Intruding Prudes

[radiocerk]

It's going to be very difficult to keep this thread even remotely on topic if everyone doesn't try. So to return to the point: RP, looks like what you are doing is illegal by definition of law. When your neighbor (or his wife) calls the cops on you, will that just be prudishness? How do you plan to explain to the cops that they should just look away?

[Hobbs]

And Hobbes post proves nothing. I want a doctor saying stress makes you gain 200+ pounds.

It proves that stress and weight gain are linked. Not everyone gains weight or loses weight the same way. Here's another article.

Cortisol is a critical hormone with many actions in the body. Normally, cortisol is secreted by the adrenal glands in a pattern called a diurnal variation, meaning that levels of cortisol in the bloodstream vary depending upon the time of day (normally, cortisol levels are highest in the early morning and lowest around midnight). Cortisol is important for the maintenance of blood pressure as well as the provision of energy for the body. Cortisol stimulates fat and carbohydrate metabolism for fast energy, and stimulates insulin release and maintenance of blood sugar levels. The end result of these actions can be an increase in appetite.

Cortisol has been termed the "stress hormone" because excess cortisol is secreted during times of physical or psychological stress, and the normal pattern of cortisol secretion (with levels highest in the early morning and lowest at night) can be altered. This disruption of cortisol secretion may not only promote weight gain, but it can also affect where you put on the weight. Some studies have shown that stress and elevated cortisol tend to cause fat deposition in the abdominal area rather than in the hips. This fat deposition has been referred to as "toxic fat" since abdominal fat deposition is strongly correlated with the development of cardiovascular disease including heart attacks and strokes.

Medical Author: Melissa Conrad Stöppler, MD
Medical Editor: William C. Shiel Jr., MD, FACP, FACR

There, now you have two doctors.

[Red Panda]

I work out even when I work. Its not hard. As long as you go for an hour walk you'll be fine, assuming you watch what you eat.

And Hobbes post proves nothing. I want a doctor saying stress makes you gain 200+ pounds.

[muses_nightmare]

Not doing something because it is easier is the definition of lazy. You might be tired but if you excersized not only would you be less tired in the future but you would be helping your body.

So everyone should work an 8+ hour day then go to the gym? Is this what you do? Also I never said anything about easier, I said that they may be tired. It's not only physical jobs that make you exhausted at the end of the day. Exercising doesn't necessarily mean that they won't be tired after working. I'm sure even the most fit people are at times.

Also Hobbs, thanks, I was about to get into that anyway.

[KnitShoni]

Red Panda isn't breast feeding a child.

Yes, I know.

[Plaidman]

The laws posted also mentioned that breastfeeding mothers were exempt, so that would lead one to believe that exposing the breasts would be punished unless the person were breastfeeding a child.

Red Panda isn't breast feeding a child.

[KnitShoni]

The laws posted also mentioned that breastfeeding mothers were exempt, so that would lead one to believe that exposing the breasts would be punished unless the person were breastfeeding a child.

[Plaidman]

If the balcony is screened in, then the argument could be made that it's private property and RP would be able to legally strut around naked. And, actually, those decency laws somebody posted forever ago...if I remember right, it prohibited exposing the genital/pubic area, not breasts. If that's the case, then she does have the legal right to walk around topless.

She's not going around topless. She going around naked. Which means she's showing everything.

What happens is I go out on my balcony everymorning after my shower before getting dressed to figure out what I should wear.

Well this one neighbor has gotten it into her head that what I do at my apartment somehow concerns her. First she told me I should cover up because children could be watching. First of all nobody around here has small kids and even then, I told her, I didn't care what they saw.

She also doesn't care if kids see her naked.

I know, big deal if a kid see's her naked. Well, as alot of us know, parents can make a big deal.

Suddenly Red Panda is now exposing herself to children, wouldn't sit right with alot of adults if they think she is doing that.

Her defense of that she does this every day, to check the weather,
Which she admits changes ALOT by the way, so how exactly checking at that moment will be the weather the entire day I have no idea, isn't going to sit with people. Would you honestly belive, that a woman, goes outside as naked as a jaybird, in Wisconsin, (Curious if she does that in the dead of winter too) to check the weather to get dress is going to be belived by any parent who belives a person is exposing themselves to children?

And breast and pubic showing to any child, or potentional child, IS illegal.
948.11 Exposing a child to harmful material or harmful descriptions or narrations.

(1) Definitions. In this section:

(ag) "Harmful description or narrative account" means any explicit and detailed description or narrative account of sexual excitement, sexually explicit conduct, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture or brutality that, taken as a whole, is harmful to children.

