For some reason, that doesn’t really appeal to me, so I’ve always had to be time based. I think there’s been one or two captions about someone getting life sentence of nudity for a crime, but that’s still very unusual, because if they did something bad enough to deserve losing their clothes forever they probably belong in prison instead of walking around naked but free.
I was thinking more when you have captions where they feel that they will never wear clothes again. I was just wondering if there was an option where they could just give up clothing for life.
Sorry if that was unclear. I only mentioned the nude life sentence thing since it was the closest I do have any captions about. I don’t have any about voluntary lifetime registration. I’ve usually said 10 years is the maximum.
She checks that box that says “automatically renew registration until rescinded in writing.” A month prior to expiration, she gets a notice (email and/or snail mail) reminding her of her pending renewal. If she takes no action, her registration continues for another term.
Effective lifetime registration.
Yeah, that’s how I’d envision such things.
A notification your registration is about to expire is a must anyway, to prevent accidental violation by people who forget the expiry date is coming up.
I’d also think there’d be some sort of transition period, as going from registered to unregistered instantly has the problem that it’s illegal for you to possess clothes one minute and required to wear them the next. Where’d you get those clothes, how can you try them out for size, unless there’s some grace period.
Personally, I’d probably elect for a permanent registration as being an option, with maybe an optional cancelation moment once a year after the first 10 years.
Not really. Anyone can register, so it’s not considered discrimination or anything to require it. The reverse of course is not true, you can’t just unregister so employers are prohibited from discriminating against permanently naked people.
And there are of course some regulations about applying such policies fairly. Requiring only the women register for instance would be a quick way to get in trouble. So when adjudicating that kind of case, determining whether there was a legitimate reason some jobs required nudity while others did not might be important. But if you want to have an entirely nude office, there’s certainly nothing unfair about that, so that would be perfectly legal.
I can see a potential problem with laws against religious discrimination for example.
Some religions and cultures are extremely prudish and prohibit any form of nudity in most any setting.
Islam is one such, strict protestant Christian varieties are another.
I don’t think you can tackle the real-world issues of religious discrimination in the context of a universe with permanent nudity as a choice and nudity as a punishment. It’s just too complicated. However …
Islam generally aims to control what we would generally see as both morality and culture, so has a genuine interest in what people wear. That said, there are movements on Islam which seek to focus on the moral and spiritual, and they could be open to a cultural acceptance of nudity. Certainly there are a few Muslims who call themselves nudists – but not in public!
But you would struggle to find a Christian denomination which has ‘you must wear clothes’ or something similar as part of its creed. There have been Christian naturists since long before people had the concept of naturism, and there is clearly a good deal if incidental nudity in the Bible which is never an issue. Even those strict groups would find it hard to maintain that their stance is religious, rather than cultural, if you pushed them to explain why they believe that they do about the need to remain dressed.
Pretty hard to get around the fact that when Adam and Eve were without sin they were also without clothes. A Christian could argue they are needed now in the “fallen” world, but clearly God had nothing against nudity in principle.
Some schools in Christianity reason that when Adam and Eve fell into sin they were punished by having to wear clothes and as humans are inherently sinful creatures therefore that requirement is there for all humans.
Quietly forgetting that Christ died so our sins could be forgiven in this world and the next.
Which just shows you can interpret religious scriptures however you like to fit your agenda I guess.
Absolutely. And God says nothing about them needing to wear clothes. In fact, Adam says, “I hid because I was naked,” and God replies, “Who told you you are naked?” – which could easily mean, “So who says that is a problem?”
You’d be surprised. I grew up in the Dutch bible belt and they’re prudish and strict in the extreme.
Even today, clothing from neck to ankles and wrists, no cleavage, and on sundays a hat (for men and women, and older children) is called for and strictly obeyed to.
As is the requirement for muted colours, and on sunday only black and white (though grey tones are allowed).
For them there was an excemption to the requirement to send children on swimming lessons and PE as those would of necessity require more revealing clothing for the children (shorts and t-shirts for PE and of course swim trunks and bathing suits for swimming lessons).
Oh, no – I’m not surprised. People will take the text and distort it to agree with whatever they want to say. Clearly, many Christian are very uptight – just as many people who are not Christians are very uptight. And everybody (more or less!) uses whatever authority figures they know, as a way of justifying their prejudices. My point is not about the way people use the Bible. I’m simply saying that the Bible itself is very naturist-friendly.
… I might add that quite a bit of that friendliness towards naturism is fairly well hidden by the English translations we are mainly familiar with. It is often quite surprising when you discover what the text says, rather than what you assume it means – but this is not the place!
Is it a co-ed office? I do need a good job…
Has anyone been able to register for the rest of their life instead of having a limit and then having to reregister in five years?
