Is a Painted Body a Nude Body?

[Skwim]

Note. The poll above assumes the nipples and genitals of dancers are well covered in opaque latex and/or paint.

"A Texas federal judge might have to make that distinction.

A lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S. Western District Court in Austin says clubs where dancers perform in paint, latex, wax, gel, foam, film and coatings are being subjected unfairly to the same $5 entry fee of fully-nude strip clubs.

Those business once had, um, protection that distinguished them from clubs where dancers fully undress. But in 2015, the lawsuit says the state’s comptroller of public accounts began enforcing tax fees for non-sexually oriented businesses based on liquor sales.

The lawsuit says the comptroller lost many challenges that went in front of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

So, according to the lawsuit, in January 2017 the comptroller amended its rules to include clubs that employ latex and paint-covered dancers as sexually oriented businesses.

The dancers are asking a judge to get in the middle of the disagreement and are also seeking monetary damages.

Texas Entertainment Association is the plaintiff. Glenn Hegar, the state’s comptroller, is the defendant."
source​

Consider: latex and paint can both be applied thicker than some clothing material.

 

[sun rise]

What a serious and Earth shattering question. Or perhaps one might ask about such covering flaking off and where to draw the line about thickness of the covering.

 

[Valjean]

What's more likely, a wardrobe malfunction or flaking paint?

 

[Skwim]

What a serious and Earth shattering question.

Can't all be about free will, the evils of evolution, and the Last Post winner. Gotta lighten up every once in awhile.

Or perhaps one might ask about such covering flaking off and where to draw the line about thickness of the covering.

Non-Flaking Paint would take care of the first issue, and as long as the paint is at least as thick as . . . . . . . .silk? or perhaps chiffon, it should qualify.

.

 

[Nakosis]

I voted yes because it's a bad idea to get between a state and it's need to tax folks.

 

[sun rise]

What's more likely, a wardrobe malfunction or flaking paint?

I'll bet a lot of guys would take a minimum wage job of "paint inspector" to verify it was of the proper government-mandated quality and thickness.

 

[Skwim]

I'll bet a lot of guys would take a minimum wage job of "paint inspector" to verify it was of the proper government-mandated quality and thickness.

Hey! Quit trying to break into line.

.

 

[Valjean]

What's the purpose of covering naughty bits, anyway? What's society trying to accomplish? It's not like everyone doesn't know what's under there.
Hiding things in an effort to suppress libido clearly isn't the real goal. Apparently the goal's to draw attention to the offending bits. In that case the more novel alternative would be better, as people become desensitized and bored pretty quickly.

 

[Grumpuss]

What a serious and Earth shattering question. Or perhaps one might ask about such covering flaking off and where to draw the line about thickness of the covering.

What about baby oil & glitter? You mean, those aren't as good as clothes either!?

 

[Skwim]

What's the purpose of covering naughty bits, anyway?

The reason doesn't make any difference, The issue is, in 2017 "the comptroller amended its rules to include clubs that employ latex and paint-covered dancers as sexually oriented businesses," which qualify for a "tax fee." something the performers and business owners feel is unfair.

.

 

[Valjean]

What about baby oil & glitter? You mean, those aren't as good as clothes either!?

No good at all -- the oil stains everything you sit on and the glitter makes a bio-persistent mess.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I strike me the latex and paint is an attempt to get round the law while being as sexually provocative as possible.
The attempt is to bend the law to allow virtual nudity.

Though I am not sure why nudity should be specifically taxed anyway. Just tax the business equally with any other.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

TBH I wouldn't want to go to a club with "dancing girls", just so seedy dude, but if you put a gun to my head and made me, I'd go to the one where the dancers were painted. At least their modesty is preserved, it is "simulated nudity", is a painted body that much different to one encapsulated in a tiny bikini on a beach? No, would be my answer, so there is a subtle and significant difference. I'm pretty sure most men would prefer their wife/sister/daughter to be "painted" if "exotic dancing" was their chosen means of making money, right?
Is this a "bible belt" tax, because of the prevailing religious culture in that part of America? Other states don't tax "simulated nudity" in the same way they tax actual nudity? If so, I hope the painted ladies win their case, because the tax is pretty much saying "you may as well get fully naked, and attract more customers, cos you're being charged the same" right?

