Meaning of Nakedness

[DavidOdden]

The proprietor has in fact made no implicit warrant except that on his property you will not be killed, ensalved or robbed.

Implicit warrants are made in a social context, and in the American social context, that means that people will be clothed, not fornicating on the sidewalk, also not engaging in ritual vomitting, intolerably loud sounds, etc. and that customers will not be subjected to random beatings of ex post facto entrance fees. Your failure to grasp that fact is your error. There are portions of Amsterdam where the social context is clearly different; if you can change the facts of society and thus the warrants that a merchant makes to entice customers in to his business, then the responsibilities of the merchant change correspondingly. You are evading the fact that the merchant is being fraudulent in concealing the nature of his establishment. It is a clearly material fact that is being concealed in order to gain "agreement" -- classical fraud.

BTW, answer the question about government property. You can't evade the issue.

[IAmMetaphysical]

that means that people will be clothed, not fornicating on the sidewalk, also not engaging in ritual vomitting, intolerably loud sounds, etc. and that customers will not be subjected to random beatings of ex post facto entrance fees.

Thats a HUGE package deal.

Kinda sounds a little bit like the social contract that one agrees to involving the right of a "commons" which the gov't has the right to control.

Keep it up Mrock, I am behind you on this one! As you should already know anyway.

Why are there never any good-looking people on the nude beaches?

Well, I went to the nude beach yesterday, so there goes your theory.

[Inspector]

I am utterly perplexed by the notion of nakedness signifying "sex-ness," so to speak, "99.999%" of the time!

I am utterly perplexed by the notion that anyone could think such a thing. So there you go.

[JASKN]

I am utterly perplexed by the notion that anyone could think such a thing. So there you go.

Well frankly it doesn't mean a whole lot to me since you're not providing any sort of reason for being perplexed.

[JASKN]

There are portions of Amsterdam where the social context is clearly different; if you can change the facts of society and thus the warrants that a merchant makes to entice customers in to his business, then the responsibilities of the merchant change correspondingly.

David, you seem to be saying that there are some laws that should be based solely on whatever "historically arbitrary" (my phrase) social customs have developed in an area. But there is an obvious problem if a social custom goes against basic individual rights. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

With this particular kind of law against public nudity, I do not see an objective standard to base it on. Nobody is prevented from acting as he wishes, thus no rights are being violated, thus there is no basis to form a law against it.

[DavidOdden]

Kinda sounds a little bit like the social contract that one agrees to involving the right of a "commons" which the gov't has the right to control.

No, really this is the ordinary common law notion that any a man should be held responsible for actions that a reasonable person would recognise as causing harm. Thus selling spoiled food as "actual food" causes harm and is in every civilized society actionable. When you sell a "car", you are implicitly warranting that the object has 4 tires (not 4 wax cylinders made to look like tires); it has brakes, not pieces of twine and marshmallow packing made to look like brakes, and so on. Milk contains, yes, indeed, milk, and not poison or a clever calcium bicarbonate suspension. It is not necessary that a produc explicitly list, exhaustively, all of its properties, and any non-listed property is the consumer's bad choice. It is not necessary to engage in an infinite regress of "But what do you mean by X" questions, when a seller offers a car. You don't have to ask "But how do you define car? Does that include working brakes", and the obvious follow-up questions "How do you define 'working' and how do you define 'brakes'?". That is what the "reasonable man" standard is about: it says there are some facts where a reasonable man would conclude, for instance, that "has brakes" is implicit in the concept "is a car". Of course implicit warrants are social. Just because Objectivism doesn't subordinate man to society does not mean that a man's rights are not defined with reference to a social context. The standards of fraud are by nature social: fraud to the effect that X is so does not exist when there can be no expectation that X is indeed so. Expectations regarding human conduct are by nature social. You have failed to address the fact that representing an extablishment as anything other than a tawdry house of debauchery and sexual perversion is fraud, and there can be no question that fraud is unacceptable by Objectivist ethical and legal standards.

I also want you to address the question of government property. As an owner (in part) of government property, I forbid you from being publically nude on my property. Was that beach you went to fully, totally and privately owned? I thought not.

[mrocktor]

Your failure to grasp that fact is your error.

No, I don't think I'm in error. No one is under obligation of providing what you expect, only what they promise. I'll make this clearer in the reply to your subsequent post, below.

BTW, answer the question about government property. You can't evade the issue.

What question?

EDIT: assuming you mean this:

I also want you to address the question of government property. As an owner (in part) of government property, I forbid you from being publically nude on my property. Was that beach you went to fully, totally and privately owned? I thought not.

