There is an interesting article in today's Daily Mail, UK headed, 'We're all naked domestic goddesses.
Apparently it's a newly-discovered social phenomenon that 'countless Breitish women love doing housework in the nude'.
It was discovered when a Gloucester housewife complained about a new buildinbg going up near her home as it would 'ruin her enjoyment of vacuuming in the nude. At first this claimn was treated with some derision, until many other women confessed that they, too, like to do the housework in the nude. 'All spoke of a feeling of liberation and release.
The D.Mail interviewd nine of these women. Some anecodes:
'I spoend so much of my time running around at work that it's great to come home and get down to some mindless cleaning. I find it therapeutic and relaxing'.
'There's a practical reason.... - it saves washing your clothes when you get sweaty'.
'The moment I get home from work, I strip off to do the housework. At the office no one would suspect it because I wear a very conservative, buttoned-up suit. But once I get home I become a different oerson. When I was growing up , Mum used to strip off to do the h/w, so it's s'thing I've inherited. My poor children do get v.embarrassed. They'll come in from school and I'll be there doing the laundry topless or washing dishes in just my rubber gloves - they beg me to put on some clothes. Unfortunately for them, I do everything naked or semi-naked, from the cleaning to the gardening.
The only downside is the involuntary flashing. Last wee, S. was bringing a friend home and I didn't realise her Dad was dropping them off. I was tidying up, completely naked when I heard them all tapping on the window.. The last thing that poor Dad saw was my naked bottom disappearing up the stairs at the speed of light'.
'I have been caught out once. One Saturday, I was vacuuming the living room stark naked and forgot I had left the curtains open. I looked up to see a gang of boys hooting and whistling at me. I just smiled at them and closed the curtains.
I was not that bothered. I think we're far too hung up about nakedness. I do all the ironing, vacuuming and all the cleaning in the nude - the only thing I'm careful of is when I'm using bleach....'
'I did have amn embaarassing incident - I was hanging out clothes on my balcony and, as I put up the airer, I looked dow and, to my horror, saw a garden full of people having a BBQ staring back!
'It's entirely practical - housework is sweaty business if you put your back into it, so it makes sense to do it nude.
Plus there's s'thing fun about it: it's almost like going back to your childhood when you ran around with no clothes on'.
I think there are a lot of 'closet nudists'- frustrated people with the urge to be clothesfree in a clothed world. I was like that myself in my younger years, and still am to some extend. And the hardest thing about nudism is explaining it to a non-nudist person. It's just about impossible. I wind up just telling them if they have to ask they wouldn't understand.
Well, I've had discussions about this with my non-nudist friends, but despite my many invitations I never saw them at the resort. I suspect they were being polite and patronizing rather then really understanding.
Thanks for that story. It is good to know. And it does make sense to work nude, especially now where the temperatures are beginning to rise.
It is too bad, though, that the one woman felt she had to close her curtains. This depletes the amount of natural light she gets to carry out her task. I don't know about the laws where you are, but here, if you are standing outside someones domicile gawking in the window, you are the one who is committing a crime.
There a no laws in GB regarding nudity on one's own premises. And even in Public places, s'one would actually have to make a formal complaint before one would be 'spoken to'. However, few people take advantage of this liberal attitude.
Same here. That's what I was eluding to. The one who is nude in her home is not the one who is wrong, but the one standing on the sidewalk looking in her window is the one in the wrong.
Some towns here do have ordinances against nudity outside even on ones own property within city limits. So if you wanted to hang up the wash nude you might risk trouble. But where I live out in the country we have no worries with laws or peeping Toms.
This is sort of a gray area of law actually. People have been arrested for being nude in their house in cases where it was clearly visible to the public- say for example, standing in front of a large picture window without shades or curtains. It's a judgement call that has to be made on a case by case basis.
And this reminds me of a story about the old biddie who called the cops to complaint that her neighbor on the corner was walks around inside his house naked. The cop comes out and says lady- that house is a half block away- how can you possibly see that? "Well here officer, you have to use these binoculars."
I think that is where a good lawyer turns the tables and has the onlooker charged with being a peeping Tom. But the problem there lies in finding that good lawyer. If one walks by their picture window in the nude and is arrested because someone on the outside looked in and was offended, then we have another case of a stupid law that needs reform.
