This is an essay meant to complement my controversial take on Fjord’s Palme d’Or and my other politically incorrect opinions that are scattered throughout the blog. I used WPS Office to write it, as a means to test that office suite. There is a talk there about the detection of WPS AI assistance.

An Armchair Theory of Bodily Modesty

As if the topic weren’t already a delicate one, English is not the best language for discussing a concept for which it lacks a single, precise term. Romance languages have pudeur, pudore, pudor, and pudoare, whereas English speakers are left to fumble with awkward approximations like “modesty,” “decency,” “propriety,” or other pathetic approximations. Some can be mildly ridiculous (“intimate reserve”); some others, one more time, not specific enough (“discretion”).

What I am trying to refer to is that specific, instinctual barrier against bodily exposure that only humans can have. The deep-seated impulse to shield one’s nakedness or intimate self from the gaze of others, rooted in a mix of vulnerability, fear of being judged and found inadequate, and natural shame. This inherent reflex is not merely a social construct, but a profound psychological architecture that defines our species. Or it used to. Because nowadays, people seem to be unable to experience shame. One more uninvention.

As an armchair psychologist, sociologist, and general expert in common sense and judgment (I’m grumpy and judgmental, if that helps), I developed a theory of pudeur which has to be called in English “of bodily modesty,” for lack of a more precise term.

There are two steps in my theory: the original root causes, and the modern changes in human behavior.

1. The root causes of what the French call “pudeur”

I am not a psychologist, but I like to come up with crazy theories. If Sigmund Freud’s weird ideas remain so successful more than one hundred years later, why wouldn’t I have the right to formulate my own weird theories?

Bodily modesty and strict moral codes were weaker in ancient Greece and ancient Rome than in our era. It’s not that ancient Greece and Rome were a free-for-all nudist colony where everyone was completely relaxed about mixed public nudity. Male athletic nudity was common in the gymnasia or the Olympics, but female modesty norms were strictly enforced, and public decency very much existed. However, it was Christianity that insisted on the concept of “shame,” extending it from moral acts to physical decency. Later, Islam came up with even stricter dress standards for women.

For many centuries, dress standards in the so-called Western civilisation were excessively uptight, although irrational in some respects. One couldn’t see a woman’s knee, but the upper half of her breasts was merrily exposed. Even today, the shorts worn in public by women can expose a certain part of the buttocks (should I call them cheeks?) that, alas, couldn’t be covered by the garment, but a male’s shorts should rather be Bermudas. Why is it that we claim decency for women, while at the same time allowing them to expose intimate parts of their bodies?

2. It’s all because of a man’s eye and his desires

Since always, but obviously after the matriarchate ended, the masculine sex has been the predatory one. It’s the erectile organ that is the source of all sexual aggressions. Of course, it all stems from the brain, with the help of hormones and in the presence of pheromones from the opposite sex. When a man doesn’t feel “man enough,” he starts a war, buys a Lamborghini, or fires half of his employees. A woman is more subtle than that when she resents her sexual dissatisfaction: she purchases clothes she’ll never wear more than once, and she’ll drive her subordinates mad to the point where some of them attempt suicide.

And here I believe I identified a number of conflicting elements.

3. A man prides himself on his “trophy woman,” but doesn’t want the rest of the manhood to have erections at the sight of “his female”

On the one hand, anyone who has the chance to be in a couple with a beautiful, sexy woman wants to show the rest of the world how successful he is with the opposite sex. On the other hand, he wouldn’t show his female sex partner naked, would he?

4. Have you really considered the real problem with naturist (mixed-sex nudist) beaches?

On “normal” beaches, the most that’s acceptable for a woman is to be topless and to wear a string with some kind of leaf covering to hide the unnamed entry. On nudist beaches, everything is allowed as long as only members of a single sex share the benefits of full-body exposure to air, sun, and water. (No, I don’t know where non-binary people go.) But mixed-sex nudity is the real deal!

Regulars of naturist beaches couldn’t care less. Some are swingers. Some really can’t be disturbed. “I don’t care about your body, and I can’t be bothered by what you think about mine.” That’s the spirit.

But most people wouldn’t go to mixed-sex nudist places. (This doesn’t apply to Germans and Dutch: while they’re very privacy-conscious, they love going to mixed-sex saunas or pools.) Why is that so? This is where my theory kicks in.

5. The penis is the crux of a man’s pride, but people are severely uninformed

The old cliché of pubescent kids who compare their “wieners” in changing rooms or at the shower only to deride the bearer of the most modest one is not just a cliché. It’s a primal, albeit stupid, initiation ritual. This ingrained competitiveness lingers into adulthood, transforming the male body into a site of constant evaluation. Men learn to equate their masculinity with physical metrics, despite lacking even the most elementary information about the anatomy of their defining organ. Needless to say, this profound lack of knowledge can turn into a constant source of anxiety and baseless insecurity.

Even the useless but popular charts of “the average size of the penis across different countries” only serve to exacerbate this psychological burden. There are three metrics that have a rather complex relationship with perception: flaccid length, stretched length, and erect length.

The arithmetic relation between the flaccid length and the erect length is far from linear or predictable. One can have an 8 cm flaccid penis and a 16 cm erect one; or a 12 cm flaccid penis that only grows to 15 cm when erect. So comparing flaccid measurements is scientifically flawed and fundamentally deceptive. But under normal circumstances, this is what gets compared!

Even erected lengths can vary, depending on the degree of stimulation. Nothing is that straightforward when it comes to the human body and its dynamics.

