You’re not quite naked, but you’re not quite dressed either. Is it legal? I don’t know and I’ve always been curious.
It depends entirely on the jurisdiction. Take the city of Seattle, for example (I know this because I planned an executed a nude photo shoot in public view inside the city limits and sought legal council ahead of time to ensure I wan’t risking being charged with any crimes). The general rule for Seattle hinges on whether the activity is intended to tittilate or sexually arouse observers - and if that is obviously not the intent, then even full nudity is not illegal. Many other large cities have very similar ordinances.
The smaller the town, and the more conservative the region, the stricter and less flexible the ordinances. There are beaches in South Carolina, for example, where they even regulate the minimum amount of coverage for bikinis and beachware.
It’s not city ordinances but state law, you can legally be naked in public throughout Washington state as long as your intent isn’t to sexually arouse others.
You are mistaken. City ordinances absolutely comes into play here. In the US, you are subject to federal law, any additional state laws, any additional county laws, and then any additional city municipal-codes/ordinances.
Here’s the Seattle city ordinance that applies:
Seattle Municipal Code, Chapter 12A.10.130 Indecent Exposure, Paragraph A.
A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.
source:
My understanding is that Seattle previously had a broad law against public nudity which was challenged in state court, the municipal code you cited was created to bring Seattle into explicit compliance with the state constitution after losing in court. I’m not a lawyer but that’s at least how it was explained to me, there’s nothing special about public nudity laws in Seattle relative to the rest of Washington because the courts have already clarified the situation and the same rules apply everywhere through the state. I did some quick googling and it looks like this is roughly accurate. The court case was funnily enough, Seattle vs. Johnson.
This doesn’t invalidate my earlier statement that citizens are still subject to city ordinances.
There are around 20,000 cities and municipalities in the United States, most of them have public-nudity/indecent-exposure laws.
You successfully made the point that the legality of city ordinances can be challenged in higher courts (and even sometimes overturned) but the reality is that most people have neither the funding nor the time nor the expertise to take that up…which means ultimately you’re still subject to a city/municipality ordinances as well as state and federal.
In 2017, Tagami v City of Chicago, the US Court of appeals for 7th Circuit ruled 2-1 that the city’s public nudity ordinance did not violate the complainant’s rights and upheld the lower court decisions (which meant that City of Chicago’s ordinance remained intact and validated as enforceable by the city).
At the end of the day, yes you do have to be cognizant of the ordinances/codes of the city in question and cannot rely on State/Federal law alone.
I think you may have misunderstood me, I was just making the point that there’s nothing special about Seattle public nudity laws and that the same rules technically apply throughout the entire state of Washington. I’m not trying to invalidate any statements or make any points about what laws people have to follow or how the US legal system works or anything like that. Someone said Seattle had special rules about public nudity, I was just clarifying that those same rules apply throughout the state and nothing else.
So is it illegal to be in Washington to intentially arouse others fully clothed?
And what about unintentionally arousal? Like can you not be shirtless if you are so hot that your body puts others into heat?
I was about to put out a throwaway comment about it depending on whether you look cute, but I guess that’s Reddit toxicity and @krayj brings the goods. Excellent answer!
IIRC in Seattle it effectively depends on whether anyone cares enough to report you. If your neighbors don’t mind you gardening naked in your front yard then you’re fine. If they gripe about it then you have to put clothes on. Which seems reasonable to me.
San Francisco has actually been tightening their rules on public nudity because it was getting out of hand.
IIRC in Seattle it effectively depends on whether anyone cares enough to report you. If your neighbors don’t mind you gardening naked in your front yard then you’re fine. If they gripe about it then you have to put clothes on.
That’s not the case. You do not have to put on clothes just because your neighbors don’t like it. Gardening nude is fully legal even if someone complains.
Nudity itself is not obscene, only obscene actions can make it obscene.
you dont have to but you dont want the neighborhood hating you either. or maybe you do. idk.
you dont want the neighborhood hating you either
Care to elaborate why would you care in one sense or another?
neighbors can be helpful or they can be spiteful. id rather have neighbors be predisposed to be helpful but thats me.
In some countries neighbors are poisonously disgusting about expressing distaste for things that shouldn’t be their business and extort your compliance by flaunting disapproval.
yeah situations can vary from culture to culture or even neighbor to neighbor.
If you’re not home and the neighbor notices something suspicious happening at your house, they could call the cops/call you, or they could just pretend they didn’t see it because FU. If your mailbox is on the other side of the street in someone else’s lawn, they could weed whack carefully around it or they could “”“accidentally”“” damage the post every time. They could pick up their dog’s shit or they could send their dog over to use your yard. While all of those negative outcomes could be solved with security cameras and at worst a trip to small claims court, it’s still a hassle. Just depends on what’s worth more to you.
Ah yes the classic “planned and executed a nude public photoshoot” situation. There’s so many of those though…which one was yours so we can really pin down these jurisdictional laws?
Well, I already named the jurisdiction: Seattle, Washington, USA.
The date/time shouldn’t matter since the ordinances haven’t changed, but it was Aug 12, 2012 just in case anyone reading this just happened to be in Seattle at the time and saw us. It was spectated by quite a number of people due to the size of the production - we had lights, a make-up/hair stylist, my assistant, the model, plus security.
!nothingeverhappens
Location is everything to answer your question. In the Middle East, you would be stoned to death. In Middle Alabama, that is just a common sight.
Defining “underwear” probably would come into play too.
A dude in a pair of boxer briefs would probably be fine. A dude in a full on dental floss thin bathing suit like Borat might get into trouble.
Same with a woman. Wearing granny panties and a bra would probably be fine. Wearing exposing lingerie would probably get you arrested for indecency in most places.
This really depends on your exact location. In most of the “western” world, it would be legal. But just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it will go unpunished. You could still be arrested and then have some charges thrown at you trying to make one stick. Disturbing the peace would probably be one of the charges that could stick. And of course other things such as resisting arrest. Whether or not it goes that far would depend on why, where, and how you were out in your underwear and if someone has it out for you or not.
Businesses and even certain public places can obviously refuse you entry.
And if you’re in a school zone, or hanging out in front of a Boys’ and Girls’ Club, or Chuck E Cheese, there are (depending on state and local municipality, please check your local listings) other expectations of dress and decency. You may have to register, even if you didn’t directly commit a sexual crime.
I’m sure some places still have antiquated and unconstitutional laws on the books that might prohibit exactly that. Easy to put on paper but would fall at the slightest bit of opposition.
If it’s legal to be in a swimming suit, it’s legal to be in underwear because you can argue it’s your swim suit.
Many years ago, an iconic commercial touched on this issue.
(I regret sharing advertising material, but)
Advertising not withstanding, that was still a fun watch.
I mean, swimsuits are usually even more revealing than underwear
As Cher once described an outfit: two band-aids and a cork.
If you are a man I think it is.
