Is a Painted Body a Nude Body?

[Kilgore Trout]

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

Why not?

Some of us like to keep our lunch down.

 

[Valjean]

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

Why not?

Should I be investing in sunscreen futures?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Some of us like to keep our lunch down.

It wouldn't all be bad. We men could add selective looking to our list of flaws.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Should I be investing in sunscreen futures?

That's a toss up.
Half the population would quickly whither away from believing that sunscreen causes autism and refusing to apply it to themselves or their families.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It wouldn't all be bad. We men could add selective looking to our list of flaws.

I expect the small percentage of extremely rewarding visual samples could be worth developing selective vision.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am still trying to get my head around the idea that America has a nude tax at all.
It is as extraordinary as having a beard tax. It has no logic to sustain it at all.

Is it a sort of sin tax? Like the old Catholic "indulgence" that bought forgiveness for some future sins.
Sort of buying the right to sin.

 

[Valjean]

We have all sorts of taxes: Thumb tax, carpet tax, brass tax...

Of course, that's the price of maintaining the country. An ataxic country is headed for a fall.

 

[McBell]

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.

The definition of nude is " the state of wearing no clothing".

 

[Skwim]

The definition of nude is " the state of wearing no clothing".

So what constitutes clothing?

clothing
[kloh-th ing]
noun

1.garments collectively; clothes; raiment; apparel.

2.a covering.
​

I'll take door number 2 Alex.

.

 

[Akivah]

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

Why not?

Because most seats are uncomfortable, either abrasive fabrics or leather that you stick to. Also you'd have to worry about the hygiene of the people that sat in the chair before you.

 

[Akivah]

I am still trying to get my head around the idea that America has a nude tax at all.
It is as extraordinary as having a beard tax. It has no logic to sustain it at all.

Is it a sort of sin tax? Like the old Catholic "indulgence" that bought forgiveness for some future sins.
Sort of buying the right to sin.

Governments (state, county, city) can tax all sorts of things. This case deals with admissions. Generally, admissions for education, charity, or religious purposes are exempt while admissions for theatrical performances, sports events, or entertainment are taxable. It sounds like the government in question is trying to parse pure-sexual clubs from other drinking establishments.

 

[Akivah]

Is a Painted Body Still a Nude body?

To answer questions like this, we have to start with the dictionary.

Nude
- naked or unclothed, as a person or the body.

- a naked human figure
- wearing no clothes, naked.

Naked
- being without clothing or covering
- (of a person or part of a body) without clothes.

The definitions are mostly referencing the lack of clothes, rather than whether the body is concealed or not. However, the 'naked' definition mentions covering as well.

In my opinion, a painted body is a nude body, although it is covered.

 

[metis]

When it comes to nudity, Americans have so many hangups. If anyone here has ever been to a beach whereas there's toplessness or nudity, ya don't even pay much attention after a while.

Frankly, probably 99.9% of all people look better with at least some clothes on, although I'm one that's in the .1% group.

 

[Skwim]

To answer questions like this, we have to start with the dictionary.

Nude
- naked or unclothed, as a person or the body.

- a naked human figure
- wearing no clothes, naked.

Naked
- being without clothing or covering
- (of a person or part of a body) without clothes.

The definitions are mostly referencing the lack of clothes, rather than whether the body is concealed or not. However, the 'naked' definition mentions covering as well.

In my opinion, a painted body is a nude body, although it is covered.

How about brushed on liquid latex? Consider the following three.

Spoiler: An example of all three: latex, cloth, paint

To me there's no significant difference.

.​

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

Rain malfunction.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

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

Why not?

How about I want to keep my breakfast down?
Edit: I made that comment too soon, I see that others have made similar. How about this: I go to the gym and use exercise bicycles after other people have finished with them. Know what I mean?
Also, my yoga classes would be very different. Wouldn't want to get an eyeful of the "happy baby" posture too often!

 

[Akivah]

How about brushed on liquid latex? Consider the following three.

To me there's no significant difference.

.​

I agree there is normally not a significant difference, but that doesn't negate my analysis that the definitions of naked/nude predominantly refer to the lack of clothes, and not to the concealment of a body.

The differences would become apparent if all three models went swimming in their respective "attire".

 

[4consideration]

How about brushed on liquid latex? Consider the following three.

To me there's no significant difference.

.​

I don't see much difference in those photographs, either.

I would not describe any of these women as "nude".

Regarding the lawsuit, here's my 2 cents at this point. (I didn't locate the wording of the regulations.)

If the regulations consider "the act of stripping" as being part of the definition of what makes a business a "sexually oriented business" and the women in the club engage in removing of clothing as part of their dancing -- I can see the argument for taxing them as strippers, even though I would not argue they qualify as stripping to the point of being fully nude.

Since the article indicates the dancers are saying they are not strippers, it's possible they remove no coverings. If they remove no covering as part of their dance, and merely dance in latex, or other alternative-to-cloth coverings, I don't think they should be taxed as though they are "stripping".

If it all boils down to whether or not the end result is fully nudity, I don't think gals painted like in the picture quoted above would qualify.

However, it's possible that it's not as simple as whether or not the gals end up as fully nude. Other activities may be considered. I think it comes down to how they define what is a "sexually oriented business". (I haven't found the wording yet for that.)

 

[Skwim]

I agree there is normally not a significant difference, but that doesn't negate my analysis that the definitions of naked/nude predominantly refer to the lack of clothes, and not to the concealment of a body.

The differences would become apparent if all three models went swimming in their respective "attire".

Or if they were shot out of a cannon, or . . . . . . if they were dropped into a vat of paint remover, or . . . . . . .if they were attacked by the scissors man, or . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

 

[Skwim]

I don't see much difference in those photographs, either.

I would not describe any of these women as "nude".

Regarding the lawsuit, here's my 2 cents at this point. (I didn't locate the wording of the regulations.)

If the regulations consider "the act of stripping" as being part of the definition of what makes a business a "sexually oriented business" and the women in the club engage in removing of clothing as part of their dancing -- I can see the argument for taxing them as strippers, even though I would not argue they qualify as stripping to the point of being fully nude.

Since the article indicates the dancers are saying they are not strippers, it's possible they remove no coverings. If they remove no covering as part of their dance, and merely dance in latex, or other alternative-to-cloth coverings, I don't think they should be taxed as though they are "stripping".

If it all boils down to whether or not the end result is fully nudity, I don't think gals painted like in the picture quoted above would qualify.

However, it's possible that it's not as simple as whether or not the gals end up as fully nude. Other activities may be considered. I think it comes down to how they define what is a "sexually oriented business". (I haven't found the wording yet for that.)

Well put.

.