First, you do not own government property at all. The government owns it. On to the actual answer:

Government should only own property for a purpose. It must own a courthouse to perform the functions of justice, it must own naval bases for the use of the navy and airfields for the use of the airforce. Every government property must have a purpose, and rules for the use of that property follow from its purpose. Public nudity is not conductive to the efficient and correct dispensation of justice, it should be forbidden in the courthouse. Public nudity is not conductive to the effective training of military troops, it should be forbidden on military bases.

Its a non-issue really. The problem with the beach is that it is government owned at all, not that people are allowed to be naked on it.

Thus selling spoiled food as "actual food" causes harm and is in every civilized society actionable. When you sell a "car", you are implicitly warranting that the object has 4 tires (not 4 wax cylinders made to look like tires); it has brakes, not pieces of twine and marshmallow packing made to look like brakes, and so on.

You are wildly equivocating. "Food" has specific meaning - which is not a social convention. If you sell food, it must be something that can be eaten safely - that is what food is. If you sell a car, it must be a vehicle capable of transporting people over land using the existing infrastructure - that is what a car is. If you sell milk, it better be the product of a cow's mammary glands, that is what milk is. Yes, doing otherwise is fraud.

What you are arguing for is akin to buying some food, eating it, and then complaining that it didn't taste good. And food should taste good - so you sue the seller for "forcing" you to eat a bite of terrible tasting food. It is akin to buying a car and then discovering that it's power steering is electrical and not hydraulic. And all the cars you ever had were hydraulic - so you sue the seller for fraud.

You can't assume a car is made of certain materials, or has certain non-essential features or anything else about it - except that it is safe to drive and gets you from A to B. Likewise, you can't assume some food you buy has a specific flavor, or specific nutrition properties or anything else about it - except that it is safe to eat. If the producer gives you more information (and why wouldn't he?), you can hold him to that. But if your car salesman only tells you "its a car" - buy at your own risk.

Edited June 22, 2007 by mrocktor

[DavidOdden]

David, you seem to be saying that there are some laws that should be based solely on whatever "historically arbitrary" (my phrase) social customs have developed in an area. But there is an obvious problem if a social custom goes against basic individual rights. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

I think so (you are misunderstanding). I oppose statutes that forbid nudity, swearing, farting, smoking etc. The question has to do with a person's individual responsibility, from a civil point of view. Imagine for example that you have a tree on your property that grows to the point that it threatens the neighbor's house. You have a responsibility to the neighbor that is created by allowing that tree to exist and grow untrimmed, and if there is a huge wind storm that brings the tree down and destroys the neighbor's roof, you are responsible and will rightly be required by the courts to pay for the damage.

Similarly, it you knowingly run a store that is infested with killer fungus, insect parasites, deadly carcinogens, flesh-eating bacteria or vicious dogs that bite on sight, a customer who is harmed by your irresponsibility can properly recover damages, because of the implicit warrant that you will conduct yourself in certain ways (not poisoning customers). If you shirk this responsibility, then you should be held responsible for the consequences of your actions. The argument "But I never promised that there wouldn't be rabid dogs on the premise, caveat emptor, man!" is no defense against irresponsibility.

In general, the owner of a property is responsible for assuring that guests / customers are not harmed by forseeable damage. Obviously a mall-owner cannot be held responsible for a freak who streaks through the mall; the issue is whether a mall-owner can tolerate or encourage harmful conduct in his establishment which his customers cannot reasonably be expected to know about. If they cannot reasonably and independently know of the potential damage, then the owner has an obligation to give a warning, which then relieves him of his responsibility, in that anybody who enters given that warning has implictly accepted the advertised risk, and has chosen to procede. In contrast, there is no "warning was given" exception to a statutory prohibition.

[mrocktor]

Again you are equivocating between things that actually violate peoples rights and public nudity.

[K-Mac]

Me neither, and would avoid places where I would be exposed to them. I will strongly defend their right to do as they please, though, and will insist on making abundantly clear that my wants, needs and value judgments place no obligations on other people in addition to respecting my life, my freedom of action and my property - which they must anyway.

I agree. In fact, we were well aware that the resort offered the nude beach and we were aware of its location. Unfortunately, the currents were working against us. We viewed the situation humorously though, not offensively.

[DavidOdden]

Again you are equivocating between things that actually violate peoples rights and public nudity.

No, I'm simply saying that if you harm a person, you are responsible for making the person whole again, and thus the damaged party can rightly sue you and you will properly be required to take responsibility for your actions. Really, I think you need to get a better grip on Objectivist ethical concepts. Do you understand the concept of "responsibility", and what role it plays in Objectivism.

