Aiken Area Progressive

Progressive blog for the Central Savannah River Area.

Category: gymnophobia

12 things that must go bye-bye once the COVID-19 pandemic ends

During the COVID-19 pandemic, regular societal order were somewhat disrupted.

Now, on this Yule, two vaccines are out – and people are clamoring for a sense of normalcy again.

That should not happen without some changes.

Below the fold are 12 things that should never come back once the pandemic ends:

Read the rest of this entry »

Rather than call for a ban on assault weapons, Florida pastor Mark Boykin wants to stop a beach from being clothing optional

Boca Raton, Fla. — One would think that after a school massacre on Lupercalia (in their home county nonetheless), that pastors in Palm Beach County would finally have their priorities straight.

That is not the case with Pastor Mark Boykin.

Instead of being angry at guns, which killed 17 people alone at Marjory Douglas High in Parkland on that very day, Boykin has reserved his anger for something that has never, ever harmed one person: nudity.

Read the rest of this entry »

TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL is the only word needed to describe Ocean City’s emergency public nudity ban

Ocean City, Md. — The Ocean City government thought it would be a good idea to call an emergency session to infringe on the US Constitution.

In a lame attempt to cover their behinds, the town placed language in the ordinance claiming that “there is no constitutional right for an individual to appear in public nude or in a state of nudity”.

That argument will not fly in the Fourth Circuit as the 24-hour old ordinance violates four separate state and federal laws and amendments:

  1. A 2002 state law in Maryland not only repealed the state ban on public nudity, it also preempted all local ordinances that banned public nudity too. That means that as long as Ocean City is a part of Maryland, they are not allowed to prohibit public nudity. State law is unambiguous here.
  2. The exemption that allows for breastfeeding in public violates Article 46 of the state’s Constitution. It states:

    Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex (added by Chapter 366, Acts of 1972, ratified Nov. 7, 1972. Amended by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978).

    Again, for those who have difficulty comprehending: the breastfeeding exemption alone violates this Article. Add in the fact that this ordinance will not apply to topless men and you have a second violation of the Article.

  3. The ordinance violates the Free Exercise and Religious Freedom clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In recent years, federal courts have ruled that public nudity is protected speech, even with the O’Brien Test that was adopted in 1968. Public Nudity is also a religious freedom issue as covered in the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law that came about after several Supreme Court rulings – Barnes being among them – that the federal government felt infringed on religious liberty. So, simply saying that there is no constitutional right to be naked in public may slide by with out of touch judicial activists, but such claims no longer cut it with the strict constructionalists former President Barack Obama appointed to the Fourth Circuit.
  4. This ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As explained in #2, men are not required to cover up and breastfeeding is still allowed in the town.

As female nudity rights advocate Chelsea Covington put it, Ocean City believes they can violate the Constitution at will.

“Ocean City seems to feel that the Constitution does not apply to them, but a high court will decide,” she said.

Indeed. We will support Ms. Covington as she prepares her lawsuit against Ocean City. We expect that the town will be served wth the lawsuit first thing Monday morning.

Action alert! Oppose the deceptively named First Amendment Defense Act

A new threat to religious freedom, civil rights, women’s rights, sex worker rights, LGBTQIA rights and nudity rights has emerged this past weekend.

An ad sponsored on Daily Kos had a link from the People For the American Way, a group dedicated to fighting the right wing assaults on our freedoms, about signing a petition. That petition will be below the fold. Read the rest of this entry »

Societies Moral Compass – nudity

image

We in the United States look on and condemn other countries/religions that legally call for veiling or even the full coverage of the female body. Yet we don’t see the hypocrisy in that. We are in fact doing the same things with clothing laws we allow in the US. They make no logical sense, yet we enforce them because of our countries collective morality.

Read more: Societies Moral Compass nudity

N.H. Senate Bill 347 is just as unconstitutional as House Bill 1525!


CONCORD, N.H. — One unconstitutional bill was defeated on Wednesday. However, another unconstitutional bill takes its place.

House Bill 1525 was defeated without fanfare on Wednesday just as Senate Bill 347 was introduced.

Senate Bill 347 is just as unconstitutional because it infringes on the First and Fourteenth amendment rights of the people. Nudity rights are defined in those two amendments – under the Free Exercise Clause of the First and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth.

