There were little kids in here watching the whole thing
August 27, 2009 9:40 AM Subscribe

Model Arrested for Posing Nude in New York City's Metropolitan Museum of Art "She told me there were naked statues everywhere," the guard said. "I said, 'Those statues are 400 years old. You're from the 21st century.' " (nsfw-ish)

Zach Hyman takes pictures of nude people in public places.

posted by dirtdirt (105 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

The real crime here is the act of being pretentious.
posted by Avenger at 9:44 AM on August 27, 2009 [13 favorites]

I am at a loss for words. Seriously.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:47 AM on August 27, 2009

Did Hyman get busted?
posted by ElvisJesus at 9:49 AM on August 27, 2009 [49 favorites]

You can bring your camera to the Met? Last gallery I was at quickly yelled, "No cameras!" when I tried to get a background wallpaper with my iPhone.
posted by geoff. at 9:49 AM on August 27, 2009

Or wasn't this the first time?
posted by ElvisJesus at 9:49 AM on August 27, 2009 [3 favorites]

I'm going to be a bit of a tool here and ask that people not contribute their clicks to Rupert Murdoch's unholy empire.
posted by Mister_A at 9:50 AM on August 27, 2009 [4 favorites]

You should totally be able to outrun a guard in the Met. And it would be a blast too.
posted by smackfu at 9:51 AM on August 27, 2009

Ferris Bueller could have pulled it off.
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:52 AM on August 27, 2009 [2 favorites]

And BTW, there aren't exactly a lot of nude statues in the Arms and Armor gallery.
posted by smackfu at 9:55 AM on August 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

There were little kids in here watching the whole thing

OH NOEZ CHILDREN MIGHT SEE WHAT HUMAN BODIES LOOK LIKE JUST THE SAME AS THE ONES ALL OVER THE WALLS ONLY SKINNIER OH NO OH NO WHATEVER WILL WE DO THE SKY IS FALLING

...fuck. So fucking stupid.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:56 AM on August 27, 2009 [35 favorites]

So many things wrong with this. Let's start here:

1) Fuck you Zach Hyman - isn't this what you wanted to happen? I mean....seriously, what the fuck did you expect. Great press though!

2) Fuck you media- Why does everyone care so much about Zach Hyman? There's a whole fucking subculture of people trying to get nude shots in public places - and not just for porn. This is absolutely nothing new nor noteworthy.

3) Fuck you Guard for being ignorant about the basic precepts of the art you...um...protect? keep people from touching? whatever it is you do, and saying something that stupid.

4) Fuck you laws for making absolutely no sense and prohibiting people from being admired as the works of art they are.

5) Fuck you Met for being the Met.

6) Fuck me for wasting brain power writing this.

7) Fuck you jet pack manufacturers. Why do you have to charge so fucking much. (sorry, I was on a roll there...)
posted by Lutoslawski at 9:57 AM on August 27, 2009 [17 favorites]

I can't tell who you're mad at, bagel boy, but I approve anyway.
posted by Mister_A at 9:57 AM on August 27, 2009 [3 favorites]

I thought it was interesting that the 'little kid' who was 'in there watching the whole thing' wasn't looking at the model in a few of the pictures. The comments are pretty typical... liberals are perverts, apparently.
posted by Huck500 at 10:01 AM on August 27, 2009

You can take photos of most anything permanent at the Met, geoff. They simply ask that you don't use flash. Any of the special exhibitions or items on loan are off limits to cameras though.
posted by cmgonzalez at 10:02 AM on August 27, 2009

Wait, why is her arse pixelated? Did she have a bit of poo hanging out of it or something?
posted by Sova at 10:02 AM on August 27, 2009 [3 favorites]

Yes, the poo thing is it.
posted by Mister_A at 10:03 AM on August 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

this exclusive video shows Neill dancing nude in the middle of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

No it does not. Also, everyone, in all of these links, shut the fuck up.
posted by klue at 10:06 AM on August 27, 2009 [2 favorites]

"There were little kids in here watching the whole thing."

