Ban Nudity to Prevent Public Masturbation?

 City of Madison to Ban Nudity to ‘Prevent Public Masturbation?’

 “…to create an ordinance that specifically addresses various public indecency behaviors including public nudity, public sexual acts and peeping.”

  According to Isthmus, a Madison, WI publication, the Madison Common Council is considering a new ordinance which will, among other things, make simple nudity an offense definable as indecent exposure. The law is supposedly designed to prevent public masturbation.  Apparently that is a big problem here and the only laws that cover it are too difficult to prove to enforce.

 Supporters cite a three year-old case involving a man who was reported with his ‘ hand in his pants’.  He is not said to have exposed himself.  It was thought that he might have been playing with himself, so he was arrested.  He might have also been scratching an itch; nothing was proven.  For that he got convicted of disorderly conduct.

Arresting Officer Amy Bramlett conferred with the City Attorney’s office and the result was a proposed ordinance which flies in the face of logic and equates public nudity with indecent behavior.  

 The ordinance’s intent is to bypass city and state laws which do not prohibit nudity.  Not to mention decades of local, state and federal court decisions which have consistently refused to deem simple nudity ‘obscene’ or ‘indecent’. Forget that there are already laws concerning such behavior.

 This ordinance could potentially result in the arrest of a person tanning behind a fence in their backyard if somebody glances through a knothole and sees them, or a woman (not a man, their breasts are not ‘indecent’) who is topless at B.B. Clarke Beach.  The ordinance is supposedly not intended for that, but what law has not  been abused when the opportunity has arisen?

 This, in a liberal, ‘politically-correct’ city which nonetheless condones the exploitation of women at a legal (sort of) strip club and at least two legal (sort of) massage parlors operating openly, plus blatant sex-for-money ads in local publications.  A city where the police have openly stated (Isthmus, again) that they don’t bother with prostitution unless it’s sold on the street, primarily in poor Black neighborhoods or near our legal sex-porn-drug paraphernalia shops.

 This, in a city which has essentially decriminalized pot (contrary to State and Federal law) which is used openly and known to have a long blood trail that leads directly into middle class Madison living rooms.  A city which defies federal law by providing sanctuary to people who have entered this country illegally.

 A city which would find simple nudity to be obscene and worthy of prosecution? 

 A city which obviously has far too much time on its hands and too little sense if it thinks, as the City Attorney does, that making nudity a crime is going to make the slightest difference to some guy who gets off playing with himself in public.  If he exposes himself while doing it, he’s already broken the current indecent exposure law.  If he doesn’t, an anti-nudity law won’t apply. 

 Did you catch that?  The anti-nudity part of the ordinance would not apply in the very circumstance cited for its need. 

 This is yet another poorly thought out law which will infringe upon everyone’s rights because of the actions of a very few.  Actions which, of themselves, are so marginally illegal that prosecutors can’t even apply existing indecent exposure laws. 

 One might expect better from the “Athens of the Midwest”, and a little common sense from the Common Council.

But what does the ordinance say about nudity? How does nudity relate to public masturbation?  It doesn’t.

 “26.01 PUBLIC INDECENCY.

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

 How much of a buttock is too much buttock, part of a cheek? Are thongs illegal? Short-shorts? Is the aureola considered ‘part of the nipple’? Is lipstick considered an ‘opaque covering’? Can a guy at a Badger football game get arrested if he becomes a little ‘turgid’ watching the cheerleaders strut their stuff? If woodies in trousers are verboten, what about perky nips in a sweater on a cold day?

 Why are female nipples ‘indecent’ but male nipples aren’t? Who would ever use a term like ‘turgid’? How can a covered man be considered nude?

 Exceptions.

 (a) This ordinance shall not apply to the following:

 1. A mother’s breast-feeding of her child.

 Apparently the proximity of a baby’s mouth to a nipple is the key factor when determining whether a breast is to be considered ‘indecent’ or not. Uh oh, what if it’s somebody else’s child?

  2.  Legitimate, authorized law enforcement activities.

 This is just too creepy to think about; we don’t even want to know. For entrapment, maybe? Why is it that the makers of rules always grant themselves the right to break the rules?

Do these people even think about what they are saying? No need to answer that.

 The fact that this proposed ordinance is ill-conceived and nonsensical as it relates to connecting simple nudity to deviant sexual acts virtually assures its passage, of course. A city which promotes the use of alcohol at neighborhood festivals and city events, encourages illegal drug use, and allows an open sex trade inevitably must equate simple nudity with depravity. It has no other viewpoint to compare with.

It is sincerely hoped that someone downtown will see the absurdity of this part of the ordinance and prove this wrong.

Cops Seek New Law For DeviantsIsthmus – The Daily Page 6-10-11                                           http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=33745

 City of Madison Legislative File Number 22665 (version 1)http://legistar.cityofmadison.com/detailreport/Reports/Temp/61201111577.pdf

 This article may be reproduced and freely distributed, in its entirety, with attribution to AllNudist (https://allnudist.wordpress.com)

6-11-11 

©All Nudist 2011

________________________________________________________________

Related:   New York Ladies, You Can Go Topless!