Senate Bill 347 is a sneak attack on civil rights because it defers our rights to local municipalities, which, like the state governments, have absolutely no business deciding our rights.

The people of New Hampshire won one round before.  Hopefully, they can kill SB 347 as well!

Thanks to Representative Amanda Bouldin (D-Manchester, N.H.) for the tip.

 

Full video of HB 1525 comments/testimony

CONCORD, N.H. — On Leap Day, a hearing on a bill that would outlaw public nudity and breastfeeding (in some jurisdictions) commenced and citizens outraged over the unconstitutional GOP’s proposal hammered the bill.

You can watch here. Feel free to add transcripts in the comments, and I will try to add them in edits.

Victory for Nudity rights is near in New Hampshire!

BSrFQFVCcAAexRB

LOUDON, N.H. — The Live Free Or Die State told social conservatives in no uncertain terms that civil rights also extends to public nudity.

In an 18-0 vote that aims to send a strong message about nudity rights to other states, House Bill 1525 was tabled.

The opposition to the clearly unconstitutional bill far outnumbered supporters.  In fact, only a handful of HB 1525 supporters were on hand, not counting the mostly white male Republican legislators far too eager to dump their feces on the Constitution rather than defend it.

Opponents of the bill say the law would create disparities between men and women. One New Hampshire resident told the AP the proposed law would be regressive and would take away rights women in the state already had.

“We are not lunatics, we are not radical, we’re not looking to go to football games topless or libraries or school meetings,” Kari Stephens told the AP. “If there is a man in a public space who is obviously comfortable enough, then why should I not have that same right?”

Comments like that could be heard again and again throughout the commenting period on the bill.

Representatives John Burt (R) and Amanda Bouldin (D) both blasted HB 1525 and introduced the motion to kill it:

This bill expands the indecent exposure law to include the anus (regardless of gender) as well as the nipple and areola (only if female). The committee heard testimony from many who warned that, due to likely acts of civil disobedience, the state would face expensive court fees should this become law. The NHCLU testified that violation of such a law could be considered protected political speech, indicating that the state would be unsuccessful in litigation. The committee sees no sense in passing a law that cannot be enforced.

The committee also believes that this bill violates Art. 2 of the State Constitution, which states that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.” This bill attempts to apply a law to women only. This bill would also place police officers in the uncomfortable position of having to determine the gender of a potential offender. Lastly, an offender (if convicted) would be listed in the state’s sex offender registry after a second conviction, which many considered to be an excessive punishment.

In a state with a nippy average temperature of only 46 degrees (Fahrenheit), the risk of rampant nudity seems rather low. The committee considers this legislation inexpedient to legislate for these reasons.

Emphasis mine, in bold.

In short, the gymnophobic prudes are losing their grip in the state legislatures as nudist bloggers such as myself get more and more politically active and advocate for the same civil rights as everyone else.  We nudists will no longer stand by and compromise when it comes to our rights.  We’re gonna take our rights just like everyone else who has expanded rights in the past several years have taken theirs.

As Free Keene said on Tuesday, March 1, “Today is a decisive loss for the prudes. To them I say leave topless women alone – your kids will be fine. If you don’t like seeing female areola, then advocate all public property be abolished and turned private. Then you can have a private beach just for people who want to keep their clothes on.”

As for prude Brian Gallanger, you have no problem forcing us to experience the evolving societal behavior on guns.  Therefore, you need to get a taste of your own medicine.

Everyone needs to be forced to experience the evolving societal behavior around nudity as well.  It’s our right to be naked in public, and we’re NOT GOING ANYWHERE, and my allies in New Hampshire will put the final nail in the coffin on HB 1525 on Wednesday.  Get used to it, prudes.

Free Keene

Huffington Post

Megan Reynolds

Tennessee man illegally arrested for being naked at airport terminal

NASHVILLE — A Tennessee man was illegally arrested recently for an offense that no longer exists in the state.

Eric Cherry, 53, was standing naked at Nashville-Davidson International Airport (KBNA) when all of a sudden a handful of people started gawking.

One eyewitness said he was impressed that the city’s residents went about their business instead of being outraged over Mr. Cherry’s state of nudity.

