Naturism On The Nature Of Modesty

Part of http://econudes.org/book/some-observations-nature-modesty

 

Home » 205 Arguments and Observations In Support of Naturism

Some observations on the nature of modesty

15. Children are not born with any shame about nudity. They learn to be ashamed of their own nudity.

16. Shame, with respect to nudity, is relative to individual situations and customs, not absolute. For example, an Arab woman, encountered in a state of undress, will cover her face, not her body; she bares her breasts without embarrassment, but believes the sight of the back of her head to be still more indecent than exposure of her face. (James Laver notes that "an Arab peasant woman caught in the fields without her veil will throw her skirt over her head, thereby exposing what, to the Western mind, is a much more embarrassing part of her anatomy.") In early Palestine, women were obliged to keep their heads covered; for a woman, to be surprised outside the house without a head-covering was a sufficient reason for divorce. In pre -revolutionary China it was shameful for a woman to show her foot, and in Japan, the back of her neck. In 18th-century France, while deep décolletage was common, it was improper to expose the point of the shoulder. Herr Surén, writing in 1924, noted that Turkish women veiled their faces, Chinese women hid their feet, Arab women covered the backs of their heads, and Filipino women considered only the navel indecent.18
The relative nature of shame is acknowledged by Pope John Paul II. "There is a certain relativism in the definition of what is shameless," he writes. "This relativism may be due to differences in the makeup of particular persons . . . or to different 'world views.' It may equally be due to differences in external conditions--in climate for instance . . . and also in prevailing customs, social habits, etc. . . . In this matter there is no exact similarity in the behavior of particular people, even if they live in the same age and the same society. . . . Dress is always a social question." 19

17. The dominant idea that clothing is necessary for reasons of modesty is a cultural assumption. It is an assumption that is not shared by all cultures, nor by all members of our own culture.20

18. There is evidence that modesty is not related to nakedness at all, but is rather a response to appearing different from the rest of the social group--for instance, outside the accepted habits of clothing or adornment.21 For example, indigenous tribes naked except for ear and lip plugs feel immodest when the plugs are removed, not when their bodies are exposed.22 Likewise, a woman feels immodest if seen in her slip, even though it's far less revealing than her bikini.23 This also explains why clothed visitors to nudist parks feel uncomfortable in their state of dress. Psychologist Emery S. Bogardus writes: "Nakedness is never shameful when it is unconscious, that is, when there is no consciousness of a difference between fact and the rule set by the mores." In other words, for first-time visitors to a nudist park, there is no hint of embarrassment after an initial reticence, because it is not contrary to the moral norms.

19. Shame comes from being outside mores, not from specific actions or conditions. Because nudity is unremarkable in a nudist setting, nudists may even forget that they are nude--and often do.

20. Psychological studies have shown that modesty need not be related to one's state of dress at all. For the nudist, modesty is not shed with one's clothes; it merely takes a different form.24
Psychological studies by Martin Weinberg concluded that the basic difference between nudists and nonnudists lies in their differently-constructed definitions of the situation. It isn't that nudists are immodest, for, like non-nudists, they have norms to regulate and control immorality, sexuality, and embarrassment. Nudists merely accept the human body as natural, rather than as a source of embarrassment.25

21. Many indigenous tribes go completely naked without shame, even today. It is only through extended contact with the "modern" world that they learn to be "modest." 26
Paul Ableman writes: "The missionaries were usually disconcerted to find that the biblically recommended act of 'clothing the naked', far from producing an improvement in native morals, almost always resulted in a deterioration. What the missionaries were inadvertently doing was recreating the Garden of Eden situation. Naked, the primitive cultures had shown no prurient concern with the body. . . . the morality was normally geared to the naked state of the culture. The missionaries, with their cotton shorts and dresses, disrupted this. Naked people actually feel shame when they are first dressed. They develop an exaggerated awareness of the body. It is as if Adam and Eve's 'aprons' generated the 'knowledge of good and evil' rather than being its consequence." 27 Many Amazon rainforest people still live clothing-optional by choice, even given an alternative.28 The same is true of the aborigines of central Australia.29

