Is Partial Nudity a Neighborhood Nuisance?

The oddest legal question of the day might be this: Does gardening in barely legal, scanty attire constitute a public nuisance?

The renters of a home in Boulder are upsetting their neighbors by gardening in a state of nature -- or at least as close as they can get without breaking the law. The nudist couple, Catharine and Robert Pierce, don thongs when they venture outside; Catharine adds pasties. Some of the neighbors complain that the Pierces can be seen by the children who attend a neighborhood school or play in nearby parks. The couple's landlord is threatening eviction for violating a lease term that prohibits nuisance behavior if the Pierces don't begin to dress "appropriately."

[more ...]

While it's true that lawful behavior can create a nuisance (the stench emitting from a pig farm is a common example), the argument that children will be psychologically endangered (or even bothered) by viewing legally exposed skin is unconvincing. Parents who feel the need to shelter their kids from the fleshy realities of life have the option of steering their children away from the Pierces' residence. Unlike a stinky hog farm, which can be expected to annoy everyone within range of the smell, scanty clothing is a nuisance only to those who bother to look and are offended by what they see.

The Pierces feel they are victims of discrimination, but no law prohibiting discrimination in housing includes nudists as a protected category. The Pierces nonetheless have a sound argument that they aren't in breach of their lease. If the landlord wanted to include a gardening dress code as a lease provision, after all, it could have done so. The landlord should stop hassling the Pierces, and the offended neighbors should avert their eyes and allow the Pierces to choose their own lawful lifestyle.

< Taking Pictures of Public Property Does Not Justify a Suspicion of Terrorism | California Considering Sale of San Quentin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Have you tried to steer children away from boobs? (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by roy on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:15:54 PM EST
    "The option of steering their children away" could only be exercised by keeping the children under constant supervision, which is neither practical nor healthy for the children.

    Dumped the television. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:18:21 AM EST
    It's not like the precious snowflakes can.... (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 08:58:48 AM EST
    see those filthy nipples...I see partially exposed bust all day long walking in NY in the summer....arse crack and thongs too.

    It's a cost of freedom to occasionally see things you'd rather not see...even (gasp!) the children.

    Sh*t...one of the highlights of my childhood was "collecting shells" in a circle around a topless sunbather till my moms dragged me away by the ear:)


    Also, if the kids (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Bemused on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 09:10:16 AM EST
     are old enough to be titillated by the skin, they are going to be able to pursue other means to see it. I'd also think that most 11 year olds would prefer to see naked or near naked young people than geezers old enough to be their grandparents.

      Unfortunately, my experience too has been that people most inclined to be exhibitionists have the least appeal to voyeurs. I remember in college on a trip to the Keys we heard about a nude beach near our campground. So, of course, we made it part of our itinerary. Very much not worth it-- not only did the men outnumber women at least 3:1, but all the women were at least old enough to be our mothers and none of them appeared to be fitness freaks or big on grooming.

       I do now though have a very attractive neighbor who likes to garden in her bathing suit. She also has never leaned to bend at the knees when weeding. She is though an exception that proves the rule.



    Ain't that the truth... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 09:30:00 AM EST
    Compared to what the kids are looking at on the web, these gardeners are downright PG-Rated tame.

    If any parents in Boulder are worried about what their kids are looking at, I'd check on the p.c., not the neighbors.

    Absolutely right about nudists, btw...always the people you'd least wanna see nude:)


    it seems to me (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:14:08 PM EST
    the issue is not what they are learning about anatomy but what they are learning about being a good neighbor and being considerate of others.

    being if I want to trot my saggy wrinkled butt around the front yard the neighbors just have to deal with it.

    not to unlike the nut painting street notes to his girlfriend yesterday as if the streets were his personal note pad.

    me me me me me

    its all about me.  thats what they are learning.


    Just a guess... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 09:46:22 AM EST
    ...but I'm thinking it is probably a small miracle that your ears are still attached to your head.  :)

    Nah Mile... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 02:13:40 PM EST
    I was an angel with only the occasional slip requiring an ear pull...if I remember right I think my old man had words for moms that day along the lines of "thats my boy, let him be, if the lady don't like it she'll put her clothes back on."

    We're talking about the man who brought home "Porky's" for family viewing when we got our first VCR when I was like in 3rd Grade:)  


    My kids saw my boobs all the time (4.40 / 5) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:07:17 PM EST
    at certain times in their lives.  Neither seems psychologically impaired due to that.  Some children in Africa see everyone's boobs all day everyday.

