Nude, Rude or Just Plain Crude
Exploring the codes of public nudity and how these relate to the broader prohibition against nudity in public space.
To preface this, I will first acknowledge the country that I am writing this in, namely Australia. Europeans ‘settled’ here about 250 years ago. Before that, for over 65 thousand years, this territory was effectively clothing optional. Evidence in support of this can be found in photographs such as by Baldwin Spencer early last century where we can see completely naked Australian Aboriginals posing proud and at ease compared to other photos showing awkward Aboriginals in ugly European cast offs. The settlement of Australia meant that the laws of England were imposed on the colony, including the laws of public decency that prohibited public nudity. Generally, it could be said that much of the world was clothes optional until European colonisation.
To proceed further here, I will clarify several terms related to nudity that may cause confusion. First, nude as in nudity is performative. This can be appreciated in respect of art history where the nude model poses before the artist as he fashions his representation. Contrarily, a naked person is simply a person unadorned, without clothes. This distinction was emphasised by Sir Kenneth Clark in his The Nude: A Study in Ideal Form (1956). Drawing upon this, John Berger in Ways of Seeing (1972) asserts:
To be naked is to be oneself. To be nude is to be seen naked by others and yet not recognized for oneself. A naked body has to be seen as an object in order to become a nude. (The sight of it as an object stimulates the use of it as an object.) Nakedness reveals itself. Nudity is placed on display. To be naked is to be without disguises.
Nudism essentially involves the activity of being naked in a public place, for arguably most people are naked on occasions, in private, as they wash themselves and dress. Naturism is synonymous to nudism, with the emphasis placed on being naked outdoors, that is in nature. Where one’s home/castle is reckoned to be a private space, anything beyond that could be considered to be in the public realm, that is streets and other open spaces where people freely traverse.
Nonetheless, there remains ambiguity. For example, Cable Beach outside Broome in north western Australia, is reputed to be a nudist beach. However, this great beach that extends 22kms up the coast is not strictly nudist. Rather it is multi-use with 4WDs taking anglers to their spot, tourist oriented camel rides, and patrols checking turtles nesting. Where Australia is a large, relatively sparsely populated country, there is plenty of bush available for people for be naked without being bothered by regulation.
Clearly, the crux of nudity, that which makes it indecent in respect of the law, is the exposure of one’s privates, one’s sexual organs. This is evident on clothes compulsory beaches, where the bare legal minimum is the scrap of material that covers such. Nevertheless, these brief textiles do not leave much to the imagination. Sexually active adults are familiar with the sight of genitals. Theoretically, this knowledge does not extend to children, who should ideally be kept innocent and ignorant of sexual matters.
This carnal awareness draws upon the biblical narrative of shame in Adam and Eve. Their embarrassment, upon discovering the original sin of nakedness and sexuality, underpins much of Christian thinking on sex. However, there has been a shift where there appears to be a greater tolerance of nudism in Europe, whilst Eastern countries tend to be more conservative. This follows from the view that the west has become morally depraved with such as LGBTQI activism and same sex marriage. Thus it would seem that there would be a rejection in Eastern political circles of public nudity, a turnabout of Western puritanism. Effectively, this works as a redress of the hypocrisy of Western piety, the perspective that somehow self-interested Europeans were more culturally advanced than ignorant, soulless coloured people whose lot was to serve Western greed. Such Eastern conservatism is particularly pronounced in Islamic countries, though it should be remembered that Islam originated in the same region of the world as Judaism and Christianity, from the Semitic speaking people of the near Eastern ‘Holy Land’.
Despite the common interest amongst nudists for their lifestyle, there is division between the libertarian nudists who promote a more sexual positive approach, in contrast to the mainstream message that open sexuality is against the family orientation of nudism. In a sense, the latter reiterates the stance of conservative religion for its negative view of sex, that such should be controlled and hidden, out of sight and mind. However, this policy has come undone where it has been shown to be hypocritical and a lie.
Ideally, the high and mighty of Christendom should assert their lofty moral principles through the practice of their demonstrably good behaviour. However, as Nietzsche, that famous god denier claimed, so-called “good men” are not judged to be “good” because of their behaviour, rather because they were “the good” as distinct from the lower classes, who were demonstrably “the bad” because they are the poor and not the high stationed, deservedly privileged. This failure of morals has become particularly evident in the Catholic church where so called celibate priests have been revealed as paedophiles guilty of sexually abusing children in their care. These children are theoretically guided by the priests’ high moral example. It beggars belief that priests who have taken an oath of celibacy, a commitment not to marry or engage in sexual relations, should be fucking children. Furthermore, that these criminals are protected by the church, by the religious authorities that seek to determine our moral regulations. This is compounded by the revelation that homosexuality is rife in the Catholic church despite its hypocritical “moral” crusade against gay rights, as elucidated by Frédéric Martel In the Closet of the Vatican (2019).
