Libertarian approach/solution to flashing/exhibitionism

[Rothbardian Girl]

I too have this dilemma. If I was 15 and a older woman flashed me, that would have been the best day of my life. But I can also see why it would traumatize a 15 year old girl. Putting it another way, I don't care if a 50 year old woman flashes my 15 year old son, but I do care if a 50 year old man flashes my 15 year old daughter.



Should it? Is death an appropriate response for flashing? I have trouble with reconciling the seriousness of the two. Also, what right is being violated here?

If you can see why it would potentially traumatize a girl, it should be easy to see why it would potentially traumatize a male. I am quite confident that not all males would respond the same way to your "older woman" scenario. I'm not too far removed from my teenage years myself, and I can anecdotally tell you that not all 15-year-old girls are as demure as your post makes them out to be (though, again, this is also a sliding scale). I understand what your fatherly intuition might tell you, but I think it's based on flawed assumptions about all female sexuality.

I do appreciate you making this thread, though. I have thought about similar scenarios before, but used them to conclude that the right to privacy is not inherent in libertarianism. I don't want to get too far off track here, so I'll go ahead and agree with a more refined version of the "No victim, no crime" argument. Basically, I don't think flashing is criminally punishable, because it's impossible to know what the flasher's intentions are, and there would be an overwhelming tendency to split hairs. Fisharmor's hypothetical "judging process" seems too arbitrary and unwieldy to me. I would also add that a lot of the concern about such behavior (i.e., worrying about mental scars and so on) is linked to certain views on sex and sexuality, as you seemed to indicate in the post of yours that I'm quoting. Basically, I think a libertarian society with a lot more openness on these two fronts would have to worry about such incidents less, which is part of the reason why I'm not a NAP-only kind of person.

However, I do recognize that some libertarians have concerns about the possible, not-always-occurring mental ramifications of such an incident, and so those libertarians would have a *thick* interest (that is, promoting other values besides just the NAP) in "punishing" such behavior, and I'm sure all kinds of convoluted court systems like fisharmor's would pop up in places dominated by those sorts of people. This is one scenario in which the much-maligned thick-thin libertarianism divide can be of some use in understanding the appropriate responses to such a concern.

 

[Christian Liberty]

My answer isn't shown there. The states and local communities have the right to dictate local standards.

Unless that's your only opinion on the matter, this isn't a real answer. Do you have a preference for your community?

If you can see why it would potentially traumatize a girl, it should be easy to see why it would potentially traumatize a male. I am quite confident that not all males would respond the same way to your "older woman" scenario. I'm not too far removed from my teenage years myself, and I can anecdotally tell you that not all 15-year-old girls are as demure as your post makes them out to be (though, again, this is also a sliding scale). I understand what your fatherly intuition might tell you, but I think it's based on flawed assumptions about all female sexuality.

I do appreciate you making this thread, though. I have thought about similar scenarios before, but used them to conclude that the right to privacy is not inherent in libertarianism. I don't want to get too far off track here, so I'll go ahead and agree with a more refined version of the "No victim, no crime" argument. Basically, I don't think flashing is criminally punishable, because it's impossible to know what the flasher's intentions are, and there would be an overwhelming tendency to split hairs. Fisharmor's hypothetical "judging process" seems too arbitrary and unwieldy to me. I would also add that a lot of the concern about such behavior (i.e., worrying about mental scars and so on) is linked to certain views on sex and sexuality, as you seemed to indicate in the post of yours that I'm quoting. Basically, I think a libertarian society with a lot more openness on these two fronts would have to worry about such incidents less, which is part of the reason why I'm not a NAP-only kind of person.

However, I do recognize that some libertarians have concerns about the possible, not-always-occurring mental ramifications of such an incident, and so those libertarians would have a *thick* interest (that is, promoting other values besides just the NAP) in "punishing" such behavior, and I'm sure all kinds of convoluted court systems like fisharmor's would pop up in places dominated by those sorts of people. This is one scenario in which the much-maligned thick-thin libertarianism divide can be of some use in understanding the appropriate responses to such a concern.

