You are on page 1of 3

because they appeared in public naked 'as a hint.

' George
Fox and other leaders defended the practice, when the doer
felt it a religious obligation to do that. . . . The idea of this type of signal came apparently from
Isaiah's walking 'nude and
barefoot three years' (Isaiah 20:2,3)." 252 The Doukhobors, a radical Christian sect, used
nudity as a social demonstration in
Canada in the early 1900s.253 Paul Ableman records that "In May, 1979, Emperor Bokassa .
. . a minor Central
African tyrant, detained a large number of kids on charges of sedition and massacred some
of them. According to
The Guardian (London) of 18 May, 'Hundreds of women demonstrated naked outside the
prison until the survivors
were released.'" 254
In the 1920s, as section of a widening rebellion against genteel society, the size of bathing
suits started to
Fall. Nude beaches, reaching their peak of popularity in the 1970s, are the ultimate result of
this procedure of
social emancipation. The free body motion generally in the 1970s meet this social and
historic pattern. Examples
Comprise casual nudity at Woodstock; "nude-in" demonstrations; plus a record-setting
demonstration by Athens,
Georgia university students on March 7, 1974, when more than 1500 went naked on their
college campus. It took
tear gas to make the pupils dress.255
Historic sources of the repression of nudity.
167. Repressive morality was developed by the state and also the Church as a tool to
preserve control over
otherwise free individuals.256
Paul Ableman writes: "A complex civilization has an enormous investment in differentiated
clothing. It is
no accident that one of the very first matters that a radical regime turns its attention to is
clothing. The French
Revolution decreed ancient grace and simplicity. The Chinese homogenized clothing. The
Ayatollah Khomeini in
Iran returned girls to the black chador and so forth. . . . Sexual energy is needed by the
authorities of the world to
maintain order. . . . It immediately becomes obvious why the true obscenity of killing and
violence has consistently been
of less concern to those in power than the pseudo-obscenity of erotic acts. Departure
supplies no scope for a network of
regulations by which society may be controlled. . . . But sex is a permanent fountain of
dynamic energy, which can
be harnessed for social purposes by regulations concerning marriage, divorce, adultery,

fornication, incest,
homosexuality, bestiality, chastity, promiscuity, decency and so forth. All those who wield
power intuitively perceive
that in the last resort their authority derives from the repression, and regulation, of sexuality,
and that free-flowing
sexuality is the biological equivalent of anarchy. All transferrals of power, all revolutions, are
always
accompanied by transformations of the regulations regulating sexuality." 257 Seymour Fisher
writes: "The
Consequences of nudity as a means of declaring one's entire independence have frequently
generated strong countermeasures
from those in authority. Nudity is Only once nakedness represents an adverse purpose
pertaining to the worth of the individual, when its intention is always to excite by death in
certain cultures. The Roman Catholic church has taught in
convent schools it is sinful to expose your body even to your own eyes. The wearing of
clothes represents a
form of entry to prevailing mores. It's like putting on a 'citizen's uniform' and agreeing to play
the game." 258
168. Repressive morality has regularly sought to command not only nudity, but sexuality in
general.
Margaret Miles observes that "the regulation of sexuality was a major power dilemma in the
fourth century
Christian churches. Management of sexual practices was a method to inject the ability of
church laws and leaders into
the close and day-to- natural state of being, and discrimination on this basis is illegal. It
should be equally illegal to discriminate on the of Christians. Analyzing the canons of the
Council of Gangra in AD 309,
[Samuel] Laeuchli found that 46 percent of the eighty-one canons were concerned with
sexual relationships and
practices." 259 Philip Yancey notes that "between the third and tenth centuries, church
authorities issued edicts
Prohibiting sex on Saturdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and also during the 40-day fast
periods before Easter,
Christmas, and Whitsuntide--all for religious motives. They kept adding feast days and days
of the apostles to the
proscription, as well as the days of female impurity, until it reached the point that, as Yale
historian John Boswell
has estimated, only 44 days a year remained accessible for married sex. Human nature
being what it is, the church's
proscriptions were enthusiastically ignored." 260 Don Mackenzie notes that Christ and the
very earliest church, in
contrast, emphasized a message of independence--"from demonic powers, from tyrannical
governments, from destiny. . . .
[and] a prevalent dedication to the separation of secular and ecclesiastical power. . . . [The

Church] embraced
asceticism, not in obedience to its founder's teachings but as a bid for support in the face of
competition, offering
spiritual comfort to individuals whose material world (the Roman Empire) was failing. Once
the Church was officially