And you still have not addressed the issue of government-owned property, where you have no right to impose your perverted libertarian notions of letting it all hang out. As part owner, I'm informing you that you don't have my permission.

[mrocktor]

Do you understand the concept of "responsibility", and what role it plays in Objectivism.

I understand the concept "rights", and the role it plays in Objectivism. Objectivism says: the function of government is to protect individual rights. What is "harm" anyway, and who gets to decide? If I fire you from your job, is that harm? Should you be able to sue me?

And you still have not addressed the issue of government-owned property, where you have no right to impose your perverted libertarian notions of letting it all hang out. As part owner, I'm informing you that you don't have my permission.

Yes I did, check the edit above.

PS: The gratuitous insults begin. I've made my point, I'll stay out until an actual argument is made against it.

Edited June 22, 2007 by mrocktor

[Ifat Glassman]

Inspector, she was asking about contexts and intentionally not specifying any... although she did word it somewhat awkwardly. I would translate that as 'does anyone think showing one's naked body to another human being is necessarily sexual?' Ifat, correct me if I got that wrong...

You got is just right. I was asking if it is necessarily sexual.

The reason I was asking it, is because I believe that this is a hidden assumption used by people who claim that they have a right not to be exposed to naked people (without a warning), or that being naked in a public place is properly illegal.

I wanted to raise just this question of nudity=sexual communication? separately from the bigger topic of public decency. I think I am too late though, subjects were already mixed;

Because I clearly have a right to be free from imposed nudity.

This is very much not clear at all. From the context you used (the mall example) to describe what "impose" means, I conclude that you are also imposed to see fat people, imposed to hear people talk, and in fact, imposed to see people. Could you clarify what is the reason why nudity is "imposed" while those other things are not?

The best thing would be to separate the topics of the meaning of nakedness from other related claims about the legality of it in public. (Reopening the public decency thread is a good idea in my opinion).

[DavidOdden]

The best thing would be to separate the topics of the meaning of nakedness from other related claims about the legality of it in public. (Reopening the public decency thread is a good idea in my opinion).

Absolutely, and I do apologize for letting things get sidetracked and for contributing to the sidetracking. This thread is about the meaning of nakeness, as spelled out in the first post, and that is what all subsequent discussion should be about. Not about the legal status of nudity. The discussion will now return to the original topic, again with my apologies.

[K-Mac]

The best thing would be to separate the topics of the meaning of nakedness from other related claims about the legality of it in public. (Reopening the public decency thread is a good idea in my opinion).

Maybe this is an over-simplified view of the subject, but I think women are better at separating nakedness from sexuality than men are, in general. Instinctively, are men not attracted to the hourglass figure because it could indicate efficient child bearing, while women are attracted to smart, aggressive men because they guarantee survival of the fittest? Do we agree that women do not necessarily get sexually aroused looking at naked men the way men get aroused looking at naked women? (If the reaction were the same for both sexes, wouldn't you see Playgirl being as successful as Playboy?)

Another point I just thought of was this...the only people I have ever personally known that participate in nudist colonies, nude beaches, etc., were people that were into it for sexual reasons. Sure, during the day they play volleyball, hike, swim and do all the "innocent" Hippie Hollow stuff (http://www.co.travis.tx.us/tnr/parks/hippie_hollow.asp), but it's been my understanding (through those I know...not personal experience!) that it's just a means to meet other people who are into what they're into...group sex, wife-swapping, etc. Granted, I don't know everyone who participates in this stuff, it's just been my experience with the few people I've known who participate.

I suppose it's very possible for someone to remove sexuality from nakedness, but I do believe it would be difficult. I guess what I wonder is, is the ability to remove sexuality from nakedness more difficult due to our culture or natural instincts?

[Inspector]

Well frankly it doesn't mean a whole lot to me since you're not providing any sort of reason for being perplexed.

My evidence consists of the fact that that is what that means in our culture. And it is not entirely arbitrary, either, since the invention of clothing. Which was quite a while ago.

I'm sorry if you never bothered to stop and think about the various aspects of the world around you and figured out the practical meanings and reasons for what people do. But Objectivism isn't carte blanche to just throw away every single thing in the world that hasn't been explicitly explained to you in excruciating philosophical terms. Yes, I understand that our culture is sick, sick, sick, and there are many things about it which should be thrown away. Clothing is not one of them. Nor is the sexual connotation of genital nudity.

