The Naked Child Growing Up Without Shame
<< Chapter III >>
The clothing phenomenon and the body taboo
Dennis Craig Smith
The history of dress and adornment
Civilized mankind and all other animals stand at the opposite ends of a dressed-to-naked spectrum. There is one undeniable fact that places man and other animals at the opposite ends of the spectrum: human kind has systematically and with increasing vigor chosen to cover itself with clothing in keeping part of its physical self hidden. Animals are totally unconcerned with covering up their bodies. They expose their genitals to each other — and to humans — often as a sign of friendship. Primitive peoples cover themselves for warmth, for protection from injury, and for ornamentation. But there seems to be no connection between the garments they wear and what we call modesty.
It is civilized humankind that has moved the farthest along the continuum. The more advanced the civilization, the more systematically and vigorously the men and women within it cover themselves with clothing in a non-functional, almost religious exercise to keep part of their physical selves hidden from others of the same species. From this attitude, they derive and evolve the concept of indecency and immodesty. These words are used to describe the act of exposing parts of the human anatomy, exposing to others’ view. They also serve to emphasize the superiority of civilized, technologically based societies over other, less advanced cultures and especially over all lower animals, where the same exposure is not considered to be indecent.
Although there are exceptions today, and there certainly have been more in the past, the body taboo is a surprisingly universal phenomenon, especially in societies with a more organized, complex religious foundation. Unquestionably, Christianity has played a large part in the development of the clothing phenomenon in less civilized areas of the world. Missionaries brought the Christian religion to naked natives and with it coverings for the bodies of their converts. This compulsion to cover nudity brought about changes in the sexual habits and the clothing customs of the more primitive societies throughout the world. This kind of influence is evident throughout the Pacific Islands, in the Caribbean, Africa, and of course, among the American Indians.
The fact is that clothes are not essential for protection in most of the warmer, tropical climates. They are, however, deemed morally necessary by “decent people” even for such recreational activities as swimming and sunbathing. In most societies today, especially in our own, the United States, clothing is worn even to the detriment of the activity, even if it hampers the athlete.
There is far more freedom, for example, and more efficiency in swimming, cutting through the water when a swimmer is not encumbered by clothing. The West German swim team trained and ran time trials in the nude to test a theory that suits slowed a swimmer down. Each participating athlete, when nude, bettered his or her time considerably. Yet, during the Olympics, they had to wear suits. Nevertheless, swimming or sunning nude is still condemned by many in our society, by the majority of societies, particularly those that are considered the more technological societies. Nude participants in the Olympic contests would have shocked the sensibilities of at least some observers.
Although Humankind is born naked and as a part of Nature’s world, we have thought ourselves into the dilemma of modesty and shame for our own anatomy. This element in itself sets us further apart, perhaps more than any other factor, from the other primates.
This chapter will explore the development of clothing as a sometimes non-functional, but seemingly necessary, element of the civilized human culture. Why do we wear clothes? Why do we fear exposure of our “private parts”?
To deal with the clothing phenomenon and understand the development of modesty and the evolution of clothing we should first decide what is meant by dress. Most studies, we found, begin from and with man’s apparent need to decorate or improve on nature in some way. In this regard then, anything applied to or put upon any portion of the body for any purpose can be thought of as clothing. Dress, for the purpose of this discussion, will be defined as anything that is worn, no matter how much or how little, to serve as protection; to satisfy modesty; to function as symbols of sex, age, occupation, and status; or to provide ritual symbolism. We will also consider as dress any decorative ornaments worn to arouse or to attract the opposite sex.
With this in mind, we can see that clothing basically fits into two broad categories: protection, physical or emotional; and communication, whether to notify others of social status, sexual position in the society, or occupational pursuits.
Anthropologists look to the discovery of ochre, consider ochre, a pigment found in Neanderthal burial places, as the first small indication of the earliest use of adornment and the first step, movement toward dress of some kind. It is thought that clothing must have existed and been worn in the Mousterian Epoch since the Mousterian culture existed in Europe during part of the Wurm Glaciation. Covering (must have had some covering), then, was necessary to protect individuals from the severe cold.
The first eyed bone needles were found in the Aurignacian Period, giving strong evidence for the existence of clothing at that time. This is the period that occupies the last phase of the Paleolithic Age. Anthropologists believe that, considering the cold climate of Europe at that time, it is quite probable that during this period the Aurignacian garments were tailored, as were the clothes worn by early Eskimos (who appeared much later). Most experts believe that this is the earliest evidence of fitted garments and that it supports the conclusion that tailored clothing developed first in the colder regions of the world and among the hunters, hunting peoples.
Bone needles became far more common in the Solutrean and Magdalenian Epochs. Studies have uncovered such things as buttons and artifacts that appear to be fasteners of some kind. The evidence indicates that even though there are no actual garments remaining from this period, Paleolithic humans did use clothing, possibly as early as the Mousterian and certainly by time of the Magdalenian cultures.
The use of cloth or textile clothing did not come into existence until the Neolithic Age, when weaving was developed. In the Swiss lake dwellings there has been positive evidence that flax was grown and its fibers used in weaving, with numerous findings pointing to a high degree of technical skill in that art. The Chinese seem to be the first from whom we have positive evidence of tailored textile garments. This is not proof, does not mean we know that they were the first — only that in China we find the only conclusive evidence of such garments.
The Egyptians, in what we call ancient times, developed great skill in using linen in the manufacture of most of their clothing. Egyptian slaves and children often did not wear clothes, but high-ranking families wore them to indicate their status in society. The dress was simple — rectangular pieces of material wrapped around the torso. These gradually evolved into longer dresses that hung to the floor and, when worn by women, were arranged to expose the breasts. Later, both men and women wore poncho-like robes made by folding a rectangular piece of cloth in half and cutting a hole in the fold for the head.
Other advanced peoples of ancient times wore various types of very stylized clothing. The Sumerians dressed in wool their sheep provided and made it into a smooth-fitting skirt with fringe at the bottom or into a skirt called kaunakes, which some historians believe was made of shaggy sheepskin. The Babylonians and the Assyrians wore short-sleeved tunics covered by long shawls wrapped around the waist and hips. The Persians wore trousers, tunics, coats, shoes, and boots. The women wore the same garments, adding long veils to their outfits to cover their faces.
The Cretans wore clothing that was unlike any worn by other ancient peoples. Cretan women wore dresses that had the tight-waisted, corseted look of Western women’s dress of the mid-1800’s. The skirts on the dresses were long and bell shaped with layers of wide ruffles. Blouses had sleeves, but left the breasts bare. The men wore short skirts that dipped in the front and back. They were held up at the waist by tight belts, some of which may have been metal.
The Greeks and the Romans wore soft, flowing garments. The Greeks had the chiton and the Romans called it a toga, but the similarity was that both were made from a rectangular piece of cloth draped around the person and tied or pinned over one shoulder. During Roman times, tailored clothing was thought to be fit only for “barbarians” of northern Europe, even though it had not come into general use in Europe until well after the beginning of the Christian Era. At one time the Romans even decreed the death penalty for those citizens who wore trousers.
In early Middle Ages, all men and women wore simple tunics and circular or rectangular cloaks, but, as the people became more proficient and prosperous, they became more involved with style and finery. Especially for the ruling classes, clothing evolved into ornate, elaborate costumes.
In the Renaissance, attire became even more elaborate and elegant. In this period, people wore many layers of clothing — all heavily padded. Women wore embroidered underskirts and their dresses puffed out over many layers of petticoats. Throughout the Renaissance, women’s breasts were played down with material pulled tight across their chests so as to de-emphasize the breasts entirely.
The involvement with finery and elegance reached its absolute in the 1700’s. Large, fancy hats became stylish for women. They wore hoops at the hems of their dresses to support a great number of underskirts. Men wore tight-fitting, knee-length pants and lacy shirts. Both men and women often wore wigs, to replace the hair they shaved off in their fight with lice.
In the early part of the 1800’s, the bustle replaced the hoop, and some of the many petticoats worn in the previous century were abandoned. Corsets, which came into vogue in the 1700’s for both men and women, remained in style for women throughout the 1800’s.
During all these periods, the most dominant factors in the development of clothing and its styles were threefold: (1) the use of clothing as a status symbol; (2) the use of underclothing, the preoccupation with underclothing in an attempt to play down and disguise the sexual aspects of anatomy; and finally (3) the influence of religion. The body taboo reached its peak in the mid-1800’s. It became improper to even mention any detail, individual parts of the human body in mixed gatherings, even the ankle in view was considered obscene. So extreme was this taboo that, during the Victorian Era, it even affected furniture design. The legs of chairs and tables were covered by skirts of material that hung to the floor. All furniture was designed so the sensitivities of the men and women of the time would not be offended.
Clothing and the forbidden fruit
In each of these periods, the requirement for religious modesty made quite a mark on the nature of dress and the attitudes toward modesty, especially in Europe where Christianity had much to do with the accepted standards of clothing. Clothing was designed to identify married women, for example, so as to protect men from the “sin” of lusting after them. Undergarments (usually shifts or knee-length garments) were worn even when bathing to save the individual from the sin of viewing nakedness.
Although we know that clothing as protection had its origins back as far as we can delve into prerecorded history, it is equally apparent that dressing to cover shameful parts had its Christian beginnings with Adam and Eve and their fateful meeting with the devious snake and the forbidden fruit. Most scholars believe that the fruit symbolizes sexual curiosity, and that, for showing sexual interest in each other, the two were punished — banished from their paradise and condemned to clothing. We, their descendants, were condemned to wear clothing for the rest of all our lives. This story seems to have the greatest effect on what has become the Christian attitude toward and about human anatomy and its sexual parts.