Even if there were, it would be nice if we could stop the cycle of seeding the notion in children that the human body is dirty or inappropriate and thus prevent some of the issues that people go through as teens and adults.

If we accept nudity and the body as no big deal, it doesn't mean the end of civilization, nor is it a sign of the impending apocalypse.

It's not like this was porn, with the added elements that would need to be explained to a child.
posted by cmgonzalez at 10:07 AM on August 27, 2009 [2 favorites]

Hyman, however, insisted that his model was taken into custody only because she didn't have an ID on her. But then again, she had no place to keep one.

Lack of creative thinking seems to be the problem here...
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:09 AM on August 27, 2009 [2 favorites]

The story says she was arrested for public lewdness...

§ 245.00 Public lewdness.
A person is guilty of public lewdness when he intentionally exposes
the private or intimate parts of his body in a lewd manner or commits
any other lewd act (a) in a public place, or (b) in private premises
under circumstances in which he may readily be observed from either a
public place or from other private premises, and with intent that he be
so observed.
Public lewdness is a class B misdemeanor.

Doesn't the word lewd involve sexuality?
posted by Huck500 at 10:10 AM on August 27, 2009

“In Times Square, there are cops everywhere,” Hyman said. “It seemed that always right before or after the shoot, a cop car would roll by. Thankfully, we never needed bail money. But I have a clean record, so I’m open to the experience of getting arrested.”

Well, I guess he got his wish. How'd that go over for you? Oh wait, you didn't get arrested, your model did.
posted by scrutiny at 10:20 AM on August 27, 2009

As a former life model myself, I think that unannounced life modeling in public spaces is kind of rude, just as unannounced accordion playing in public spaces is kind of rude.

There's nothing wrong with life modeling any more than there's anything wrong with accordion playing, but people are going to museums not expecting either.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:20 AM on August 27, 2009 [11 favorites]

Well, I guess he got his wish. How'd that go over for you? Oh wait, you didn't get arrested, your model did.

It's awesome, isn't it? She puts her unclothed ass on the line, he reaps the benefits of the publicity.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:21 AM on August 27, 2009

I can't tell who you're mad at, bagel boy, but I approve anyway.

Dirtynumbangelboy was mad at the guard who is quoted in the post title.

Now I want a New York bagel. Mmmm, yeasty chewy goodness.
posted by longsleeves at 10:23 AM on August 27, 2009

I once was forced to turn my "Fuck Art, Let's Kill" t-shirt inside out at a museum.

Me and some friends had been there for a while already, when this little old lady, with three security guards behind her, comes up and tells me I have to go to the bathroom and turn the shirt inside out. You could tell she was afraid it was all going to blow up in her face like the above situation; I honestly hadn't realized what shirt I was wearing. It's far from the most offensive thing in my closet =p

The best part, no one had read/reacted to the shirt in the first hour I'd already been there. In the second hour, after the shirt was inside out, I couldn't go 10 feet without someone reading the words backwards thru the shirt and laughing.
posted by nomisxid at 10:24 AM on August 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

Doesn't the word lewd involve sexuality?

Yes but the word "or" means that both the first part "when he intentionally exposes
the private or intimate parts of his body" and also the second part "commits any other lewd act" are both illegal.

On the hand it only uses the word "he" so I guess women are off the hook. Which, interestingly is actually how a lot of people feel about nudity (women: "ok" men "ew").

Also, you can't get arrested for not having ID. I think what he means is that because the model didn't have ID, they had to arrest her otherwise they wouldn't have been able to tell who she was to give her a ticket.

I agree it's pretty lame that the model would be the one to get in trouble, not the photographer.

In fact, I agree with Lutoslawski here, everyone in this story is contemptible.
posted by delmoi at 10:26 AM on August 27, 2009

Even the hypothetical kids are contemptible?

i kid.
posted by Mister_A at 10:28 AM on August 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

Guardian article has a bit more details, which makes it seem a bit dumber:

At what Hyman thought was the appropriate moment, Neill shed her dress and the photographer got to work. Seconds later Neill donned her clothes and Hyman handed the film to an aide.