Well "intent" should be the governing factor. Being nude in your home is not illegal. Having open windows is not illegal. But when someone make a point to stand in front of a open window knowing they are visible outside- this would likely be construed as exhibitionism.
Yes, true. But if I am vacuuming in that sector then it is hardly exhibition. If I stop the Hoover and do a dance in front of the window, then, yes, it would be considered an offence. Unless I am a really good dancer!
Well I figured that. No guy would. It is all those biddies that make all the calls. It is like that post I made down below about opposite genders oppressing each other. I don't think it is really men who have women sanctioned to be covered (at least in this country) but rather, women. I think it is women who make all the complaints against other women. Then the male police, and the male DA, and the male judge who nails the topfree woman to pay a fine and do some time get the bad reputation for oppressing women.
...and all the oppression continues because people getting arrested for stupid reasons is the legal systems bread and butter. Lawyers make bundles pleading cases 'no contest' and so with very little work they get paid, and the state gets maintenence fees for probation and fines and court costs. All for what? Those stupid laws we get busted for. Lots of people have jobs because we aren't supposed to take our clothes off.
Well, they don't really defend anyone. They charge up the wahzoo just to make deals where the client (criminal) get stuck with probation, which is itself real expensive, and the lawyers don't do any work. The paralegal in the office does all the paper work, and meets with the client. The lawyer only shows up for the court date.
Paralegals are not allowed to set their own fees. They are considered support staff, and there are state laws which pertain to them. Often, if one independently contracts with an attorney, the attorney and paralegal can and do come to an agreement, but the attorney sets the fee.
As for Pink Floyd, I do apologize for being a bit rough around the edges this afternoon or yesterday as the case may be. Changes are coming Michaela, and they are coming soon and quickly.
I don't know that I can agree with you there JB. It's not about sport or winning- it's about money. I've seen many lawsuits settled with negotiated settlements that pleased neither side- except for the lawyers who negotiated it and pocketed big fees on both sides. It's a 'good old boys' club.
It is about money but that goes without saying, it's also for sport, for one lawyer to know that he "beat" the other lawyer. For example, take a public defender who knows his client is guilty, but does ANYTHING to get his client off. Obviously in some cases it is really not about money, it's about beating the rap, about beating the other side's lawyer even if one has to hide the truth to do it.
I think you watch too much TV JB. Except for celebrity cases like OJ or M.Jackson, the typical lawyer is all too eager to strike some plea-deal that gets their client a reduce or suspended sentence and calls that a victory. Likewise, the DA is quite happy to compromise to clear their case load. But civil lawyers are the worse- they look at every case to see how they can divvy the money for the least work. Instead of the adversarial relationship you talk about- they are likely good buddies at the club who settle cases to each others mutual benefit. Call me a cynic if you like but I think the Perry Mason lawyer is like the Marcus Welby doctor- TV-fiction!
I think you are right and maybe I do watch too much tv.
I agree about Marcus Welby, it seemed like he was always making housecalls and spending too much time with individual patients, fixing all their problems or trying to fix them.
Thank you all for being generally kind to the legal profession. I do have to say however, that while in some cases it may seem like it is about money; and make no mistake, sometimes it is. It is not always the case.
Many, many times, people's lives and businesses are drasitically effected by court rulings every day. We have divorce cases, child custody cases, cases involving police powers (Does Miranda, Mirandizing mean anything to anybody here? It would if you've ever been arrested in the United States.)
Cases involving nudity, obscenity and toplessness (How do you think toplessness became allowed in Texas?) and such worked their way through the court system before the Texas legislature got hold of the bright idea. I can guarantee you that! A light bulb just did not go off above their heads!
Why do you think President Bush is making such a fuss over the Federal Court of Appeals and his nominees to the Federal bench, and his possible nominees to the Supreme Court? A while ago Chief Justice Rehnquist was seen being taken from the Court to the hospital. He is currently being treated for cancer. It is thought that Bush would nominate Justice Thomas or Scalia for Chief Justice should Rehnquist die.
It is getting late here, and I may seem long-winded, but it is important to think about. I thank you for your patience and your time, and I apologize for such a long post.