(ar) "Harmful material" means:

1. Any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body that depicts nudity, sexually explicit conduct, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture or brutality and that is harmful to children; or

2. Any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter however reproduced or sound recording that contains any matter enumerated in 948.11(1)(ar)1.subd. 1., or explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, sexually explicit conduct, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture or brutality and that, taken as a whole, is harmful to children.

(b) "Harmful to children" means that quality of any description, narrative account or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexually explicit conduct, sexual excitement, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture or brutality, when it:

1. Predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful or morbid interest of children;

2. Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for children; and

3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, scientific or educational value for children, when taken as a whole.

(bm) "Knowledge of the nature of the description or narrative account" means knowledge of the character and content of a harmful description or narrative account.

(c) "Knowledge of the nature of the material" means knowledge of the character and content of any material described herein.

(d) "Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.

(e) "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation or other legal entity.

(f) "Sexual excitement" means the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.

http://naturistaction.org/StatesFram...nsin_laws.html

[the_std]

And, actually, those decency laws somebody posted forever ago...if I remember right, it prohibited exposing the genital/pubic area, not breasts. If that's the case, then she does have the legal right to walk around topless.

(1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:

(a) Commits an indecent act of sexual gratification with another with knowledge that they are in the presence of others; or

(b) Publicly and indecently exposes genitals or pubic area.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a mother's breast-feeding of her child.

Now, while it's true that this section says nothing about exposing the breasts, only the genitals or pubic area, the next piece goes on to say...

History: 1977 c. 173; 1983 a. 17; 1989 a. 31; 1995 a. 165.
"Publicly" is susceptible to a construction that will avoid the question of constitutional overbreadth, by limiting the application of the statute to constitutionally permissible goals of protecting children from exposure to obscenity and preventing assaults on the sensibilities of unwilling adults in public. Reichenberger v. Warren, 319 F. Supp. 1237 (1970).

To me, that seems like that part could be interpreted to call what Red Panda is doing illegal. And that's the thing. The law is so easily interpreted in so many ways, that it's up to a judge and a lawyer to say what is legal or not, under the interpretation of the written laws.

Also, in the next part of that website which I had not quoted before, it also says this...

CHAPTER 947. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE, ORDER AND OTHER INTERESTS

947.01 Disorderly conduct. Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

Since 'indecent' and 'profane' are in there, again, this law could be interpreted to make what Red Panda is doing illegal. Sadly, those words lack very solid definitions. None of us can truly say what she is doing is illegal, as we are not qualified to make those accusations, but the legal framework exists to make them illegal under the proper interpretation.

[AdminAssistant]

No, it's not the same. You are just trying to rip on RP.

Honestly, this is more of a debate of whether or not a person's balcony is private property.

Exactly, Greenday.

If the balcony is screened in, then the argument could be made that it's private property and RP would be able to legally strut around naked. And, actually, those decency laws somebody posted forever ago...if I remember right, it prohibited exposing the genital/pubic area, not breasts. If that's the case, then she does have the legal right to walk around topless.

[Ladeeda]

How about this?

The Balcony, being outside, is in public view, so it is illegal to be nude on said balcony.

If RP wants to be nude on her balcony, she should try to get it changed.

Until then, she should cover up, as her neighbors do not want to see it, and the law is on their side, should they decide to call the police about it.

[Plaidman]

No, it's not the same. You are just trying to rip on RP.

Honestly, this is more of a debate of whether or not a person's balcony is private property.

And again, if a fat person, was on their own balcony nude, like Red Panda, she would scream that they need to be covered up.

If they need to be covered, so does she on her balcony.

If she wants to be uncovered, fat people can be uncovered too.

Pretty simple.

[Greenday]

Sure. It still brings to the same point alot of us had made.

Her neighbor is offended by her being nude in public, but this isn't enough for RP to cease.

Red Panda is offended by fat people, and this must be enough to cause them to stop being nude in public.

It's ether equal rights for all, or no rights for anyone. RD isn't more special just because she is of her impression of average weight.

No, it's not the same. You are just trying to rip on RP.

Honestly, this is more of a debate of whether or not a person's balcony is private property.

[Plaidman]

Can we try and steer this back on topic, please? We've got other threads for paedophilia vs hebephilia (probably) and so forth. Can we bring it all the way back to the whole business of public nudity on your own property?

Rapscallion

Sure. It still brings to the same point alot of us had made.

Her neighbor is offended by her being nude in public, but this isn't enough for RP to cease.

Red Panda is offended by fat people, and this must be enough to cause them to stop being nude in public.

It's ether equal rights for all, or no rights for anyone. RD isn't more special just because she is of her impression of average weight.

[Rapscallion]

Can we try and steer this back on topic, please? We've got other threads for paedophilia vs hebephilia (probably) and so forth. Can we bring it all the way back to the whole business of public nudity on your own property?

Rapscallion