"None of the patrons had any problem with it," he said, "probably because they were in an art museum and we were doing an art piece."

But a female guard followed Neill to the front of the 129-year-old museum, where another guard physically prevented the model from leaving, Hyman said. Police were summoned. Hyman was released while Neill was handcuffed and taken away in a police car.

posted by smackfu at 10:32 AM on August 27, 2009

smackfu: "You should totally be able to outrun a guard in the Met. And it would be a blast too."

A friend of mine - who told me this story - was walking through Manhattan with this guy we had gone to school with. I'll call the guy "Jay" - since he always struck me as a Gatsby-esque sort of figure. Anyway, Jay suddenly remembered a big Warhol retrospective that was in town and insisted on going there immediately, even though the museum would likely be closed by the time they got there.

They got in before the doors closed. But by the time they got to the Warhol area, the guard wasn't letting anyone else in. Jay tried some charm, then some pleading - to no avail. Then, to my friend's amazement, Jay sprinted past the guard and appreciated as much art as he could in the minute or so before the guard caught up with him and hustled him out into the street.

It was then that I decided that Jay probably had bipolar disorder.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:34 AM on August 27, 2009 [9 favorites]

Nice, looks like he uses a Hasselblad. Is that a 500C/M?
posted by rottytooth at 10:34 AM on August 27, 2009

"There were little kids in here watching the whole thing."

Even if there were, it would be nice if we could stop the cycle of seeding the notion in children that the human body is dirty or inappropriate

Don't worry. The nudity taboo is already dead at the feet of digital imaging. It's just that people over a certain age haven't got the memo (and won't ever get it), but make no mistake - culture has already fundamentally shifted.
posted by -harlequin- at 10:34 AM on August 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

Yes, the poo thing is it.

Well now, that's just poor hygiene. Her parents should be ashamed.
posted by Sova at 10:34 AM on August 27, 2009

> I thought it was interesting that the 'little kid' who was 'in there watching the whole thing' wasn't looking at the model in a few of the pictures.

It's not the kids eyes people are ostensibly worried about, it's his mind...his poor, innocent mind, irrevocably corrupted by the sight of an unclothed human body. RIP, childlike innocence.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:41 AM on August 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

So, is the NY Post the United States equivalent of the Daily Mail or what?
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:45 AM on August 27, 2009

All these knights in shining armor couldn't save a maiden in undress from a female security guard.

Die in a fire.

Hyman, however, insisted that his model was taken into custody only because she didn't have an ID on her. But then again, she had no place to keep one.

A fire. Go die in one.

Many of the museum-goers were so engrossed in their guided audio tours that they didn't even pay attention to the live production going on around them.

Dear Justin Rocket Silverman:

Enclosed find one free ticket to a fire. Please go and die in it.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:46 AM on August 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

> All these knights in shining armor couldn't save a maiden in undress from a female security guard.

> Die in a fire.

Seriously. Any time I feel down about the fact that I never did make it as a newspaper writer, I read pieces like this and convince myself that it was because I didn't suck enough.
posted by you just lost the game at 10:52 AM on August 27, 2009 [6 favorites]

Etchings or didn't happen!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:57 AM on August 27, 2009 [3 favorites]

Hey, come on, everyone! This guy is doing important work. I fully support him. Good job...what's his name?...dude who takes pictures of naked women!
posted by P.o.B. at 11:01 AM on August 27, 2009

I've had dreams like this. Except it's not the Metropolitan Museum of Art; it's usually my high school. (I'm the naked one.)
posted by not_on_display at 11:03 AM on August 27, 2009

Won't somebody think of the children!?!?!
posted by iamkimiam at 11:07 AM on August 27, 2009

(I'm the naked one.)