    Slightly O/T, maybe, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Spamlet on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 10:06:22 PM EST
    but where I live we have an outdoor farmers' market on Saturdays, with a fountain on the premises, and in the warm months there are parents who let their children frolic au naturel in the fountain. Some of the kids are girls as old as 7 or 8. Don't these parents (in my experience, invariably dads) realize that images of their children could be on a child porn site or in private collections within the hour?

    re the dads and the kids (none / 0) (#88)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:31:31 AM EST
    I have a question for you

    Lets suppose a dad's (or parents) suppress the desire of their kids to go naked in the fountain in the summertime.  And lets suppose the kid asks why, and you or the parent responds.  

    And you or the parent says, "Someone might photograph you or see you nude and that would be harmful."  

    and if they ask why, you would say . . . ?


    I'd probably have said to a 7 or 8 year old (none / 0) (#89)
    by Bemused on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:29:26 AM EST
    (it never came up and my kids are older now)

       In response why can't I play naked:  "We've told you before some grown up strangers do bad things to children and just like you should not ever go with a stranger or let anyone touch you,   you need to  keep your clothes on in public  because running around naked in a place like this  might make a bad person notice you."

      If asked what bad things, I'd have just said that some adults hurt little children.

      With younger children,  a simple " no, you can't do that" would suffice and if asked why, "because I said so." Parents don't have to explain or justify everything they do.



    Man, we are puritans (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 10:19:16 PM EST
    Seeing a naked body at work in a garden for several hours will harm no one, period.  This is a free country, which means you must accept that once a day, if not more often, you are going to be offended by something or someone.  Being offended is part of life, and if being offended by naked people is what really gets you angry, well, you have issues.  Sorry, but with the wretched violence and consumer mindwashing kids are exposed to -- immersed in -- every day, a couple that want to garden in skimpy clothes are no one's worry.  Seriously, what harm is going to come to a child watching people garden in skimpy "clothes"?  Parents are offended and freak out, that's what this is about.  I'm sure those kids are getting top notch, honest and frank sex education from their parents, too.  Please, is it any wonder we're so messed up?

    Not much harm I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 10:47:29 PM EST
    As someone that grew up across the street from a very cute lady that cut her lawn in a bikini in the 70's, I would guess the biggest harm from this is skin cancer. Unless of course the gardeners are using sunscreen with at least an SPF15 muting the potential for harm.

    If their bodies are worth viewing it might be beneficial to the binocular and telescope sales at Best Buy helping the economy.

    Personally I'd just like to be on the receiving end of some of their surplus produce, and would prefer not to be the officer that takes the call to investigate.


    It sounds like they've read the law (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 10:37:52 PM EST
    so are they still considered partially nude? And wouldn't that make a majority of people in warm weather/warmer states partial nudists part or most of the time? We are free to walk around in thong bathing suits aren't we?

    I'd like to see what the neighbors are wearing, I just might find it offensive and a nuisance . . .

    Hope the neighbors don't show up in Times Square, home of the Naked Cowboy {grin} A major publisher I worked for actually brought him in to liven up our quarterly breakfast meeting since most of us passed by him at least once a day, lol!~

    But is their public housing lease (none / 0) (#13)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:06:31 PM EST
    good reading material?  Looks like it's public housing, from the link -- and I would bet that Boulder as landlord does not want to get itself into the legal actions that could be taken by parents raising children there, perhaps some parents whose religious beliefs are being violated by the city exposing, excuse the term, their children to nudity, etc., etc.  

    It is quite easy to imagine the countersuits that could come from this.


    I think you know my response to (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:48:12 PM EST
    religious beliefs {grin}

    Ya know, I put up with a drum corps for 9months on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. It is NOT quiet. They are right across the street and it's bad enough in the winter with the windows closed, in the nice open window weather, OY.  I never complained though, not do I think anyone else did. Why? They were HS kids engaged in an activity. I sucked it up (even though it was basically right outside my office) because I felt it was a worthwhile activity. It's not like they were out causing trouble or anything. Plus, they seemed pretty darn dedicated.

    What's wrong with these folks dressed legally working in their garden? And judging by their photo, they don't seem to qualify for your German Beer Bellied thong guy horror  ;) Oy, I'm just remembering what I used to garden in. It was pretty scant, lol!~ and yes, LOTS of people could see me. I even had a couple of admires over on the other block. I was in SF in my backyard that opened onto a neighbor's huge yard that basically was the whole interior of the block, and all buildings of a square block viewed the gardens from the rear of the apts. I also gardened down the side of my building which was open into the next backyard. Barefoot and barely dressed :)  Ah . . . those were the days! Oh, and my friends and I were granted use of the big garden lawn for sunbathing, if you think we were scantly dressed for gardening . . .  lol!~


    If you don't think there are prudes in SF . . . (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:41:13 AM EST
    you'd be highly mistaken. As great a city as it is, when I lived there (20yrs ago), there was still an interesting segregation going on. Some areas were clearly defined. The interesting thing we noticed after the earthquake was who had to rely on help from who  ;)

    Prior to moving to my place where I gardened, I actually lived on the corner of Haight-Ashbury :) The place with the garden was just a couple blocks down and off from there on the panhandle. And a very different mindset to a degree.

