"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings;
look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
- Percy Shelley
It's the reason why, unless you put deliberate energy into cleaning, a room will trend, over time, toward disorganization. To keep things in order, you must exercise - as Alastor 'Mad-Eye' Moody would say - constant vigilance. The orientation of time's arrow may be demonstrated by the fact that an egg dropped from a countertop will shatter into many pieces and scatter across the floor, but it will never gather itself back together and reform its original shape.
The explanation involves probability states and redistribution of the elements within a system. Consider the fact that if you were to mess up one shirt in a pile of folded laundry, it would stick out like a sore thumb; but throw another sock onto a disheveled pile of clothes and you'd hardly be able to tell the difference. It's all quite fascinating, but far beyond the scope of this discussion. I merely want to introduce the concept of time's arrow - and the unanswered question of why it should flow in one particular direction, but never the other - in order to draw an analogy to modesty (with relation to clothing), and its implied moral imperative.
"Decency is a pattern of behavior, not a style of dress."
It seems to me that the question of how much or how little to wear always carries with it some moral baggage, rather than simply being a matter of personal choice. The edict to "cover up" is always interpreted as a moral imperative, while any suggestion to "take it off" is viewed disdainfully as an indecent request. There may be localized exceptions - even whole communities (such as nudism) that create contexts in which this rule is flipped - but they are the exception that proves the rule. Over a broad consensus, the moral evaluation I have described tends to hold. It's what we teach our children, and it's what they mainly continue to believe throughout their lives.
My experience witnessing people telling others to "cover up" is that they always do it in a moralizing, preachy kind of way. It touches on the deep roots of sex negativity and gymnophobia (fear of the human body) and the underlying current of self-loathing that stains our culture. It's as if they're on a holy crusade to "clean up the streets" (does the world really need more Travis Bickles?), and fix other people's "sinful" behaviors, presumably in an effort - no doubt goaded on by faith handlers of various stripes - to guide them towards what they conceive to be a more saintly existence.
Although natural instinct pulls us in the opposite direction (and why shouldn't it?), you don't really see people going around telling others to "take it off" (or similar) - because most people know how such a suggestion would be received (skin exposure is viewed as indecent, and the desire to see more of it is therefore suspect), and have the social consciousness not to want to be perceived as a degenerate pervert. Unfortunately, the type of people who flout society's conventions and impulsively speak their mind anyway tend to be unscrupulous, instinct-driven animals (otherwise they would have put more stock in those conventions, regardless of whether they agree with them or not), and lo, the sordid reputation holds, because there's no polite way in this society to say "naked is more beautiful".
[description: a naked tourist stands in front of a raging waterfall]
A quick pose, before that Amish family glances up from their picnic.
A quick pose, before that Amish family glances up from their picnic.
I'd just like to ask, why should the moral value of modesty in dress necessarily have to flow in one direction and not the other? And why does it do so in practice? What religious mythology has been woven into the tapestry of our society, so firmly as to even influence secular culture, about the extent to which the devil reaches his hand into the "pleasures of the flesh"? And why should it have to be that way? We have the freedom to decide our own beliefs; I have the freedom to believe not only that the human body is not evil, but that it is divine, and that physical pleasure is a virtue and not a sin. I have the freedom to believe these things, but if I go around expressing these beliefs, I risk being cast as a villain, and eyed with suspicion.
One of the greatest scientific discoveries of the early twentieth century was Einstein's revelation that space and time are not absolute, but that our experience of them is relative, dependent on a frame of reference. From my perspective, these "modesty warriors" who go around spreading shame and judgment upon those who revel in the celebration of what little joy our mortal bodies can give us - to me, they are the ones who are evil. When there are two opposing vantage points, who gets the authority to decide which one is proper, and which is distorted? Should we simply adopt the one that is more common, or the one whose adherents are the most vocal? Remember, there was a time when most people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth and not vice-versa; a great scientist named Copernicus was vilified by the church for proposing an alternate theory that we now know absolutely to be true.
Without reason, can speech ever truly be free? I would love to be able to feel comfortable expressing my beliefs about the human body. To talk about its beauty and the pleasure it can bring. To encourage those people who I think deserve to be seen, to show off more of their bodies and flaunt what they've got. People can agree or disagree with my opinions on these matters. That's fine. What I can't stand is the thought of becoming a pariah for stating them. Of being looked at and treated like nothing more than a pervert. (Yes, I'm a pervert - aren't we all? - but I'm so much more than that). Or, worse yet, being considered a sick predator, diseased in the mind, dangerous and unholy. All because I bow to the temple of naked beauty, unbound by any arbitrarily constructed social laws of propriety.
And so I remain silent, more often than not. But it has a dispiriting, isolating effect on my psychology. It's not healthy. I want freedom of speech. I'm not asking for freedom from other people's reactions to my speech. That's a strawman concocted by people who claim to support liberty, while hypocritically attacking free speech defenders they accuse of the equally ridiculous notion of only wanting to spew hatred without repercussion. I just don't want to live in a society where people are habitually - to the level of making it a predictable outcome - predisposed toward exaggeration, and maliciously misrepresenting people's views and statements (exacerbated by a cancel culture - which goes by another name: "cyber-bullying").
I don't want people not to have the freedom to come to their own conclusions about the things I say. I just want to live in a culture where I feel safe enough to say those things, with good intentions, knowing that people will evaluate them fairly and without misrepresentation, with patience and rationality - not knee-jerk emotionalism fueled by memes and propaganda designed to manipulate the masses - and with reasonable allowance for thinking outside the box and considering unconventional viewpoints before rejecting them outright. Just like I strive to do.
Do I have over-inflated standards for Homo sapiens, or what? But why should I be forced to settle for less? I want so much more than that. And we're just talking about talking! Heaven forbid, I should try to actually pursue the things that make me happy, and attempt to make my vision of a naked paradise (similar to a nudist resort, but more like an artists' retreat than a retirement community) a reality. I have no desire to hurt anyone physically or psychologically, or compel them to do anything against their will. But some ideas are so dangerous... I fear that, to quote the bard (not Shakespeare, I mean Bob Dylan), "if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine." And that's just for the fantasies alone!