Watercolors or didn't happen!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:07 AM on August 27, 2009 [3 favorites]

"She told me there were naked statues everywhere," the guard said. "I said, 'Those statues are 400 years old. You're from the 21st century.' "

So wait, the model was nine or less?!?! Fuck me, the photographer should've been arrested!
posted by Dysk at 11:09 AM on August 27, 2009

Don't worry. The nudity taboo is already dead at the feet of digital imaging.

Oh, not quite. To the eternal disappointment of 12-year-olds in the woods everywhere, a picture and reality are different.

I agree that this is just rude and annoying, not transgressively clever and provocative. This isn't a statement about nudity, pro or con, it's a statement about acting disruptively in an inappropriate context with an exhibitionistic intent. I'm not worried that kids are going to be corrupted by it - they're not - but if I were trying to attend that museum for a reflective gallery experience, I'd be irritated.

So here's my proposal: let's round up a bunch of curators and educators from the Met, and tromp on down to a 24-hour adult movie house or live theatre, and deliver a meaty slide lecture on women in fifteenth-century Florentine portraiture . That would be equally out of place, and I would expect an equally negative reaction from the attending public.
posted by Miko at 11:10 AM on August 27, 2009 [2 favorites]

There are laws against running around naked in public places. Whether it's a museum or a grocery store or a football stadium, you can't blame the cops for enforcing those laws or the venues for stopping people from breaking those laws. You wouldn't want a museum full of interesting art to get into trouble (waste operating and acquisition money on paying fines, maybe be closed) just because it allowed some not very interesting photographer to take snapshots of streakers there.

There is no story here. Just a publicity stunt combined with pictures of naked chicks. Fine job, Zach.
posted by pracowity at 11:12 AM on August 27, 2009 [2 favorites]

Joe Beese:

Then, to my friend's amazement, Jay sprinted past the guard and appreciated as much art as he could in the minute or so before the guard caught up with him and hustled him out into the street.

It was then that I decided that Jay probably had bipolar disorder.

Joe, I could relate many similar stories about my mother. Growing up her was sort of like living with a character from the "If you give a mouse a cookie" series.
posted by Araucaria at 11:14 AM on August 27, 2009

Its hard to get a job these days. A skanky girl needs to differentiate herself from the pack in NYC.
posted by hal_c_on at 11:19 AM on August 27, 2009

OH NOEZ CHILDREN MIGHT SEE WHAT HUMAN BODIES LOOK LIKE JUST THE SAME AS THE ONES ALL OVER THE WALLS ONLY SKINNIER OH NO OH NO WHATEVER WILL WE DO THE SKY IS FALLING?

Yep, there's that reasoned analysis that keeps bringing me back to MetaFilter, time and time again.
posted by GeekAnimator at 11:23 AM on August 27, 2009

you can't blame the cops for enforcing those laws

Just watch me!

(Though I might have to reallocate some hate to the DA or the courts, depending on how this plays out.)
posted by ryanrs at 11:25 AM on August 27, 2009

I would guess the kid was the most embarrassed one there. His thoughts were probably along the lines of:

"Theses suits of armor are effing radical* dude!"
"Oh, holy shnikes! Check that mace out? You could seriously smash some villagers faces with that thing!"
"Oh crap! That chick is naked! Awesome...except my mom is standing next to me..."
"So anyway, these suits of armor are pretty sweet..."

*Do the kids still say radical? There's been a rehash of the eighties hasn't there? Maybe that's just an example of how my young mind would've worked then.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:29 AM on August 27, 2009 [4 favorites]

And yet, nobody is arresting the guests at the Standard Hotel.
posted by hippybear at 11:30 AM on August 27, 2009

Miko: So here's my proposal: let's round up a bunch of curators and educators from the Met, and tromp on down to a 24-hour adult movie house or live theatre, and deliver a meaty slide lecture on women in fifteenth-century Florentine portraiture . That would be equally out of place, and I would expect an equally negative reaction from the attending public.