    Honestly, I don't think I would have gotten the full blown flack this couple is getting in either one of those towns you mention. Why? Because I was young (20's) when I was barefoot and barely dressed gardening. I wonder if I would get flack now? I'm literally the same size/weight (think model size but a tad shorter) as I was then . . . and still get asked for ID on occasion . . . .

    Frankly, if the weather's conducive, there are a lot of San Franciscans who will flock to upcoming Gay Pride events wearing little but artfully tailored dinner napkins.

    lol!~ very well put!


    Your response or mine to religious beliefs (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 09:20:00 AM EST
    of others hardly predicts the court's response.

    Plus, of course, such lawsuits can be . . . well, a nuisance to a city.  And costly.  But then, this is a lawyer's blog, so that may not be seen to matter.


    What a Waste of Time! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Pat Johnson on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 10:58:25 PM EST
    If Catherine can take the time to put on pasties than throwing a shirt on takes less effort.  These idiots are exhibitionists and want to plead the law for the right to do so.  A total waste of court time once again to satisfy the egos of two looney tunes who haven't the decency to consider anyone but themselves.  

    I hope they get a huge fine and a judge who tells them to cover it up!

    There will be no fine. (none / 0) (#31)
    by TChris on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:50:56 AM EST
    Since the police have already determined that they are violating no law, there will be no arrest, prosecution, or punishment.  The only question a court may be called upon to decide is whether they should be evicted for breaching their lease by creating a nuisance.

    When Arlo (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 01:11:02 AM EST
    was charged with creating a nuisance, he had to pay fifty dollars and pick up the garbage in the snow.

    You guys (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:28:57 PM EST
    are missing the point.

    Contemplate on the word, "appropriate." There is a time and a place for everything. Some of the feeble attempts here to legitimize boorish behavior are a little troubling. Do we really want to equate the mean spirited, anti social actions of a floozy and her slug of a husband with Michelangelo's paintings on the Sistine Chapel?

    I'm sure every person here is a staunch believer in freedom of expression. Yet we have no problem understanding how wrong it is to disrupt a funeral, for the purpose of making a political point, where a grieving family is burying their soldier son or daughter.

    There's no law against displaying your lack of self respect, or rejecting the simple act of being a good neighbor. Then again, some here would defend the "right" of a guest to bellow an ear piercing fart, just as the bride is saying "I do."


    As I recall, there was that issue with (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 01:58:28 PM EST
    statues needing to be draped . . .

    So you have decided she is a floozy and her husband a slug based on their preferred style of dress which you claim is anti social? Thanks for supporting a point I made in another comment . . . .


    Oh well (none / 0) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 02:45:11 PM EST
    I guess comprehension is beyond those stuck in the maturation process, where sticking your thumb in your neighbor's eye is still considered cool.

    But then, I know of no defense for willful ignorance.


    Seems to me... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 02:53:40 PM EST
    it is the quasi-nudists who are getting the thumb in their eye....they aren't the ones telling the neighbors what they can or can't wear on their property.

    seems to me (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:05:24 PM EST
    shooter is making a valid point about being a neighbor and about the fact that just because you can do something does not mean you should.

    and I approve or the word boorish.  good choice.

    so be a nudist if they want but do they have to do it in the front yard?  afaiac this is another good example of the ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

    its all about me and my needs.  I NEED to expose my self to neighborhood children.

    boorish and stupid.


    The nudists... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:23:35 PM EST
    ain't bothering anybody Capt...seems to me its the whining parents who are doing the "me me me" thing.  It is all about them and their kids, to hell with the oddball nudists and their liberty to pursue happiness.

    Now if a neighbor knocks on my door and makes me aware of something pissing 'em off I'll do my best to accomodate them, but only up to a point...some things are too important to my hapiness to compromise, and maybe that is the case here.


    I guess (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:43:09 PM EST
    if the parents had moved into a neighborhood of nudists I would agree.
    I think they are being inconsiderate aholes.

    I have no patients with inconsiderate aholes.


    I do too... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:47:47 PM EST
    we just have a differing opinion on who is being inconsiderate and unneighborly here...I think it is the complainers.