While generally, public nudity is prohibited in Australia, there are exceptions such as Cable Beach mentioned above. Such are described as nudist beaches; however, they are more accurately clothing optional beaches as there is no requirement to remove one’s clothing. Accordingly, as discussed, Cable Beach is multi-use. There have been a few exceptions where public nudity has been permitted, such as for example, the mass nude photographic events of Spencer Tunick in downtown Melbourne in 2001 and Sydney in 2010, and the Guinness Record nude swim at a public Perth beach in 2015. But apart from these rare instances, the overwhelming majority of public spaces and beaches are clothing compulsory as reinforced by signage. Of course, it makes sense that beaches should be nudist where people strip down to bathe. Arguably all beaches should be clothing optional and a few should be set aside as clothes compulsory beaches for reactionary hypersensitive prudes.
Not all public space is necessarily clothes compulsory for there are public facilities reserved for washing and changing, where people dress and undress, usually associated with sporting activities. Nonetheless, these facilities are segregated by sex, as if somehow this isolation of sexes will prevent any untoward hanky panky. Writing as an ex-student of a single sex boarding school, I can aver this sentiment is rubbish. It is the same bullshit ideology proselytised by the church and our puritanic law makers, which is gradually eroding under LGBTQI influence. Nonetheless, our Prime Minister got quite shirty about the prospect of gender-neutral toilets in his office and insisted that signage suggesting people make their own choice should be removed. He said this was “political correctness over the top … I don’t think this is necessary — I think people can work out which room to use.” Clearly, every beach and public space does not have a sign indicating it is clothes compulsory because that is assumed.
Being a cis male, I am ok with my genitals insofar as I don’t want them lopped off. Neither do I want them shunned, considered so indecent, disgusting and shameful, that they should be covered up at all times. It is a part of my innate natural freedom that I should be able to bare all, be comfortable unadorned in the environment.
It is a fact that nudists are not necessarily so crude, anti-social and ignorant that they do not understand the value and part clothes play in our culture. Clothes are first a protection. Our bodies are relatively hairless, so clothing affords a barrier akin to a second skin, that safeguards our bodies from damage, either by sun or harsh surfaces that can scrape, tear, and otherwise injure our flesh. Dressing up suggests moving to a higher station. Looking good, with good, as per Nietzsche, implying an improved social status. Nevertheless, clothing can also suppress individuality. Consider a collective social situation where there is an assumed dress code. This is evident in the centre of most modern cities, with men in their uniformly drab albeit ‘smart’ business suits. Contrast the dour male shakers and movers with the more multi various dress of common folk, many of them women, who are lower on the pecking order. Uniform dress is not so much about anonymity as it a subscription to group membership. This is well illustrated by the hidden in plain sight of ‘camouflage’ in a military uniform.
I enjoy my colourful shirts and my practical multi pocketed cargo shorts in summer, as I appreciate my jeans and warm shirts in winter. I choose my clothes to express my individuality. However, they are manufactured products, the creative work of someone else. My body is mine and when I take off my clothes, it is me.
Despite Erving Goffman’s point that The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956) is necessarily performative, there is a further point that such appearances may not assume nor require a viewing audience. There are circumstances whereby an individual has to traverse the public arena without socially engaging with other people. The machinations of social production are such that invariably individuals are obligated to negotiate such as shops, banks, offices, whatever … in the public realm. Certainly, such encounters involve people but there is no requirement for them to peruse you as if reading a book or viewing a dramatic performance. There may be a case for such study if security was an issue, say if one was an alien about to rape and pillage, but in theory, the ring of border protection has already safeguarded us. The local populace should be free to go about their business without such study.
In fact, such study is a perversion of sorts. If say I was naked outside my house watering my garden or washing my car, and you choose to stare and somehow that upsets or excites you, the issue is why keep on looking when there is at least 270 other degrees of view that would avoid such. If a naked person knocked on your door hoping for attention and titillation, then that could be considered a provocative. Otherwise, it should be no issue between consenting adults. On any day in Australia there may be brief flashes of ‘performative’ nudity as surfers change out of their bathing attire behind their station wagons, potentially in view of the public street. This is normal behaviour not aberrance or perversion. The pervert is the person who makes a song and dance of this, who draws attention to this sight, who either drools and salivates, or broadcasts their disgust when it is none of their business.
I put on an ordinary t-shirt and shorts to go shopping, not so that people will look at me, rather so they will overlook me, letting me get on with my life without hinderance. However, that is not a very positive soul enhancing way of doing things. It is almost cowardly, as if one’s true honest naked self has to be secreted, like that of the original native-born people, hidden behind shabby rags.
As I have reiterated, I am writing this in Australia, more specifically just after Christmas in the new decade of 2020, when climate change became such a hot topic as much of Australia was on fire. Houses have been lost, people have died, along with a billion animals. Whole sections of our wildlife have been devastated. It is a terrible tragedy. In hindsight, it may be churlish to say we should have done better, be more responsible.