I disagree with your understanding of the thick-thin debate. Thin libertarianism does NOT mean that the libertarian has no values or preferences other than the NAP, but only that adherence to the NAP is the only essential component of being libertarian.

As far as I can understand, this debate is not challenging the NAP itself, but is a discussion over what constitutes an NAP violation. So a libertarian could argue that flashing violates the NAP in X, Y, or Z circumstance and still be a libertarian (unless one views this as a grievous philosophical error, which is subjective, to me this issue isn't serious enough that I would question one's adherence to the NAP on its basis) but one could not say that they want flashing to be illegal even though it is not an NAP violation and still be a libertarian.

 

[lib3rtarian]

My answer isn't shown there. The states and local communities have the right to dictate local standards.

Of course. No one is saying this should be a federal crime. But, what should it be at the local level?

It amazes and saddens me that our culture draws a distinction between these two examples.

My line of reasoning is this - if a older woman (OW) flashes a younger man (YM), the matter probably ends there, unless the YM wants more. The OW is not going to force herself upon the YM, because the YM is probably physically stronger than the OW, and both parties know it. But if an older man (OM) flashes a younger woman (YW), depending on the settings, the matter may not necessarily end there. If the YW doesn't react, or takes a look, it can be construed as acceptance/liking & the OM may force himself on the YW. So I am not worried about the flashing scenario per se, but what it might lead to.

If you can see why it would potentially traumatize a girl, it should be easy to see why it would potentially traumatize a male. I am quite confident that not all males would respond the same way to your "older woman" scenario. I'm not too far removed from my teenage years myself, and I can anecdotally tell you that not all 15-year-old girls are as demure as your post makes them out to be (though, again, this is also a sliding scale). I understand what your fatherly intuition might tell you, but I think it's based on flawed assumptions about all female sexuality.

See my reasoning above. Does it make sense?

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

I disagree with your understanding of the thick-thin debate. Thin libertarianism does NOT mean that the libertarian has no values or preferences other than the NAP, but only that adherence to the NAP is the only essential component of being libertarian.

Before ProIndividual sees this thread, I'm going to continue ignoring Stirnerists and people labeling themselves libertarians who don't adhere to the NAP, just for the sake of clarity and brevity. If need be, just replace NAP with "the thin aspects of libertarianism" in the following: A "thin libertarian" literally cannot exist, because the NAP by itself does not imply that it is the only essential component of being libertarian. So, anyone who says what you have just said in the second part of your second sentence is expressing a thick view of libertarianism. Put another way, all libertarians are thick and thin libertarians at the same time. So, the distinction *seems* pointless, but as I have just pointed out in my previous post, there are some areas where the distinction is actually useful and where it does not devolve into wars between leftist vs. rightist cultural views. "Thick" and "thin" are not properly applied to people (i.e., "thick libertarian" and "thin libertarian" do not make any sense as phrases), they refer to analytical perspectives, if that makes any sense.

As far as I can understand, this debate is not challenging the NAP itself, but is a discussion over what constitutes an NAP violation.

Correct. I did not mean to challenge the NAP, just that flashing in fact does not violate the NAP (additionally, most, if not all, of the shame and disgust associated with it is a product of culture), so any libertarian wishing to oppose such behavior out of concern for the well-being of others has to look elsewhere, since the NAP *by itself* does not have anything to say about it.

Ahem... sorry for the derail.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Basically, I think a libertarian society with a lot more openness on these two fronts would have to worry about such incidents less, which is part of the reason why I'm not a NAP-only kind of person.

Part of the reason? How does the one lead to the other?

Look, as a matter of fact, here's the reality: no one is a NAP-only person. We all have agendas and aesthetics above and beyond "I want to live in a society that is in compliance with the NAP." All of us. There isn't a single one of us who doesn't.