    Now I'm wondering if I piss my neighbors off when I take out the garbage in my underwear, or tell my friends to just piss in the bushes when we're hanging in the yard:)


    Err... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:53:52 PM EST
    s/b I don't have patience for them either.

    wondering . . . (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 04:03:01 PM EST
    no.  I dont think so.  at least I hope not because I have been known to open the back door to let the dog out when I stumble out of bed in the morning bleary eyed and mostly au-natural.

    this, at least IMO, is a whole different category.

    I am pretty casual about anatomy.  I have been to many nude beaches and even a couple of clothing otional resorts, not to give you more information than you need.

    I simply think there is a time and place for everything.  I cant imagine parading around in my yard in a thong.  in part because I know my neighbors would probably be horrified.  and I mostly like my neighbors and at least for me my need to wear a thong is not more important.

    one caution I would give the people.  $hit happens.  there may come a day when you need your neighbors.  think about that.


    Can't imagine doing it either... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 05:56:02 PM EST
    but I also can't imagine complaining if somebody else was doing it...part of being a good neighbor is minding your own damn business.

    Hmm, do you really think their intent (none / 0) (#83)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 07:53:44 PM EST
    is to expose themselves to the 'hood kids? Do they even think they are "exposed". It is a lifestyle choice. They are staying in their yard and minding their own business.

    People have way too much control over other people who are doing nothing wrong. Heck, in some ares you can't have clothes lines because people find them offense, dawg forbid someone hangs their tight-ey whitees out to dry! Other places want everyone to have the same curtains and blinds in their home so it fits their vision of what the 'hood looks like. I find those things offensive myself and way more of a nuisance. It makes it incredibly hard to find a place to live because those types of rules spread. Forget it if you have a pet or a few.


    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 10:58:35 PM EST
    Having been to a beach frequented by elderly old German guys in thongs barely visible under their massive beer bellies, and I don't even want to discuss the rear view -- it is more than a nuisance.  It is dangerous, as it could drive you to serious drink.

    I was a live-and-let-live person about such things as thongs before that day on the beach.  It was a life-changing event.  I became a firm believer in clothing.  

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by DFLer on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:25:09 PM EST
    Yes but ... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by TChris on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:58:23 AM EST
    Having been to a nude beach on a Greek island frequented by German families, I know where you are coming from in your aversion to old German guys (and their old German wives) with beer guts who like to let it all hang out.  It isn't pretty.  On the other hand, I also saw younger Germans of both genders who were, ah, quite impressive.

    Oh, yes, there were some pretty (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 09:22:44 AM EST
    women sans pasties as in this story.  They were intriguing to see for about five minutes.  But the beer bellies were about ten times the size of the boobs and far more memorable.  In a nightmarish sort of way that brings it back to me even today.

    For the sake of the males of the species, please do not let little girls in Boulder grow up to see this guy in his fifties in a thong.  Your sons may have trouble finding wives.


    OTOH, it could be quite liberating for the (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 10:58:04 AM EST
    daughters  ;)

    It was for my daughter (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:05:52 PM EST
    to her stepdad's dismay!  

    I can't really see the public interest (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:19:15 PM EST
    in prohibiting this. Many people, even subjectively ugly people, have a fashion sense that is not like mine. I do not move to kick them out of their homes.  

    I anticipate they will cover up when the (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:23:48 PM EST
    neighborhood boys cannot be removed from the property perimeter.  But, isn't this exactly what Justice Scalia was harping on this morning?  Endless, needless litigation.  

    But, (none / 0) (#34)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 05:02:27 AM EST
    do you think that Scalia would eagerly hear such a case?

    I wish my countrymen weren't so freaked (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:34:57 PM EST
    out by nudity.  I suppose I might get offended if something sexual was going on but other than that....sheesh....isn't Michelangelo's David completely in the buff.  I love so many artists' nudes.  If I had neighbors that gardened that naked around here other than finding them odd I might send them a bit of sunscreen and skeeter repellent because they'd be taking their lives into their own hands gardening naked around here.  And as a family we'd probably talk about them being "peculiar" but to heck with involving the law.  It's just another excuse for new drapes or window treatments.  What woman isn't looking for one of those every now and then?

    Yes, plenty of people are freaked (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Spamlet on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:46:29 PM EST
    by nudity. As for me, I've spent enough time unclothed on nude beaches to understand that the novelty quickly wears off, and that the only creepiness is generally the product of clothed voyeurs peeping out from behind boulders and bushes.

    That said, I wonder if the reaction to these nude neighbors is not so much about being freaked as about having it up to here with people pushing their private(s) business in everyone else's face. God knows the culture has produced enough narcissists and exhibitionists, but what do you do when you can't turn off the teebee?

    By the way, I don't think that the "What do you do" question is answered by "Call the cops."


