I have to say I’m in great admiration of Urban Nudists including Steve Gough for challenging people’s comfort zone where applicable. “Hey man, it's just a dick” nicely sums up the whole crux of the situation.
People have this misconception that the sight of a naked body is going to scar them for life, or cause their children to be sexual deviants. That of course is a ridiculous notion.
Although it sounds like nitpicking, the second someone says, “we should cover up so as not to offend people,” or “we should be mindful of other people’s sensitivities," what you’re really saying is that the naked body is offensive, and should be covered up at all times, except for special circumstances.
Although the Universal Bill of Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx) take some sifting through, one of the things that they uphold is “the dignity and worth of the human person”. Taken in context, what these documents state is that all people have inherent dignity and worth irrespective of their nationality, sex, religion or cultural beliefs. Therefore, it isn’t possible for a naked person to be offensive, as the human person has inherent dignity and worth.
Although it might be difficult for some people to comprehend, let alone fully understand, if the human person has inherent dignity and worth, acceptable nakedness is non-contextual. In plain English that means it's not the place or situation that makes being naked okay, it is this inherent dignity that makes the nakedness okay. This has been tested in NZ court cases.
Without realising it, many naturists and nudists are caught in a trap of thinking nudity is only acceptable if it's in the right context. This is bourne out by numerous posts, past and present, that attempt to insist that the Naktiv site is a naturist site. Alternatively that particular images should met some naturist standard.
Inherent dignity and worth dictates that whether you're dressed in a business suit, grass skirt, crotchless leather pants or are stark naked, you are of equal worth and dignity, with the same human rights as anyone else. These documents trump any other law, culture or religion that's ever existed, where the bill of rights is written into law.
You as an individual are free to limit your rights according to your individual cultural or religious beliefs. What you're not permitted to do is infringe the rights of others based on your beliefs.
The underlying point everyone should understand, is that acceptable nakedness is unconditional. A dick is a dick is a dick, just as breasts are breasts, buttocks are buttocks, and vulvas are vulvas. Any body part in plain sight isn’t in and of itself offensive. Whether it’s the only part you see due to attire, whether it’s on an urban street, or at the beach. None of that is relevant under the universal bill of rights. If you examine cases where indecent or offensive exposure is alleged, and the bill of rights exists in law, you’ll find that there needs to have been intent to offend involved, and proof of lewd behaviour. Under the bill of rights, mere nakedness is not grounds for offence.
However uneasy some people may feel about the ramifications of these rights, they are the only way forward. They nullify meaningless cultural conditions that change with the times. The vast majority of current fashion would have had you arrested under indecency laws less than a century ago.
The envelop does need to be pushed because equality can’t exist when you need to meet some momentary pseudo standard in order to have your worth and rights recognised.