The "attending public" at the museum weren't bothered at all, if the article is to be believed. It was just the security people. I'd expect a much more negative reaction from a nudie-film crowd to a big slideshow lecture than the reported reaction of the museum crowd to some nudity (with which they were surrounded anyway).
posted by Dysk at 11:33 AM on August 27, 2009

let's round up a bunch of curators and educators from the Met, and tromp on down to a 24-hour adult movie house or live theatre, and deliver a meaty slide lecture on women in fifteenth-century Florentine portraiture

Sad to say, a lot of the patrons would just shrug and fap to a Botticelli.
posted by brain_drain at 11:34 AM on August 27, 2009 [3 favorites]

All the men in the gallery are far away or shot from behind. All the women are shown full-frontal or from the side where we can see.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 11:35 AM on August 27, 2009

Yep, there's that reasoned analysis that keeps bringing me back to MetaFilter, time and time again.

Excellent job at missing the point there; the hysteria around children seeing naked bodies--note the quote from the guard that is the title of this post--is both sickening and ridiculous, and should be treated with ridicule.

So, in the same vein...

Yep, there's that utter inability to see the point being made that keeps bringing me back to Metafilter, time and time again.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:41 AM on August 27, 2009

nyp;dr
posted by swift at 11:53 AM on August 27, 2009 [6 favorites]

If you were this author, would you drop the "Justin" or the "Rocket"?
posted by Ogre Lawless at 12:01 PM on August 27, 2009

It was an amazing coincidence that WNBC happened to have a news crew filming in that gallery when the model got nude! I mean, what are the chances of that happening?
posted by plastic_animals at 12:03 PM on August 27, 2009

So, is the NY Post the United States equivalent of the Daily Mail or what?

News of the World or the Sun actually.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:07 PM on August 27, 2009

Excellent job at missing the point there

No, I got the point just fine. The point you actually demonstrated was that you can get cheap favorites on Metafilter with knee-jerk all-caps snottiness.
posted by GeekAnimator at 12:10 PM on August 27, 2009 [2 favorites]

You know what I've learned? I've learned that "nudist" does not mean "person who doesn't like nudity." Quite the opposite!
posted by Mister_A at 12:16 PM on August 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

Damn, and I just made a "cunning stunt" joke the other day; too soon to re-use.
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:27 PM on August 27, 2009

This is excellent. Please, beautiful women, keep taking off your clothes in public (for whatever reason). I implore you!

The point you actually demonstrated was that you can get cheap favorites on Metafilter with knee-jerk all-caps snottiness.

Ooh, thanks. I almost forgot to favorite dirtynumbangelboy.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:31 PM on August 27, 2009

Please, beautiful women, keep taking off your clothes in public (for whatever reason). I implore you!

Ugly chicks, though, y'all cover up. No one wants to see that shit.

?
posted by Miko at 12:39 PM on August 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

let's round up a bunch of curators and educators from the Met, and tromp on down to a 24-hour adult movie house or live theatre, and deliver a meaty slide lecture on women in fifteenth-century Florentine portraiture .

Does it have to be fifteenth century?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:44 PM on August 27, 2009

but really, arguments about our culture's relationship to nudity* and art aside, it's still the matter of somebody getting naked in public place. you just can't do that in a museum the same way I can't walk into my neighbor's apartment and strip down. also, if anyone is to be fined it should be the model - she's not just a tool that the photog used. She made her choice to break the law

I personally agree with others that the main problem is the photographer's exploitation of the model, the museum, the media, and the audience both in the museum and on the internet. He knows that whatever happens to any of us, or however we feel about it, he still gets his name mentioned and it's a net gain for his career. Our cultural relation to nudity itself remains important though, as it allows him the means to exploit us. Were we not to have this reaction, and were nudity acceptable in public places* and a wider variety of situations, it would prevent those who use it as a shock method to gain attention. I personally find it difficult to call out both the exploitation and the nudity, as condemning the latter reinforces the existence of the former. I would be happy to see non-sexual nakedness normalized in the wider western culture if it means that nudity - and by extension the body - is less exploitable.