For some reason, that doesn’t really appeal to me, so I’ve always had to be time based. I think there’s been one or two captions about someone getting life sentence of nudity for a crime, but that’s still very unusual, because if they did something bad enough to deserve losing their clothes forever they probably belong in prison instead of walking around naked but free.
I was thinking more when you have captions where they feel that they will never wear clothes again. I was just wondering if there was an option where they could just give up clothing for life.
Sorry if that was unclear. I only mentioned the nude life sentence thing since it was the closest I do have any captions about. I don’t have any about voluntary lifetime registration. I’ve usually said 10 years is the maximum.
Perhaps an auto-renewal option could be a thing?
She checks that box that says “automatically renew registration until rescinded in writing.” A month prior to expiration, she gets a notice (email and/or snail mail) reminding her of her pending renewal. If she takes no action, her registration continues for another term.
Effective lifetime registration.
Makes total sense.
Yeah, that’s how I’d envision such things.
A notification your registration is about to expire is a must anyway, to prevent accidental violation by people who forget the expiry date is coming up.
I’d also think there’d be some sort of transition period, as going from registered to unregistered instantly has the problem that it’s illegal for you to possess clothes one minute and required to wear them the next. Where’d you get those clothes, how can you try them out for size, unless there’s some grace period.
Personally, I’d probably elect for a permanent registration as being an option, with maybe an optional cancelation moment once a year after the first 10 years.
I am sure it would be illegal to refuse a job to a clothed person unless you could prove that nudity was a real requirement of the job.
Not really. Anyone can register, so it’s not considered discrimination or anything to require it. The reverse of course is not true, you can’t just unregister so employers are prohibited from discriminating against permanently naked people.
And there are of course some regulations about applying such policies fairly. Requiring only the women register for instance would be a quick way to get in trouble. So when adjudicating that kind of case, determining whether there was a legitimate reason some jobs required nudity while others did not might be important. But if you want to have an entirely nude office, there’s certainly nothing unfair about that, so that would be perfectly legal.
I can see a potential problem with laws against religious discrimination for example.
Some religions and cultures are extremely prudish and prohibit any form of nudity in most any setting.
Islam is one such, strict protestant Christian varieties are another.
I don’t think you can tackle the real-world issues of religious discrimination in the context of a universe with permanent nudity as a choice and nudity as a punishment. It’s just too complicated. However …
Islam generally aims to control what we would generally see as both morality and culture, so has a genuine interest in what people wear. That said, there are movements on Islam which seek to focus on the moral and spiritual, and they could be open to a cultural acceptance of nudity. Certainly there are a few Muslims who call themselves nudists – but not in public!
But you would struggle to find a Christian denomination which has ‘you must wear clothes’ or something similar as part of its creed. There have been Christian naturists since long before people had the concept of naturism, and there is clearly a good deal if incidental nudity in the Bible which is never an issue. Even those strict groups would find it hard to maintain that their stance is religious, rather than cultural, if you pushed them to explain why they believe that they do about the need to remain dressed.
Pretty hard to get around the fact that when Adam and Eve were without sin they were also without clothes. A Christian could argue they are needed now in the “fallen” world, but clearly God had nothing against nudity in principle.
Some schools in Christianity reason that when Adam and Eve fell into sin they were punished by having to wear clothes and as humans are inherently sinful creatures therefore that requirement is there for all humans.
Quietly forgetting that Christ died so our sins could be forgiven in this world and the next.
Which just shows you can interpret religious scriptures however you like to fit your agenda I guess.
Absolutely. And God says nothing about them needing to wear clothes. In fact, Adam says, “I hid because I was naked,” and God replies, “Who told you you are naked?” – which could easily mean, “So who says that is a problem?”
You’d be surprised. I grew up in the Dutch bible belt and they’re prudish and strict in the extreme.
Even today, clothing from neck to ankles and wrists, no cleavage, and on sundays a hat (for men and women, and older children) is called for and strictly obeyed to.
As is the requirement for muted colours, and on sunday only black and white (though grey tones are allowed).
For them there was an excemption to the requirement to send children on swimming lessons and PE as those would of necessity require more revealing clothing for the children (shorts and t-shirts for PE and of course swim trunks and bathing suits for swimming lessons).
Oh, no – I’m not surprised. People will take the text and distort it to agree with whatever they want to say. Clearly, many Christian are very uptight – just as many people who are not Christians are very uptight. And everybody (more or less!) uses whatever authority figures they know, as a way of justifying their prejudices. My point is not about the way people use the Bible. I’m simply saying that the Bible itself is very naturist-friendly.
… I might add that quite a bit of that friendliness towards naturism is fairly well hidden by the English translations we are mainly familiar with. It is often quite surprising when you discover what the text says, rather than what you assume it means – but this is not the place!