The first Christian stories tell of a sexless Adam and Eve prior to the intrusion of “sin” into their lives. These stories go on to define our sex organs as badges of sin — to be identified forever with shame. They become, therefor, a physical reminder of the original couple and their shameful, sinful blunder. These attitudes and this doctrine of “original sin” cause otherwise logical, sane societies to hold onto their body coverups like as small children cling to security blankets.
One interesting thing that should be noted here: The individuals in these cultures needed their clothing as a means of overcoming guilt and religion-based shame. Yet, at the same time, nakedness was almost universally condoned for the children, and, in many societies where they existed, for slaves, especially for those assigned to hard labor.
Sometimes, the requirement that sexual parts be covered up seemed to backfire. When that happened, the “sinful” parts were actually overemphasized. An example of this is the codpiece of the Renaissance period. The codpiece was a round protective leather covering for the scrotum, originally constructed for use in battle, where it served to shield the testicles and penis from harm. The style became popular for civilian use. These non-utilitarian codpieces were made of cloth and worn as a stylish part of a man’s dress. For a time they increased in size until, as with other fads, they passed from the scene.
Nakedness reserved for our sexual partners
For the last few hundred years of civilized human history, nakedness — being naked in the presence of others — has been considered a sexual matter, to have a direct link to sex. Removing one’s clothes is assumed to be a means of sexual arousal, a basic preliminary step to sexual arousal and to any expression of physical intimacy. Most people today wear clothes — as opposed to going without them — as a matter of course. But, if asked to give reasons for their insistence upon dressing for all occasions, they would list modesty and respect for others as well as for themselves. In all probability, they would end with some remark that it’s indecent to parade around without covering on one’s genitals. A good number of people might add that they would be embarrassed to expose themselves naked to others, especially to anyone with whom they were not intimately familiar.
And that sums it up. On the whole, our society says that our nakedness is reserved for our sexual partners, our bodies should be exposed only to our sexual partners, to our immediate family in certain situations, to members of our own sex within the bounds of acceptable activities, and to our physicians. In our very recent past many married couples never saw each other undressed. But today it is probable that most wives may feel comfortable about letting their husbands see them nude (many do not even allow this, however). But those same women would normally not dream of letting friends or neighbors be present while they dressed or undressed, particularly if those individuals were males. Interestingly enough, it is against the law in this country of the United States for a woman or a man to answer the door nude. Such an act is considered a violation of both our feelings about and the moral code surrounding exposure and intimacy, for it is presumably possible that the person ringing the doorbell might be of the opposite sex and be shocked. Here the problem is associating nudity with being intimate.
The intimation here is that the nude host is subliminally suggesting physical intimacy by appearing naked before a caller. That conclusion finds its roots in our society’s assumption that if two people of the opposite sex are together, sex between them is always a definite possibility and that intimacy is inevitable, especially if one of them is unclothed. At the least, such exposure would indicate a desire for sexual intimacy on the part of the naked individual.
This taboo against nudity is not as strong if both parties are of the same sex. The same-sex sanction is true for both sexes but, however, far more liberal in practice for males than for females. The prohibitions are less powerful if all the individuals are male than if they are all female. Until very recently, and possibly in some schools even today, girls’ showers and dressing rooms in gymnasiums were built with doors to insure privacy. In more modern schools, where such consideration may not exist, a girl is permitted and expected to undress, shower, and dress with other girls in the locker room of the high school gym class. At such times, often necessity calls for her to put aside feelings of modesty in terms of group showering and communal dressing. But it is still considered “unladylike” for her to express other than blushing modesty even in the presence of members of her own sex and to make comments about her own or others’ bodies. She is expected to blush modestly because of her own and their nudity, even though all of them are of the same sex. For the woman it has much to do with our equating purity with modesty. If she exhibits the right amount of modesty, if she is blushing modest, then she is assumed to be mentally and spiritually pure.
Men and boys, on the other hand, are permitted, even forced, to be in the presence of other males when all or some of the group are nude. Shower facilities in boys’ gym quarters have no doors or even curtains that could be drawn by a modest youth. A young man in the process of being inducted into the service may be made to stand naked in line while waiting to be given a physical examination. No one considers this an intrusion on his personal privacy. It is not considered manly at all for a fellow to object. In fact, if, at that time, he shows any shyness or reluctance, he is considered “unmanly,” not only by his fellows, but by the personnel providing the examination.
Are we inconsistent in our avoidance of nakedness?
(Do we avoid the reality of nakedness in our inconsistancies?)
Clothes in our modern society serve many functions. They can be used to express how we feel about ourselves. They also provide us with cues as to how we can act in each different “clothing situation.” Sportswear such as sweat suits and shorts permit leaps, running, and other actions considered “physical.” “Lounging clothes” are for home entertaining and relaxation at home. Especially nice clothes, finely made and prepared of delicate, high-grade fabrics, are to be worn in public at “social” affairs, where they give the viewer a feeling about the wearer, and the wearer a feeling about him or herself. We would not wear such garments to a sporting event any more than we would wear shorts and T-shirt to a formal dinner.
This specific use for certain kinds of clothing is nowhere more evident than in the use of “beachwear.” It is acceptable for a girl to be seen lolling on the sand beach in a bathing suit that covers only the pubic area, most of the buttocks, and the nipples. In that location, such an outfit is considered and called adequate clothing by our modern society. It would not be acceptable for her to be on the beach without these small pieces of cloth although little is left to the imagination by the suit we call the bikini. Interestingly, however, were she to wear that same suit while shopping in a department store she might be considered “indecent.”
If she remains on the sand or in the water, however, she receives nothing but approbation. She is “dressed” decently, even though all the tiny bits of cloth in her bikini do is accentuate her breasts and the location of her genitals, leaving little to the imagination. Were those small pieces of cloth to be removed, however, she would be “exposed” and “indecent.” In some places, she would be arrested for an immoral display and hustled off to jail. The only other place where she can wear that kind of minimal cover is in a chorus line or in some advertising promotion.
Nudists object to these small bikinis which have become so much the style on the beaches, in advertising and on TV, but not because they are offended by the half-naked appearance of their wearers, as a shopper at Macy’s might be. Nudists feel that the use of bikinis provides people with a way of avoiding the reality of nudity while, at the same time, exploiting the preoccupation society has with sex and sexuality. They claim (and offer evidence to support their contention) and it is felt by many that a body “clothed” in a bikini is much more arousing to the viewer than is a totally nude figure.
For both men and women, however, the amount of nakedness allowed when bathing suits are worn is part of what has been called the looseness complex. This has to do with the way we are allowed to act as well as to dress. Why this looseness complex is tolerated, even encouraged, in some situations still remains a mystery and a valid question for society to consider. The amount of touching condoned in certain looseness complex situations such as dancing, swimming, and in many party games would bring cries of condemnation if indulged in at other times.
Are we all exhibitionists?
An important element of the clothing phenomenon is the concept of exhibitionism. We generally consider a person who exposes his or her sexual parts to others causing them to react to be an exhibitionist. It is assumed that he strips in order to arouse attention and to cause a reaction in others. This is seen as a perversion. Evidently, it is not good to seek attention that might bring about arousal in viewers.
This taboo, however, does not seem to apply to persons who are overly concerned with the clothes they wear, much of which is designed specifically to draw attention to the wearer. In other words, if a person dresses in a particular way to arouse sexual interest from others, he or she is considered to have pride in his/her appearance (he or she is not considered anything but one who has pride in appearance). Even if he or she gets great sexual gratification out of the attention what is worn brings and others give, there is no suggestion of perversion. Can such an individual be called vain? Maybe. But not mentally sick or “fixated on sexual matters.”
This inconsistency is important. It illustrates the influence that our fear of sex (the dominant factor sexual fear) has and plays in establishing our attitudes about the goodness of our bodies. It makes it clear that our obsession with repressing our sexual reality has made us illogical. Because we cannot eliminate those parts of our bodies we have been taught to hate and fear, we pretend that they are made pure if we just hide them under something pretty. It is as if by painting flowers on a bag of garbage we can change it into something desirable.
Clothing as a sanction of behavior
Clothing does more than hide or beautify the unmentionable. It gives us the sanction to do things that done without clothing would be strictly forbidden. Many modern societies condone physical touching and openly, blatantly erotic activities that would not normally be acceptable when done in certain contexts and when the principles are dressed in an acceptable manner. South Sea island dances for example, are mainly an acting out of the mating rituals of courting and marriage and are alluding to the erotic movements of arousal, intercourse and birth.
When two people dance today, holding their bodies tightly together (with their genitals separated only by a thin layer of cloth), their moods made even more sexual by seductive music, we condone it, even expect and admire it, as a natural and harmless social interaction and recreation. If the music is soft and seductive, suggestive of love, that, too, is acceptable. Even modern dancing, where couples remain apart but thrust their pelvises forward as if copulating, is acceptable because they are dressed in layers of oversized sweaters and puffy trousers.
If, however, you remove the clothing, then everything changes, you have a first-stage obscenity. The dance becomes obscene, a vulgar violation of decency — even though they do not actually unite their sex organs. In both situations, the participants are certainly aware of each other’s anatomy. So, too, are any observers. All involved are aware of the symbolic nature of the dances. But if the participants are naked, the “cover is off.” All are made equally aware of the real meaning of what is taking place. This dichotomy brought about by the concealing nature of clothing permits us to see social dancing as something other that what it is. We can think of it as being the same as a good conversation, or a game of tennis. We are able to ignore its main purpose, which is to give sexual desire a “safe” form of expression. In this way, it is one of the very reasons that clothes have become a vital part of our world. They allow us to behave in ways that would not otherwise be acceptable, ways that would be too basic for us to accept, and they provide shelter to us emotionally.