*As opposed to purely private. I understand that museums are not usually public in a legal sense.
posted by Sova at 12:45 PM on August 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

You should totally be able to outrun a guard in the Met. And it would be a blast too.

If any situation needs Yakety Sax playing, this would be it.
posted by ryoshu at 12:46 PM on August 27, 2009 [5 favorites]

Ugly chicks, though, y'all cover up. No one wants to see that shit.

Yeah, there's two reasons why public nudity will never be that big here in America during our lifetimes: the first being America's obvious puritanical streak, the second being the equal and opposite OMFG NO UGLIES streak.

America is just too divided over nudity. On one hand, we hate the human body and find it shameful, and on the other hand, if we are going to look at it, then, by god, it better be young, wrinkle-free and have some kick-ass implants.

We're just fucked in the head, is all.
posted by Avenger at 12:46 PM on August 27, 2009 [2 favorites]

So wasn't this an organized demonstration on behalf of Get Yer Tits Out For The (artist) Lads Day?

Protected speech, surely?

Also: while there are parallels between the NY Post and the Sun, at least the people who write for the Post are literate -- albeit dumbing down somewhat. The Sun has *never* had a columnist of the calibre of Jimmy Breslin.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:47 PM on August 27, 2009

Oh, not quite. To the eternal disappointment of 12-year-olds in the woods everywhere, a picture and reality are different.

They have internet in the woods now? Thanks to the democratizing power of the internet I would guess that today's curious youth probably have a much more realistic view of naked bodies than previous generations. And I'm not even talking about porn. Flickr alone has taught me more about what sunburned middle aged people look like under the liberating power a few margaritas and a Jamaican vacation than I could ever want to know.
posted by billyfleetwood at 12:49 PM on August 27, 2009

'Cause the fifteenth century wasn't very interesting, due to it being restricted to the upper class and viewed through a narrow filter.

Thanks to the democratizing power of the internet I would guess that today's curious youth probably have a much more realistic view of naked bodies than previous generations. And I'm not even talking about porn.

Then you're probably not a 12 year old boy
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:56 PM on August 27, 2009

Wait, why is her arse pixelated?

That's not pixellation -- that's the jewels in her diamond butt-plug
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:04 PM on August 27, 2009

Brandon, your link didn't work.
posted by ocherdraco at 1:23 PM on August 27, 2009

That's not pixellation -- that's the jewels in her diamond butt-plug

I knew it - I have one just like that! But I only pull it out for special occasions.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:24 PM on August 27, 2009

But I only pull it out for special occasions.

I see what you did there.
posted by hippybear at 1:29 PM on August 27, 2009

I wouldn't really say she put herself "on the line". She got what amounts to a ticket. I've known other models who have gotten similar tickets, and basically you pay a fine. That said, the photographer should not only pay her ticket, but give her something extra for the trouble, and I think it would be basically done with, and they both would come out ahead (after all, he's not the only one who gets publicity out of this --- she may well get more work out of it too).

And yeah, the "omg children" stuff is ridiculous.
posted by wildcrdj at 1:31 PM on August 27, 2009

Brandon, your link didn't work.

Just like a spouse, always pointing out flaws! Correct link here.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:42 PM on August 27, 2009

Neill donned her clothes and Hyman handed the film to an aide.

Film? The dude still shoots with film? Forget the naked woman. A photographer handing his film to an aide, *that's* an exotic sight.
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:52 PM on August 27, 2009

As a former life model myself, I think that unannounced life modeling in public spaces is kind of rude, just as unannounced accordion playing in public spaces is kind of rude.

There's nothing wrong with life modeling any more than there's anything wrong with accordion playing, but people are going to museums not expecting either.

Thanks. Now I have a mental image of a nude Walter Ostanek cranking out 'Roll out the Barrel' at the Met.
posted by Kabanos at 2:07 PM on August 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

posted by wildcrdj I wouldn't really say she put herself "on the line". She got what amounts to a ticket.