 

[bobhikes]

Note. The poll above assumes the nipples and genitals of dancers are well covered in opaque latex and/or paint.

Consider: latex and paint can both be applied thicker than some clothing material.

A painted body is not a nude body but it is also not a clothed body.

 

[Yerda]

I think I need to see pictures if I'm to come to a truly enlightened conclusion...

 

[SabahTheLoner]

This is actually a good question.

By "nude", if you mean lacking being covered by any substance, a painted body is not lacking cover and therefore not really nude. On the other hand, from a social standpoint, the lack of any self-supporting solid-when-put-on covering on a body can be considered nude. Exposure of areas other than the genitalia or nipples can be considered sexual as well (the back, for instance, is considered very sexual when not covered by clothing in Korea). I've known people who considered swimsuits like bikinis or speedos to be nude because it minimally and tightly covers the parts of the body we're all expected to cover "modestly" while not doing much for anything else. So if they're coming from a social standpoint, many more people might consider a painted body to be nude.

This actually makes me think about the social experiment where artists painted jeans on a girl who wasn't wearing anything but thongs underneath the paint itself. (You can google "painted on jeans social experiment" for the video). Would the girl in that experiment be considered lacking in cover and partially nude because of her painted jeans?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Note. The poll above assumes the nipples and genitals of dancers are well covered in opaque latex and/or paint.

"A Texas federal judge might have to make that distinction.

A lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S. Western District Court in Austin says clubs where dancers perform in paint, latex, wax, gel, foam, film and coatings are being subjected unfairly to the same $5 entry fee of fully-nude strip clubs.

Those business once had, um, protection that distinguished them from clubs where dancers fully undress. But in 2015, the lawsuit says the state’s comptroller of public accounts began enforcing tax fees for non-sexually oriented businesses based on liquor sales.

The lawsuit says the comptroller lost many challenges that went in front of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

So, according to the lawsuit, in January 2017 the comptroller amended its rules to include clubs that employ latex and paint-covered dancers as sexually oriented businesses.

The dancers are asking a judge to get in the middle of the disagreement and are also seeking monetary damages.

Texas Entertainment Association is the plaintiff. Glenn Hegar, the state’s comptroller, is the defendant."
source​

Consider: latex and paint can both be applied thicker than some clothing material.

I imagine that what will be at issue won't be what is colloquially called "nude" but the precise explicit definition of some term in some statute.

 

[Skwim]

I strike me the latex and paint is an attempt to get round the law while being as sexually provocative as possible.
The attempt is to bend the law to allow virtual nudity.

Though I am not sure why nudity should be specifically taxed anyway. Just tax the business equally with any other.

What I find a bit odd is that a business where someone works completely naked is regarded as sexually oriented business, but if they wear a G-string presumably the business would not be sexually oriented.

.

 

[Skwim]

TBH I wouldn't want to go to a club with "dancing girls", just so seedy dude, but if you put a gun to my head and made me, I'd go to the one where the dancers were painted. At least their modesty is preserved, it is "simulated nudity", is a painted body that much different to one encapsulated in a tiny bikini on a beach? No, would be my answer, so there is a subtle and significant difference. I'm pretty sure most men would prefer their wife/sister/daughter to be "painted" if "exotic dancing" was their chosen means of making money, right?
Is this a "bible belt" tax, because of the prevailing religious culture in that part of America? Other states don't tax "simulated nudity" in the same way they tax actual nudity? If so, I hope the painted ladies win their case, because the tax is pretty much saying "you may as well get fully naked, and attract more customers, cos you're being charged the same" right?

Austin is in the Bible Belt.

.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think we should just all be nude, all the time.

Why not?