In primitive societies, clothing is used in the same basic ways that were outlined in the first part of this chapter: for protection and communication, one part of which was to attract the opposite sex. Animal furs or woven leaves generally serve the first purpose, though elaborate coverings can also serve to communicate status to others. For example, the chief of a tribe wears more feathers, or longer, thicker robes, than do his followers.
But more than status is communicated through dress. The kind of adornment he puts on — the design painted on his body or the number of bones worn through his nose, will tell all observers that a particular warrior is strong and invincible. Similarly, a primitive maiden with a pattern of welts raised on her face, her lower lip distorted, her breasts painted bright colors, or wearing a particular style of skirt may be saying to all who see her that she is ready for mating. The ornamentation emphasizes those parts of her body that indicate she would be a good partner and, possibly, fertile. Many natives that live most of their lives completely naked dress up in colorful feathered costumes and paint their bodies elaborately during seasonal mating dances which are done before the entire population of available males or females, whichever the case may be. Clothing then, in these situations, is the element of arousal, not nakedness.
In modern societies, the same kind of meanings are placed on clothing, although in a more subtle, and therefore more acceptable, sense and way. The decorations used by primitive women are as arousing to young men of their tribe as the teasingly low neckline or the just-about-sheer blouse worn by a modern American girl is to a man from the modern American culture. The kind of adornment the primitive warrior or maiden in stone age societies put on is as arousing to those in that society as the teasingly low neck line or the just about sheer blouse is to the individual from the modern American culture. Admittedly, we hide the meaning far better than do the primitives. We say that when modern women dress in slightly revealing clothes that are designed to be pleasing to the eye, complimentary to the individual’s figure, and alluring and arousing to the opposite sex, to men, it is simply because they want to look their best. But a careful look at women’s clothing in our society will make it obvious that, though such clothes play down less attractive features, they often at the same time call attention to sex-related areas of the body. One of the main purposes of at least some clothing is to attract and arouse the opposite sex.
The naked primitive
To the Stone Age person, clothes had a far different meaning than to those of us living in twentieth-century America. They were used, as we mentioned already, for display, communication, and protection from the elements. The basic meanings may be the same but the individual sees the place of clothes as a far different thing. But when modern missionaries introduced their religion and clothing to the “naked savage” they presented, gave him a concept he had never dealt with before and an emotional dependence that he would never again be without. They decreed that clothing was to be worn to hide the body.
Some students of primitive cultures defend the use of clothing for cover by explaining that this concept was not initiated by the missionaries. What is interesting here is the finding that so very many primitive tribes, they say, cover their genitals with some kind of band or material. They claim that on first look this would support and proves there is in mankind some kind of innate need for clothing of some kind or at least in terms of sexual modesty. But these people overlook the fact that there are, however, many tribes that do not make any attempt to cover their genitals at all.
Nonetheless, what is very revealing here is that there are groups that evolved into covering their genitals and they did so within the last fifty years; at least some of the groups that cover their genitals began doing so only recently. In the Adaman Islands, for example, there are four tribes, the natives are called the Onge, the Jarawas, the Semang, and the Aeta. In all but one, both sexes live totally naked. Only the Onge women have adopted a genital covering called the Naquineghe (apron). Recent studies disclose that, for thousands of years, the Onges lived, as do the other tribes of Adaman Islands, in total nakedness except for this evolution into a genital modesty. Within the last fifty years, this one tribe began to display genital modesty. Why the change? The studies provide a clear answer. The Onges, because of their location on the island, have had the most contact with the outside world. They have learned modesty from visitors from civilized societies.26
Modesty
Dennis Craig Smith
What is the origin of modesty? Are we modest by nature?
One of the most important things we must do when looking at the clothing phenomenon is to spend some time considering the true nature and origin of modesty. Is it a part of our instinctive biological needs and makeup? Do we need it in some way to survive emotionally? The thinking and opinions regarding modesty and its origins vary greatly. Biblically the explanation of modesty and its origin is placed on shame. The Bible says modesty started with the beginning of shame and the association of shame with/to nakedness. But, like so many of our explanations for the taboo against nudity, this one does not stand up under scrutiny. Opponents of this attitude point that if God made mankind feel shame because of nudity, why are there still primitive societies in which nakedness is the rule and any sense of shame is totally absent?
Some individuals have offered other reasons for “civilized” man’s dependence on dress. Lawrence Langer suggests that man, particularly Western man, sees himself as a godlike creature. As such, he requires modesty, or the covering of his body, in order to maintain his feeling of superiority over the lower animals.27 John Flugel, another of the writers on the theme of modesty, believes that modesty is one of the reasons for the invention of clothing. He claims and reasons that modesty is, to some degree, instinctive, and that it is this biological truth that has kept us in clothes for most of our recorded history.28
It is unclear how Flugel answers the question of the primitives’ nakedness and their feelings or lack of feelings of shame. Neither does he nor those who accept his theory attempt to explain one of the confusing elements of this approach: the fact that nakedness or partial nakedness has seemingly always been sanctioned in art. If we accept, for a moment, that modesty is instinctive and that being seen nude violates that instinct why then is not the sight of nakedness in art also a violation of that instinct? It does seem to when not in a socially acceptable situation. This dichotomy certainly indicates and makes us believe that modesty is a social phenomenon and not biologically instinctive.
Other writers in the field believe that modesty is the result of clothing, not the cause. One opinion even denies any real connection between modesty and nudity. It states that modesty is merely a feeling of acute self-consciousness due to appearing unusual, different from those around us.
Among anthropologists, a favorite story that supports this notion tells of Baron von Nordenskiold in his Amazonian travels, when he tried to bargain for the facial plug belonging to a Botocudo woman who was, except for that lip plug, totally naked. The Botocudo are named for the large round wooden plugs worn by both men and women in the ear lobes and lower lip. The cylinders are of light wood, are three to four inches in diameter, and are about one inch long. After much discussion and offers of irresistible trinkets (jewelry, a mirror, gum, cigarettes, etc.), she was overcome by her desire for the items and handed over her labrets or plugs. As she gave him her lip plug, she put her hand over her then naked lip (she did not have another garment of any kind on her entire body), took the things for which she had made the trade, and ran off into the jungle still covering the lower part of her face. She did not appear again until she had replaced the lost labrets.
The baron reasoned that the Botocudo identified closely with those adornments. The woman’s self-image as a whole, complete, acceptable person within her society depended on her wearing them. To that tribe, modesty was associated not with covering the body but with the proper adornment of the lips and ears.29
This example, humorous as it might seem to us, reinforces and points to the conclusion, held by many, that the use of clothing in our society does not rise out of any innate sense of modesty, but that modesty results from customary habits of clothing or ornamentation of the body and its parts. The Botocudo woman is not unlike the Western woman who is embarrassed when, wearing only her slip, she is seen in her living room by a friend, but who is not at all bothered if seen by total strangers at the beach in far more revealing attire. She sees her slip as an undergarment which should not customarily be worn in public. Therefore, although it covers the woman very well in terms of her anatomy (better than her bathing suit), it fails to keep from violating and still outrages her feelings of modesty.
The true basis for modesty
If not wanting, the desire not to appear or feel different is the true basis for modesty, the true nature of what modesty actually is, then the feelings many nudists describe when they first visit a nudist camp seem to be more easily understandable and explained. Many first-time visitors at camps have said that they were reluctant to disrobe when they first arrived. However, after a short time among the naked members of the camp, they felt “a bit funny” because they were the only ones dressed.
The fact of being uneasy about wearing clothes, this reaction to wearing clothes seems to contradict, seems again to go against the contention that modesty, at least in terms of not exposing our total bodies, is an instinctive element of our nature. Otherwise it would seem far more logical, were modesty “inherent,” that the clothed person would feel superior and the nudists would be the ones to feel self-conscious. Langer says: “I agree that modesty came into being only after the invention of clothes, which resulted in sexual stimulation due to the simple uncovering of the body a form of stimulation which does not exist in the animal world.”30
Marilyn Horn, author of The Second Skin, believes that complete nudity, in itself, is not erotic. She says: “It becomes so when preceded by, or contrasted to, a state of dress. In this limited context then, all clothes become somewhat immoral if we define immorality as inciting sexual interest. It is the undressing, not the being nude, that is sexually arousing, because it leads the viewer to the association of a sexually intimate experience.”31
Women who make their living dancing nude before an audience have been known to run for cover when a male come into their dressing rooms. A nude model for an art class will often very carefully put on his or her robe to come down off the platform when it is break time. It is situationally acceptable for them to be seen naked in the context of their jobs, but is is not at all comfortable for them to be nude outside that security, to be naked out of the security of that context.
Bernard Rudosky, in The Unfashionable Human Body, suggests that it was “original sin that put nudity in such bad repute.”32 The Roman Catholic Church taught, and still teaches in convent schools, that it is wrong to expose the body, even to one’s own eyes. In Moslem teaching, modesty is an extremely important virtue, and insufficient clothing is strictly forbidden. The Sunna even teaches that “A man shall not uncover himself even to himself, and shall not bathe naked, for fear of God’s wrath.” A woman in a strict orthodox Moslem country who pulls her veil aside for an instant may send a much more erotic signal to an observer than does a girl on a California beach dressed in a bikini, or at work in a miniskirt and halter top:
It becomes abundantly clear that religion has played a tremendous role in the establishment of modesty as a desirable attitude and how it is defined from culture to culture. It is also evident that modesty within a culture is related to time and place. Eithin a given culture, religion clarifies the way in which modesty is affected by circumstance, time, and place. For example, in our society, a man who would not hesitate to play basketball without his shirt on the playground wouldn’t think of going shirtless into a restaurant or, most assuredly, to church. What’s more, different churches have different codes of modesty. In some religions, it is a flagrant violation of the modesty code for a man even to go hatless and being hatless in church. In others, women must cover their heads, but men must remove their hats. Different signs of respect? True. But both are also related to modesty, for a proper, modest individual would not behave in a manner contrary to his church’s teachings.