Along with a free listing in the Megan's Law database.
posted by mattdidthat at 2:21 PM on August 27, 2009

A picture of Hulk Hogan in front of a statue or Hercules would be more thought provoking.

"Oh Noes" type comments fortunately almost always start with "Oh noes". For me they trigger an autonomic contraction of the scroll-wheel finger and sends my gaze downward. "Oh Noes" could safely substitute for "Mind The Gap" or "Watch Your Step".
posted by vapidave at 2:42 PM on August 27, 2009

If we accept nudity and the body as no big deal, it doesn't mean the end of civilization, nor is it a sign of the impending apocalypse.

Alright. Light the torches. We have a heathen in our midst.
posted by notreally at 2:43 PM on August 27, 2009

Personally I didn't think it was really necessary to type up a deep, nuanced, three-paragraph musing on a poorly thought out and obviously not deeply mused on itself response to this like 'There were little kids in here'.

So 'oh noes' kind of did it for me.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 2:55 PM on August 27, 2009

"Yes but the word "or" means that both the first part "when he intentionally exposes the private or intimate parts of his body" and also the second part "commits any other lewd act" are both illegal. "

Read closer/quote better: "A person is guilty of public lewdness when he intentionally exposes the private or intimate parts of his body in a lewd manner."

This is all pretty damn stupid, though.
posted by klangklangston at 3:19 PM on August 27, 2009

I think the armor court was a poor choose of rooms. Beautiful naked woman in front of beautiful naked painting would be much more nuanced and interesting.
posted by debbie_ann at 3:45 PM on August 27, 2009

Ugly chicks, though, y'all cover up. No one wants to see that shit.

Yeah, there's two reasons why public nudity will never be that big here in America during our lifetimes: the first being America's obvious puritanical streak, the second being the equal and opposite OMFG NO UGLIES streak.

I got no problem with ugly men and/or women showing me their cocks and cunts. Knock yourself out. (Beauty is all in the eye of the beholder anyway, so "ugly" and "beautiful" are rather arbitrary terms.)

Please read my comment again. If you are offended, you have some serious projection going on.

I never implied that non-beautiful people shouldn't get naked in public. I'm all for it. I just don't care if I see it or not. I'm not saying I don't want to see it. No strong feelings either way. Same with hot guys. You want to show me your bag of nuts? Fine. I don't care.

I do feel very strongly, however, about beautiful naked women in public. I would like to see them every day. Civilization disappoints me in that regard.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:46 PM on August 27, 2009

I think the armor court was a poor choose of rooms. Beautiful naked woman in front of beautiful naked painting would be much more nuanced and interesting.

It could be even more interesting if there was a recreation of the painting next to the painting.
posted by ryoshu at 4:19 PM on August 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

Film? The dude still shoots with film? Forget the naked woman. A photographer handing his film to an aide, *that's* an exotic sight.

Hipster subset, no doubt.
posted by jimmythefish at 4:20 PM on August 27, 2009

Eh, poor dude's jhust never heard of the internet, I guess.
posted by jonmc at 5:06 PM on August 27, 2009

uh, dudette, I guess.
posted by jonmc at 5:09 PM on August 27, 2009

Hey there, I know Rocket,(Hi Justin!). The over-the-top purple writing of the Post is very ..self-conscious. A feature, not a bug.
posted by The Whelk at 5:24 PM on August 27, 2009

It could be even more interesting if there was a recreation of the painting next to the painting.

Xzibit has so much to answer for.

My two-year-old goddaughter wanted to play Russian dolls with me recently, and I could not stop giggling to myself and saying to her "'Sup dawg, I herd u like dolls..." She was mystified, not being a regular viewer of "Pimp My Ride" for some reason.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:31 PM on August 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

> I got no problem with ugly men and/or women showing me their cocks and cunts.

