Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The 'Naked Rambler' jailed for 22 months, following arrest within 60 seconds of his release!

I'm drawing that comparison *now* (note, not earlier, if you'd read the thread also you've inserted full frontal not me - because it suits you) because there's a prolific level of varying amounts of sexuality- based nudity in mainstream advertising - which I've given examples of - that simply does not attract the same levels of outrage compared to this.

I didn't insert full frontal because it suits me but because that is the comparable level of nudity to that which Gough displays. The reason why 'Unashamed sexual nudity advertising' is generally considered a lesser evil for most people is that it does not feature full frontal nudity whilst this man has been walking around fully naked. Whether or not there are ads with half naked/partially concealed individuals is irrelevant when full frontal nudity is clearly the societal taboo which the issue in this case. And as far as I can see you didn't give any examples of adverts with comparable levels of nudity.
 
I didn't insert full frontal because it suits me but because that is the comparable level of nudity to that which Gough displays. The reason why 'Unashamed sexual nudity advertising' is generally considered a lesser evil for most people is that it does not feature full frontal nudity whilst this man has been walking around fully naked. Whether or not there are ads with half naked/partially concealed individuals is irrelevant when full frontal nudity is clearly the societal taboo which the issue in this case. And as far as I can see you didn't give any examples of adverts with comparable levels of nudity.
I gave examples of mainstream brands that are well known for their use of sexual-based nudity that sells their products and that also project the idealistic body. It's relevant because of the disconnect between what is perceived as taboo plus the importance we comparatively attach to the impact of advertising compared to lone examples of eccentricity where the adverse impact - if any - can be easily managed. Societal taboo in this case is clearly a matter of opinion as our society allows naked public mass bike rides.
 
I gave you examples. Then you changed your mind to full frontal.

No.

Enviro equated nudity in advertising with a bloke that's wandering around the country constantly exposed.

I challenged that, and you gave examples didn't cut the mustard, so I asked you draw an equivalence. Which you haven't.
 
No.

Enviro equated nudity in advertising with a bloke that's wandering around the country constantly exposed.

I challenged that, and you gave examples didn't cut the mustard, so I asked you draw an equivalence. Which you haven't.
They cut the mustard for your original question. You then changed your question. So if you want to complain that I didn't answer your revised question - by all means do so. But don't fucking misrepresent what's a matter of record earlier in the thread.
 
Him being naked in public will cause varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to various people for various reasons. Shit but true. Their right to be protected from that alarm etc definitely outweighs his right to be naked. Seems only fair to me.
 
Him being naked in public will cause varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to various people for various reasons. Shit but true. Their right to be protected from that alarm etc definitely outweighs his right to be naked. Seems only fair to me.
Well, a good compromise for that would be to insist that he stays in the countryside and away from inhabitation. Then the only thing he'd spoil would be Spymaster's aim.
 
Has he ever explained his position, perhaps on a website or in an interview or something.

Since I have been aware of him I have yet to learn why, really why, he is doing this.

Coz he's a nob who's hiding from himself and whatever unresolved issues he's got.
 
Him being naked in public will cause varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to various people for various reasons. Shit but true. Their right to be protected from that alarm etc definitely outweighs his right to be naked. Seems only fair to me.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but what's your rational justification for that?

Holby City causes varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to people that have had friends or relatives die or be seriously injured/ill in hospital. I personally found it really upsetting when I accidentally caught part of it around the time my wife had suffered a massive brain aneurysm. I don't think it should be banned though.

So I'm not convinced that causing offence etc is a justification on its own.

What differentiates Gough's nakedness from Holby City?

None of the above is rhetorical argument btw. In case you missed my previous, my opinion is very much up in the air on this.
 
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but what's your rational justification for that?

Holby City causes varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to people that have had friends or relatives die or be seriously injured/ill in hospital. I personally found it really upsetting when I accidentally caught part of it around the time my wife had suffered a massive brain aneurysm. I don't think it should be banned though.

So I'm not convinced that causing offence etc is a justification on its own.

What differentiates Gough's nakedness from Holby City?

None of the above is rhetorical argument btw. In case you missed my previous, my opinion is very much up in the air on this.

No one's making you watch Holby City (thank fuck), but if you're just mooching about and happen to cross paths with Gough then, why aye, it's one in the eye. Whether you like it or not.

The guy's a clown who needs to sort his napper out, we've had 25 pages of sensible heads stating that it's his arrogance in forcing his nudity on others rather than his nudity per se that's the problem, but people still seem to want to make it into an argument about prudishness and hang ups about the human body. Which it patently isn't.
 
Him being naked in public will cause varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to various people for various reasons. Shit but true. Their right to be protected from that alarm etc definitely outweighs his right to be naked. Seems only fair to me.

But isn't it a bit ridiculous the state humanity has reached, that we are ashamed or even alarmed by our own and other people's natural bodies?
 
But isn't it a bit ridiculous the state humanity has reached, that we are ashamed or even alarmed by our own and other people's bodies?

Indeed it is. That's why I said 'shit but true'. In an ideal world things would be different, but that's a whole separate thread :)
 
How is mooching about different to channel-surfing?

ETA: Your post sound a bit similar to the police's argument

Coz by the very act of switching on the telly you're choosing to view whatever's on there - You can have a squizz through TV Quick and, if there's anything on there that you might not be down with, you can avoid that channel. No such avoidance mechanism exists when old in-the-buff-Gough's out making his rounds. Surely you can see the difference?

And in response to your edit - Dibble's on my side - Now there's novel :cool:
 
Indeed it is. That's why I said 'shit but true'. In an ideal world things would be different, but that's a whole separate thread :)

I don't have a great body image, I can't see myself revealing my white translucent body in even as much as speedos or shorts in public (could be a new thread in that) let alone walking Britain nude like this guy!

But it interests me, many nudists are not exactly totally body beautiful themselves, there are plenty old and wrinkled bodies in nudist camps (I saw somewhere anyhow!) but despite not being exactly Charles Atlas they are confident enough to mingle in the buff with just anyone that might pass by.

What have they got that mr & mrs hide behind the twitching net curtains don't have?
 
Back
Top Bottom