A group of nudists in San Francisco are protesting new laws that would require them to 'cover up' while conducting regular activities in public places (click). They would retain permission to be nude in certain areas and at certain events, but would be forced to dress in order to walk on the side walks, enter public buildings or 'be visible' to the other citizens of the city.
Do you think these 'naked guys' should have the right to walk past playgrounds and display their natural selves in public parks? Or have they (as one citizens says) "crossed the line into an irritating form of exhibitionism"?
I think I may need to look at more nude people.
I don't remember where I saw a discussion of the difference between 'nude' and 'naked' (Seinfeld?). 'Naked' being wrong and awkward, and 'nude' being good and sexy.
Don't come in!!! I'm naked!!
Come on in...I'm nude.
You probably shouldn't come in. :-)
Nude old people are Gah-ROS!! I should know, I am one! Uh, that is to say, I'm an old person. I'm not generally a nude old person, but when I am, I'm usually in or about the shower. ;-)
*sigh* I guess I better not inflict anyone with my Gah-ROS old nudity then. Too bad, I was beginning to feel so daring.
"If you're going.....to San Francisco....be sure to wear....some flowers in your hair".
No sense to go completely unadorned, EddieDingo.
And a hat.
Well of course she would wear a hat. If she didn't she would probably feel undressed, bare, disrobed, in her birthday suit, in the altogether, natural, in the buff, in the raw, unclad, without a stitch, naked, or nude, I'm not sure which.
But that might not be a bad thing. Seems to me that a long time ago someone said she had awesome boobs!
Most of us couldn't survive living nude anyway. I'd hate being a nudist in Minnesota or even in Florida where I'm sure I'd die of melanoma. Maybe we should let the nudists have San Francisco and the rest of us could live a nice modest life and keep our nudididdity to ourselves.