I do. Oh, I do. And the rest of them just as much as the orifices and protuberances--maybe even more. But that's not just me; happily, the very large majority of your fellow citizens has no desire to have hundreds of wash-my-eyes-out-with-bleach experiences every day. Sure it's hard for the small minority of folks with gorgeous bods to have to cover themselves up, but we have to treat everyone alike and not have special rules for the privileged few. And anyway the beer and pizza will take care of the problem for them pretty soon. Almost at once, really.
posted by jfuller at 6:37 PM on August 27, 2009

I would like to complain about Kathleen Neill's flabby ass.
posted by tellurian at 6:52 PM on August 27, 2009

>wash-my-eyes-out-with-bleach experiences

Case in point. Seriously, what is so disgusting about the human body that you feel the need to bleach your eyes for seeing one? Yes, some bodies are more attractive than others. (I suspect the owners of the more revolting bodies are aware of it and aren't prone to public nudity.) Perhaps if we would take more time to notice the PEOPLE and less time worrying about their BODIES we would find more beauty in the world. To the 'OMG NO UGLIES" crowd, stop acting like a twelve year old and grow up.
posted by krash2fast at 10:11 PM on August 27, 2009

I bet that if we all got used to the idea of nakedness and seeing a range of naked people, we as a society and as individuals would start to feel a lot better about ourselves. Seriously, we'd all realize that hangup A that we're obsessing over is no biggie, and thankful we don't have hangup B, and appreciative of our part C that we never realized was actually rather nice and normal. That to me, is totally worth it. So I say, bring on the nudity! But you go first.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:42 PM on August 27, 2009 [2 favorites]

I have a lot of friends that grew up on communes, one place in particular. Sexuality was open and nudity was common. It wasn't unheard of to come home to see dad romping naked in the living room with a couple of neighbors. Some grew up to have a similar attitude to their parents. Others though grew up to be more conservative, self-concious, and insecure than your average outsider because of their exposure.

Simple exposure to nudity and sexuality is not a solution on its own.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:54 AM on August 28, 2009 [1 favorite]

Yes, sure, nakedness is not evil, but there are places I don't want naked people. Lots of people are pretty filthy and their pants are the only thing keeping your public seating (park, restaurant, train, plane, etc.) free of their shit stains and piss dribbles and crusty sperm and snail trails and pubic hair.
posted by pracowity at 5:54 AM on August 28, 2009

Lots of people are pretty filthy and their pants are the only thing keeping your public seating (park, restaurant, train, plane, etc.) free of their shit stains and piss dribbles and crusty sperm and snail trails and pubic hair.

Then you make rules about not using the bus etc. naked. Restaurants can require shoes. I'm pretty sure they can require pants.
posted by mrgrimm at 8:32 AM on August 28, 2009

public nudity will never be that big here in America

welcome to Seattle, parents here bring their kids to the naked bike ride.
posted by nomisxid at 9:21 AM on August 28, 2009

Naked bike riding doesn't even sound comfortable. I think you should be allowed to wear clothes if you want to and all you clothes-hating people... wait. Nevermind.
posted by small_ruminant at 10:07 AM on August 28, 2009

Ugly chicks, though, y'all cover up. No one wants to see that shit.

I dunno, you'd have to be pretty damn ugly before I'm telling you to cover up...
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:46 AM on August 28, 2009

Lots of people are pretty filthy and their pants are the only thing keeping your public seating (park, restaurant, train, plane, etc.) free of their shit stains and piss dribbles and crusty sperm and snail trails and pubic hair.

Nudists bring towels with them, so you never have to sit on anyone else's shitpissspermpubesmucus, just your own.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:21 PM on August 28, 2009 [1 favorite]

Wearing clothes means never having to know where your towel is.
posted by Miko at 8:02 PM on August 28, 2009 [1 favorite]

Or which side goes up.
posted by small_ruminant at 9:18 PM on August 28, 2009

« Older 78641 is a "hit Esperanto interactive simulat... | Dominick Dunne died yesterday ... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

There were little kids in here watching the whole thing August 27, 2009 9:40 AM Subscribe

There were little kids in here watching the whole thing
August 27, 2009 9:40 AM Subscribe