Our leaders present themselves as the great white hope for the future, with their economy, democracy, etc. Yet the feeling is they couldn’t run a warm bath. Early European artists to this wide burnt crisp of a land painted the countryside as if it had the appearance of a well-tended park. At art school we were told this was a faulty impression that romantic painters imposed, whereas real Australian bush is harsh, chaotic and ugly. However, Bruce Pascoe in Dark Emu (2014) documents a different reality where many parts of Australia were in fact well-tended park land, ordered in a beauty and wonder that gave great credit to its original managers, knowledge that was cruelly ignored and suppressed to the point that it has believed/hoped the Aboriginal people would die out. We desperately need to resuscitate this knowledge now to save this country. Our land is burning through the greedy neglect of its clothed occupiers. The first people used controlled fire to manage this land and built stone houses, developed agriculture and aquaculture thousands of years before white ‘improvements’.
If anything needs to be burnt in this land, it is neither coal nor the bush, rather the shitty toilet paper laws imposed by the invaders. Obviously, we cannot undo the logic of fences and roads that scar the landscape, ripping it into ugly shreds. The wheel people are here. However, there remains another logic.
To be able to stand naked and free, with loins ungirded, the breeze whispering around proud individual sexual bodies. This is a natural right that should not be relegated to the occasional beach. It should threaten a stuffed status quo whose gross visage is epitomised in the sad case of Cardinal Pell, who is guilty for everyone’s sins but will only get a maximum of six years in prison.
Postscript
In respect of greater history, the LGTBQI movement, along with same sex marriage, has been a mere blip, a sudden contemporary event. Certainly, conservative god-botherers are hot under their dog collar calling for respect of their two-thousand-year Christian religion in the face of many thousands more years of human evolution. Nonetheless, another recent phenomenon is something more than a blip, though it be a product of a gay English man, Alan Turing. Being an instrumental figure in the development of computer theory and artificial intelligence, he can be blamed for many things, none of which have anything to do with his sexuality or his mistreatment by the British establishment.
It seems to be one of those fuddy-duddy old school boomer dad jokey things to criticise generation alphabet for the bad manners of glancing at their smartphone, say at the dining table. This condemnation has gone so far as to prohibit touching mobile phones whilst driving. Certainly, it makes sense to encourage good driving practice and it is not my objective here to discuss the ramifications thereof.
A smartphone is an amazing object with more computing power than that used to land men on the moon. It is a compact computer with the potential to communicate with computers and phones across the world. It plays music, shows videos, uses satellite navigation, can remote access cloud data systems and more. It has more to say for itself than someone burbling at the dinner table. A consequence of this ready communication at hand is that assumptions of others shift.
There are two related websites, Truenudists.com, promoting itself as ‘the largest social network for nudists’’; and there is its sister site Trueswingers.com, ‘the hottest social network for swingers’. Participation on the sites requires registration as a member. This membership can be upgraded at a fee for more options through the common billing agency SocialCOMedia, LLC. The distinction between the sites is that Truenudists prefers to align itself with the mainstream nudist movement that disavows sexual behaviour in order to be family friendly. Trueswingers provides a more sexually open alternative. Thus, while both have a video chat, Truenudists is more censorial about what is exhibited on camera. Thus, while it accepts the obvious, video broadcasts of naked people, it insists on the whole body, not a focus on genitals. Alternatively, the more open sexual possibilities of Trueswingers devolves to a succession of excited penises being manipulated for self-pleasure.
The separation between the ‘purer’ Truenudists and the more sullied Trueswingers is weak. Members may be on both sites, and they can chat privately. What are prospectively naked people going to chat about apart from the weather…? The weather usually comes into play where it is a question of is whether it is warm enough or not to appreciate taking off one’s clothes. Then the conversation may fall to sexual preference, what one likes to look at, etc. While nakedness and sex can be separated in the everyday, where one is engaged in other things — cooking, gardening, writing, swimming, whatever — sitting naked chatting is different. It’s a bit like being at the dinner table while your phone is vibrating. The idea is to enjoy the freedom of being naked, not to suppress it. Thus one answers the phone as it were and moves on without hurting other people.
BTW
Bruce Pascoe’s thesis has become another political hot potato engendering a Twitter storm. It has gone so far as the Australian federal police have been called to investigate him on the advise of the office of home affairs. Pascoe is accused of being an imposter, falsely identifying himself of indigenous origin so as to criminally obtain funds. Accordingly, his argument is guilty by association and the status quo is sustained, that of British superiority and their right to settle Australia. The point that the accuser has called for a national registry of indigenous people locates this on the extreme right as it suggests racist data collection reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
We are born naked, but everywhere people are in clothes.
