hide
Free keywords:
Nudism, Naturism, Public nudity, Body image, Offence, Freedom of expression
Abstract:
Many liberal democracies have legal restrictions on nudism. This article argues thatwhen public nudity does not pose a health threat (which it seldom does), suchrestrictions are unjust. To vindicate this claim, I start by showing that there are twoweighty interests served by the freedom to be naked in public. First, it promotesindividual well-being; not only can nudist activities have great recreational value,recent studies have found that exposure to non-idealised naked bodies has a positiveimpact on body image, and, ultimately, on life satisfaction. Second, public nudityhas expressive value; apart from being a constitutive element of various spiritualand religious worldviews, public nudity is frequently used to protest (perceived)social and political evils. As I go on to argue, the reasons for abolishing current anti-nudist laws that stem from these interests are not overridden, let alone cancelled, bythe offence that public nudity might cause. Indeed, whereas my principal aim is todefend the freedom to be publicly naked when this poses no health threat, I willcontend that states should recognise this liberty as adistinct legal rightrather thantry to subsume it under existing rights or secure it simply by excluding non-sexual,non-exhibitionist public nudity from existing laws against public indecency, sexualexhibition, and disorderly conduct