    I tend to agree with both sides (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Bemused on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 07:02:53 AM EST
      The couple sound like inconsiderate, self-absorbed jerks whom I would not want as my neighbors. On the other hand, while people have pointed out that the couple could live somewhere not visible to neighbors, the neighbors could also live elsewhere with a buffer zone to protect them from inconsiderate, self-absorbed jerk neighbors. I don't believe scanty clothing that offends some should be classified as a public nuisance.

       Living in close proximity to other people brings with it the good and the bad. If the bad is not illegal then you have to grin and bear it, if your neighbor chooses to grin and bare it. (Yes, worst pun of all time but I couldn't help myself).

    The neighbors are in public housing (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 09:29:07 AM EST
    too, as I read the link.  Not so easy to move.

    Been there, had to live with bad neighbors, wife-beatings, constant calls to cops, saw it affect my kids, but we were in this little legal thing called a lease, too.  At least, we finally could move at the end of the lease, while the homeowners around us were stuck with the bad absentee landlord and awful renters and declining property values for their major investment.

    The airy, dismissive "let them move" is something that always amazes me, considering the realities.


    A fair point (none / 0) (#53)
    by Bemused on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:48:29 PM EST
      but, no one is forced to live in public housing or this particular project. With the benefits of subsidized housing comes the costs and it would seem that flaky, exhibitionist neighbors rank well below some of the drawbacks of living in other housing public or private.

      If you are a person who is intolerant of "bad" behavior by neighbors  then you should probably choose not to live in a heavily populated community. There are lots of cheap places to live out in the sticks. Of course, the sticks also have their drawbacks, but such is life.



    You know (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    This reminds me of teenagers who dye their hair purple and war a mowhawk and then complain when people look at them funny, or women who wear tops with plunging necklines, and then complain that men are staring at their chest.  Duh!

    These people know they are causing a commotion and they don't care, but to stir the pot.  All something like this will do is prompt landlords and neighborhood associations to write stupid things into their bylaws like, "Tenants must be appropriately dressed when outside in view of other neighbors." All because the two yahoos think the world wants to look at them.


    I was gonna stay out of this one.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:27:08 PM EST
    But your comment reminded me of a pet peeve (regarding plunging necklines).

    In the summer time, it's hot outside.  The more clothes one wears, the hotter it is.  Just because one wears skimpy clothes in the summer does not mean you want to be stared/honked/shouted at.  It means it's hot.  You guys get to walk around topless with nary a care in the world when you overheat.  I get to show some "cleavage" in the name of a cool breeze.

    Anyways, my one experience with a nudist was in California when some friends of mine and I went to a beach that we weren't aware was nudist (there were about 2 people other than us at the beach).  We were hiking, so we were fully dressed when a naked guy came up and started talking to us.  I am fine with people being naked at a nudist beach, that doesn't mean I want to be approached by you.  Awkward...

    With regards to this couple - grow some hedges.


    exactly (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:47:21 PM EST
    grow some hedges.  build a fence.  move to the country.

    I'm a girl (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:54:58 PM EST
    There's necklines and then there's necklines that go to your navel.  I don't care that other women want to wear them, but don't complain when people are looking at you.  Personally, I have never been so much cooler wearing a tank top than I have been wearing a T-shirt (and I'm a person who is ALWAYS hot).

    But I agree - put up a privacy fence or grow hedges.


    There may be rules where they can't fence (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 07:58:47 PM EST
    And who knows, maybe they are growing hedges.

    I do know many places have fencing rules and I would suspect PH does. Around here it looks like the do. Everything is pretty uniform. Unable to fence is a problem for many folks with dogs who would like to fence so their dogs can be contained and not  . . . wait for it!  . . be a nuisance!


    For Gawd's sake people. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 08:34:07 AM EST
    We're talking about the People's Republic of Boulder here.  Land of the self-absorbed.  Refuge of all things natural, freaky and counter-culture.  Per capita, home of one of the lowest rates of obesity.  Apparently a lot of people around here have never visited.

    You see just as much, if not more "partial nudity" walking down the Pearl Street Mall on a Summer's evening.  In fact, there is a city ordinance still on the books that makes it legal for females to go topless in Boulder provided they don't charge for viewing their "assests".

    A couple of prudes b!tching about their neighbors isn't going to change a thing in the Republic.  

    What a great post (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 08:39:53 AM EST
    There is only one Boulder!  There shouldn't be though.  Everyone should have one.  Jesus Alabama needs one so bad you can't even believe it!

    I love the PRB. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 09:56:23 AM EST
    Too bad I'll never be able to afford to live there.  A truly naturally beautiful town filled with highly educated, enlightened, free thinking, physically fit people.

