This article, in itself, is not a bad essay. The author has made a coherent effort to express concerns he has about social behavior and the effect certain behavior has on others. It is an easy read and does well in summary. However…
Merriam Webster tells me “pervert” is a transitive verb, not a noun, meaning “to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right.” One who perverts is a perverter. So, as this medium is all about using words to communicate, let’s be mindful of which words we use. Yes?
My next issue with the blog post is the very hypocrisy of a liberal accusing someone of going too far… unless the author is spinning nudism as a reactionary stance to the advent of clothing centuries ago. Nudists are liberals by their very stance on nudity. We are arguing that such a state is not only natural, but an inherent Right of expression. In the U.S. we have even argued it’s a protected form of expression under the First Amendment… unsuccessfully.
Do I even need to go into the hypocrisy of advocating against “body shame” and using derogatory words to condemn others?
The argument about nudity being natural, a regular state of being, is valid. We are born naked and have no concept of shame about it until we are taught otherwise. Children generally realize their nakedness when their development reaches a state of “other” awareness when the innate narcissism begins to subside and comparison begins. Adults carry with them decades of shame through such comparison (mine all has high school gym class written all over it) and provides many of the obstacles to social nudity blogs all over the web attempt to dispel.
Now, to then classify sexuality as a different state of being than a lack of clothing is absurd. Sexual attraction (arguably a learned trait) is as natural as eye color. Sexuality is innate, it’s expression is normal. Different societies have chosen when, where, and how this expression is tolerated, but that doesn’t make expression less natural. Just less accepted.
The blog screams at the unsavories of the world leering, ogling, and otherwise aggressively looking at people. There are even those who chose to masturbate during this time. Public sex is apparently a major no-no for this author. Yet why?
I’m not condoning aggressive behavior of any kind. Intentionally causing unease is a power grab that nobody should get away with – not even kindly bloggers who want to police behavior.
Finally, the author suggests this would cause a new breed of criminal and overwhelm the local constabulary with emergency calls against beach-front erections. Perhaps the author isn’t aware of the ubiquitous sexual offender registries. These web sites are dedicated to making the public aware of sexually aggressive individuals, no matter the circumstance of their choices. “Creeps” and “perverts” aplenty are among us, staring or leering or masturbating in unacceptable locales. Granting public nudity legality would do nothing to create or encourage the sexually aggressive people, they would simply continue what they’ve intended to do.
Perhaps nudists could consider their words – and their motivations for nudity – a little more carefully. Hypocrisy of logic does nothing to further a political cause or more to hinder an attempt at social change. While some of these statements may go a long way to easing the “fears” of statesmen and voters about the consequences of social nudity, it ultimately fails to uphold reason by attempting to be a conservative for liberation.