Underwear and the counter cultures collide
If we contrast what is accepted today in almost any situation with what was proper in that same situation fifty or a hundred years ago, we see vast differences that make the extremes we now encounter almost incomprehensible. The change in beach attire alone is enough to stagger the imagination. Consider for a moment the amount of underwear that was necessary one hundred years ago compared with that acceptable today, with what the acceptable trend is today. It doesn’t affect the validity of and doesn’t matter to this point that not all women today are willing to go braless, but only that society today condones it in all those who chose to do so. Pretend nudity is acceptable today. An ad seen on television today stresses that a bra makes women look “natural, not naked.” Another claims these certain panties make her look like she’s “not wearing nothin”(sic). A third ad suggests that a product “gives the support you need and the bareness he’ll love.”
Some of the counter-culture influences on today’s Western dress are amazing and historically quite unique. The “braless look” came first out of the 60’s Flower Children, evolved to the women’s movement, and then was put into high gear by movies and television. The underwear manufacturers countered this movement with ads and propaganda attacking this freedom, and hitting hard with the claim that women “needed to support” their breasts. When this didn’t work particularly well, the industry took another direction and decided to join them, making underwear that looked like as though the wearer wasn’t wearing them and had nothing on at all.
This seemed to do the trick. It gave women who liked the “nude look” but could not make the adjustment not wearing underwear and to going braless the chance to look as if they were without that item of clothing when they were not and actually had it on.
With that step, we have gone far into what we call the “Illusion of Immodesty” without the emotional risk. For women who either believe that it is unhealthful to go without a bra, or who feel that being without one is immodest and improper, the swing back to undergarments has been a welcome trend, but the nude look gave both factions a choice. The “nude look” in women’s undergarments, in effect, allows such women to be modest and immodest at the same time.
When you look at the great number of bras that are now made that will show the nipples and won’t show the straps, or the slacks (panties) that don’t show a crease (buttocks line), and panty hose that make you look “nude” (one brand is even called Nude Look), you see evidence that our society is struggling with the issue of modesty, and that an evolution is taking place. Those people who cling to modesty are still being affected by the growing number of nude beaches. As these recreational areas become more and more popular, the bikini has gained acceptance. Why, when bikinis show almost all of the body? Possibly because, when compared to total nakedness, the bikini seems the lesser of two evils and easier to accept for society — at least to the element of the population that once found it offensive. The contrast makes a bikini seem modest.
The history of modesty
What about the history of modesty? Throughout history, first of all there seems to be and has been a great difference between the rules of modesty man has imposed upon himself and those he has imposed upon women. In the Greek culture, modesty in the modern sense of the word did not exist for the male. The double standard is never in more evidence than when one looks carefully at the history of modesty and the vast differences of acceptable behavior and dress between males and females in almost any culture. Male athletes performed in the arena with no clothing at all. The Greek Olympic athletes were always naked. Women were not generally allowed to be naked in public. Although the breast of both males and females are anatomically the same, except for size, it is indecent for a woman to expose her breast and it is not so for man. A woman is expected to be blushingly modest when in the presence of other females when dressing and undressing. This sexual bias seems strong worldwide and throughout history. Yet, today, at least in the United States, it is indecent for a woman to expose her breasts. A man, however, may do so almost any place other than in formal situations.
In the Western world, for literally thousands of years and up until the 1920’s, the exposure of women’s legs from the ankle to the knees was considered the height of immodesty, yet men wore fitting knickers that showed the calf very clearly. In Japan, on the contrary, the back of a woman’s neck was considered erotic, and had to be covered although it was not so for the male. They, too, considered the same body part of a male perfectly respectable.
The Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism of Europe historically placed heavy demands on the female in terms of her attire and her actions, and still does, as does the Puritan religions which came to dominate the middle and lower classes in England, Middle Europe and the United States. To this day there are those who put the responsibility for sexual “purity” on the female’s shoulders. “Boys will be boys, and men, men,” but women are expected to overcome their sexual urges and remain sexually pure.
Curiously, ancient Oriental religion did not condemn sexual desire and sexual activities by either men or women as sinful, and accepted the naked body as a far more natural and wholesome part of reality. This concept, however, was fiercely opposed by Western missionaries, who have succeeded surprisingly well in establishing “proper morality” among the “heathens,” especially among the women. Bias against female sexuality continues to this day.
The amount of nakedness a bathing suit presents is part of what has been called the “looseness complex” and has to do with the way you are allowed to act as well as dress. Why this looseness complex is tolerated, even encouraged, in some situations still remains a mystery and a valid question of society. The amount of touching condoned in certain “looseness complex” situations such as dancing, swimming and in many party games would bring cries of condemnation if indulged in during other non-acceptable activities or situations.
Even the number of layers one wears is very important in determining the individual’s “modesty quotient” or how one is accepted regarding the looseness complex. Underwear, as we pointed out before, has a great deal more to do with modesty than health, and much more to do with what we have been taught than with our true nature as higher animals. Our society considers it indecent to wear only one layer of clothing over our sexual organs; more than that in the case of women who feel it is necessary to wear panties, panty hose, a slip and finally a dress. Recently in history, petticoats were worn. They were layer upon layer of material which tended to gauge the woman’s virtue and ladylike qualities of decency, depending on the numbers of layers to her petticoats.
Modesty and body functions
There is one area of modesty that remains far more constant than any of the others: the element of our bodily functions, urinating or excreting, the relationship between modesty and our bodily functions. We are very shy, even shier, far more shy about being seen while having a bowel movement than we are about being seen completely naked. It seems that even within our own sex this taboo generally remains intact and remains so even at nudist camps where nearly all other aspects of contemporary modesty are not retained.
At nudist camps where men and women are free to see each other totally nude they are often times (more often than not) given separate restrooms, just as they would be given them in a “normal” social situation. There are nudist clubs, however, where men and women share the bathroom facilities and there are opponents and proponents of both these practices, but even there, the need for privacy while urinating and defecating is not ignored. Booths are provided, and the urinals, common in men’s toilets, are missing. Men, as well as women, are expected to hide when they urinate.
The mere fact that there are some men and women who do not mind the combined bathroom facilities, and who would not object to open urinals, maybe even for women, does indicate that the feelings of modesty in terms of body functions are not innate. Women, in this situation, are probably reacting to years of conditioning. We have already mentioned how girls are encouraged to be modest in school gym situations.
The fact that men seem to have no trouble urinating into urinals when only other men are around further supports our belief that this form of modesty is still taught, not instinctive, and that it is rather a bit more deeply learned and ingrained than even the body taboo we attach to nakedness. We must remember that other primates are not shy about their excretions, and that many primitive people show an equal openness regarding this matter. Civilized man seems to be the only animal who is ashamed of his own elimination processes, of his elimination of waste.
Nakedness: a body minus clothing
The major factor to be aware of in this context is that today in our society the naked body is seen as incomplete a body minus clothing. This vision of ourselves is deep rooted. This concept runs so deeply into the nature of modesty for modern societies that without it, we would have evolved into a totally different state of awareness about and regarding our physical reality. Add to this the influence of the church, and people’s need not to feel different, and we have a good, comprehensive view of what brought about the present situation and what has aptly been called (what we today call) The Body Taboo.
C. Willet Cunnington expresses his feelings about our modern concern for modesty by saying: “We have to thank the Early Fathers for having, albeit perhaps unwittingly, established a mode of thinking from which men and women have developed an art which has supplied ... so many novel means of exciting the sexual appetite. Prudery, it seems, provides mankind with endless aphrodisiacs; hence, no doubt the reluctance to abandon it.”33
All things considered, it seems that most authorities are in agreement. Our cultural sense of modesty is merely a habit, not an instinct. What’s more, most of its staunchest defenders are not informed regarding its history. And this, too, has been observed by many others in the past. George Bernard Shaw, for one, wrote: “The trouble with these men who try to adjudicate upon what is moral or immoral in dress is that they really know nothing about the subject.”
Body Taboo
Howard C. Warren
(Social Nudism and the Body Taboo. First published in the Psychological Review, March 1933. Received November 4, 1932)
I. The Taboo of the Human Body
The widespread taboo attaching to the human body is a noteworthy phenomenon of social psychology. Clothing is worn, not merely for protection or for adornment, but to conceal various parts of the body from view. Clothes are not needed for protection in swimming, gymnastics, tennis, and certain other sports, nor in rhythmic dancing. In most of these diversions there can be no question of adornment; in some cases garments interfere with the purpose of the activity; in some they may even be detrimental to health. Yet social pressure compels the wearing of some clothing in all these pursuits.
This taboo of the body is fairly universal. It is found among savage and civilized races alike, and prevails in all climates. Most investigators in this field have been interested in the origin of clothing rather than in the rise of the taboo. The two problems are distinct, though closely related. The origin of the impulse to cover the body has been variously explained by different writers. It has been attributed to the need of protection from cold, insects, dampness, excessive heat, rough soil, thorns, evil spirits, etc.; or to the craving for adornment, especially in order to promote sexual attraction. A number of writers ascribe the origin of clothing to a primitive modesty instinct, which would make the body taboo a native or inherent trait of the human race. J. C. Flügel reviews these conflicting theories at length. The reader is referred to his monograph and the sources which he cites for full treatment of the topic. [Flügel, J. C. The psychology of clothes, London: Hogarth Press, 1930, pp. 257. With bibliography of 108 titles. Flügel's treatment of the psychology of clothing is thorough and well-balanced, except for his frequent interpretation of the phenomena in terms of a farfetched sex symbolism. Attention should be drawn especially to the works of Havelock Ellis, Suren, Langdon-Davies, and Wundt, and the articles by Dunlap, Sanborn, and Bliss, cited in Flügel's bibliography, which treat of the modesty response and body taboo.]