    Spent many a lost weekend in my youth cavorting up there before things like having a job interfered with such activities.

    I always thought Iowa City was Iowa's answer to Boulder, but in reality, it's more like Greeley in comparision.  

    Got to love a place that drives the wingnuts to distraction too.  


    Hmmm. (none / 0) (#74)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 04:27:02 PM EST
    I'm going to have to re-think the Iowa City/Greeley comparison after reading this...

    A Greeley family who allegedly pounced on the former girlfriend of their eldest son during a fist-swinging, hair-pulling tussle was rounded up early Monday after a 10-hour standoff and marijuana investigation at the family home, according to Greeley police.

    I think I'll go with Fort Collins instead.


    I wouldnt consider a legal question (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 09:10:49 AM EST
    but if I was their neighbor I would probably sneak over late at night an plant lots of poison ivy.

    thats just how I roll.

    Just because you can do something (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:56:50 AM EST
    does not automatically mean you should do that thing.

    They're 51 & 58 y/o. Why is it nudists are almost never 20 y/o athletes?

    Because... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    20 year old hardbodies can get paid for it, charging a cover and collecting tips?...:)

    Ha! (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 01:39:50 PM EST
    Suffer the little children (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by da lurker on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    What about all these poor little babies that are having breasts shoved in their faces in the name of breastfeeding.  Of course our "decent" society doesn't allow this perversion to be done in public so as to not warp other little breastfeed babies minds.  ( or raunchy stoic old people}  Humans are the only animals that cover their bodies for shame.

    Or (4.25 / 4) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:01:43 PM EST
    They can stop acting like (pardon the pun) butt-holes, and show some respect for their neighbors, and the community.

    If they feel the need to commune with nature so badly they shouldn't have moved into a neighborhood where the prevailing behavior doesn't include narcissist exhibitionism.

    Just call them what they are.....jerks.

    or do it (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:08:36 PM EST
    in the back yard fer christs sake.

    nudity (none / 0) (#5)
    by jharp on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 10:18:01 PM EST
    I have no idea what the solution is. Nor do I have any idea of the law.

    But a very good post that illustrates just how complicated our legal system is.

    It depends (none / 0) (#11)
    by MrConservative on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:00:15 PM EST
    Are they female?  Attractive?  These are the questions we should be asking ourselves when deciding this important and meritorious question.

    You forgot "available". (none / 0) (#35)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 06:10:22 AM EST
    I remember a controversy about an attractive female hot dog vendor who worked in a thong (and form fitting top).  A couple gardening in one set, not terribly public location versus someone putting in a full working day in a very public location?  I'm not sure what happened legally, but IIRC, she switched to a slightly more modest bottoms.

    We used to have a coffee (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 07:44:55 AM EST
    girl outside one of the Fort Rucker gates.  She was married but very pretty and very well endowed and dressed to present it.  I heard that she made some decent cash.  My husband used to get all flamed at mass juvenile male behavior in the military though driving past the guys lined up for morning coffee, but what if some of them were really there for coffee?  I don't think my husband ever tried her coffee.  Perhaps she made the best damned coffee he'd ever have in his life :)  I never felt like her boobs were ever going to invade my marriage.  If she makes better coffee than mine I want some!

    You should read "Thud!" (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 05:51:13 PM EST
    by Terry Pratchett - or get it on CD from the library.  There's a great subplot about an impossibly good looking exotic dancer who is as sweet as can be (and a bit simple).  Her boyfriend has to let her down gently "because she doesn't know her way around a kitchen".  

    Everyone has their own priorities! ;-)

    (Good coffee is one of mine.)


    It depends (none / 0) (#12)
    by MrConservative on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:03:32 PM EST
    Are they female?  Attractive?  These are the questions we should be asking ourselves when deciding this important and meritorious question.

    Obviously (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:08:17 PM EST
    a thought provoking comment so profound it should be made twice, but one must use discretion when judging attractiveness as beauty is in the eye of the beholder...or in this case perhaps the peeping tom.

    peeping tom (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:09:25 PM EST
    that seems a bit of a stretch when applied to "viewing" this couple.

    Battle Stations! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sumner on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:51:55 PM EST
    I once lived in a world-renowned nudist colony and government used arson and terrorism to close it down. "Community Standards", is a trick, is a con, is a fraud, used to fool people into forfeiting their rights. For example, just look at the vote for medical marijuana in California. If that initiative had failed, the government would have said, "see, the People have spoken". Since it passed, government instead pulled rank with the "Supremacy Clause".

    I haven't stopped pushing back yet, for what government did to crush our nudist colony. Power to the nudists! Power to the People!