This is one scenario in which the much-maligned thick-thin libertarianism divide can be of some use in understanding the appropriate responses to such a concern.

Allow me to malign this ill-begotten terminology a little more. There is no "thick-thin divide." This is an uninformative, and thus stupid, term made up for rhetorical reasons by a small group of libertarians, former libertarians, and people with libertarian-ish sentiments who also have many leftist and egalitarian sentiments. It is bogus.

These leftist/egalitarian libertarians are on board with all the trendy social causes. They have all the right beliefs and aesthetics to be in the in-crowd. Their social circles consist of Marxists and progressives. They are hip. They are urban. They are "with it". They bemoan the oppression of women -- they want a society full of empowered career women, not barefoot, pregnant housewives. They believe gays should be proud of their lifestyle and accepted by everyone, not looked down upon by society. They want people to have, as you put it Rothbardian Girl, "a lot more openness" on the sex and sexuality fronts, not follow tired old standards of moral fuddy-duddy-ism. Those type of issues are their "thickness".

Then there's another group of libertarians, which has become the main group, leading the movement. This is the Ron Paul - Lew Rockwell - Tom Woods strain. They are contrarians, comfortable and even rejoicing in bucking the place that conventional opinion has wound up in. They believe in very traditional, old-fashioned values. Think Horatio Alger and Laura Ingalls Wilder. They associate with Southern sympathizers, secessionists worldwide, and right-wingy people. They are traditional family men, with wives and children. They see nothing wrong with women staying at home and raising the children and men being the breadwinners, and that is how they operate. They disapprove personally of homosexuality; they think it's perverted and unfortunate. Many are church-goers, the rest hold similar values and can relate easily to those who are. They would like to see a strengthening of the traditional family unit. They would like to see a return to the time-tested and proven values and norms which worked for thousands of years. They would like to see a lot less "openness" -- crudeness, disrespect, infidelity, filthiness -- in sex and sexuality. They see Virtue and Fidelity as values that have no expiration date, but are still as relevant and important in this day as those past. Those types of issues are their "thickness."

Both of these groups are "thick" in their own way. One group wants "free love," the other wants the divorce rate to go down to 1800s levels. One group nods in concern at bellyaching about the "glass ceiling," the other nods in concern at bellyaching about the "War of Yankee Aggression." One wants to abolish the slavery of traditional gender roles, the other doesn't even believe in recycling.

So it is a divide between traditional bourgeoisie values and multicultural egalitarian values. Neither set of values is contained within the NAP. Neither has anything to do with the NAP, really. The values are pretty diametrically opposed to each other. But, under libertarianism, they can live together in harmony, side by side. We can have Greenwich Villages and Amish Villages. And the traditionalists, at least, are very tolerant; big-tent all the way. Roderick Long still gets warmly invited to speak at the Mises Institute. But eradicating gender stereotypes and racial prejudice is not part of libertarianism, any more than eradicating mini-skirts, promiscuousness, and filthy TV shows.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Part of the reason? How does the one lead to the other?

All I really meant to imply is that my thin, NAP-focused understanding of libertarianism doesn't really offer me any tools with which to address the very understandable concern that some may have, which is that flashing by itself may lead to psychological trauma for an individual and thus is something to be opposed. So the NAP by itself does not lead to an optimal outcome for those libertarians in this case. Libertarians differ on things like animal and children's rights as well, and some use concepts outside of the NAP in order to properly understand the best treatment of those scenarios in a way that is still compatible with libertarian principles.

[...]

But, under libertarianism, they can live together in harmony, side by side.