22. Even in North America, nudity was commonplace among many indigenous tribes prior to the arrival of Europeans.
Lewis and Clark reported nearly-naked natives along the northern Pacific coast, for example,30 as did visitors to California.31 Father Louis Hennepin in 1698 reported of Milwaukee-area Illinois Indians, "They go stark naked in Summer-time, wearing only a kind of Shoes made of the Skins of [buffalo] Bulls." He described several other North American tribes as also generally living without clothes.32 The natives of Florida wore only breechclouts and sashes of Spanish moss, which they removed while hunting or gardening.33 Columbus wrote of the Indians he encountered in the Caribbean in 1492, "They all go around as naked as their mothers bore them; and also the women." 34 The Polynesian natives of Hawaii wore little clothing, and none at all at the shore or in the water, until the arrival of Christian missionaries with Captain Cook in 1776.35

23. For some indigenous tribes, nudity or near-nudity is an essential part of their culture.
Paul Ableman explains, "very few primitives are totally naked. They almost always have ornamentation or body-modification of some kind, which plays a central role in their culture. . . . Into this simple but successful culture comes the missionary, and obliterates the key signs beneath his cheap Western clothing. Among many primitives, tattooing, scarification and ornamentation convey highly elaborate information which may, in fact, be the central regulatory force in the society. The missionary thus, at one blow, annihilates a culture. It was probably no less traumatic for a primitive society to be suddenly clothed than it would be for ours to be suddenly stripped naked." 36

24. Yet missionaries have consistently sought to impose their own concepts of "decency" on other cultures, ignoring the elaborate cultural traditions regarding dress already in place. Bernard Rudofsky writes: "People [in other cultures] who traditionally do not have much use for clothes are not amused by the missionary zeal that prompts us to press our notions of decency upon them while being insensitive or opposed to theirs." 37 Julian Robinson adds: "Eighteenth and nineteenth century missionaries and colonial administrators were blissfully blind to their own religious, cultural and sexual prejudices, and to the symbolism of their own tribal adornments--their tight-laced corsets, powdered wigs, constricting shoes and styles of outer garments totally unsuited to colonial life. These missionaries and administrators nevertheless took it upon themselves to expunge all those 'pagan, barbaric and savage forms of body packaging' which did not conform to their body covering standards. . . . Thus the social and symbolic significance of these traditional forms of body decoration which had evolved over countless generations were, in many cases, destroyed forever." 38 Russell Nansen records that "Henry Morton Stanley, the rescuer of David Livingstone in the Belgian Congo. . . . from 1847 to 1877 . . . wandered across Africa suffering every hardship but when he went back to England he made a notable speech to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. He explained to the audience how many natives there were in the Congo, and the fact that they lived naked. He told the audience that their duty as Christians was to convert these misguided naked savages to Christianity and to the wearing of clothes. And when this missionary work had progressed sufficiently to convince the natives of the need for wearing clothes on Sunday, that would mean three hundred and twenty million yards of Manchester cotton cloth yearly. Instantly the audience rose to its feet and cheered him." 39

25. Most anthropologists consider modesty an unlikely reason for the development of clothes.
J.C. Flügel writes: "The great majority of scholars . . . have unhesitatingly regarded decoration as the motive that led, in the first place, to the adoption of clothing, and consider that the warmth- and modesty-preserving functions of dress, however important they might later on become, were only discovered once the wearing of clothes had become habitual for other reasons. . . . The anthropological evidence consists chiefly in the fact that among the most primitive races there exist unclothed but not undecorated peoples." 40 Anthropologists agree nearly unanimously on this point.41

26. Many psychologists and anthropologists believe that modesty about exposure of the body may well be a result of wearing clothes, rather than its cause.42

27. It is interesting to note that it is only possible to be immodest once an accepted form of modesty has been established.43

28. Modesty with respect to nudity is a social phenomenon, not biologically instinctive. This is evidenced by the fact that nudity is venerated in art.44

 

© 2017 • Powered by BasicPages