    That happened the very first day I was there (none / 0) (#26)
    by Sumner on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:11:46 AM EST
    I was swimming in the pool and a 12-year-old girl promptly grabbed my jewels in a Vulcan-death-grip. I hadn't even noticed her, but she clearly established the pecking-order my first day and I have always made sure to notice everyone, since.

    Unabashedly. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Sumner on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:50:20 AM EST
    And I entreat all who care about their own freedom and liberties to recognize that the instant couple of this thread, deserve their rights as much as everybody - and if one factors for remedies - they should have extra consideration.

    What I saw instead, was the "community standards" argument being invoked, while concomitantly denigrating their humanity.

    Save the Bares!


    you seem to be hung up on (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 11:27:07 AM EST
    the legal aspect.  I stated clearly that afaiac it is not a legal matter.  it is a simple matter of respecting other people and having even the tiniest bit of consideration for them.  the people in question are poster children for the me mentality.
    they are the people who cut in long lines the people who pitch trash out of their cars the people who let their dogs run around and crap on everyone elses lawn the people who open the windows of their apartment and blast their stereo because its all about them.

    the only standard I am talking about is acting like a responsible adult.  not a spoiled child.



    btw (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 11:28:29 AM EST
    they can do whatever the hell they want.  I simply am suggesting that they be treated like the boorish morons they are by the neighbors they are disrespecting.

    forget your meds? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Sumner on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    In Dee Snyder's Strangeland, his Capt Howdy character has no control over luring his victims into a sense of complacency, (having used the Internet to find them), where upon he sets upon them, strips them naked, binds and tortures them to death, as he's a pychopath. Your writing approach to issues of nudity seems consistant with Snyder's character, Capt Howdy, as does your assuming his nick.

    "Hung up", to Captain Howdy, meant on hooks, so yeah, I understand his mindset and your double meaning.

    Perhaps I'll take this opportunity to seque into a reminder that we need to prosecute the torturers in US Government. They are guilty of war crimes.


    FYI (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 01:47:31 PM EST
    my screen name has absolutely nothing to do with Dee Snyder.  
    it about Mercedes McCambridge.

    Like sex, (none / 0) (#75)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 05:18:57 PM EST
    nudity is all fine and good when some guy is profiting from it. When people get naked just for the joy of it, people flip out. Look at what a fight we've gone through just to be able to nurse a baby in public! OMG, kids might see a breast! Meanwhile, women can be used to sexually stimulate men by dancing semi-naked in a topless club, and most people don't even recognize the damage that does to girls and women. Pole dances are even shown on TV as part of various movies and shows. What does it do to an 8-17 year old girl to realize that adult women have to dance naked in front of men to make money? What does it do to our young boys when they realize men treat women that way?

    C'mon folks. Yes, the Pierce's could be more considerate neighbors, but wouldn't it be better to focus our energies on the strip club down the street from them? Or the male and female prostitution around the corner?

    I dont like the front yard (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 05:24:49 PM EST
    exhibitionism and I have no problem with strip clubs and prostitution.

    strip clubs and prostitution are entirely voluntary.
    that is why people go there.  I have known both strippers (male and female) and prostitutes (male and female).
    contrary to myth they were not exploited.  they were doing exactly what they wanted to do and would tell you to mind your own damn business.

    I recommend a terrific new Soderberg movie.  the girlfriend experience.


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 05:36:13 PM EST
    just because you feel something's "beneath you" doesn't mean others do as well.

    Hop on any SW Air flight from San Diego to Vegas on a Fri afternoon during the USD school year.

    The girls on those flights are very excited about the buckets of cash they'll make at the strip clubs Fri and Sat night and have few, if any, misgivings...


    I didn't need to know that! (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 05:37:46 PM EST
    Sorry! (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 05:52:08 PM EST
    But hey, you read it on the internet so it's probably not true anyway.

    Not a question of what's "beneath me" (none / 0) (#82)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 07:05:39 PM EST
    Methinks you do not understand the dynamics of sexism and internalized oppression.

    Methinks (none / 0) (#85)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:45:45 PM EST
    you do not understand the dynamics of utilizing - honestly, salaciously, advantageously even - one's own particular and specific competitive advantages. Even, maybe especially, when that competitive advantage is one's own sexuality.

    Trust me, the pole dancers in Vegas get the best of every single transaction. And they well know it, and use it to their every advantage.

    Just because such overt utilization of one's own sexuality might make you uncomfortable does not mean it's bad for others.

    Lotsa people earn money doing things they would maybe choose not to do in a nirvana world.

    If that's oppression to you, so be it. Then we're all oppressed, at least some of the time.

    Whatcha' gonna' do?


