A conversation recently sprung up. Is public nudity OK? Should it be banned? Is it ok for parents to run around naked with each other? Is it ok to be uncomfortable with public display?
I have happened to pick a path on this issue that disagrees more or less with every camp. Yet, it seems so simple and straightforward, so obvious, natural and easy - it surprises me that I am quite so unique. So here you go.
Point one. Public nudity is impolite. Your behavior in public, generally, is a matter of politeness. You act in accordance with your culture's customs in a way that is considerate of what others will find comfortable, when this is not in conflict with your values. This means, you say hello when you walk into a room, shake hands without immediately pulling a tissue out of your purse Monk-style, cover your mouth when you cough, refrain from taking screaming infants into an evening movie and excuse yourself if you need to answer a phone call. Politeness, however, does not require you to give up things that are important. You do not refrain from breastfeeding your child regardless of the stares, nor are you obligated to stop and pick out an appropriate outfit prior to running out of a burning building. As I tell my children, "We do not go out naked in public, because it is rude. It is only ok if we are certain that the people around us don't mind."
Point two. Casual nudity within the family is natural. In my childhood home, the custom was the same as in most: same-gender nudity was ok, opposite gender strictly prohibited. The result? My first encounter with a penis was a copy of PlayGirl my friends picked up at a train station in Germany. I was horrified at the deformed-looking hairy appendage. My second? My own boyfriend. While it was slightly better, I tried to avert my eyes. It took me years, a lot of thought and reading, before I could be comfortable seeing that particular portion of male anatomy. My own body? Not much better. I was mortified at the thought of somebody seeing my underpants. An occasion of that sort at the age of twelve caused me become violent toward an classmate.
One's body is not to be ashamed of, not to be hidden for "a special occasion", nor flaunted as it is in a brothel. It should be comfortable and natural with those closest to us. I do not walk around naked at home. It is not hygienic, too cold and my butt sticks to furniture. I do not, however, try to hide my body from my children, when I am getting dressed or walking out of the shower. What is the only possible message I can send to them if I swiftly cover up my breasts when they walk in on me changing? Shame and embarrassment on my own part, to be reflected on theirs.
We have a boy and a girl, both well-familiar with each other's anatomy, sharing a bath and frequently a bed. They know what is there, what it is for, and there are no questions, which remain. They run around naked when they feel like it, but get dressed unfailingly to greet strangers.
Point three. A law banning public nudity is reasonable, but probably harmful. As Ayn Rand points out, there is a "need to protect people from being confronted with
sights they regard as loathsome." It is probably legitimate to argue that I should not be afraid to come to my front porch and be assaulted with the sight of the neighbor's testicles. However, such a law is likely to do more harm than good. People should demand fewer laws and learn to talk to each other more. "Dammed, George, I please put away your treasures!"
Point four. Strong discomfort with the sight of nudity is an indication of a mistake. I would argue that if you abhor all nudity outside of a sexual connotation, you probably have a mistaken sense of body shame. Why do you dislike it so? "Because it should be private" isn't a sufficient reason for the visceral "Oh my god!" we tend to experience. This is a reaction of shame and guilt, of recognition that you are party to something that should not be. When you accidentally walk in on somebody changing and spend the rest of the day disturbed, something is off. On the other hand, "I did not want to see that shriveled thing peeking out from under the giant gut, YUCK!" may be a perfectly healthy reaction, akin to "Ewe, dog poop!" But notice that no legislature is required in this case.
This is the key reason for my emphasis on point number two: casual nudity within the family. Body shame is a horrid, vile problem we settle our children with (and most of us inherited from our parents). A good sense of politeness, with the self-confidence and healthy psychology are all that we need to have a healthy society with a proper outlook on nudity.
Am I as alone as I think? What do you do? Do you disagree with me? Don't be too shy to post a comment.
I don't personally enjoy being nude at home. But we do often bath as a family. I also don't mind the kids or Rob being nude if they want too.
ReplyDeletePretty much agree with you on all points. :)
I agree with almost everything in your post. Keeping your clothes on when you are with people you don't know well is polite, at least in our culture. Nude families are not a big deal. If nudity is a big freak out, you should probably check your premises.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't agree with is the idea that we can legislate away things we find loathsome. In order to legally ban something, I think you'd have to prove that it violates someones rights by an initiation of force (including fraud). I just can't see how nudity does that. But I am certainly open to hearing an argument that it does and why.
Thanks guys!
ReplyDeleteThe subject of legislature is iffy and I can't make a strong argument. Ayn Rand's amounts to "A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen." It cannot be ok to set up a garbage dump in your back yard, making the whole neighborhood deal with the smell. It is not OK to play your music on the loud speaker, preventing others from enjoying a book in the privacy of their home. It is similarly not ok to defecate in the middle of the street.
The problem is, who is to judge which sight is loathsome? What about a guy with a deformity? A young child who (like mine) runs out into the street with no pants?
I would err on the site of no legislature as I cannot conceive of a system that would do more good than harm.
The legislative issue melts away with property rights. Nudity is fine in the streets if the street owners say so. The reason the issue feels fuzzy is that in the absence of property rights, there can't be a good answer to questions like this. As in nearly all cases that aren't overt violence I prefer the government to stay out of it. Any putative benefit gained through prevention of someone being really, aggressively naked is far outweighed by breast-feeding being banned, clothing regulated and a million other obvious abuses emerging out of the government trying to regulate protection of people's sensitivities about seeing kibbles and bits.
ReplyDeleteI think those who are bothered by it just have to put up with it until such a day that property rights can be extended everywhere and signs can be posted, "No shoes, no shirt, dangling dingleberries, no service."
I agree with Kate Yoak. Ayn Rand also says that the only role of government is to protect individual rights (much like John Stuart Mill), and certainly no individual rights are infringed by the sight of a naked body, given that we all have one and it's a normal sight of another of our species, and given that the viewing individual can avert their eyes just as easily as they can look. There is no cause to be offended by the sight of a naked body.
ReplyDeleteI believe that forcing everyone to wear clothes through the force of law is the moral equivalent of forcing everyone to be nude, all the time, via the force of law. Nudity certainly does not violate individual rights and no legislation belongs to restrict liberty in a free society where no rights are infringed. What is "loathsome" to the clothes-compulsive viewer is perfectly natural to me, and no individual nor collective should have the right to impress their views upon me about what is right and proper when my actions do not affect them in any way--that is only the case if they *choose* to be offended.