I don't think that the public defender is the worst. They are low paid (for lawyers), work for clients who can't afford a lawyer of their own and are so stigmatized people refer to them as the ones that poor people get when they can't afford a "real lawyer." The ones you have to watch out for are the high priced once who have made a name for themselves by beating raps. I saw one on one of those late night TV show (A&E or Court TV) about a rich woman who killed her boyfriend by shooting him in the back while he was sitting down because he was cheating on her. She got a team of high priced lawyers who found what seemed like every person this guy had ever known to dig up dirt on him, every time he'd lost his temper, any time he'd hit someone in a bar room brawl, ect. He claimed that he'd beat her (dispite having no visable brusing ever and the fact that she shot him in the back when he was seated) and she got off with 60 days in jail. Of course we all know about the OJ Simpson Dream team or Michael Jackson's case (not guilty on all counts)
Some defendants can afford to have lawyers who will defend them at all costs, by blaming the victims, etc. If OJ had been poor, he would probably have been convicted.
It's true that many public defenders will advise their clients to plead guilty or else they would spend even more time in jail if they were convicted at trial and sometimes the scare truly innocent people to plead guilty.
It's not just the skill of the lawyer, it's hero worship. For reason that totally escapes me, people will let a celebrity get by with stuff ordinary people can't. Recall back when OJ was running from the police in his Bronco that hugh crowds were lined up along the way waving and cheering him on- "Go OJ", "Go OJ". They wanted this guy to escape the police. Now they wouldn't do this for some ordinary joe, and this was before his lawyer was even involved in the case. We just saw the same thing with the Michael Jackson trial where thongs of fans surrounded the courthouse every day. To such fanatics, their hero can do no wrong.
I agree that in OJ's case, it was hero worship that got him off. I think people did not want to accept that their "hero" could commit murder. I don't think they believed he did it and voted to let him off, I think they could not accept that he could do that. I don't think it hurt that the lawyers tried to blame the police for messing up the investigation.
That is part of the problem. Some of the changes that will be taking effect begin January 1, 2006 with the Medicare Part D. Those who now both receive state Medicaid funding for their perscriptions, and also qualify for Medicare ( because I am a disabled child of my retired parent, I qualified for Medicare when he did) will be dropped from the State Medicaid (Title XIX) for persciption drugs.
Those who "dual qualify" as it is known, will be placed on one of four of Medicare's perscription drug plans, and as of right now, the people who are supposed to know the most about this, change their story from one day to the next, one week to the next, and one month from the next. So welcome to the party y'all!
Do I eat or take my pills? Nexium twice a day is expensive $310/ month up here. I take other perscriptions as well, but that gives you an idea. Add it up....
There are other changes coming too, but I cannot be as specific about them here so I will not mention them until I know more specifics such as dates and details.
There is a lot of misinformation out there I know, but that goes back to the sources for allowing it out in the first place, and I will not add to that.
Please finish the rest of the lyric. It refers to Hitler. He would and did have all of them, the riffraff, (gays, people with disabilities, Jews, and various others, etc.) shot!
In the United States, we just say they (you) don't qualify for such and such program or we have changed what it means so people no longer qualify because they no longer fit the mere definition of a term. People are lost in the shuffle here in this wave of "compassionate conservatism."
And the difference is...???
What is that? How can we as good and moral people stand for that?
"...All in all it's just another brick in the Wall."
I do remember the lyrics. I agree with you, too.
But as I was refering to riff raff, a bit out of context from PF's meaning, as lawyers collecting for work they don't really do. I would like to see term limits on congressmen and women, and I would like to see Paralegals be given lawyers jobs so that we could get rid of lawyers, and their suits, and have paralegals receive the pay they get now, plus a small, controlled percentage for having to appear in court for the client. This will keep legal costs under control and give the client a chance to be able to afford a real fight with a real advocate whom they have met with face to face on several occasions.
When not wearing the strictured office attire at the ad agency I illustrated at, at home I wore nothing at all. Eventually I arranged to avoid the office altogether, allowing me to work in the altogether. No more Arrow shirts, Stacy-Adams shoes, and the rest of it.
From my 20th floor window, I look out, but no one sees in, only the occasional window washer, who certainly doesn't mind the view of my wqually nude girlfriend on hand, and sometimes we're not even working.