The present paper is not concerned with clothing as such, but only in its relation to the taboo which requires concealment of some portion of the body by a covering device. Nor shall we consider the esthetic, hygienic, and ethical problems connected with clothing and nakedness, except in so far as they bear on the psychological aspect. [The pleasing or displeasing effect of the uncovered human body on the beholder has an undoubted psychological bearing, and the effect of nudism on health and morals becomes at times a factor in the social attitude toward the practice.] Of special psychological interest is the strength and persistence of the taboo — the fairly general social ban on human nakedness prevalent at the present time and in many earlier cultures. The experiences associated with contraventions of the taboo are all phenomena for psychological investigation. The effects on human behavior and attitudes of breaking the taboo form the main topic of the present paper.
Among the Greeks, in their golden era, the taboo was partly lifted. Games and athletic contests were engaged in by men and boys, in the nude, before crowds of spectators. The very term gymnastics signifies literally unclothed exercising. The Greeks also emphasized the nude in art, a trend which was followed by the Romans, and was revived during the Renascence after centuries of rather rigorous restriction.
[Thucydides, bk. I, 6. Plato, Republic, V, 452. Girls apparently wore a short tunic in foot races and a pantlet for wrestling. Plutarch (Lycurgus, 14, 15) states that Spartan girls and boys marched “unclothed” in certain processions and engaged “unclothed” in athletic contests. According to Athenaeus (XIII, ch. 20) young men and girls wrestled together “unclothed” in the gymnasiums in Chios in his own time. But the adjective gymnos used in all these passages often means lightly clad or in undress rather than completely nude. I have found no vase pictures of naked girl athletes, though there are innumerable such representations of men and boys. Since the Spartans did not adorn their pottery with pictures, this is not conclusive with respect to Spartan girls. In consultation with colleagues in the Greek and archeology departments, I have made an extensive examination of the classic writers and modern books on Greek athletics. They furnish no decisive evidence that the body taboo was lifted for girl athletes. But weight should be given to the statements of many classic authors that boys and girls were treated very much alike in the Spartan system of education.]
Numerous other instances of dispensing with clothes on special occasions are noted among various peoples, ancient and modern, the most common being in outdoor bathing and the posing of artists' models. In the main, however, the taboo has held in respect to general social intercourse. Nor are there any great regional differences except in respect to the amount of clothing prescribed. The Fuegians, living in a subarctic zone, wear little or nothing [C. Darwin, Naturalist's voyage (Journal of researches), London: John Murray, 1845, p. 213]; most African tribes cover at least a small, portion of the body. The Eskimo, though compelled by climate to wear heavy clothing, strip off everything but a small pantlet within their igloos [W. Thalbitzer, The Ammassalik Eskimo, part I, p. 29].
Historically, the taboo has taken a number of different social forms. Rigorous anchorites have held it sinful to contemplate one's own body. This complete taboo has been sometimes inculcated in modern girls' schools as well as in nunneries. The taboo to exposure of the body before any one, even those of one's own sex (objective taboo), is one degree less rigid. A third form, still less restrictive, is the familial taboo, which forbids exposure as between parent and child and even between husband and wife.
Among the Semitic races this form of the taboo seems to have prevailed in early times. We read that when Adam and Eve discovered their nakedness they made aprons to cover themselves, although they were alone [Genesis, 3: 7]. And when Noah lay naked in a drunken stupor, his two sons walked backward, carrying a garment with their faces turned away, and covered their father without looking at his body [Genesis, 9: 21-23]. It thus appears that the taboo among the Hebrews was not specifically sex directed, but was distinctly familial. A taboo of the same sort existed among the Romans [See Cicero, De Officiis, I, 129; Plutarch, Marc. Cato, c. 20].
The least rigid type limits the taboo to exposure of the body before those of the opposite sex, which carries with it the prohibition of nudity in any mixed group. By the term social nudism is meant the lifting of this intersex taboo.
In addition to these different types, the taboo has varied widely on the degree of covering prescribed and the parts of the body which are required to be covered. While these distinctions are not especially germane to our study, it should be noted that the taboo is not always directed toward sex differentials. "The Turkish woman veils her face; the Chinese would be ashamed to show her naked foot in public; the Arab has no concern at showing herself naked but covers the back of her head. In Assam the women cover the breast only; among certain tribes of the Philippines only the navel is accounted indecent." [H. Surén, Man and sunlight (Engl. trans.), Slough: Sollux Publ. Co., 1924, pp. 87-88. Herr Surén has traveled widely and writes from personal documentation].
Early in the Christian era arose the notion that the human body is shameful and that to expose any portion except the face and hands is indecent. This led to the complete taboo already noted. But with the Renascence the Greek ideals began once more to be felt. The two opposite ideals of body grace and body shame contended with varying results. In general a compromise was effected, whereby the display of the human form was sanctioned in art, but forbidden in nature.
In recent times the extent and direction of the body taboo has varied in different races and generations; but, however directed, it has remained essentially a taboo, and generally an intersex taboo. In most Western lands men and boys may bathe together in the nude, but not when women are present.
The taboo in its social form has been especially rigorous in the Anglo-Saxon races. In America, under Puritan influences, it became transformed from a mere social convention into a moral principle. Any uncovering of the entire body, except in the privacy of one's own chamber, was termed “indecent exposure” and was (and is still) subject to severe legal penalties. Missionaries promulgated this doctrine among primitive peoples. Converts were provided with ample garments, which in tropical climates often proved injurious to health and bodily stamina. At home, certain paintings were proscribed and statues were provided with the conventional fig leaf.
The body taboo reached its climax in the mid-1800's. In England and America clothing was multiplied, especially for women, and it became improper to mention almost any detail of the human body in a mixed gathering. A woman was allowed to have head and feet, but between the neck and ankles only the heart and stomach were permitted mention in polite society. To expose the ankle (even though properly stockinged) was considered immodest. [The taboo of certain words as indecent or profane, and the exclusion from social conversation of such topics as the excretory and reproductive functions, belong to a separate field of investigation, though intimately connected with our topic.]
An interesting episode occurred at Brook Farm, a radical settlement formed in the 1840's in Massachusetts. A few ultraradicals in the group attempted a protest against the prevalent taboo. They made it a point to sit before their front doors quite unclothed on Sunday mornings when the rest of the community were passing on their way to church. This seems an almost isolated instance, and was referred to later (during my boyhood) almost in a whisper. [G. W. Curtis, in Editor's easy chair, Harper's, 1869, 38, p. 270. Mr. Curtis had spent some time at Brook Farm in his boyhood.]
The reaction started toward the close of the 19th century, when certain fin-de-siècle unconventionalities in clothing appeared. At the time they were regarded as daring contraventions of social laws — today they would seem quite commonplace. It was some 15 years later that the revolt began in earnest. Fewer clothes, especially for women, became the order of the day. The elaborate bathing costumes of the Victorian era gave place to one- or two-piece bathing suits, which have become progressively modified on certain beaches to the minimum requirements of Anglo-Saxon standards of decency. All this, however, was merely a dimensional modification of the taboo. The underlying principle — concealment of certain parts of the body — still remained, and was quite as strong as in the past.
Recently in some parts of the United States sunbathing has begun to be adopted, but almost always in solitude or with segregation of the sexes. The obvious benefits to health from this practice have overcome many of the traditional objections to bodily exposure in the open and have led to some challenge of the taboo itself. In particular, familial nudism has become more common.
At the same time, reports of the German nudist movement reached America and were received with less shock than would have been the case a few years before. The accounts were not always accurate, and the stories told regarding the less thoroughgoing nudism in France were misleading and often calumnious.
In the spring of 1931 the Merrills' book, Among the Nudists [Merrill, F. and M., Among the nudists, New York: Knopf, 1931, pp. 247] appeared, a pioneer work in English, which gave a detailed account of the movement for social nudism in Europe, particularly in Germany. The authors, a young married couple, describe their own experiences at a nudist park near Lübeck, drawing an attractive picture of the life there, its benefits, and attractions. About the same time Parmelee's New Gymnosophy [Parmelee, M., The new gymnosophy: The philosophy of nudity, New York: Hitchcock, 1927, pp. 303. (Publ. in England under subtitle, Nude culture, London, 1929; republ. in America under subtitle, Nudism in modern life, New York: Knopf, 1931.)] became available for American readers. In this book the theory of nude living is treated from every standpoint and its beneficial effects emphasized. Though the psychological side is not given separate treatment, there are many details which bear on this aspect of the question.
II. Some contemporary opinions
Although raised in a family and community where the body taboo was strongly emphasized, I had for many years questioned the reasonableness of the traditional attitude. Being without definite knowledge of the nudist movement in Europe, the Merrills' book attracted my attention. There was a certain hesitancy, due to life-long training, about going boldly into a book store and asking for a volume bearing such a title. The inhibitory effect of the taboo was finally overcome, and the perusal of the book aroused interest in the psychological aspect of nudism as well as in its practical value. Whereas social exposure of one's body had been associated in my mind with exhibitionism, this account indicated that, as practiced in Germany, social nudism is altogether devoid of exhibitionistic elements. If so, then the taboo has merely a conventional basis, and may or may not be reasonable.
