Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Meaning of Nakedness

Rate this topic


Ifat Glassman

Recommended Posts

I have been giving this subject some thought, and could not find any logical explanation to why Nakedness should have this or that meaning.

Does "Nakedness" even have such a universal meaning, and if so - what is it and why?

To explain what I mean by "a meaning" I would point out the meaning that nakedness has for most people:

Something personal that should only be revealed to one's romantic partner, and only after they are intimate enough.

Some people also have no problem showing their naked bodies to people of the same sex (assuming they are not homosexual).

In other words there is a very strong link between nakedness and sexual interest in one's body.

For me, I used to see my naked body as something very personal, regardless of the gender of the person next to me. I would not let any other person alive take a look at my naked body (unless they are my lovers), but in my art nakedness would have an entirely different meaning for me than the one I had for myself in everyday life. In my art nakedness has the meaning of bearing one's soul: of showing traits of character in the most direct way: through the shape and posture of a naked body.

But in the last two years nakedness in my everyday life changed it's meaning: I have no problem with women who see me naked (in showers at the pool, for example).

A few days ago, I went out of the shower and one of my roommate's boyfriend was there, with the rest of my roommates. His girlfriend covered his eyes to prevent him from seeing me with a short towel, but I realized, that heck, I really don't care if he seems me like that or not. In fact, I think I would not care to go naked through the kitchen and have all of them see me naked, if this would not have caused embarrassment on their part and problems.

And now I am quite confused: I don't know how my opinion about nakedness changed or why :dough: , and I don't know if there is any reason, based in metaphysics (or epistemology) for which nakedness has a certain unchangeable meaning.

Here is a question that is helpful in "cornering up" the question about the meaning of nakedness: On a really hot day, assuming that going naked on that place is legal, would you go naked or stay with clothes and suffer from the heat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here is a historical point.

Consider that in the most rational society before America, Ancient Greece, nakedness was not a problem at all. It was praised in many forms in art, and in sports (the great Olympic games). Rome carried some parts of this culture and view on naked body.

However, with the coming of the Dark Ages and Christianity, this has been taken apart, and replaced with what we have now.

Then with the coming of Renaissance, that view was revived again.

Here is another interesting point, this time from USA: length of shorts in basketball. It used to be pretty short in 60s, but then it came back to longer shorts as they have now. (Food for thought.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider that in the most rational society before America, Ancient Greece, nakedness was not a problem at all.

Neither, to be frank, was buggering little boys. Which is only to say that just because something is Greek doesn't make it a good idea.

I think the irrational idea of nakedness is that it is something dirty, to be ashamed of. But this is the Christian idea which is what keeps many people clothed. (that and the law)

The rational idea that keeps us clothed is, I think, that your fully naked body is a gift, to be shown exclusively to only those that have earned such intimacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rational idea that keeps us clothed is, I think, that your fully naked body is a gift, to be shown exclusively to only those that have earned such intimacy.

So how much would you be willing to pay for the ability to give your loved one this exclusive gift? The discomfort of 35C (degrees Celsius)? 41C (getting really uncomfortable here)? 45C (oh my god, somebody bring me a fan)?

Moreover, what makes some parts of your body worthy of being treated as an "exclusive gift" but others can be a gift for everyone (your arms, face, ankles and neck)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moreover, what makes some parts of your body worthy of being treated as an "exclusive gift" but others can be a gift for everyone (your arms, face, ankles and neck)?

Ones arms, face, ankles and neck are not body parts directly related to sexual relations--an act that is (hopefully) exclusively associated with close loved ones. This is probably why "nakedness" more often refers to not having ones sex organs covered.

(Sorry to just step in here abruptly, being a newbie, but I suppose I had to start somewhere.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moreover, what makes some parts of your body worthy of being treated as an "exclusive gift" but others can be a gift for everyone (your arms, face, ankles and neck)?

Any hair below the chin can be defined as "pubic" hair, which to me is odd. Hair on your chest or back is nowhere near the pubis. But oh no, it's DIRTY! Don't show it to the other gentiles!

Nakedness is normal and accepted in many places, especially on beaches. Nobody thinks twice when they see a little naked kid running around in the waves. But when it's a mature person that you could potentially be attracted to, your breeding instincts kick in no matter what, and the shame that society has beaten into you makes you gawk, or blush, or avoid eye contact.

