The Right to Bare Arse

Is public nudity an inalienable right?
Marty Beckerman

Libertarians base their politics on the maxim of “do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.” But what if the sight of your jiggling, rippling, corpulent, Burger King-packed posterior does hurt others? Should you have the right to flash your derrière on the streets, or should authorities keep the junk inside your trunk?

Increasingly American politicians are responding in the negative, not with the (noble) goal of shaming the morbidly overweight, but with the hope that they might convince teenage gang-bangers—the thug kind, not the FFM/MMF/MMFF/MMMMMF kind—to become productive, belt-wearing citizens of society who resist their exhibitionist impulses to flash their underwear. And then, presumably, they will stop killing each other over the colors of their underwear. (Red stripes are for Bloods; blue polka-dots are for Crips.)

Ordinances across Louisiana criminalize the wearing of underwear in a “lewd fashion” and punish violators with $500 fines and six-month jail sentences. In Pine Lawn, Missouri, “sagging” is now punishable with $100 fines and three-month sentences, even for “girls whose low-rise jeans sit too low.” Even parents are subject to $500 fines and three-month sentences (“[at] the police officer’s discretion”) for allowing their offspring to dress provocatively. A Florida mayor, who happens to be a former minister, has proposed $300 fines and two-month sentences for those who share their skivvies. In 2004, Virginia lawmakers tried to pass a statewide ban on sagging. (Related note: Virginia lawmakers kept oral sex illegal into the Twenty-First Century, proving that their state is not for lovers and making me a criminal for the year that I lived in Alexandria.)

nudist

Leaders of the ACLU and NAACP have condemned these laws for violating the First Amendment and targeting racial minorities. But when does self-expression via fashion become public display of nudity? And should the latter qualify as a crime?

In January 2006 a Maryland judge ruled that “mooning,” even though it’s “disgusting,” does not meet the definition of indecent exposure—punishable by three years in jail—because “any woman wearing a thong at the beach … would be guilty.” The defense attorney joked that the ruling would “bring comfort to all beachgoers and plumbers.” (At the time I wanted to write a column for which I would walk around Bethesda in assless leather chaps, but I totally chickened out.)

But(t) seriously, if everyone walked around with their tushies on display, wouldn’t you want to puke? Haven’t you ever seen a TV documentary on nudists? They are nearly always 500 pound slobs, and 200 of those pounds are from body hair. Who wants to look at such wretched displays of unrefined, overstuffed humanity? Sure, if the nudists want to pay for their own land, they can do whatever they want, but how could anyone legalize public nudity with a clear conscience? Aside from the fact that it would pose a health risk (park benches, subway seats—aren’t public toilets gross enough already?), this kind of “bodily libertarianism” would just be revolting.

On the other hand, evil religious theocracies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Federal Communications Commission punish the minor exhibition of human flesh. Some conservatives want to ban all forms of adult entertainment, turning everyone into children. (Patriarchal Republicans who are closeted homosexuals, angry at God for placing forbidden longings into their loins, might happily stuff America’s female population into burqas.) So how do we balance our Constitution’s guarantee of free expression without forcing ourselves to gaze at sagging, bloated flesh-bags whose favorite restaurant is Waffle House?

Simple: Nudity Permits.

Of course, many libertarians are skeptical of government regulation, but let me explain… Everyone knows the website Hot or Not, which allows viewers to rate the attractiveness of their online peers. Local governments would simply require a certain level of Hotness before a permit is issued. If you want to walk around without any clothes, you first must visit the Municipal Department of Hot or Not, where a panel of judges (let’s call them “boobiecrats”) will rate your physical appearance. (In lieu of judges, the Department could use a jury of your peers -- it will be just like high school, or -- if you're a female -- every single day of your life.) If you are a lean, sculpted, luscious specimen of sexxxiness, you shall receive a four-year nudity permit—which is naturally invalidated in cases of pregnancy or Hardee’s Monster ThickBurger ingestion—but if you look anything like this, the Department of Hot or Not shall dispense $500 fines and six-month jail sentences for violating public decency laws with your sickening body.

Okay, okay, I’m being “satirical,” wacky Jew me. But the truth is that the politicians who want to outlaw sexy clothes are simply old, ugly, and jealous of our fine young asses. If they truly believe that the human body is so offensive that it merits criminalization, they should commence their legal crusades with long, hard looks into the mirror.

The above work is the opinion of the author, and not necessarily that of the Prometheus Institute.