I don't disagree, and neither does the originator of the term, just so you don't get him mixed up with your average statist social-justice warrior. While there's certainly nothing inconsistent about traditional bourgeois values in a libertarian society, they just don't really make sense for libertarians to be advocating as a matter of principle. Why shouldn't libertarian arguments against the state apply just as well to a hierarchical society? While everything would be private and voluntary, why would people bother to live under an authoritarian society, if they knew there were alternatives and had freedom of association? Left-libertarians such as Roderick Long and Charles Johnson certainly make it clear that state-backed force shouldn't enter the equation in a vain attempt to make everyone equal. What they do argue is that libertarians certainly can try and convince everyone that authoritarian social institutions are not necessary for order and peace. Doing so wouldn't make them un-libertarian, as I think you understand. It's a matter of consistency. The very libertarian notion of equality in political authority applies to private institutions as well.

I think I've officially successfully derailed this thread, but PMing me about this might work if we want to try and steer this thing back on-topic.

 

[otherone]

My answer isn't shown there. The states and local communities have the right to dictate local standards.

[/thread]

...

 

[MelissaWV]

Laugh at them. You can clearly see that they're unarmed, and if there are kids around it's just a naked person; use it as a teachable moment. Seriously. Why do people act like a child will never be the same if they see genitals? The only thing that has the potential to scar them here is the adults around them freaking out.

And yes, this should all be handled on a local level obviously, but it's still ridiculous to think people are so frightened by nudity.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Just because the thread needs more lolz...

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Thanks for your reply, Rothbardian Girl. And thanks for the link to that post from Charles Johnson. In it, at the end he says the same thing I was saying: that anti-homosexuality is just as "thick" as anti-racism. So my point, unsurprisingly, was nothing new.

Why shouldn't libertarian arguments against the state apply just as well to a hierarchical society? While everything would be private and voluntary, why would people bother to live under an authoritarian society, if they knew there were alternatives and had freedom of association?

This is a very important question! Why, do you think, do people choose to live in Amish communities today, when it is by most measures much more authoritarian, structured, and restricted than the outside world? Why do they pick that when they could go out and be so much more free and empowered by joining the society all around them?

Why do people subject themselves to ecclesiastical authorities?

Why do people join hierarchical organizations of any sort? Why aren't we all just independent contractors?

Why subject and adapt our personalities and habits in order to fit in with other people? Why not just let it all hang out, be yourself, stop being so uptight and stifled?

Why do people abide by complex and highly restrictive sets of rules when playing games of pick-up basketball? Why not just be free? Take the red pill! Stop being oppressed! Right?

In short: they don't apply because they don't apply. Anti-state arguments don't apply to non-state entities, because there is a big difference between being a state and not. There is a big difference between voluntary hierarchies and social strata on the one hand, and monopolistic nation-states on the other. Some people are better than others. They are smarter. They have more willpower. They concentrate and work more. People are going to rise to the top and boss many other people around -- perhaps millions. These millions will voluntarily and gladly be bossed around by him, because they are so tremendously more productive when they do what he say vs. when they do their own thing.

You can try to repeal power. I think that's naive. But you can try.

As for me, I am very happy and satisfied with a situation that allows legitimate power, based on voluntary decisions. I think we should try to rebuild the social structures and hierarchies that have largely been torn down by the state. I think that in a free society there will be a natural elite -- people who are highly respected due to being high-quality individuals. And I think that's good.

The very libertarian notion of equality in political authority applies to private institutions as well.

It really doesn't. It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense to "you can't commit initiatory force" to institutions not committing initiatory force. They already aren't. So no problem.

There is no libertarian notion of equality in political power.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

As far as this topic: it is not aggression. Period. Thus it must be legal. Period.

I disagree with fisharmor's idea of vigilante justice. For one thing, in a developed libertarian society one's insurance company would almost certainly require one to refrain from vigilante justice, except perhaps in some very extreme extenuating circumstances, because even if technically permissible, vigilantism leads to so many other problems -- third-party involvement and damages, potential for mistakes and wrongful retribution -- they just wouldn't deal with insuring something like that. So to be a member of polite and civilized society, you would have to refrain from, for instance, shooting people just because they are not wearing clothes. If you are in a gated community that prohibits nudity like that, you will have to make a complaint and go through a formal legal process.

