Re: BBC 'One Life' - the naked ramblers!


"Uno Hoo!" <kevlunn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dmk207$jor$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Anyone watch the BBC 'One Life' prog last night? The two ramblers seeking
> to walk naked from Land's End to John 'o Groats? The programme was quite
> fascinating for a number of reasons but, I thought, raised a number of
> serious moral and philosophical conundrums - particularly in the repeated
> arrests - and subsequent jailing of the male walker.

I saw part of it and was overcome by my own prejudices. I assumed that they
were publicity-seeking exhibitionists who didn't have anything interesting
useful to say. Maybe I'll watch it if it is shown again, having seen some of
the reviews.

The thing is, anyone who tries very hard to stand out of the crowd, is
usually viewed with dislike and suspicion. And usually the reason for
stripping off is to allow others to admire your body, at least in our Page
Three culture, so one tends to assume they are suffering from vanity and a
deluded belief that they are worth looking at. Lots of cultural values need
to be reassessed before nudity can become acceptable. And maybe that should
happen - after all, in a centrally-heated world we have less need of clothes
than we did in primitive times.


> Michaelangelo sculpts nude statues and people travel miles to admire them.
> Similarly with nude paintings by the classical masters. But an acual human
> being walks around with no clothes on - and some people are offended,
> outraged, and disgusted. And yet we are all the same underneath (with some
> variations!).
> It is fair to ask the question, "Is the human body per se indecent?" And
> if the answer is 'no' - then what does everyone get worked up about? Is
> it right to arrest people for wandering around with no clothes on? My
> immediate reaction is to say, "No - it's utterly wrong." - but on the
> other hand.............. do I really want to go to Tescos and find myself
> surrounded by dozens of naked bodies? If they were all female and looked
> like Jennifer Aniston then perhaps yes - but they wouldn't be.

With clothes on, you can usually conceal any erection you might
involuntarily experience. So the next question might be: is an erection
indecent, and would women find it offensive or threatening? Or would it
attract unwelcome comment, even in a nudist environment?

>They would be an assortment of sizes, ages, and appearances and, worst of
>all, with varying standards of personal hygiene - yuck! So no, I wouldn't
>want to see that. Interesting conundrum however!

Would we want to sit down on seats that had skid-marks on them, left by
previous incumbents? Does clothing help to conceal smells and poor hygiene?


> What astonished me in the programme was the number of supermarkets, shops,
> and pubs that these two walked into, not wearing a stitch, and where they
> were served as though nothing out of the ordinary was taking place!

I can only think that people looked for a camera and were then so delighted
to be on the telly that they concealed whatever distaste they might have
had. Maybe I didn't see enough of it to judge, though.


>The programme was obviously edited - but on the face of it, the number of
>people actually outraged were in a minority compared to those who found the
>spectacle hilarious!
> The male walker is apparently still in jail in Scotland and so far has not
> completed his walk to John o' Groats!

I gather that the main reason for objecting to nudity was "to protect the
innocent children" who might be frightened by large genitalia or pubic hair.
I suppose a child brought up in a household where adults never reveal their
bodies, might be slightly shocked but not at all threatened unless they
happened to be alone in the room with a naked person whom they didn't know
and had no reassuring family members nearby.


.

Quantcast