“I was pretty impressed with Nashville. Aside from a few people whose jaws were dropped, everyone else was doing their thing, going on business as usual. It was a great start to Nashville; it’s a great city,” said Todd Brilliant, one of the witnesses who was in the city from California.

Mr. Cherry was also persecuted seven years ago for a similar incident at the economy parking lot of the same airport.  At that time, Tennessee did have an unconstitutional public indecency statute.  That law was repealed during the 2012 legislative session and was removed from state law on January 2, 2013, effectively legalizing public nudity under state law.

We at Aiken Area Progressive strongly urge Mr. Cherry’s lawyers to vigorously fight the public indecency charge and file a lawsuit against both the city and state if needed.

Read more: WSMV-DT Channel 4

Bottom Line: Kentucky is maliciously violating the federal Constitution and laws by refusing to issue licenses for nudist societies

State of Kentucky sign on Interstate 24 west

GREENVILLE, Ky. — If you honestly thought the issue of illegally denying licenses in the State of Kentucky were limited only to Kim Davis and same-sex marriage licenses, you’re in for another rude awakening.

On June 17, 1978, Kentucky allowed for nudist societies to exist for religious purposes. However, much like the same-sex marriage license issue last summer, all 120 crooked county clerks and corrupt judges in all 120 counties have been, for the past nearly 38 years, intentionally robbing hard-earned cash from law-abiding nudists with no intentions of issuing licenses.

Here’s what the Naturist Action Committee (NAC) found during an investigation:

The state of Kentucky has allowed “nudist societies” to exist in the state – but only with the consent of a local judge or executive. As a practical matter, that consent is nearly impossible to obtain from locally elected officials who fear voter disapproval. However, officials typically retain the required application fee while they “consider” an application that will never be acted upon. There have been no reports that the fee has ever been refunded.

Imagine if Christian churches were subject to these same shenanigans (in bold) while applying for a license to build a church for fear of disapproval by atheist voters in Lexington. Or, if gun shops in Louisville were subject to the above and were denied their applications for fear of voter disapproval in the Jefferson County seat. Or, if these same shenanigans were pulled on a black family building a school for economically disadvantaged black people for fear of disapproval by conservative voters in Drakesboro.

You’d never hear the end of it (if any of these three scenarios happen) from national media.

So, why the silence on this issue, where people’s religious freedom (mines included, in the interest of full disclosure) are being violated at a whim by law-breaking judges in each of the state’s 120 counties from Paducah to Ashland?

For all the talk around religious freedom that happened in Morehead before and during the time Kim Davis was hauled off to the clink in Ashland, none of the 120 county governments in the state has an ounce of respect for Nudists’ religious freedoms or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

The First Amendment expressly prohibits the kinds of actions these 120+ judges have been doing since the 1978 law requiring consent via license applications under the freedom of religion clause. Since May 20, 1940 (via Cantwell vs. Connecticut), the text below has also applied to the states, so Kentucky judges can’t say that the First Amendment doesn’t apply when it comes to approving applications for nudist societies.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What that means is that the state is blatantly and maliciously violating federal laws and amendments by refusing to approve nudist society applications that were paid for in full.

Religious freedom means freedom for all religions, including Nudism. It never meant freedom for your religion and not for others.

The Nudists in Kentucky should wise up and challenge the judges refusals to issue nudist society licenses in federal court based on the First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. This should be an easy win against crooked judges and a crooked Kentucky licensing system.

This photo perfectly illustrates the double standard with nudity in public (and film)

Nothing more needs to be said.

At the NFL’s Lucas Oil Stadium, sexism and gymnophobia intersect

INDIANAPOLIS — Last week, after an NFL game, the Jacksonville Jaguars prevented Graham Watson of Yahoo Sports, Joey Chandler of the Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News and an unidentified third woman journalist from gaining entry to the locker room.

Sounds like a simple case of sexist gatekeeping, right?

Not so fast.

Those quick to condemn the Jaguars for what they did seem to conveniently forget where this game took place.

It took place in one of the most gymnophobic states in the nation, Indiana.

Here is the relevant section of the Hoosier State law, under the “Indecent Acts” statutes:

IC 35-45-4-1 Indecency 

Sec. 1.