If you want an explanation for that, I'm sorry but I don't know quite how to start. If it isn't obvious to you what genitals are used for and what purpose a person might have in showing them to others, then you may be beyond my help.

We are not libertarians. Objectivism does not mean you should smear yourself in green Jello and run naked through the streets.

[Galileo Blogs]

I wanted to raise just this question of nudity=sexual communication?

My two cents on this issue.

I've been to several nude beaches. The first time I went, I was a little nervous about being naked. However, after a short period, I became unconscious of it. I found that the nudity of all the people around me was not sexually arousing.

I think context matters on the issue of nudity. Nudity in a romantic setting is different from nudity in a locker room (same sex) or at a nude beach (mixed sexes). The latter two settings are non-sexual.

As an aside, I found bathing nude quite enjoyable, more enjoyable than bathing with a suit on.

In other cultures and eras, nudity was not such a big deal. I believe (if I am not mistaken) that Japanese men, women and children regularly bathed nude together in communal baths until World War II, after which they switched to single sex bathing. Those bathing sessions were non-sexual.

I think Christianity has imparted a lot of self-consciousness toward the nude human form. It is interesting to compare attitudes in non-Christian or pre-Christian cultures such as the modern Japanese or ancient Greeks.

[MisterSwig]

My view is that there is nothing inherent in nakedness that makes it sexual, unless by "sexual" one simply means exposing the sexual organ. But even genital exposure is not inherently arousing or related to sex. It depends on the people involved and their particular circumstances.

As for exposing oneself to others, this is only controversial because of the existence of so-called "public" property. In an ideal society, where all land is privately owned, allowing nudity would be a private decision for each land or business owner to make on his own. The market would dictate the amount of nudity that is allowed in open society.

[IAmMetaphysical]

If it isn't obvious to you what genitals are used for and what purpose a person might have in showing them to others, then you may be beyond my help.

This may be where some of the confusion lies. Being nude around others is not necessarily an instance of "showing" your genitals to others. Yes, your genitals are exposed and others have the opportunity to see them, but the concept of "show" implies that the person showing is doing so because their purpose is to be seen. This is a small point, but that is not always the case. When I walk down the street my purposes can be to get somewhere, e.g. the store, or to take a leisurely walk. Some people's purpose might be to be seen by others(if they are second-handed) but this is not the necessary (or rational) motivation for being nude "in public" (or in places where one may be seen by others.)

Being nude is a great pleasure (when the weather permits and it wouldn't involve physical discomfort on the part of the nudist) because the body is a great pleasure, i.e. existing in a physical form is something to be exhalted. Our bodies are sensuous, which lies at the base of all of our experience, all of our knowledge, all of our values. "A mind without a body is a ghost," stresses the fact that our minds are disconnected from reality without our senses, "a body without a mind is a corpse," stresses the fact that our bodies are useless as anything other than a conduit for our experience. The key for both these statements is that one cannot sever the mind from the body, and the link between the two are the senses, it is our senses that allow us to apprehend the physical world, to apprehend existence. Our physical bodies, our physical life is the base of all the rest of our existence and as such should be valued as highly as anything else.

What being nude means (especially outside) in light of this, is the value of experience, the value of the openess of one's largest sense organ to the environment without impediment. This of course is not a contextless value or pleasure. The pleasure involved in this experience is the pleasure of experience, it is a celebration of the body as such, at the fact of having a body and of having senses. Sensation as such is a value, but not all sensation is a value; pain for example is the sensation that one is experiencing a disvalue, it is a warning that one's body is in danger. The distinction here is that while it is a value to be able to sense danger and thus feel pain, the experience of pain is not a value, i.e. is not something that should be acted toward to gain or keep. In the same respect pleasure as such is a value, but it is not (always) a value. Pleasure is not contextless, the value of it depends on how it allows the organism involved to pursue its life. This is why hedonism and nudism are not one in the same, enjoying one's apparatus for pleasure and sense and enjoying pleasure and sense as an end in itself are two different things. Rational nudism is a celebration of life, not a celebration of sex or pleasure, but the celebration of existing in a physical body, which for man means: existing. (it is my contention that the enjoyment of sex should have this same attitude, and I do not think that enagaging in and seeking pleasure is necessarily a vice, my previous statments should not taken to mean that I think pleasure is a disvalue, i only wish to highlight the heiarchical nature of the value of pleasure and that it must be subserviant to an organism's life)

