Nudity and the Halo Effect

Whenever someone defends nudity, the traditional assumption is that the writer is probably a bad person: possibly a sex maniac, and maybe even a devil-worshiper. Conversely, when someone criticizes nudity, the traditional assumption is that the critic is probably a good person: decent, responsible, and constructive. Accusations of indecency enjoy a presumption of the accuser's good intentions. Individuals who appear eager to protect women and especially children from shame and injury, are assumed to be sincere and even heroic. That is a form of “the halo effect.” But there is empirical evidence that in some cases the halo effect is quite unjustified.

In addition to the obvious doubts we should have about the self-serving motives of individuals who work in fields that profit from sex panics, an early study of child-rearing practices found that mothers who score high on measures of “sex anxiety” tend to be of low socioeconomic/educational level, and the worst parents: lacking warmth and self-esteem, likely to resort to physical punishment rather than reasoning with children, stern in toilet training, and less likely to breastfeed (1). I don't mean to excuse or trivialize exhibitionism, voyeurism, or any kind of exploitative or non-consensual behavior, and I'm sure that some inhibited individuals do have a good heart. But justice demands that standards of evidence and rules of procedure be equally applied to every accused person, regardless of the supposedly high moral ground of accusers when questions of decency are the issue.

In my personal experience, some of the individuals crusading against nudity seem to be blatantly dishonest and unscrupulous. Some cruel and vicious accusers attempt to apply draconian child porn laws arbitrarily without any regard for concrete evidence or rules of legal procedure. An accurate, balanced and comprehensive presentation of the facts is irrelevant in questions of so-called decency? In the midst of an international witch hunt against pedophiles, I've been falsely accused of being a “pedophile,” and I've even received death threats from individuals who appear to be uninterested in responding to the specific things I write, preferring to intimidate me with threats of censorship or vigilante violence, as if common rights and legal procedure don't apply when nudity or sex crimes have been alleged.

It has been well-documented in several infamous cases that some crusaders for “decency” don't hesitate to exploit and victimize children and their parents for the supposedly greater good of imposing primitive community standards of prudery on everyone else, even encouraging children to lie and falsely accuse their own parents, leading to the eventual suicide of some children. Such tactics are not a crusade to defend high moral standards, but a propaganda war to promote the crusaders' personal political ideology (2,3).

In reality we can't read other people's minds, so we should not automatically assume that anybody who cries “Witch!” is motivated by good intentions. In some cases witch-hunters may actually be sexually dysfunctional and driven by envy and spite, since they seem so highly motivated to protect kids from nudity, while strangely ignoring the vast majority of child deaths and serious injuries that have nothing to do with nudity or decency. Prudes express no concern about the thousands of gruesome deaths and serious physical injuries in childhood every year – the result of the well-documented dangers of physical abuse and neglect, and yet lynch mobs form instantly whenever there is any suspicion of indecent exposure.

Think about that: prudes ignore thousands of children crushed to death in car crashes every year, but are extremely concerned about the handful of child deaths related to sex crimes. Note that an estimated half of child deaths in car crashes are due to parents failing to require kids to use seat-belts. Those deaths are not “accidents” but the result of neglect. Aggression is often caused by frustration, so individuals who are very aggressive about decency and propriety might be expressing their own sexual frustration. The hysterical urgency, sloppy logic (“nudity=sex”), careless, inaccurate descriptions of the circumstances, and casual disregard for innocent bystanders that characterize their accusations should be considered red flags about their own mental stability, rather than a sign of the supposedly high calling of their accusations.

Normal parents, teachers and other people who choose to work with children are naturally very protective when there is any suspicion of child abuse or exploitation. But experienced caregivers who are genuinely responsible focus on children's physical health and safety as the highest priority by far. We must wonder why some adults who have no interest in children otherwise, suddenly become intensely concerned about moral dangers and the supposedly urgent “need” for body shame.

The crusade against nudity is of ancient vintage. In the past religious authorities merely dictated moral standards prohibiting nudity, based on divine revelation to church leaders, or expert interpretation of ancient “scriptures.” Those fornicators! Later such sources of religious authority were openly cited as justification for secular legislation regulating nudity (4), laws that are still in force today, which violate the principle of separation of church and state. According to art historian Arthur Frederick Ide: "the Council of Trent condemned nudity in religious art...Pope Paul IV mandated the use of concealing fig leaves, promulgating the church’s attack on nudity in art in a papal bull dated 1557." Consistent with an early Christian sect that advocated the physical castration of all priests, he goes on: “It was Pope Pius IX (r. 1846-1878) who actually desecrated statues and had their genitalia removed completely.” (5)

Mature adults who are sincerely responsible and constructive are extremely careful not to make false accusations. There are very good reasons for the presumption of innocence of the accused, and the burden of proof on the accuser. In some jurisdictions, making a false accusation renders the accuser liable to receive the same punishment that the accused risked suffering, an excellent policy in my humble opinion. But recently under a hysterical view of child protection, and the guise of defending civilization from a so-called international moral emergency, even some responsible and constructive individuals are becoming afraid to stand up to the pathetic crusade against any mention of nudity in childhood, even in the context of sex education, massage, and even partial nudity in art or everyday life.

References

1. Sears, Robert R. et al. Patterns of Child Rearing. Harper and Row, 1957. This early study is fascinating in many respects, such as its acknowledgment of feminist concerns, and is merely one example of many similar studies by scholars at Harvard, Stanford, Cornell, etc.
2. Ofshe, Richard and Watters, Ethan. Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hyseria. University of California Press, 1994.
3. Nudity and Decency https://sexhysteria.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/nudity-and-decency/
4. Fout, John C. (Ed.) Forbidden History: The State, Society, and the Regulation of Sexuality in Modern Europe. University of Chicago Press, 1992.
5. Quoted in: Medieval Censorship, Nudity And The Revealing History Of The Fig Leaf, by Prof. Sarah Bond, https://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/10/27/medieval-censorship-nudity-and-the-revealing-history-of-the-fig-leaf/#706b4169b455