offered intricate, thoughtful opinions that unfolded over time, and they listened carefully and responded diligently to the questions addressed to them, no matter how fatuous.
So. It's a left handed compliment to the show, to be sure, but to Ashland's public servants: you were the most substantive, articulate speakers in recent memory. You did more with less, in my opinion, than any guests I've ever heard on the show. Well done.
-
Personally Im offended that people find my body as offencive.
Public nudity sould be legal.
-
public nudity is harmless, it doesnt cause lung cancer, it doesnt cause bad driving, it doesnt cause high cholestreal, it doesnt cause you to come home late, it doesnt represent an oprresive cult, so what is wrong with it?
-
It is a great shame that the only way a person can be naked in Oregon is to call it a protest. For naturists, the purpose of being naked is to relax without the discomfort of clothes; protest is not normally a relaxation!
It also send a very negative message about acceptance of our bodies. Apparently Oregon views the human body in its natural state as something to be used to shock or disturb others. To me and any other naturist this is a very perverse view.
Here in the UK we have been busy writing down our beliefs as naturists. This does not make naturism a religion and it in no way conflicts with most religions in this world, but it does show how passionate many naturists are and how positive we believe our lifestyle / hobby is.
Laws such as those passed in Oregon are always based on prejudice without the benefit of any kind of objective research into the true effect [benefits] of social nudity.
I guess your only hope is to use your votes to remove the individuals responsible for these dubious decisions. Good luck!
-
yes! that beliefs page is a god send, u guys have it figured out, you guys said everything i was thinking but couldnt find the words for. i love briatian already
-
Comments are now closed.
Gosh, that really depends. I'm certainly all for a FREE SOCIETY, but i don't think that requiring people to be [mostly] clothed most of the time cons{tit}utes some sort of repression. Plus, WHO gets to be nude? Anyone?
It really comes down to common sense & personal descretion. Personally, i'm not sure how this is really even an issue. I'm way more concerned about what people aren't allowed to wear! Can that be a topic for a future show?