To test the practical value of nakedness I formed the habit of daily sunbathing in seasonable weather. A secluded garden at home and a shielded roof in summer made this feasible, the outcome being a notable improvement in general health. A natural corollary was the discarding of clothing at night. [One who is accustomed to sunbathing can sleep comfortably without covering in a room of 70-720 F., except during two or three hours when the vital processes are lowest; then a single sheet is sufficient. When lying in a room of this temperature without covering I often experience the sensation of being covered with a soft, filmy tissue.]
It is of psychological interest to determine the general attitude of the community toward sun-bathing and social nudism. This I was able to test in a limited sector of society. For the past eighteen months I have made it a point to mention my sunbathing to friends and acquaintances whenever opportunity offered. Contrary to expectation, scarcely anyone appeared shocked at the notion of complete body exposure — at least in solitude. All seemed interested. Many responded most cordially, or suggested that I had joined the nudists. To several conservative friends who asked whether I put on a bathing suit, I admitted wearing spectacles and wristwatch. The incongruity of this garb always extinguished the shock.
I found a number of cases in which married couples were accustomed to bathe in the ocean or lakes without suits; and several men who had given up wearing clothes at night. There were families here and there who were bringing up their children to spend part of the time without clothes, in the house or yard — often boys and girls together — the latter practice serving as an antidote to the harmful sex curiosity and prurient thoughts which are otherwise inevitable in adolescence. Since these data were collected from different parts of the country and were apparently not due to any organized “movement,” they seemed to indicate a definite social trend among the intelligensia class in America.
As regards social nudism, — that is, the association of adult men and women, quite unclothed, for exercise and sport — the attitude generally was less favorable. Many were definitely shocked at the notion, or treated it with ribaldry. Others, while open-minded, were inclined to believe that such association would inevitably foster immorality. A few were favorably predisposed. Nor could one readily predict the attitude of a given individual from previous knowledge of his or her general character and disposition. In the main the conservative individual reacted unfavorably; the progressive mind was disposed to think the experiment worth trying. But there were notable exceptions. I was surprised at the adverse opinion expressed by some who would be regarded as distinctly liberal in thought, and at the receptive attitude shown by some ultra-conservatives. In general those of the younger generation were inclined to be open-minded or neutral, while middle-aged and elderly people were either strongly opposed or else quite favorable.
The objections urged against social nudism were of the most diverse sorts. The most naive was that "even savage tribes wear some clothing." This was not an isolated opinion — it was mentioned several times. The fallacy lies in the word even. The prevalence of a custom among savages is no evidence of its utility among civilized peoples.
There were the usual objections on ethical grounds. And in many cases those who saw no such difficulty were averse to social nudity for esthetic reasons; the average human body is ugly, they declared, and needs clothing to mitigate the displeasing effect on the beholder. One rather portly friend (a psychologist) who voiced this sentiment, modified the usual conclusion by adding that if we were all compelled to show ourselves naked, we would take greater care of our bodies, and would be more shapely.
None of these objections seemed to weigh against the benefit to health and body stamina which exposure of the body to light and air affords. The only objection that appeared worth considering was the suggestion offered repeatedly by male friends, that the uncontrollable virile reflex might cause embarrassing situations.
In the fall of 1931 the Merrills were preparing a second book, dealing with nudism in our own country [Merrill, F. and M., Nudism comes to America, New York: Knopf, 1932, pp.299], and wished to include the opinions of representative physicians, psychologists, and philosophers. At their request I furnished a list of some 85 American psychologists, chosen on a strictly objective basis — a list comprising the past officers and councilmen of the American Psychological Association. To all these a questionary was sent, asking their opinion on social nudism for exercise, sport, and recreation. The authors were warned in advance that psychologists are flooded with questionaries of all sorts, and are consequently averse to answering unless especially interested in the subject or alive to its scientific value. As was to be expected, not more than half responded, and many of these simply expressed a lack of knowledge on the subject. A few mentioned certain benefits to be expected from the practice and certain objections, without expressing any definite opinion. Those who gave a personal judgment were about equally divided for and against the practice of social nudism. A number of those who favored nude exercise questioned the advisability of its practice by both sexes together.
A striking characteristic of the replies was the fact that the opinions were all based on purely theoretical grounds. Apparently no American psychologist of the group examined had ever had the experience of social nudism. This is perhaps accounted for by the newness of the practice and the legal difficulties which it encounters in America.
The question is of such importance in social psychology that it deserves a first-hand study by those interested in social behavior. Two fundamental psychological problems are involved:
(1) Is the traditional taboo of the human body an inherent factor in human nature?
(2) Is social exposure of the body indecent or obscene, as the general opinion and laws of most civilized lands insist?
III. An experience in social nudism
On the occasion of the recent International Congress at Copenhagen I had an opportunity to test these questions to a limited extent by personal observation. Landing at Bremen some 10 days before the meeting, I went at once to Klingberg, the resort visited and described by the Merrills. The place itself and the life there have been so fully portrayed in their book [Merrill, F. and M., Nudism comes to America, New York: Knopf, 1932, pp.299], and more recently by a young American woman, Jan Gay [Gay, J., On going naked, New York: Holborn House, 1932, pp. 163], that they need only be sketched briefly.
A small comfortable inn, the Landhaus Zimmermann. Near this a park of many acres, thickly planted with pines among which many narrow sandy paths lead hither and thither. Within this park a number of small cabins for sleeping quarters, several leveled open spaces for games, and a sun-exposed grassy slope for sunbathing. Across the public road from the park, on the borders of a lake some two miles in diameter, a private bathing beach belonging to the establishment, well screened from the road.
Paul Zimmermann, the owner, is a pioneer in the practice of nudism. He acquired this property in 1903, before the movement really started in Germany. Here he brought up his family according to nudist principles, planted the property with trees, and when the necessary seclusion was attained, extended the privileges of the park and beach to accredited guests, who must show their good faith and proper motives before they are granted admission. Meals are served at the Landhaus, where clothing is required — usually some sport suit, without stockings or tie. This because the Landhaus is outside the park, and therefore a quasi-public place. In many nudist parks no clothes are worn at meals. In the park and at the bathing beach clothing is usually dispensed with. A bald head may be protected by a cap. Shoes or sandals are worn by those with tender feet; short trunks are worn by women during the menstrual period. For the most part the guests wear no clothes whatever.
I arrived in the evening. After breakfast next day I read and signed the regulations and was given a formal admission card to park and beach. Herr Zimmermann showed me over the park, which happened to be quite deserted, and then took me across to the bathing beach. There we found some 30 men and women, of all ages, including a number of children. Some were lying on the grass, sunbathing. Others were seated on benches chatting. A few were exercising or playing volley ball. A number were swimming in the lake. We hung our clothes on hooks at the open air garde-robe, and Herr Zimmermann introduced me to a party of men and women grouped together, seated on a bench, or lying on the grass.
It was my first experience in social nudism; yet I felt no embarrassment whatever at my own lack of clothing, nor any shock at the sight of the men and women about me in the same condition. One of the men was English, one American, the other men and women were German. We chatted for a while without the slightest constraint on my part. Then I joined some of the group for a swim in the lake.
It has long been my conviction that the wearing of clothes for bathing is an absurdity. As well stuff the ears with cotton when listening to a concert, or put on dark glasses in order to enjoy a picture gallery or a drama. But it had never before been my fortune to bathe without a suit, in any body of water larger than the household tub. The new experience exceeded all expectations. The difference between bathing with even the scantiest suit, and bathing in the nude, can only be compared to the difference between a partial and a total solar eclipse — the phenomena in each case belong to two distinct categories. After a few minutes in the water we came out into the warm, sunny air, to lie on the grass or on a blanket, first running to and fro or engaging in a game of ringtoss in lieu of a rubdown. One chatted awhile with his neighbors, men and women, then another dip, and so for hours. It was not unusual to indulge in a dozen dips a day. The children of course were in and out of the water all the time.
Later in the morning most of the group returned to the park, to roam in the pine woods, or engage in ring tennis, or lie on the hillslope for a sunbath, before dressing for dinner. Many of the visitors, including the writer, combined work with recreation. Some read or wrote or studied, some instructed one another in German or English, some sketched and painted, while sunbathing.
In the afternoon much the same program. In spite of the seeming monotony one never grew satiated. The Merrills came in 1930 determined to spend a week if the first day did not prove too shocking. They stayed a month. Last year Miss Gay came for a week and remained six. Since I could neither postpone nor forgo the Psychological Congress, my visit was limited to eight days; in other circumstances it would have extended to at least a month.
The diet at the Landhaus is strictly vegetarian. The authors whom I have cited suggest a certain unpalatability in the fare for a steady regimen. The present writer found no such difficulty. For eight days he had no trouble in confining himself to what was set before him, without resorting to the neighboring Waldschanke, where a meat dinner could be obtained. The Landhaus is also strictly nonalcoholic, and smoking is prohibited in the park, though not elsewhere. This union of vegetarian diet and other restrictions with the practice of nakedness is common in nudist communities and is held to be an integral part of the cult. Many, perhaps the majority, of the Klingberg visitors were not vegetarians. Personally I see no reason for the connection. Social nudism means the lifting of an unreasonable taboo. On the other hand the value of complete abstention from meat has yet to be demonstrated.
After two nights at the Landhaus, I was fortunate enough to secure a cabin in the park. This particular cabin was appropriately called the Rousseau-hütte. The park cabins are small and of rustic design. A rude bunk, with an upper berth; a table and chair; a wash basin and mammoth pitcher (but no waste receptacle); hooks for clothes, and a floor of pure sand. Everything in keeping with the ideal of nature living. Rooming in the park itself, one is able to experience not only sunbathing, but airbathing at all times.
For me there were three especially notable phenomena in the life at Klingberg. The first was the sudden and “painless” removal of the body taboo. The naked bathing and swimming was another episodal experience more deeply felt even than the first.
