I am not a nudist, but in principle I believe everyone should be allowed to be nude, pretty much everywhere.
I don't think this will happen in my lifetime.
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2026
59 points (83.9% liked)
Ask Lemmy
41122 readers
1831 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Sure but I think if you allow nudity you should require people to carry a towel to sit on benches with, people are not consistently hygienic enough for me to be ok with unwashed buttholes rubbing all over chairs and whatnot.
This is not sufficient. I have no problem with the visual of nudity, but living in proximity to other people requires certain caveats to limit the spread of germs.
A towel does not protect me from your holes when we are walking on the sidewalk, or standing in line, or protect the food while you are getting groceries, etc. A towel also has no defined "outside". It can be bootyhole side one sitting and chair side next time.
People have to cover their bottom holes with a garment. From there, I don't care if it's so perfectly fitted that I can see the wrinkles in your stinkle. I don't care if it's clear. But please, no netting, no lace, a genuine holes cover.
Always carrying a towel is really just basic common sense, naked or not. Books have been written about the usefulness of towels.
Although the useful towels aren't always clean. Despite that, they give off an air of "having your shit together".
Hoopy froods just know.
This is why I can't bring a towel with me. I would give off the wrong idea
"Don't forget to bring a towel!" - Towlie
If you're going to carry a towel everywhere, then might as well wear it. But at that point I'm just saying everyone should just wear kilts.
Agreed, nudity increases the potential of hygiene issues. I guess it would be fair rule to make it mandatory to carry some kind of cloth to prevent the non-conscensual sharing of body fluids and particles.
So you would not blame people for what they wear but for the dirtiness they are leaving.
Things exposed to air rather than kept humidly wrapped in cloth support less microbial growth.
load more comments
(2 replies)
"i control if you can be nude or not" is a weird thought
That is the current situation. My proposal is rather "we guarantee your freedom to dress however you want, including not clothing at all".
Being naked is different from dressing in sexualized clothing. However, I'm all for people to wear what they want.
Isn't sexualized clothing a very relative appreciation? A conservative religious person and a socially liberal person will have very different opinions about this.
Sexualization is in the eye of the beholder.
There's a chaps wearer within us all
Yes. In many parts of the world most Western women's dress would be immediately tagged as sexualized clothing (which, tbf it was originally; it just got normalized).
I would say it is relative culturally more than individually. We can see when someone is dressing in a sexy or alluring way.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Yes...simply order excretory end points to be covered sufficiently enough prevent direct contact between them and public surfaces/ other people. Cover the health concerns of it and just let the prudes stew in the anger that they so yearn for.
Trackie dacks and UGGs, just brings everyone to the same level.
I gotta say thanks for that question. It lead me down a rabbit hole of exploring the laws and rules of nudity. It's quite interesting
yeah this makes sense, half the time i'm putting together an outfit i try to be as close to nude as possible anyway. oh and i do also take every chance i can get to just go fully tits out in public at certain events lmao
The point is rather for you not to worry anymore if you are covering enough of your body to be legal or socially acceptable. If you push this far enough to accept everyone's freedom to dress more or less, you end up with nudity.
Nope. Whether nudity is acceptable and whether clothing I don't like is acceptable are two different questions, not two sides of the same coin. In particular the latter seems to be always rooted in xenophobia, which makes it more or less independent of how one feels about the former.
I'm not saying it's too sides of the same coin, more like nudity is a null solution to the problem of setting dressing rules.
What would be your solution?
more like nudity is a null solution to the problem of setting dressing rules.
I understand that, but ultimately the assumption being made here is that arguments about nudity and arguments about, say, hijab are coming from the same place when they're just not. The nudity people and the "clothing I don't like is bad" people are running on fundamentally different logic, so there can be no one response to both. For starters, it's not a coincidence that the latter usually get riled up about Muslims. The solution is to address the relatively uncontroversial subject of nudity as the local community sees fit and address the "hijab (and similar) is bad" problem by getting people to stop being bigots. To repeat, these are two different debates and there's no reason to expect one to apply to the other.
load more comments
(1 replies)
in a utopia yeah, but we're savages
As far as I know there's no such thing as a perfect law or rule. It's per se arbitrary where you draw the line. So the rule of not being nude, or having an exact percentage of your bodies skin covered (which for women in certain Islamic interpretations is a thing) is exactly as stable a rule as the nudism you propose.
That being said, I think that it should be up to everybody to wear what they like, but there is a surprising admit of people that cannot deal with those kinds of liberty and that cling to societal framework for those kinds of decisions. And also a great many that can't seem to deal with the concept of nakedness.
I am arguing nudity is more stable in the case of dressing because you can't go further than no clothes. It's like hitting the bottom of a valley.
Why would you see this as a solution when burkas and face coverings are being argued about even more than nudity?
Ban clothes!
I understand there is also this side of the problem. But I was not thinking about this one when I posted but the maybe older social debate about the degree of covering shoulders and legs, hiding nipples, etc.
I think in Western countries the old debate still impacts more people than the Islamic dressing one, this oen is mostly far right media making a lot of noise about it for baiting.
I see nothing wrong with "just allowing nudity", there are no rational arguments against it. It's not "already happening some places", so much as it's been going on since forever. Social acceptance has waxed and waned, but those who see the wisdom of going nude have been with us always.
I think it's the opinion of most rational people who aren't in the business of controlling large groups of people for their own personal gain, that everyone should wear whatever the hell they want, wherever and whenever they want to.
We all look the same, when nude. You can't tell the "landed gentry" from the poors. That's the whole problem for the oppressors, they need an easy way to sort us quickly by sight when the thugs with clubs are released (the thugs with clubs having their own uniform). Skin color works beautifully because it doesn't wash off. But, what about all the folks with the same color skin as the oppressors? That's where clothes come in. Also, tattoos, whether by choice, or forced upon us.
The Dress Act 1746, also known as the Disclothing Act, was part of the Act of Proscription (19 Geo. 2. c. 39) which came into force on 1 August 1746 and made it illegal to wear "the Highland Dress" — including the kilt — by men and boys in Scotland... The landed gentry were also exempt, being exempt from the entire Act of Proscription.
How Dressing in Drag Was Labeled a Crime in the 20th Century
Sumptuary laws have been with us for thousands of years. Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures for apparel, food, furniture, or shoes, etc. Historically, they were intended to regulate and reinforce social hierarchies and morals through restrictions on clothing, food, and luxury expenditures, often depending on a person's social rank.
"How people can dress"??? You may want to think again: Nudity is when people do not dress... ;-)
complaining that they should be allowed
That is just a modern form of anarchism = wanting to be exempt of any and all rules.
It doesn't have to be taken seriously in every case.
Not without rules, without a ruler. Not the same thing in theory or practice.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Define nudity. I some places, topless is not considered nudity. In some places, an uncovered female face is considered nudity and punished harschly.
A human body not being covered by any cloth.
OK, sane definition.
view more: next ›