(a) A person who knowingly or intentionally, in a public place:

(1) engages in sexual intercourse;

(2) engages in deviate sexual conduct;

(3) appears in a state of nudity with the intent to arouse the sexual desires of the person or another person; or

(4) fondles the person’s genitals or the genitals of another person;

commits public indecency, a Class A misdemeanor.

(b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who knowingly or intentionally, in any place, appears in a state of nudity with the intent to be seen by a child less than sixteen (16) years of age commits public indecency, a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) However, the offense under subsection (a) or subsection (b) is a Class D felony if the person who commits the offense has a prior unrelated conviction:

(1) under subsection (a) or (b); or

(2) in another jurisdiction, including a military court, that is substantially equivalent to an offense described in subsection (a) or (b).

(d) As used in this section, “nudity” means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of fully covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.

(e) A person who, in a place other than a public place: 

(1) engages in sexual intercourse; 

(2) engages in deviate sexual conduct; 

(3) fondles the person’s genitals or the genitals of another person; or 

(4) appears in a state of nudity;

commits indecent exposure, a Class C misdemeanor.

IC 35-45-4-1.5 Public nudity 

Sec. 1.5.

(a) As used in this section, “nudity” has the meaning set forth in section 1(d) of this chapter.

(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally appears in any place in a state of nudity commits public nudity, a Class C misdemeanor. 

(c) A person who knowingly or intentionally appears in a public place in a state of nudity with the intent to be seen by another person commits a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction under this subsection or under subsection (d).

(d) A person who knowingly or intentionally appears in a state of nudity:

(1) in or on school grounds;

(2) in a public park; or

(3) with the intent to arouse the sexual desires of the person or another person, in a department of natural resources owned or managed property; commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction under this subsection or under subsection (c).

Reading all of that, I’ll say this: the Jaguars’ organization may not know this, but by preventing access to the Lucas Oil locker room, the Jaguars were actually being proactive by keeping their entire team from being prosecuted for private indecency, public nudity and/or indecent exposure.

(NOTE: Private indecency has the same punishment as public indecency in Indiana.)

I feel for Ms. Watson and Ms. Chandler, however, people in the journalism industry should know the laws of each state (and municipality, for that matter) before they make a grievance about locker room access. And just because the NFL mandates that all journalists be allowed timely access to the locker rooms, that policy does not override state laws and local ordinances. State laws and local ordinances do trump sports sanctioning bodies’ policies, though.

The Association for Women in Sports Media should be doing a lot more than just issuing statements. This incident is precisely why the Association for Women in Sports Media needs to be on the front lines campaigning to repeal all laws currently banning public nudity.

They should be in the town halls and state legislatures demanding that all anti-nudity laws be repealed at once. As the NFL fans (I’m not among them) saw last week, anti-nudity laws negatively impact the jobs that women journalists do more harshly than the laws do for male journalists who are afforded (somewhat) easier access to the locker rooms of women athletes. No one knows what Ms. Watson, Ms. Chandler or the third woman journalist would have done besides report on the team they were assigned to, but in Indiana, if any of those three women saw the Jaguars players naked, those players would have been prosecuted for indecent acts. In a League that’s already filled to the brim with players with criminal histories, the last thing the NFL needs are a team full of players convicted of public indecency, private indecency or indecent exposure.

Also, the incident in Indianapolis brings two issues that intersect each other near daily: sexism and gymnophobia. Sexism, because women were blocked from entering a men’s locker rooms. Gymnophobia, because of the laws and ordinances that are used to prosecute and convict anyone simply for being naked, with these laws denying people of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. I’ve been saying that sexism and gymnophobia are intersectional feminist issues that we need to deal with ever since the breastfeeding issue was thrust right out in the open in the late 2000s. Our Constitution is being trashed by conservatives at every turn. Our constitutional right to be naked in public is a Feminist issue and a reproductive justice issue, and our civil rights to be naked in public is an issue that mainstream feminists need to be on the front lines fighting for!

Our right to be naked in public absolutely intersects with the right of journalists to have access to locker rooms of the opposite gender! As long as we are denied our basic freedom of being naked in public, the locker rooms issues that manifested last week will persist.

Time for women, journalists or not, to take to the streets and call for the complete abolition of all anti-nudity laws once and for all.

%d bloggers like this: