Judge Warns: No Right to 'Visual Bodily Privacy' .........

This is the place for your stories, testimonials, naturist humor (in good taste), family concerns, and other issues, as you help each other understand God's will for you.<P>Only Residents and higher may post here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

Judge Warns: No Right to 'Visual Bodily Privacy' .........

Postby Bare_Truth » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:34 am

From the website at: https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/april/judge-warns-no-right-to-visual-bodily-privacy-for-high-school-girls
"Judge Warns: No Right to 'Visual Bodily Privacy' for High School Girls"

Albeit that the judge's ruling strikes a blow against excessive textile fetish, this is not the way I would ever want to see it come about; "by judicial mandate !". It is all wrong to enforce OR induce nude acceptance and will only harm acceptance of nudity by bringing it about under jackboot of enforced compliance. A sensible acceptance of a healthy view of the uncovered Human form can only come about when it is introduced as a natural phenomenon and not by goverfnment meddling. This sort of Judicial Meddling can only serve make matters worse. To be either nude or swathed in textiles needs to be a choice and not a government mandate imposed on the unwilling against social norms of the majority. Is there some upper limit of I.Q. that is mandated to qualify to sit upon a judicial bench ?????? :argh:
Last edited by Bare_Truth on Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: Judge Warns: No Right to 'Visual Bodily Privacy' .......

Postby JimShedd112 » Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:30 am

I agree with you Bare_Truth, forced nudity is NOT the way to accomplish anything. Force, at some point, always results in rebellion and results in resentment no matter how well the intention may have been. This is all about trying to force LGBTQ ( a very small minority) “rights” onto the much larger population. The article noted only “three of the five” who’d brought the original suit were moving forward as if two parents or sets of parents had accepted the wisdom of the judge’s order versus acknowledging they no longer, perhaps, had the financial or other means to continue the fight for the privacy of tgeir saughteds against forced body exposure in the schools’ locker rooms.

While I would like to see nudism normalized I do believe forcing it upon others is not the way to gain wide spread acceptance. At present, we still live in a “clothed-minded” society where privacy over one’s body is expected due to long held cultural norms and cannot be ignored by court fiat.

Jim
Jim Shedd
NudistGrandpa
User avatar
JimShedd112
Native Resident
 
Posts: 1859
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:44 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: Judge Warns: No Right to 'Visual Bodily Privacy' .......

Postby baresoul » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:08 pm

I expect the clothed majority, the textiles, to have a greater issue with this. For many of us, our desired push is toward more acceptance of nude bodies, of any bodies. For this, we need more places, which are generally known, used and designated for such opportunity for being nude, with others who are nude. And we should support such movements of equality for human bodies as Free The Nipple, which is important, besides in itself, for the growth of more of such opportunities that our desired push is toward.
User avatar
baresoul
Native Resident
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:04 pm
Location: Western United States

Re: Judge Warns: No Right to 'Visual Bodily Privacy' .......

Postby DaveT » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:21 pm

If they're gonna let trans go where they want to go, (I seem to be getting the idea that transexual is boys who want to be girls and girls who want to be boys) they might as well just make all restrooms free for all.

Too many laws, limiting personal freedom of expression and action. What harms no one should be left alone, but the definition of harm has been warped to extreme. Harm is pretended and claimed where no real harm exists. Mental trauma from being seen naked by someone? opposite sex? Not the kind of trauma that lasts very long, as long as it's not actual sexual violation. And it's the kind of trauma that is not hard to cancel out just by readjusting the thought process. I know the time will come when a religious revival follows a disastrous event, and people will think they should please God by forcing everyone to observe Sunday as a day of rest. Big mistake. God cannot accept forced worship, and those who do the forcing are working for the wrong god who has called himself The Force in some venues. And then there are those who actually read the Bible and find a direct command to observe the 7th day of the week which is Saturday, and no command anywhere else to change it except in the records of history where the roman emperor gave the command in 321 AD, and the roman bishops voted to go along with it shortly thereafter. So they choose to observe the original day of rest instead of Sunday. Indeed it seems God approves of those who determine to carefully obey his law just as He wrote it. but the conflict over restroom use seems like foolishness.
User avatar
DaveT
Native Resident
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: TN

Re: Judge Warns: No Right to 'Visual Bodily Privacy' .......

Postby OzTech » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:55 am

Seems to me that... if the Government is going to legislate that there be no discrimination against against boys wanting to look like girls and visa versa then they should, before passing those laws, set aside sufficient funds to convert all facilities (toilets, showers etc) in public premises (government buildings, public and private schools, cinemas etc) into unisex toilets and showers (same as we would have in our private residence) then everyone could have privacy. Oh... they could maintain a common shower block or change room for those who don't have any issues about being seen naked but individual rooms would not be hard to implement. In a toilet block... pull out the urinal in the men's, add some more partitions and the throne then change the signage. Similar process for the other facilities.

The point is... if the Government makes the law... the Government MUST take accountability for the costs involved... or... maybe... they could charge them as what wants to be the opposite gender (or their parents) for the renovations :lol:
If all else fails.... read the instructions
OzTech
Native Resident
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Judge Warns: No Right to 'Visual Bodily Privacy' .......

Postby New_Adventurer » Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:52 pm

Every time this subjet comes up we hear from the Bathroom Lobby and the Bathroom Activists. I have been in restrooms that were for both men and women; individual stalls for doing your own business and a common wash room for everyone. No big deal, so what, nothing to see here, move along, who needs to care, why bother? Yes, it is different from the normal most people are comfortable with, but you get over it the first day.

At the Paramount theatre in Oakland, CA, the women's room has a line out the door while the men's room is nearly vacant. A woman walked in, went into a stall, came out, washed her hands, and left. I am going whiz at a urinal on the wall and didn't even bat an eye. Again, no big deal.

There is more to life than the plumbing in you pants, it is only a penis, it is only a breast, it is only a big deal if you make a big deal out of it. Men and women had the problem solved thousands of years ago, before modern indoor plumbing, and we survived. In Belgium I spotted an outdoor urinal that was little more than a vertical slab of concrete with a trough at the bottom. All in full publlic view. Again, so what?

You don't need to hide to change your clothes either.

Can anyone cite a Biblical prohibition against human body functions?
User avatar
New_Adventurer
Native Resident
 
Posts: 613
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Fremont, California

Re: Judge Warns: No Right to 'Visual Bodily Privacy' .......

Postby nudie66 » Tue May 07, 2019 11:56 am

I believe one reason that the "Bathroom Lobbyists" are against common restrooms is because there is a greater chance of someone being assaulted inside a common restroom. And with no security cameras mounted inside such restrooms, the opportunity to "get away with" an assault is more inviting for those who have no respect for the safety of others.
I transfer camcorder tapes & other family memories to DVD. http://prosservideodubs.com/
User avatar
nudie66
Native Resident
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 12:54 pm
Location: Atlantic County, New Jersey

Re: Judge Warns: No Right to 'Visual Bodily Privacy' .......

Postby New_Adventurer » Tue May 07, 2019 3:32 pm

I will conceed the problems of being attacked in a common restroom, but the same thing can happen almost anywhere else too.
User avatar
New_Adventurer
Native Resident
 
Posts: 613
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Fremont, California


Return to General conversation about nudism / naturism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron