Mentioning John P. who used to bring this up. A naturist is just like anyone, but without clothing.
If not equal, prejudice is projected upon those whose body is showing, particularly genitals. In other words it isn't the dress of someone, it is how they behave.
Nudity even more than body adornment only makes a statement in context of the social/cultural sensibilities around a person. Nudity can be used to attract attention in political protests, because it actually still does attract attention, because it is not a norm.
However adornment creates attention and more frequently is used to make simple social statements, as well as political.
A nude person is probably less threatening than what many people wear to intimidate, sometimes just shock, get people out of the box, or protest the way prejudice works (it ain't all a race, or gender thing). As the song goes, "you can't tell the book by the cover." Even when you strip off the paperback or hard cover, the text is still there (lots of metaphors in the condition of a book cover).
Overt sexual aggression clothed or not, can be indecent, but I'd call it something else than indecent because there is a point where being uncomfortable becomes being damaged. I was in that sort of parameter when I mentioned "grey areas." Is there a grey area?
Nuduke's comment regarding innocence:
As for the presumption of innocence, as a 13 year old in France, I got off of my bike to read some spray paint in the street of my neighborhood. I was ciphering the unfinished, "Ben Tarnell eat.... ", when an angry voice began to shout at me demanding my name. A few days later my dad and I were at the military police station about the matter. Very serious problem for my dad. Me deported and a career changer in the military for dad.
I was aggressively interrogated by a uniformed gendarme who assumed my guilt. The Military policeman had to physically get between us, explaining that I was innocent until proven guilty. That, maybe traumatizing experience, had a profound lifelong impact on me. I valued my constitutional rights more and have been upset, as i have watched that right slowly progressively deteriorate in USA, since. I was told that USA is the only country with that, presumption. The idea was reinforced when I studied the constitution and saw the Bill of Rights. It mentions specific reactions caused by the actions of the previous government, that was the King of England and that parliament before the revolution.
Perhaps, it was like USA more since 911, practicing similarly double standards of law upon its own empire. The idea that only citizens somehow deserve the rights. I don't know, but that is why I ask about the presumption of innocence in your country. I've figured it to be like the rest. Most European countries have come out of royalty/subjects situations and evolved from that. We here had a more abrupt change. I'm seeing more functional democratic process in European countries these days than here. I'm curious about knowing the truth and maybe applying that to the different nudity laws. The statement that that has been in law most everywhere, for a millennia of two, is confounding to me. Time for internet search....
The topic does certainly pertain to gaining body freedoms.
Jbee
