In my last post, I talked about a type of culture in between nudism and gymnophobia, that is less neurotic about casual instances of nudity in everyday life, without adopting a "nude for the sake of being nude" approach. And the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that this is indeed a fantasy. Even in the movie that inspired my ruminations, the casual attitude towards nudity seems confined to specific circumstances and among certain company. This isn't so much different than the gymnophobic culture in which I live - casual nudity still occurs, you just rarely see it because it's hidden from general audiences. The appeal of the arthouse film is that the camera takes you where you don't often get to go.
Think about dressing rooms, bath houses, dormitories. Nonsexual, social nudity does occur among textiles sometimes, but it's almost always segregated by sex. Which actually reinforces the sexual connotation of nudity. In a heteronormative framework, two (or more) people of the same sex can see each other naked, only because there's no possibility of sexual attraction. But add somebody of the other sex, and suddenly the whole situation takes on a decidedly more sexual atmosphere. The nudity isn't truly "casual"; it still maintains an air of intimacy (often involving only friends or family).
Sometimes gay people are included in groups of the opposite sex for this reason ("he's gay, so it doesn't matter if he sees me naked"), but otherwise (and especially when closeted), they would seem to be in a unique position to take advantage of this arrangement. But none of this considers the true fluidity of human sexuality. My argument is simply that two people who are attracted to each other should be able to see each other naked and still conduct themselves appropriately (whatever that means in a given situation). Nudism proves that it can be done.
Why, then, are we so uptight? I believe this is an artifact of what is probably a religious-based morality - that even just seeing the other sex nude is a form of carnal knowledge ("whoever looks with lust at a woman has already committed adultery in his heart" - Matthew 5:28), forbidden except under tightly controlled circumstances (such as in the bedroom with your married spouse, only while in the process of procreating, and without excessive pleasure). But whether religion is the true culprit or not, you cannot deny the presence of this moralist strain of sex-negativity in our culture. People do not permit themselves erotic delight without grave consequence.
Often, there is an assumption of lack of self-control. Sight of a naked body will send a person into a sexual frenzy. Or is it more deliberate? Take the mythical "blue ball" effect, that unscrupulous men use to justify sexual coercion. What if it's not that they'll lose control, but that they don't want to experience sexual arousal without feeling entitled to an outlet? So, rather than risk turning somebody on, it's better to cover up. But that attitude disgusts me. It leads to burqas being imposed on women, and it's the antithesis of freedom and pleasure. It's not a bad thing to be exposed to subtle erotic triggers throughout the day, even if you can't have sex with every woman you encounter.
And that's what nudists trip over whenever I bring up the subject of sex-positivity. I appreciate the way nudists are trying to separate nudity from an inherently sexual context. But in life, I think a low level of eroticism is unavoidable in some circumstances. And that's fine. I don't see two extremes - sexually explicit and nonsexual. I see a third option in the middle. We should disengage the assumption of sexual intimacy from every instance of nudity, but without having to profess that there can be nothing erotic about it. And we should learn to embrace those erotic feelings for what they are, without needing to tie them to anything more complicated.
