further Ruminations on “bein’ a nuisance”
Some countries have civil disobedience codified in their founding documents. In other countries, you ran a serious risk criticizing authority. If you were so bold, you disappeared. As a matter of procedure, challenges to accepted behavior or ‘morality’ were interpreted as a threat to the status quo and dealt with accordingly. Not responding to such a threat was not considered. A failure to do so, it was believed, would result in chaos.
If we assert that there is no connection between how we dress and our mental state or what our morals are then we ask others to recognize that we are no different than a fashion pate struttin’ down the avenue. Clothing has been a status symbol for thousands of years. Royal, aristocratic, ruling or wealthy classes have all attempted to differentiate themselves from those with less by any means. A typical tactic was wearing or displaying your status. Clothes, grand houses or other possessions identified who and what you were. Everyone with a place and everyone in their place. The Great Chain of Being stated it was so. No visible status = chaos!
Do we utilize the tools of the fool’s trade? Do we embrace nuisancery? Wear the cap-n-bells?
Should we behave so, to advance the ideas we see as normal and natural? Or just welcome it when it appears at out doorstep. Adding a little levity or other humor can help people realize we are not a threat and are just wanting to hike, bike, lay in the park reading or any number of other everyday activities. If people are smiling can we seem to be a threat?
Are we a nuisance? Like beauty it is in the eye of the beholder. Do we engage in a form of challenge to morality? I don’t believe so. Walking around naturally as a human is not immoral. We do challenge established rules of behavior, but most of us try to not cross the line into becoming a threat. A naked person in public is often viewed as a threat, but in the majority of cases we know that is not true. If two people are engaged in the same action or behavior, one dressed one not, how can one be a threat but the other not? One guilty of a crime but the other not? Maybe that is why there are so many different definitions of what naked behavior is. To make sure that something sticks.
Some may see nudity as a nuisance, but I don’t go out of my way to annoy people. That is probably what puzzles most of us. The over-reaction. We, at least I, try to mind our own business. Those offended, somehow translate what we do into a direct challenge of their beliefs. We may disagree in beliefs but I am not trying challenge anyone. The young lady on the above website, “
Breasts Are Healthy”, simply states it is legal and it’s her right to go around topless and be left alone. She does so politely yet firmly. She is not a nuisance.
In the song Arlo had to pay $50 for litterin’ AND creatin’ a nuisance. Safebare, you had to pay $75. Figuring in inflation from 1967 to the present would translate to a fine of over $350. You were fortunate, I suppose and weren’t too much of a threat, just a nuisance.
Duane
P.S. if you have never heard the aforementioned tune, and I find that hard to believe, and you don’t mind an 18 min. song, you can listen to it
here. Hearing the original delivery does add a little to the meaning of the lyrics rather than merely reading the words.