The third striking experience was the morning gymnastics. Soon after 7 the physical culture teacher, Herr Lühr, strolled into the park beating a tom-tom. At the sound the guests trooped from the Landhaus, from the park cabins, and from neighboring pensions, and gathered at the tennis court. Those from outside the park threw off their bathrobes, which the cabin dwellers had dispensed with, and all formed a circle on the hard court. The exercises consisted of running, arm swinging, body bending of various sorts, leg lifting, and other vigorous muscular activities. They lasted about an hour. There is a distinct joy in the free movements of the naked body which is lacking when one is clothed in the conventional gym suit. There is also a delight in watching the play of muscles in those about one. The drill was accompanied by the rhythmic beat of the tom-tom, while the teacher shouted directions and set the pace.
After the exercises, which left one in a glow, everyone sped to the Moorteich, a small pond within the park, for a plunge, and the park dwellers repaired to the open air shower at the pump for morning ablutions before dressing for breakfast.
Had I not already practiced sunbathing, this would have ranked as another episode. Though the experience was not entirely new, I found a vast difference between sunbathing in the solitude of one's own garden, apprehensive lest a neighbor peer through the hedge, and this sunbathing in a group of friendly men and women, without fear of prudish comment. The first is a task, the other a recreation. There is also a peculiar joy in wandering naked through the cool pine woods, whether by day or by moonlight, which is far superior to airbathing in a restricted garden. [Stanley Hall describes an experience of his own in air-bathing (Recreations of a Psychologist; New York: Appleton, 1920, pp. 324-5); and Benjamin Franklin in 1768 speaks of spending half an hour or more naked in his room before breakfast, reading or writing, and terms it "a bracing or tonic bath" (Works; Hartford: Andrus, 1845; pp. 215-6). Both tried the experience in later life.]
IV. Psychological aspects of nudism
This sketchy account of an actual experience of nudist life, which it has been difficult not to elaborate and punctuate with emotional adjectives, will explain why for the first few days the writer forgot to psychologize. One is so filled with the many novelties, so intent on enjoying the strange and absorbing mode of life, that he has no time to analyze the experience — no thought of studying the problem of social nudism as it bears on the body taboo. It was perhaps the third day that the psychologist began to emerge from the human being. By that time I had seen and experienced enough to offer a tentative answer to some of the questions which have been raised on theoretic grounds by psychologists and others.
1. Breaking of the Taboo
Foremost in interest to psychologists is the basis of the body taboo. Is it a fundamental human trait, as many have maintained — inherited, or at least an inevitable consequence of man's social life? There is, for example, the curious relation of the nausea response to nystagmus and vertigo — an apparently native or early acquired association between remotely connected phenomena. Is the shame response to one's own nudity, or the shock response to the sight of nudity, a primitive response-pattern of this sort?
No one who has been through an experience of social nudity in favorable and proper circumstances will hesitate to answer this in the negative. In some cases the taboo and its customary responses slough off at once. On questioning the men stopping at Klingberg I found that for some the maladjustment lasted only a few minutes, for others it persisted during the first day — after that social nudity seemed perfectly natural and the power of the taboo was entirely broken.
I had no opportunity to find out the duration of the taboo in the women. It certainly vanished in every case after a short time. To cite an instance. An Englishman and his three daughters came one evening to the inn for admission cards to the park. The father and eldest daughter had been at Klingberg earlier in the season; the younger girls (in the late teens) had not. Next morning they all came to the gymnastic class. The two younger girls exhibited not the slightest trace of discomfort or self-consciousness, although this was their first experience in social nudism. The untanned skin made it possible to observe the differential behavior of new arrivals.
I am unable to give any statistical data as to the duration of the body taboo in nudist surroundings. But my observations and the reports of others, make it certain that for the normal human individual who is not entirely dominated by the taboo the habitual responses disappear in a remarkably short time.
The attitude of the men and women at Klingberg cannot be attributed, like the Brook Farm demonstration, to rebellion or protest against established conventions nor yet to a latent exhibitionism. The behavior of every one was natural and unconstrained. No action suggested that any one felt he was doing something unconventional or daring. Everyone seemed (like the writer) to be simply enjoying the life and making the most of this unusual experience. [This appears also in the photographs of nudist groups and individuals reproduced in the works cited and in nudist magazines.] The group was not random but it certainly was not composed to any great extent of radicals, or social rebels, or faddists. There were none whom I should class as perverts or neurotics.
2. Shame and modesty
The body taboo gives rise to two sets of responses — the reaction to exposure of one's own body and the reaction to the sight of the exposed bodies of others. Modesty is the reaction attending fulfillment of prevailing conventions as to body covering; shame is a result of (usually inadvertently) violating these conventions; while exhibitionism is a deliberate defiance of the prevailing code.
At Klingberg the social code was entirely different from that of ordinary life, owing to the removal of the body taboo. The shame reactions which ordinarily accompany body exposure — blushing, shyness, labored breathing, gestures of concealment — were entirely wanting in this environment, after one had become adjusted to the new code. And there was no ground for exhibitionsim, since the entire convention of concealment had been swept away.
It would be a mistake to conclude that modesty itself disappears. But, oddly enough, there is brought about an entire reversal of the modesty concept. Attitudes and gestures which in ordinary society are indicative of modesty become highly immodest in a nudist group. Certain responses and attitudes which are traditionally immodest are now indicative of natural, ingenuous modesty.
For example: In the ordinary environment, if one is inadvertently caught naked, the natural response is a gesture to conceal some part of the body. The Moslem woman covers her face; the Occidental man or woman covers at least the pubic region. This modesty reaction is typified in art by the protective gestures shown in certain statues and paintings and by the conventional fig leaf. In a nudist park any such gesture or adornment would be distinctly immodest. I never saw the slightest suggestion of such a reaction or attitude at Klingberg. I believe that no decent man or woman would have made such a response, even involuntarily. At the morning exercises those who lived outside the park usually came wearing a bathrobe or dressing gown. Some threw this off, others kept it on till the exercises started, if the air was cool. But usually the robe was unfastened and thrown open, so that the front of the body was quite exposed. To have drawn it together when talking to one of the opposite sex would have been as immodest a gesture as the failure to do so would be in a social gathering elsewhere. In sunbathing, men and women often lay side by side, now exposing the back to the sunlight, now at full length on the back with feet apart and arms stretched wide to get the utmost benefit from the rays. There was never an incipient gesture of concealment when others strolled by. Yet so natural was this readjustment of behavior that it passed unnoticed. Even the trained psychologist did not observe the phenomenon or appreciate its significance for several days. It has not, so far as I know, been mentioned in the literature.
3. Shock and diffused attention
The other aspect of the taboo is its objective effect. When any tabooed part of the body is exposed, the response in the observer is shock. The attitude of curiosity regarding concealed parts has been called inspectionism, which is the counterpart of exhibitionism.
The shock experience manifests itself in various sorts of response — rapid heartbeat, disturbance of the circulatory system, blinking, turning the head, turning around or moving away, etc. Sometimes it produces motor paralysis or fascination which inhibits withdrawal temporarily. Intense shock may be accompanied by excited verbal behavior expressing disapproval, indignation, etc., which often reappears long afterwards, when the event is recalled. An odd combination of inspectionism and shock has been frequently reported, in which the subject deliberately views the exposure through field glasses or by some even more labored means, and then manifests the shock behavior.
In a nudist environment the shock response quickly disappears. And since nothing is concealed, there is no room for curiosity or inspectionism, whether natural or pathological. At the start there may be special attention to those parts of the body which are ordinarily hidden. But since the whole body is uniformly exposed, there is no focus to attract the observer's attention. Soon the effect is merely the appearance of the “organism as a whole”; one notices the general contour of the body, whether male or female, rather than any specific sexdistinguishing features. This has been brought out clearly by the Merrills (Merrill, F. and M., Nudism comes to America, pp. 42-44) and is described from the woman's standpoint by Miss Gay.
"From my own experience, and that of habitues of nudist parks with whom I talked, I should say that this preoccupation [with sex] is not great. To be sure, the first time one enters [a gymnasium] class one is aware of other people's bodies to a considerable degree, but when one mingles all day, day after day, with naked men and women, a penis comes to be not much more unique than an elbow or a knee, and little more remarked; and the contours of one woman seem very much like those of another, save that certain of them are more shapely" (Gay, J., On going naked, p. 54). My own observation fully confirms their statements. Frank exposure arouses no shock in the observer, while a concealment gesture would be decidedly shocking.
In the park, clothing of obvious value (shoes, caps, etc.) was accepted in the same way as complete nudity, though certain forms of apparel might appear inappropriate. [I recall the surprise occasioned one day when a young man entered the water wearing a bathing cap on his closely cropped head. It transpired that he had promised his family to wear something when he went swimming.] Nor did the mingling of the clothed with the nude produce any feeling of shock. On reaching the beach, or before leaving, one would often stop fully clothed to chat with a group of naked persons of both sexes. An artist who was subject to sciatica wore a complete costume most of the time, and at the afternoon teas in the park there were frequently fully clothed visitors.
Only one type of experience at the park produced in me the semblance of a shock, which did not entirely disappear in the few days of my residence. This was the morning ablutions at the open-air shower. To await my turn at the pump, while a woman soaped and showered, with a final rubdown, and a man or two stood shaving near by, all completely nude, seemed a bit too suggestive of intimate family life. Not so the massaging of a man or woman on a table outside the park house, which usually occurred after breakfast, while the writer wrestled with psychological terminology at a table near by. Work as well as play in the nude seemed perfectly appropriate.