In a libertarian society, any number of things could be banned within the subscribers to a certain legal order. You subscribe to a legal order wherein drug use was banned, or in which women must wear burkas. There could even be geographical communities set up with standards like this. But in the over-arching, universal law applying to all the communities, one community cannot force its standards upon a man not a member of that community, on his own property.

And there's the key. Property.

Where was the flasher standing?

Whether his behavior was or was not permissible is a decision made by [fanfare]: the property owner! Who owns the bus stop? Whoever it is, he makes the rules. He calls the shots.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Off topic, but I'd like to know if putting a nude statue or other depiction of a naked person is 1) considered akin to flashing 2) something serious enough to be considered in need of legalities and such as flashing is. Thanks! ~hugs~

ETA: also, what if the owner chose to carry the nude artwork in question off his property for whatever reason in a manner that allows it to be easily seen?

 

[enoch150]

Public nudity is not prohibited by Vermont state law. Some towns prohibit nudity in certain areas of the towns, like parks, but permit it in other areas. Every few years a couple of people will walk around naked in the permitted areas just to get some attention. No one is traumatized, they don't make porn all over the town square, and there isn't an unusually high number of 50 year old men raping 15 year old girls.

Lewdness is against the law, so flashing, which is considered to be done for sexual gratification, is illegal.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Of course. No one is saying this should be a federal crime. But, what should it be at the local level?



My line of reasoning is this - if a older woman (OW) flashes a younger man (YM), the matter probably ends there, unless the YM wants more. The OW is not going to force herself upon the YM, because the YM is probably physically stronger than the OW, and both parties know it. But if an older man (OM) flashes a younger woman (YW), depending on the settings, the matter may not necessarily end there. If the YW doesn't react, or takes a look, it can be construed as acceptance/liking & the OM may force himself on the YW. So I am not worried about the flashing scenario per se, but what it might lead to.



See my reasoning above. Does it make sense?

someone is obviously never visited the fetlife website....

-t

 

[lib3rtarian]

someone is obviously never visited the fetlife website....

-t

I hadn't. I just looked it up. :-O

 

[Christian Liberty]

As far as this topic: it is not aggression. Period. Thus it must be legal. Period.

I disagree with fisharmor's idea of vigilante justice. For one thing, in a developed libertarian society one's insurance company would almost certainly require one to refrain from vigilante justice, except perhaps in some very extreme extenuating circumstances, because even if technically permissible, vigilantism leads to so many other problems -- third-party involvement and damages, potential for mistakes and wrongful retribution -- they just wouldn't deal with insuring something like that. So to be a member of polite and civilized society, you would have to refrain from, for instance, shooting people just because they are not wearing clothes. If you are in a gated community that prohibits nudity like that, you will have to make a complaint and go through a formal legal process.

In a libertarian society, any number of things could be banned within the subscribers to a certain legal order. You subscribe to a legal order wherein drug use was banned, or in which women must wear burkas. There could even be geographical communities set up with standards like this. But in the over-arching, universal law applying to all the communities, one community cannot force its standards upon a man not a member of that community, on his own property.

And there's the key. Property.

Where was the flasher standing?

Whether his behavior was or was not permissible is a decision made by [fanfare]: the property owner! Who owns the bus stop? Whoever it is, he makes the rules. He calls the shots.

I don't think that fish was so much ENDORSING vigilante justice as he was just saying that there shouldn't be legal reprecussions if it happens. And I'm not sure he was talking about vigilante justice so much as borderline defense cases.

Flashing shouldn't be a crime on public property, that seems obvious to me. Its not the #1 reason I'm a libertarian, but nonetheless, this is the only logical conclusion we can come to.

But could there be a situation in which flashing could lead to reasonable fear of rape? Maybe. I'll let the courts figure that out.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't think that fish was so much ENDORSING vigilante justice as he was just saying that there shouldn't be legal reprecussions if it happens. And I'm not sure he was talking about vigilante justice so much as borderline defense cases.