    I'm not uncomfortable with (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:59:52 AM EST
    overt utilization of one's own sexuality. I completely understand the dynamics of how and why sex sells.

    What I don't like is that girls have to grow up exposed, no deluged with the concept that adult women are valued first and foremost for their ability to titillate men.


    I'm a man (none / 0) (#87)
    by Bemused on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:02:54 AM EST
      but the father of only girls. When they were little I was most concerned with what was coming in the future from the males of the species because being one I know what jerks we are especially during our extended adolescences.

     What I did not expect was the pressure to flaunt sexuality coming from other girls. My 12 year old is self conscious about her developing body and is not emotionally ready for even innocent romantic interaction with boys. She wears mostly baggy shapeless clothes and shies away from attention from boys.

    She doesn't talk about it with me but tells my wife that she gets teased by other girls at school who put her down, make fun of her clothes and brag about how boys want them-- and get them. This is at 12.

      I tend to the philosophy of letting her work it out in her own way on her own schedule but I never imagined that girlds would feel more pressure from other girls than from boys in this regard.


    Regarding this thread drift - (none / 0) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:10:23 PM EST
    the sexualization of young girls - yes, I am in agreement.

    I listened to a report on NPR yesterday or the day before that discussed the (supposed) recent explosion of woman "hooking up" ie., women, especially, looking for "one nighters." I believe they concluded it was a natural result of feminism.

    I suppose this "hooking up" would also naturally migrate to younger and younger girls...


    it seems to me that you cant have it both ways (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:13:40 PM EST
    if you want women to have all the rights and privileges men enjoy that will include being honest and up front about their sexual appetites.  something young boys have done for a long time.

    you may not be comfortable with it.  I am not all the comfortable with it.  fortunately I do not and will not have children and girls, young or otherwise, hold little interest for me.

    its a pickle I guess.



    I would add to that (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:27:00 PM EST
    I hope people help them do what gay men have done since the beginning.  be up front and honest about their desires and keep the greatest respect for themselves and their bodies.
    it seems to me, as a non parent, that the worst thing that could happen is that a girl could grow up in this pressurized environment being told they should express themselves in a certain way and then be told they are a worthless slut for doing it.

    they are not.  they are doing want boy have always done.  if you want advise from someone who has been though and survived the sexual gauntlet, teach them to respect themselves and protect themselves.


    "teach them to..." (none / 0) (#100)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:32:50 PM EST
    ...respect themselves and protect themselves.

    Wise words.


    hey (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:34:19 PM EST
    Im old and I survived the aids years living by that credo.

    Well, this convo seems to keep veering (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:32:54 PM EST
    in different directions, but regarding this comment I don't agree with the absolutism of your premise and, even if it is true, I'm not so sure it's such a bad thing for adults to try to be attractive.

    And, it occurs to me from the comment up-thread about Gay Pride fest-goers clothed only in "artfully placed dinner napkins", I wonder if you feel the same about the fact that the ability to titillate men seems to be valued even more profoundly in the gay community.


    excellent point about gay men (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:56:29 PM EST
    we have always had a very different sensibility about such things.  I would be willing to bet I have been in more clothing optional situations than almost anyone who comments here.
    as far as the pride parade comparison.  thats the point.  its a parade.  if you dont want to see buttocks you dont come to the parade.  I can guarantee you that those guys (MOST) of those guys dont garden in thongs.  and please dont bring up the Castro.  that is accepted behavior there and it is what is expected.
    one other thing about the gay straight comparison.
    someone asked upthread why exhibitionists never look like 25 year old athletes.  in gay situations they frequently do.  more often than not in fact.
    of course there is always a tubbie or two but gay men often have an over developed sense of  physical aesthetics.  
    these are not hard and fast rules.  of course there are obnoxious ugly gay exhibitionists.  I guess my point is you would not likely read this story about a gay couple.

    Dare I ask what the "Castro" is? (none / 0) (#96)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:13:37 PM EST
    san francisco (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:14:32 PM EST
    gay district.  where you are just as likely to see a thong walking down the street as anything else.

    oh, and titillation (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    very different sensibility about that too.  we are mostly completely comfortable with it.  we embrace being a sex object.

    Not to be flip but (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Bemused on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:39:53 PM EST
      gay men are still men. Straight men would likely behave similarly if it wasn't for the fact we strive to attract woman who generally are not attracted to the same sort of approach as men.

       If a good way to get women was walking down the street in a thong and a bare shaved chest, straight men would undoubtedly do a lot more of it.


    absolutely correct (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:43:01 PM EST
    no argument whatsoever.
    I often joke with my straight friends that we have it so much easier than they do because we all want the same thing.