In a big way, the enjoyment of being nude is an expression of the benevolent universe premise. When you open yourself up physically to the metaphysically given in this way you are expressing your confidence in the strength of your body, expressing in a positive light your attitude toward your body's relationship with the rest of existence. You are expressing your attitude about the metaphysically given and its congruence with the functions of your experience and life. Of course one's body and environment do come at odds with each other from time to time, and clothing and shelter is absolutley necessary, but to make clothing a mainstay of human existence is to say that man's existence (his body) and his environment are continually and necessarily at odds with each other(this is true for eskimos, so they get a pass). Man does survive by adapting his environment to himself, but this does not mean that it is always necessary(there are times when the metaphysically given does not represent a danger to man's life), nor that it is wrong to enjoy the times when such an adaptation is not necessary. Remeber though that one is not celebrating the un-necessity to create values when one is nude, one is celebrating a universe in which man is safe; safe to create the values he needs, safe to enjoy them, and safe from the probability that one's values and one's life are on the brink of destruction as a metaphysical fact.

[Inspector]

I agree with all that, but I still think the genitals are sexual. They are not something for the eyes of strangers.

[IAmMetaphysical]

WOW! Inspector was that directed at me???? I would have never thought we would agree on something like this!

Your contention though raises this issue: why are the eys of stanger one's main concern?

[Inspector]

WOW! Inspector was that directed at me???? I would have never thought we would agree on something like this!

Your contention though raises this issue: why are the eys of stanger one's main concern?

Yes, it was directed at you. I know what you mean about the conquering nature thing, too. What you're saying is not that you want to "be with" nature, but that you have conquered it so completely that you are safe outdoors even without clothes. But frankly, I'd still wear sunglasses because I need those things for the sun. Although given that I prefer to carry a gun for self-defense, would I still be considered nude if I wore a holster? Hmm, that may be a little too "village people" for me.

My main concern is not as such the eyes of strangers. Although the, as Dr. Peikoff said about this very subject, "pearls before swine" thing is a consideration. My main concern is the whole monogamy thing we've been over. Besides, if I'm outdoors I'm usually moving around a bit. Movement requires... support... in certain... areas. LOL.

Edited June 23, 2007 by Inspector

[IAmMetaphysical]

In regards to the "pearls before swine" thing I think that if one's purpose necessitates an audience then one should consider the audience, but if one's actions concern oneself, the audience doesn't matter, they change not the reality of your actions, their significance or their virtue. As an example: on the nude beach there were a number of people walking from the clothed area in full clothing and my gf heard one of them say "This nude beach sucks, its judt a bunch of weiners!" Obviously these people were there to gawk at naked chicks and perhaps attain some sort of sexual excitement or masturbatory fodder. Their subjective assessment of the situation did not turn the actual situation into a sexual one, nor did it make my gf's and my nudity any less of a value to us. We were enjoying the sun and the wind, not the assessments of others, so their assessments did not matter. In the same way, if you write a novel and someone assesses it incorrectly or negatively, that does not mean that one should not write books for the audience you do want(In response to your comments on porn actors.) Just because someone might get an irrational enjoyment out of a picture of your body, doesn't mean you should preclude yourself from making yourself available to an audience that would gain a rational enjoyment out of it. I think if you want to get into a discussion of the rationality of pornography we should create another thread.

[Inspector]

Well... I don't know how much I really want to get into this at the moment. I don't even like going to the pool at my place because there's going to be drunks, frat boys, and weirdos there. I just don't like "the public" in general; I am an admitted snob and I believe I've earned the right to be one. I much prefer going in off hours when I can have the place to myself. And that's not even being nude, so what I'm saying is that I'm already biased against it, before the nudity even comes into it.

As for "pearls," the difference between this and, say, publishing a novel is the monogamy thing. So it comes back to that. And I'd prefer to agree to disagree on that one.

Anyhow, I did agree that technically speaking there can be non-sexual nudity. But it's... well, not exactly easy or worth it in most cases.

[JMeganSnow]

Coming back to this thread, I find it shocking that anyone can consider that there is non-sexual clothing . . . forget nakedness for a minute, if you put a really attractive woman in a cardboard box, that cardboard box is going to be "sexual".

I actually find clothed-ness (yes, yes, that's not a word, sorry) to be more sexual than nudity, because when I see guys wandering around nude I'm embarrassed so I don't feel any particular attraction. In fact, if you want me to not examine your assets, take off your clothes. The more clothing you're wearing, the freer I feel to take in the scenery. Given, this wears off after a while so it's not something I'd suggest as a long-term strategy.

Anyway, all these guys wandering around in clothing are imposing unwanted sexual images on me. I feel violated. Actually, pretty much being male = sexual connotations for me. I'm just out of luck here.