If the system of insurance companies, security and defense companies, and arbitration companies which constitutes the legal system under libertarianism prohibit their customers from engaging in vigilante justice, then yes, there are legal repercussions for violating that prohibition. There may be a penalty built into the contract that the customer signed. The company may refuse to indemnify and defend him in a dispute over the death with the killed man's heirs or insurance company. Or, worst of all: they may drop him as a customer and blacklist him. He may become Uninsured, a pariah, putting an end to his life as it was.

Flashing shouldn't be a crime on public property, that seems obvious to me. Its not the #1 reason I'm a libertarian, but nonetheless, this is the only logical conclusion we can come to.

There is no public property. That's the whole point of libertarianism: get rid of all so-called public property. In a libertarian society, all property is private.

But could there be a situation in which flashing could lead to reasonable fear of rape? Maybe. I'll let the courts figure that out.

But could there be a situation in which openly carrying a handgun could lead to reasonable fear of being murdered?

 

[fisharmor]

If the system of insurance companies, security and defense companies, and arbitration companies which constitutes the legal system under libertarianism prohibit their customers from engaging in vigilante justice, then yes, there are legal repercussions for violating that prohibition. There may be a penalty built into the contract that the customer signed. The company may refuse to indemnify and defend him in a dispute over the death with the killed man's heirs or insurance company. Or, worst of all: they may drop him as a customer and blacklist him. He may become Uninsured, a pariah, putting an end to his life as it was.

Right, I'm familiar with all of this and I take it into consideration, sure.
But really all you're doing in that paragraph is boiling it down to penalties. What potential penalty does behavior X carry? We could talk about the flashing itself, or we could talk about individual reaction to the flashing, which is where I was going.
I can see that it seemed like I was jumping straight to "Shoot the asshole" but that's not my point.
My point was to illustrate that there are extralegal ramifications to flashing people.

Most of the commonweath of Virginia is (outside of interactions with the police) fairly safe compared to the rest of the country. You can go right across a river and get to some of the worst crime infested areas in the country. If you watch the nightly news in DC, all of the crazy crap they're reporting is very much not happening in Virginia.

I credit this to liberal concealed and open carry laws. It has nothing to do with law enforcement and even less to do with the completely Orwellian "justice" system here. It has everything to do with the fact that if you mess with people here you stand a very real chance of spending the rest of your day as a corpse.

I believe in statelessness because I believe that once you discount the people who genuinely don't want to mess with other people, plus the people who won't mess with other people provided those other people are allowed to mess with them right back, the number of really bad seeds you end up with is infinitesimal.

I also believe in statelessness because I believe in markets, and in a stateless society the justice market would be about justice. That is what people would be shopping for. If we lived in a stateless society and there wasn't a single legal insurance company that cheerfully covered men whose daughters were flashed right in front of both of them, which fathers then proceeded to immediately break the nose of the flasher, then the nonexistence of that company would only last as long as it would take for it to happen to me, because *I* would start that company and it would take off like gangbusters, under the "don't mess with a man's daughter right in front of him if you don't want your nose broke" legal principle.

To state it succinctly, there's very definitely a market for that.

To add more flavor to the discussion, consider what an outlaw is. 1000 years ago this concept was used to help bring people to justice. To be declared an outlaw didn't mean you were a criminal that the authorities were looking for. It meant that you did not enjoy the protection of the law. It meant that anyone who encountered you was going to be legally indemnified for whatever they did to you. Combine that with a bounty, and all of a sudden it might become a pretty strong incentive to turn yourself in. It meant that you might have a better chance within the system.

I guess to boil it all down, all I'm saying is this: the libertarian solution is generally to consider "how can this be done without the state", and I'm pointing out other ways that it will be done. Is it vigilante justice? Perhaps.... but all that means, the literal definition of it, is that individuals remain vigilant in seeking justice.