As regards the effect of unshapely bodies on the beholder, I am not in a position to speak. Apart from two or three men with obtrusive paunches, the park dwellers were quite wellformed. I did not find the abdominally rotund bodies any more displeasing in the flesh than in conventional attire. Doubtless the sight of a badly misshapen body or one covered with eruptions, open wounds, etc., would arouse disgust. In such cases clothing becomes a matter of utility, rather than a fetish.
4. Eroticism
There remains to consider the effect of social nudity on intersex attitudes and relations. The American writers already cited are agreed that nakedness, properly pursued, is no stimulant to eroticism and has no deleterious effects on sex morality. Miss Gay mentions the case of a young man and woman, obviously in love, who kept constant company during the daytime in the park without flirting and without his ever so much as touching her body — while in the evening, when they were clothed, he would often fondle her (Gay, J., On going naked, p. 56). The Merrills' description of the behavior of young men and women in the Koch School gymnasium at Hamburg points to the same conclusion (Merrill, F. and M., Nudism comes to America, pp. 135-143). The subject is treated more fully in a recent work (L. C. Royer, Let's go naked.Trans, fr. French, New York, Brentano's, 1932, pp. 192). This volume, which appeared since the present article was sent to press, describes the author's experiences in several nudist resorts in Germany.
During my stay at Klingberg I observed the tendency of men to seek women and chat with them in an unconstrained way. The slight sex barrier usually noticeable in social gatherings was absent; but there was no petting or flirting, no trace of ribaldry, no presumptuous behavior based on the exposure of the body. I saw and heard nothing to suggest that social nudism induced the virile reflex — certainly not after the first shock at the novel situation was gone. Little information could be gathered on this point. Popular writers avoid the topic altogether. It has been suggested to me by psychologists that the reflex may be stimulated only by specific individuals of the opposite sex; also that tactual stimuli are more potent than visual.
One of my pleasantest memories is a scene one afternoon when a group of young men and girls visited the park. On one of the courts four older men and women were playing ring tennis. Above, on a steep slope, a flight of steps with log edges led to a higher clearing. On the three top steps a dozen or more of these boys and girls were seated, side by side, watching the play and chatting together. The air was filled with shouts and laughter, as they “kidded” one another and bandied words with the players below. There was no trace of ribaldry, no unseemly behavior called forth by the universal nudity.
Irregular sex relations may and undoubtedly sometimes do take place at nudist parks. Human nature is not transformed by putting off clothes, and there are instances of scandal at summer resorts where the usual dress conventions prevail. My observations, and the wider experience of others, lead to the conclusion that social nudism does not in any way foster eroticism — that it tends if anything to promote a saner sex outlook and more natural relations between men and women, even during the years of early sexual maturity.
[According to psychoanalysts the accidental or covert observation by children of the genitals of adults is an important factor in producing later neuroses. The problem remains whether social nudism serves to correct this tendency or accentuates it. Cf. a group of articles in Zsch. f. psychoan. Pad., 1928-9, 3, 44-91. Most of these writers are inclined to believe that nudism fosters sex neuroses, and cite instances from their clinical observations. It should be noted that they come in touch professionally with the neurotic cases only — cases which might have developed in other situations as well. Their data are by no means convincing. Observation of children at the nudist park fails to show any special interest in sex anatomy.]
5. Near nudism and pseudonudism
There is a wide difference between social nudism as practiced at the parks and gymnasiums, and the near nudism which prevails on the modern bathing beach, in athletic contests, and on the stage. However much of the body is exposed, so long as there are prescribed limits to nakedness the taboo remains. The loincloth of the athlete, the brassière bathing suit, meager though they be, denote adherence to the age long tradition. The French colony at Villennes and similar resorts in our country recognize the taboo or are compelled to pay deference to it by legal requirements. This reduction of clothing to the minimum is in no sense social nudism so long as the taboo is expressly recognized. It remains to be determined whether the easy camaraderie of the nudist parks is present in such resorts, or if the wearing of some needless clothing leads to inhibitions which interfere with the full enjoyment of the bodily freedom. [Considered from the hygienic standpoint, there is some evidence of a healthful effect of sunlight on the gonads, which is not obtained where any sort of loincloth is worn. I am informed by one who had previously spent some time at Villennes, that he "derived much benefit [at Klingberg] in the parts covered by a slip [at the French resort] — most notably in the strengthening of the testicles."]
The display of near nudism on the stage is a fairly new development in America. Recently, in a certain type of show, artistic posing of quasi-undraped models has come to be a recognized feature. The effect is generally pleasing; it appeals to the esthetic sense rather than to the erotic. Yet to one who has had experience in social nudism the esthetic effect is distinctly marred by the conventional brassiere, however transparent, as well as by the so-called cache-sexe. They detract from the artistic unity of a beautiful body — like a price label on a fine painting, or a cataloguing tag on the arm of a statue.
The near nude dances practiced on the modern stage are for the most part unesthetic. There are occasional instances, such as the fan dance in a recent revue, which meet every requirement. But in general the obvious motive is an appeal to the erotic. The strip acts of the burlesque stage are even more clearly designed to arouse sex emotion. One garment after another is removed with seductive gestures; the breasts are first coyly covered with the hands and then partly revealed. The motive is obviously to focus attention on those parts which are conventionally proscribed and to arouse erotic feelings. This pseudonudism is a form of visual ribaldry. It is either sheer exhibitionism or a catering to inspectionism. In contrast with such displays, the matter-of-fact disrobing of men and women together at Klingberg and in the nudist gymnasiums is entirely lacking in sex significance to the beholder, and arouses no more erotic feeling than taking off a cloak or an overcoat at a party.
The difference between near nudism and nudism, one concludes, lies in the presence or absence of the body taboo. Even though the prohibited zones have become more and more restricted, the fundamental concept of taboo remains and influences our behavior and attitudes. Social conventions reinforce this notion and raise it to the level of a moral principle. Any contravention becomes indecent and exhibitionistic. The most striking phenomenon in the life at a nudist park is that this taboo disappears almost at once, and without any detrimental effect to one's world-view or morals. One quickly realizes that the human body is not indecent. This conclusion may not be consciously formulated — in most cases it probably is not. But its implicit acceptance is shown in every act and phase of behavior.
6. Community nudism
It would be faulty logic to generalize from my limited experience, even though supplemented by the more extensive observations that others have reported. One cannot easily determine whether breaking the traditional taboo would be feasible or beneficial to the community at large. The group at Klingberg is not a random sampling. Those who come to the park have usually gone beyond the average person in challenging the body taboo; and careful examination of motives by the owner of the park serves to weed out those who are drawn hither by idle curiosity or with prurient intent. In the nudist gymnastic clubs in Germany a similar selective process occurs. And the bands of youths (Wandervogel), who roam about Germany and frequently indulge openly in nude bathing are less permeated with traditional restrictions than the older generation. The evidence is therefore not conclusive. A crucial test might be to introduce a prudish spinster or an officer of some anti-vice society into one of the nudist centers. If their ethical attitude were the result of a pathological nature the experience might lead to a nervous breakdown. Given a normal individual, one could observe whether the shock experience persisted in full intensity or gradually diasppeared. It would be enlightening also to test the effect of a sane nudist life upon youths accustomed to treat the body and its functions in a spirit of ribaldry. In the absence of such evidence it is impossible to reach universal conclusions. I have simply described observed facts and drawn what appear to be legitimate inferences.
Two conclusions of considerable psychological importance were satisfactorily established:
(1) Since the traditional body taboo can be readily, almost immediately broken without detrimental results, it is not a fundamental human trait.
(2) Social nudity is not in itself indecent; only a widespread and persistent social convention has made it so.
V. Summary
A brief historical review indicated that among civilized races and savages clothing has been adopted to a great extent for body concealment as well as for protection or adornment. In some races this body taboo has been familial; under Christian influences it has come to be largely intersexual; in Anglo-Saxon lands it has risen to the level of a moral principle.
Recently there has been a growing tendency to discard superfluous clothing and to limit the taboo to a few sexually distinctive parts of the body. This has resulted in modifying the taboo, but not in abolishing it. In the last few years the practice of sunbathing has weakened the taboo; but since the sexes are segregated in America, the intersexual restriction still persists. The nudist movement in Germany is a real challenge to the body taboo.
The attitude of the writer's friends and acquaintances toward social nudism is reported, and the opinions of psychologists in reply to a questionary are cited. All these opinions were found to be based on theoretic grounds and not on personal experience. The writer spent a week at a nudist park in Germany and describes his experiences and observations. The data gathered, supported by findings of earlier writers, led to the following conclusions regarding the psychological effects of social nudism:
1. On coming into contact with a nudist group, the subjective experience of shame and the objective experience of shock tend to disappear at once or after a short time, so far as could be observed.
2. Where complete exposure of the body, except for protection from sun, rough soil, etc., is the universal practice in a group, there is no embarrassment or self-consciousness due to one's own nudity. The modesty attitude does not vanish along with the taboo, but its manifestations are almost diametrically reversed. Any gesture of concealment becomes an attribute of immodesty. Such gestures or attitudes were never observed; they would be socially discountenanced.
3. Where the entire group are unclothed, the sight of the naked body ceases to arouse curiosity. Nudity is accepted as a natural condition. Since there is nothing to focus the attention on any specific part, one has merely the impression of the body as a whole, and sex differentiae no longer possess special significance.
4. The writer's observations and the testimony of others indicate that social nudity is not productive of eroticism. There is less sexual excitement, less tendency to flirt, less temptation to ribaldry, in a nudist gathering than in a group or pair of fully clothed young people.
5. The taboo is present so long as any part of the body is covered, not for protection but for concealment. This distinguishes genuine nudism from the near nudism of athletics and the pseudonudism of the stage.
6. It is not clear from the data at hand whether the practice of nudism could be applied with advantage to the community at large.
>>