The first part of the naked truth may be found here. Throughout history it has been interpreted in a wide variety of sometimes conflicting ways. It has been seen as a mark of sin, of impurity, of uncleanliness and shame. It has been seen as a symbol of purity, of innocence, even of the divine. It has also been seen merely as the most natural of forms while at other times it is considered the purest expression of one’s sensuality and fertility. The list goes on and on and the naked body undoubtedly has elicited and shall elicit more perspectives in the future.
The conflicting ways that nudity has been perceived can only lead one to conclude that different interests were and are at play. Whether the interests are survivalistic and natural or indoctrinative and artificial, popular perspectives on the human body have tended to suffer as a result, considered either too risky or too vulgar to be shown. We see this manifest to different extents amongst differing cultures and religions these days.
And yet, if it were truly so important to clothe the self in order to “maintain one’s dignity” then it would also imply that the human body itself was dirty - which itself would indirectly suggest that humans were created dirty (unless the original humans had large leaves installed at birth). Such would also run contrary to human perspectives on a vast variety of animals. Are cats, dogs, horses, etc. to be considered sinful in their exposure?
It seems a little ridiculous and it is. However one cannot but ignore the fact that at present a majority of individuals believe it to be indecent to be naked (although strangely the degree of offense taken increases in proportion to the age and degree of unattractiveness of the individual concerned (except in the case of jealousy)).
In recently visiting the old phrase “there is a time and a place for everything” I believe that I do find a plausible response to the question of what is to be done in a situation with two so very opposed camps (with the help of a little inspiration). On the one hand the naturists and on the other the conservative folks of a sensitive predisposition. Through the assistance but not the direct intervention of state and a reasonable land-use plan it could be plausible (and liberating to certain folks) to permit the setting aside of lower-to-mid-grade land (land without any special feature that should remain available to the public) and/ or an established time frame where naturists could let their hair down (which is perhaps only of any use in the event that there does exist an artifact or entity of public concern.
Through establishing a time and a place the mutual problems would be removed from each other without a need for argument over the validity of established teachings.
Entries (RSS)