I don't advocate this position personally, but there is a reasonably cogent argument against public nudity.

The assumption underlying it is that sexual activity tends to distract by-standers or passers-by or otherwise impact productivity via this distraction. (Hard to argue against this given the use of sex in advertizing).

If we accept that sex and sexuality have a disproportionate psychological impact. Accordingly, permitting public sex acts or public nudity generally would work a harm on society. It's an extension of the argument for "disorderly conduct" statutes, or, perhaps, noise nuisance regulations. What is intrinsically bad about noise except that it prevents one from sleeping, concentrating, working, holding a conversaton, etc.? Sounds a lot like sex.

The problem here is the mismatch between so-called rational analysis and moral values. Reason can deconstruct any system of values. That is why the opponents of western civilization insist on using it to challenge the values that are the civilization.

Reason is a method, and a powerful one at that, but it is only a method. It does not come equipped with a source of values which are the facts of social life. They must be found in tradition and religion.

Our civilization has accepted the values that there things that are appropriate in public and things that are not appropriate in public, i.e. that are private. These distinctions are deeply ingrained. But they are not rules of logic or reason.

Incidentally, I wonder if anyone has premised their argument for copulating in public on the so-called "right of privacy" upon which SCOTUS has perched its demented sexual jurisprudence.

The problem here is the mismatch between so-called rational analysis and moral values. Reason can deconstruct any system of values. That is why the opponents of western civilization insist on using it to challenge the values that are the civilization.

Reason is a method, and a powerful one at that, but it is only a method. It does not come equipped with a source of values which are the facts of social life. They must be found in tradition and religion.

Our civilization has accepted the values that there things that are appropriate in public and things that are not appropriate in public, i.e. that are private. These distinctions are deeply ingrained. But they are not rules of logic or reason.

Incidentally, I wonder if anyone has premised their argument for copulating in public on the so-called "right of privacy" upon which SCOTUS has perched its demented sexual jurisprudence.

Sorry about the double. Take one down, if you can.

If a city, in the name of public asthetics, can prevent you from putting up a bilboard, or a home owners association can prevent you from building a carport, then I sure hope to hades someone can prevent you from taking your clothes off.

I don't see why there need be a reason beyond the majoritarian right to regulate morality. Once it's established that prohibiting public sex has no First Amendment impediment (any suggestion to the contrary by the VC folk is silly, in my view), a state may prohibit what is inappropriate for any number of reasons. After all, our legislatures have always regulated immorality.

Lior Strahilevitz has a good piece on this regarding aesthetic and moral judgments (i think in a symposium on lawrence.)

Just because public sex has a universal psychological impact does not imply that nudity also does, as there are tropical societies in which women are top-free without any apparent psychological damage.