There is no public property. That's the whole point of libertarianism: get rid of all so-called public property. In a libertarian society, all property is private.

Yes, this also kind of knocks the legs out from much of this discussion... it will be up to the property owner to stop exhibitionism, or to allow it.

But could there be a situation in which openly carrying a handgun could lead to reasonable fear of being murdered?

Yes. If you're openly carrying a handgun in your hand with it pointed right at my face, I have such reasonable fear.
This is a perfect analogy of what I was saying earlier. Exhibitionism by itself is not a crime. But it can be used in a way that will lead to one getting killed, and I can foresee some of those cases being declared justified.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Dear fisharmor,

You make a lot of good points. Becoming Uninsured is synonymous to becoming Outlaw.

And yes, insurers could certainly prohibit their customers from engaging in outrageous and provocative behavior. Examples might be flashing, or going to bars and egging on inebriated patrons with outrageous slurs and insults against their mothers. While "asking for it" like this is not technically aggression, it is hard to imagine that it would be encouraged by the insurance companies. No one wants to insure someone obnoxious and incendiary who is going around provoking violent conflicts. It would almost certainly be either strongly discouraged or prohibited.

My point was just that the response would surely be limited, too. To violently respond to the guy "asking for it" would surely be either strongly dis-incentivized or prohibited. In short, in a developed modern libertarian society, to "ask for it" and to dish out what he's asking for would both probably be generally out-of-bounds.

I guess to boil it all down, all I'm saying is this: the libertarian solution is generally to consider "how can this be done without the state", and I'm pointing out other ways that it will be done.

But other people may be asking the opposite: "how can this not be done without the state?" They may want to live in a place where everyone can suddenly remove their clothes whenever they want. I don't think there's very many of those people, but there might be some. Libertarianism allows all possible preferences for how one wants to live, as long as it's not aggressing against anyone. Because removing clothes doesn't aggress against anyone, the onus is on the people not wanting it to prevent it. They can do so quite easily by living in communities with normal, non-bohemian norms (like I say, probably nearly every place will be like this, since very few people really appreciate and revel in the freedom to flash and be flashed).

They could also do so by wearing content-filtering contact lenses.

]They could also tag or identify themselves somehow as a person who does not want to be exposed to such behavior, and all decent people would respect that. Conventions will arise.

Yes, this also kind of knocks the legs out from much of this discussion... it will be up to the property owner to stop exhibitionism, or to allow it.

Property is the great problem-solver and conflict-preventer.

But could there be a situation in which openly carrying a handgun could lead to reasonable fear of being murdered?

Yes. If you're openly carrying a handgun in your hand with it pointed right at my face, I have such reasonable fear.
This is a perfect analogy of what I was saying earlier. Exhibitionism by itself is not a crime. But it can be used in a way that will lead to one getting killed, and I can foresee some of those cases being declared justified.

Yep, thank you; exactly. That is what they call in basketball "an assist."

 

[ProIndividual]

This is basically a private property issue. In the current state, on public "property", it bears the same standard as any other thing labeled "crime". That is, it must be demonstrated by the person claiming to be a victim, that there is direct and measurable harm, fraud, or imminent endangerment on an unwilling party who is capable of consent and did not give consent.

That's a pretty tough standard. You, as a would-be victim, have to show either you or someone in your care who cannot consent (because of age, or severe mental illness/handicap) is being coerced. Is nudity coercive? Or is it just offensive?

Using law or social norms to coerce people who aren't coercing anyone against their will (creating victims) is a type of tyranny. You need more than "I was offended" to justify it.

I can see how someone not merely being nude, but also doing something sexual, in front of a minor in your care (or someone of equivalent mental ability to give consent) could be seen as coercion. That's about the only time I'd be comfortable saying it's a coercive act. Otherwise, private property rights should handle it (businesses aren't going to do well if they allow in naked fat guys while people are eating).