Clothes or no clothes ?

[ge****]

1 hour ago, u-6195578a4437c said:

I still cant believe this has become a bit of a debate.
I just wanted to know how many people answer the door naked.
There was no sexual context or intent to cause distress.
Just a quick 5 seconds to grab a parcel or something like that.

The points being made are understandable but waaay too OTT for this subject.
If this is the reaction to non sexual nudity then there is clearly something wrong with society.

The thing is though you opened it up to debate when you made reference to the reactions it gets, and how it makes you laugh - almost making it like the reaction was the purpose for doing it in the first place.
.
I'll say again I have absolutely no issue with nudity, and love the liberation being naked brings but it comes back to appropriateness and context of that nudity and opening the door to an unwitting stranger naked is not at all appropriate from my perspective.
.
As I put to another poster - if your ***age daughter were to deliver a parcel to a neighbour and that neighbour opened the door naked (and in the instance of that poster with a raging hard on), would you think that appropriate or something for that neighbour to laugh about?
.
Perhaps your thread may have illicited a somewhat different reaction if you'd framed it more about enjoying being naked in the privacy of your own home or other appropriate spaces and not made it about the reactions it got from innocent others?

[Hal727]

2 hours ago, u-6195578a4437c said:

I still cant believe this has become a bit of a debate.
I just wanted to know how many people answer the door naked.
There was no sexual context or intent to cause distress.
Just a quick 5 seconds to grab a parcel or something like that.

The points being made are understandable but waaay too OTT for this subject.
If this is the reaction to non sexual nudity then there is clearly something wrong with society.

Right on brother, I can’t believe it either. Waaaayyyy OTT!

[ey****]

generally

I'm not sure why consent is considered 'OTT'

it's a weird hill to die on.

[TheSpicyCleaner]

So I'm a naked cleaner. Nudity is kind of my passion and business. 

However, I like nudity (for myself and others) where it is expected and wanted, this is a matter of consent. And if you think consent is OTT then 😬😬. Anything else is low key flashing. 

Unless someone has asked or agreed to see your bits, maybe keep them to yourself. 

[Deleted Member]

If the scenario was even slightly different I would be agree with your view points.

but again it's non sexual. It's 5 seconds. A head,arm & maybe upto the nipple are on show.

you lot are coming at this like im stood there with the door open while windmilling.

Non consensual nudity is just a part of life. Men walking around topless on a hot day.
Everybody at the beach. Advertising boxers or even deodorant will have topless men.
Films like James bond walking out of the sea topless.
Then there is what is seen on smartphone/internet.
Women in skin sight clothing that are transparent & show their thongs.

We accept so much nudity daily without consent that i cannot believe this is even an issue.

IV had jobs that have taken me to peoples houses. Iv been canvassing. Iv seen plenty of naked people in this scenario & it's simply not been a problem.

[CopperKnob]

Nudity =
The  condition of not wearing clothes, or of not covering a part of the body that is traditionally covered when you are in public
.
So, guys walking round topless/adverts for deodorant/boxer shorts is not considered nudity. Society in the main is accepting of this
.
People opening doors when parts of their body that are traditionally covered (taking into account cultural differences) is nudity.
.
The law states that it is an offence if
he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
.
Given your own OP you intended to open the door naked. You intended to ellicit a reaction which you found to be funny.
.
I don't know how much clearer we can be. What you've described in your own OP is not ethical.
It is not moral.
It is not consensual.
It is a sex crime.

[ge****]

18 minutes ago, u-6195578a4437c said:

If the scenario was even slightly different I would be agree with your view points.

but again it's non sexual. It's 5 seconds. A head,arm & maybe upto the nipple are on show.

you lot are coming at this like im stood there with the door open while windmilling.

Non consensual nudity is just a part of life. Men walking around topless on a hot day.
Everybody at the beach. Advertising boxers or even deodorant will have topless men.
Films like James bond walking out of the sea topless.
Then there is what is seen on smartphone/internet.
Women in skin sight clothing that are transparent & show their thongs.

We accept so much nudity daily without consent that i cannot believe this is even an issue.

IV had jobs that have taken me to peoples houses. Iv been canvassing. Iv seen plenty of naked people in this scenario & it's simply not been a problem.

I think you're totally failing to see the points being made to be honest - it's not about nudity as such and certainly not topless nudity - but about consent in the scenario you described, which despite your backpedalling was clearly about exposing full frontal nudity to an unsuspecting visitor and their reactions to it.
.
You may try and deny that was the intent, but if it wasn't why the comment about reactions? Or even the need to mention being naked?
.
You've changed the scenario to fit your agenda and have them argued the point from that agenda rather than the one originally presented, but totally missed the whole point about consent of the unwitting witness to full frontal nudity.
.
Men topless on a hot day is not nudity, nor is everybody at the beach nudity, or adverts or films you mentioned, or skin tight clothing etc - so you can't hold any of those up as examples.
.
Plain and simple question for you - do you agree that opening your door to an unsuspecting visitor, delivery person, whatever, and exposing yourself fully naked to them is wrong and a breach of their consent? Which is the premise of what I and others have been saying? If you agree it is, then conversation over.
.
If you disagree I refer you back to my earlier question about whether you'd want your ***age daughter to be exposed to that?