Sometimes it's easier to not put on clothes at all if it is hot, especially if you are boat people like us-- you are more comfortable and you don't have to do laundry as often. But in social situations, shorts are at least called for, IMHO, just as a weird sort of humbleness (I was raised Catholic and unfortunately their mind control doesn't ever leave you 100%!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ones arms, face, ankles and neck are not body parts directly related to sexual relations--an act that is (hopefully) exclusively associated with close loved ones. This is probably why "nakedness" more often refers to not having ones sex organs covered.

So what makes breasts into a sexual organ, that is more sexual than the ankles?

I take "directly related" to mean the organs that are specifically used in the physical act of sex (and not in other activities).

Breasts are not such an organ more than the arms, tummy, legs, etc' are. Are they just chosen arbitrarily as "sexual"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ones arms, face, ankles and neck are not body parts directly related to sexual relations--an act that is (hopefully) exclusively associated with close loved ones. This is probably why "nakedness" more often refers to not having ones sex organs covered.

(Sorry to just step in here abruptly, being a newbie, but I suppose I had to start somewhere.)

Just because they are there doesn't mean your going to have sex with them. Every person you meet has (or at least should) have sexual organs under their clothes, you know they are there. Some clothing accentuates the fact that they are there. So what is the difference if you see them or not, other than social taboos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what makes breasts into a sexual organ, that is more sexual than the ankles?

It is quiet different. Both men and women can get very aroused, or have their arousal significantly hightened just from nipple stimulation alone. Such high level of arousal does not happen from ankle, tummy, or leg stimulation.

That being said, in Germany for example, women of all ages do not wear tops on the beaches and people do not think much of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your breeding instincts kick in no matter what,

I don't know about you, but I'm a human being, not an animal, and I don't have "breeding instincts". Take any other talk of "instincts" to the appropriate thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if it is rational to keep the parts of your body that are "directly related" to sex concealed, so that one may give them as a present to that one person that they cherish in that way, then the rational conclusion from this is that I should wear a veil, since, for me, one of the most sexual body parts of a person is their head (well their face, but a face is not a body part). So maybe I should also conceal my face as much as possible according to this logic. This just doesn't add up. I used to have this exact same thought ("keep it as a gift", "one has to earn it") but it makes no sense when I try to apply this idea seriously. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that a lot of what qualifies as sexual is relative to a particular culture; having a particular body part visible to everyone de-sexualizes it, which is why in certain cultures total nudity does not qualify as sexual.

Leonard Peikoff, by the way, talks about nudity in different contexts in the lecture "Love and Sex" (along with quite a number of other subjects).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an issue I have wrestled with, because my fiancee is quite uptight about nudity. If I'm watching a movie with nudity in it, she insists that I cover my eyes. I think this is silly, but since I don't really care about it one way or the other, I do it just to avoid the argument. This has caused some pretty major fights in the past, and I've learned to just deal with it. If this is the worst she ever does to me, I think we'll be okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how much would you be willing to pay for the ability to give your loved one this exclusive gift? The discomfort of 35C (degrees Celsius)? 41C (getting really uncomfortable here)? 45C (oh my god, somebody bring me a fan)?

I'm American; I don't speak your voodoo metric system. Hehe. But I've never been so hot as to be tempted to take off my pants in public.

Moreover, what makes some parts of your body worthy of being treated as an "exclusive gift" but others can be a gift for everyone (your arms, face, ankles and neck)?

Well, there is the obvious connection that the parts covered by my underwear are sexual in nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I was raised Catholic and unfortunately their mind control doesn't ever leave you 100%!).

I agree that this is unfortunate because it leads to mistakes of the kind you now make. There are reasons other than the Catholic ones to not go about nude, but many who were raised that way don't realize it. When they rightly reject the Catholic programming, they don't see any reason not to be naked and so attack people for being "prudes."

But there are perfectly good, non-catholic, non-your-body-is-shameful reasons.

So what makes breasts into a sexual organ, that is more sexual than the ankles?

I think that's more a cultural thing. But having said that, it is no less real, any more than the word "dog" referring to canines is also a cultural thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I've never been so hot as to be tempted to take off my pants in public.
This does not help our point here in the thread, as we are not discussing the current popular stance, but wherever one should endure heat versus taking off some clothes. (Note that taking shirt is OK in many cases.)

Well, there is the obvious connection that the parts covered by my underwear are sexual in nature.
No, not obvious. Before someone can decide to hide those parts, one must decide that they are sexual beforehand. Not the other way around. Otherwise, we get into lunacy of "Jazz is defined as what jazz players play."

