Defenders of liberty must be defenders of nudity
Next to property rights, perhaps the most sacred totem to
libertarians is freedom of expression. Normally this manifests itself in
freedom of speech, whether via the written or the spoken word. However
freedom of expression extends into other areas too. It could be the art
one produces, the music one makes, or the clothes on wears…or doesn’t.
Clothing, nudity and politics have a long history. Generations have
signified their political allegiances through the colours and styles of
their garments. Countless t-shirts have been emblasoned with ideological
slogans and images. And of course streaking or nude protesting has been
a favoured form of message sending since Lady Godiva. Pussy Riot in
Russia being perhaps the latest high profile examples.
So can libertarians ever oppose public nudity? There seem to be five
principle avenues of opposition to the idea of public nudity.
It’s harmful to children
It’s unsanitary
It will encourage rape and sexual assault
I shouldn’t have to see it
It’s just wrong
Think of the children!
Arguably the most obvious and understandable resistance to public
nudity is the effect it would have on children. The idea being that
children being exposed to naked bodies would somehow become distress or
damaged. On face value, this makes sense. However there is zero
empirical evidence for this assertion. In a 1995 review of the literature,
Dr Paul Okami concluded that there was no reliable evidence linking
exposure to parental nudity to any negative effect. Three years later,
his team finished an 18-year longitudinal study that showed that, if
anything, such exposure was associated with slight beneficial effects,
particularly for boys.
“Boys exposed to parental nudity were less likely to have engaged
in theft in adolescence or to have used various psychedelic drugs and
marijuana.”
The report goes on to state that “Girls were also less likely to have used drugs such as PCP, inhalants, or various psychedelics in adolescence.”
Public attitudes to sex and nudity are far more relaxed in Europe,
and with access to the internet, there’s nothing British children are
watching that French or Dutch teens can’t. Much like alcohol, the
difference is cultural. Indeed, it’s rather telling that British and American attitudes to nudity are fairly similar, and both the US and UK have a teen birth rate far in excess of their European counterparts.
Nudity is icky and unhygienic
The most unhygienic parts of our bodies are probably our hands and
mouths. Germs are most commonly spread by our hands and by sneezing or
coughing, yet no one is calling for gloves or facemasks. Nudists
recognise that surfaces can by unhygienic and so usually carry their own
towel to sit on. Food handling and preparation legislation would still
apply, so there would be no danger of a waiter/waitresses unmentionables
brushing against your meal (unless you had complained and sent it back
to the kitchen, in which case, even now, all bets are off!)
Public nudity will make us all sex fiends!
This stems from the idea that because one is only nude for sex, the
sight of naked people will somehow spawn a wave of sexual assaults. Yet
if this were the case, wouldn’t nudist colonies or beaches be scenes of
mass rape? If people were simply unable to control themselves at the
sight of skin, shouldn’t we be frantically insisting on 19th
century bathing suits at the local swimming pool? Of course not. If
you’re wicked or disturbed enough to engage in sexual harassment or
assault, a few millimeters of fabric aren’t going to stop you.
And it seems odd that the same people that say that the sight of the
body is off putting and offensive could also say that nudity will cause
an epidemic of sexual stimulation. It would be wrong to suggest that
nobody would get off on public nudity. We call these people voyeurs.
But much of the voyeur behaviour arises (no pun intended) because of the
body is hidden and associated purely with sex. Anything that is
forbidden immediately becomes more desirable. It is not unreasonable to
assume that a legalisation of public nudity would see a decrease in
voyeurism, because it would stop being exciting. Indeed, in naturist
settings and events there is a remarkable lack of sexual stimulation
because of the acceptance of social nudity.
I don’t want to see all that
Another seemingly valid argument against nudity is that people should
be forced to see things we don’t want to. After all, isn’t it a right
of ours not to have somebody’s unclothed form imposed on our delicate
retinas? But nudism is not for the benefit of the onlooker, but for the
person engaged in that lifestyle choice. And who does it really harm?
Seeing a naked body, even a really ugly one, does no damage. Topless
women at beaches, exposed midriffs during summer, and mothers breast
feeding are no cause for alarm. It is not libertarian’s responsibility,
nor is it the responsibility of the state, to make sure people are safe
from the sight of flesh organs. There are a lot more uncomfortable
things people put up with every day, such as men in Ugg Boots or visible
thongs.
It’s just wrong. It just *is*
Easily the vaguest, but perhaps the most deeply felt resistance to
public nudity is this. There is a lingering, unquantifiable something
that makes us uncomfortable with nudity. And like many of our national
habits and quirks, it stems from the Victorians.
Regency Britain was a raucous place of hedonism and vice. It was
Freshers Week, every week! But the pious and virtuous Victorians soon
nipped that in the bud. Sobriety, temperance, modesty and faith were the
orders of the day. If it was good enough to be rammed down the throats
of the colonies, then by golly we should lead by example. Of course,
these were the same Victorians who were cool with child labour and
didn’t think rape within marriage was even a thing.
We finally got round to decriminalising homosexuality and the other
socially conservative nonsense of that era, but many attitudes to sex
and nudity remain. Sex is still naughty. The body is still shameful.
Touching yourself is still dirty. These attitudes are changing, but
painfully slowly.
If you are genuinely troubled by the site of human form, it’s
probably worth asking yourself why, rather than insisting others cover
up.
Originally posted on thebackbencher.co.uk and reposted on www.nudiststop.com
Originally posted on thebackbencher.co.uk and reposted on www.nudiststop.com
No comments:
Post a Comment