I think that's more a cultural thing. But having said that, it is no less real, any more than the word "dog" referring to canines is also a cultural thing.
This looks like equating metaphysically given and man-made. Dogs exists, there is nothing good or bad about it. Cultural view on clothes are put in place by man (or men). Thus, it belongs to the sphere of ethics and morality - it can be either bad or good.

Having to suffer heat, b/c one can not show too much of skin or whatever, does not sound like a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Olex, you have very much misconstrued my position.

This does not help our point here in the thread, as we are not discussing the current popular stance, but wherever one should endure heat versus taking off some clothes. (Note that taking shirt is OK in many cases.)

I said that I have never been so hot as to have wanted to take off my pants. That is entirely relevant to the discussion of heat-induced nudity. I said that it simply does not ever get so hot that you need to be without pants, and so questions of heat are therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

No, not obvious. Before someone can decide to hide those parts, one must decide that they are sexual beforehand. Not the other way around. Otherwise, we get into lunacy of "Jazz is defined as what jazz players play."
Yes, it is obvious that sexual organs are used for having sex. Do not insult my intelligence by trying to claim otherwise.

This looks like equating metaphysically given and man-made. Dogs exists, there is nothing good or bad about it. Cultural view on clothes are put in place by man (or men). Thus, it belongs to the sphere of ethics and morality - it can be either bad or good.

I did not say that it was good or bad; I said that it was real. Like it or not, bearing breasts is seen as a sexual act. Like it or not, people will interpret it in a certain way. You can talk of whether this is good or not; it does not appear at first glance to be tied to a metaphysical quality like the sexuality of genetals, so it is a man-made fact... but that is a fact. And frankly, I don't see why one would judge it to be bad. Unless you don't think breasts are sexy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can talk of whether this is good or not; it does not appear at first glance to be tied to a metaphysical quality like the sexuality of genetals, so it is a man-made fact... but that is a fact. And frankly, I don't see why one would judge it to be bad. Unless you don't think breasts are sexy.

But is it a rational man-made fact? You could view it as an evasion, we know there are breasts under that bra, but we can't see them. Why is it rational to have to hide what we know is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is it a rational man-made fact? You could view it as an evasion, we know there are breasts under that bra, but we can't see them. Why is it rational to have to hide what we know is there.

Why assume it is evasion? Why not assume there is a good reason and try to discover what that is? Remember that if you de-sexualize breasts, you may see more of them but they won't be as appealingly sexy. Do you want that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why assume it is evasion? Why not assume there is a good reason and try to discover what that is? Remember that if you de-sexualize breasts, you may see more of them but they won't be as appealingly sexy. Do you want that?

As a rational person I'd say I'd want to admire the perferction in the human form. As a married man I'd say two breasts are all I need. So the whole point of hiding the sexual organs is to make them more sexual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a rational person I'd say I'd want to admire the perferction in the human form. As a married man I'd say two breasts are all I need. So the whole point of hiding the sexual organs is to make them more sexual?

Yes, that's how I see it. You hold them back precisely because they are so appealing, not because you are ashamed of them in any way. It's the complete rejection of both the Catholic/prudist and the hippie/"free love" view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that if you de-sexualize breasts, you may see more of them but they won't be as appealingly sexy. Do you want that?

certain body parts that are okay to show in public (hands, legs, neck, arms, shoulders, stomach) can become very sexual in the bedroom. If women walked around topless, it wouldn't de-sexualize breasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector: Hiding sexual organs cannot make them more sexual. Sexual organs are sexual. You cannot change that. Moreover, why should you hold something back because it is appealing? That is not sufficient reason to hold something back. Finally, if our practice is to not cover breasts, that does not de-sexualize them in the sense of making them more or less a sexual organ or inherently more or less part of sexuality. The only sense in which it can make them de-sexual is psychological. In a culture in which breasts are kept covered, seeing a breast is a cue that you are about to have sex, which is exciting. The desire to keep breasts covered to make them exciting is an attempt to manufacture signals. We could use any body part to manufacture signals. We could keep our faces covered, as Ifat suggested, or keep our hair covered as Muslims do (I suspect that Muslim men are excited by seeing the hair of unfamiliar women, because it is a cue that they are about to have sex), or keep any random part covered, such as our left pinkies. But this would be silly.

That we regard the sight of certain body parts as sexual is the result of those part's use as vehicles of communication. So to argue that we ought to retain certain parts as sexual cues is like arguing that certain scientific disciplines should not have specialized jargon. Some groups of people may wish to adopt alternative means of communicating sexual intent, for whatever reason, and may wish to abandon the use of traditional means for communicating that intent so that they can free up the traditional means for other purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...