On the other hand, those comparative statistics are cheating, because they measure what’s called the stretched penile length. This is a poor estimate of anything. In the process of stretching, partial erection can be achieved. Or not.

So males are comparing apples to oranges. This is why some of them hate being seen nude by their peers.

6. It’s even worse in a mixed-sex nude environment

There’s another paradox regarding naturist beaches, saunas, or whatever such environments might be. In the light of the above mass ignorance, some anxiety might be relieved by the possibility of a partial erection triggered by the feminine presence. The regulars of such places shouldn’t be aroused, but newcomers just might. But this raises more problems than it has the potential to solve!

  • “Was I supposed to get a partial erection at the sight of such sexy chicks?” “I have stage fright, so I cannot!” “Oh, my, they’ll consider me impotent, or maybe gay!”
  • “If I have an erection, what if they think I’m aroused by males?”
  • “If I had an erection, all those women might feel offended, and their partners even more so!”
  • “OK, don’t have an erection, don’t have an erection… OMG, I’m having an erection!”

7. The feminine factor is one more unknown

The funny thing in naturist environments is that it’s impossible to know what women think, and even less what they should think!

  • “Look at this gay nincompoop. I’m so hot, and he couldn’t show a token of appreciation with his relevant body part!”
  • “Look at this brute! He can’t manage an erection. The sight of every woman turns him on!”

The “token of appreciation” (of variable length) can be seen as validating a woman’s attractiveness, or as an insult. Then, what happens if that woman is accompanied by her sexual partner? How would he react to other men having an erection while seeing “his woman”?

In a nutshell, most people abhor nudity not because of “religious values” per se (although the “shame” might have originated in religion), but because of a man’s inherent insecurity regarding his “tool” and “his woman”!

8. The “Bodily Modesty Theory”

Even if someone is confident that his wiener is of adequate length even in cold water, and that it can be controlled well enough, the issue regarding his feminine sexual partner remains. Even if “tokens of appreciation” from other men acknowledge his luck to benefit from a desirable woman’s attention, how much is too much?

This applies even in normal social situations: “How sexy should my lady be dressed?” If everyone drools, and some are trying to mask their trousers, is it too much?

Therefore, the socially imposed limits of “moderate exposure of body parts” seem to soothe the most crucial masculine insecurity ever!

Someone tried once to present me with a counterargument: that people avoid strangers’ naked bodies simply out of a generic visceral disgust and hygiene concerns. Possibly, but not today.

I looked at today’s teens. I’ve observed how groups of colleagues and friends who are not sexually intimate casually shared water bottles, beverages, and food with an ease and lack of restraint that surprised me. Sure, the pandemic is over, but their view of hygiene is astonishingly relaxed. I suppose they don’t mind changing body fluids, either. It’s no wonder that STDs are on the rise in places like the UK and Romania; one can only suppose the use of condoms is decreasing alongside everything else. It might sound far-fetched to some, but I associate this sloppiness regarding the exchange of bacteria with their sloppiness regarding clothing. They haven’t overcome disgust; they’ve simply lost the very concept of a boundary.

9. Modern developments that erode my theory

“OK, boomer, here’s the thing: you’re too old-fashioned!” And this is true.

I am thoroughly displeased by an evolution (that I consider an involution) most pregnantly visible in the last 30 years or so. Women have lost the capability of feeling shame regarding their own bodies.

At first sight, this is not such a bad thing. It could indicate a combination of several factors:

  • Once “body shaming” became socially unacceptable, everyone started to feel happy as they are, worrying much less about what other people might think. In my opinion, this is a misjudgment: even if people don’t express their thoughts, this doesn’t mean those potentially negative thoughts don’t exist!
  • Security in public places has improved. Another misjudgment, in my opinion. Even if very few people think, “If she was dressed like that, no wonder she’s been raped,” why should anyone increase their risk of being attacked by some sick, frustrated individual, when more appropriate attire would have decreased such a risk?

What actually happened was that the so-called “Athleisure” led into a global semi-nudity trend. Yoga pants, tights, leggings, and shorts that, prior to this social change, were confined to sports halls, private spaces, or as undergarments are now used as street clothing! Similarly, upper-body clothing now allows brassieres to be considered decent in public spaces.

Years ago, I was accused of slut-shaming, something defined by Wikipedia as “being criticized or punished for violating dress-code policies by dressing in perceived sexually provocative ways.” I was merely pleading for decency and modesty.

Young females don’t care if their peers consider them fat, ugly, kitschy, provocative, sexy, shameless, or in any other way.

Young females don’t care anymore if they are provocative.

They simply don’t care how they look. In theory, they should care about what other women think of them, because most of the exaggerated make-up and extravagant clothing they use is for the eyes of other women. But they’re copycats, so in the end there’s an amorphous mass of almost identical-looking, poor-taste young women. We have to admit that the real public battlefield is female intrasexual competition. Women often dress provocatively not to seduce men, but to assert dominance, display status, and shame their rivals.

That’s probably 70-80% of them in a certain age bracket in some countries.

The good thing is that at least the “cameltoe” problem was solved. They’re now wearing underwear that’s less revealing, no matter how tight-fitting the thing-that-serves-as-clothing is. You can be dressed in a bologna-sausage skin, but at least there’s no camel toe.

But the denim shorts, somehow, are never long enough. People need to see your stretch marks, cellulite, fat, or other imperfections. You’re proud of them.

I’ll add in another tiny hypocrisy, this time an American specificity. It’s the end of the world if a minor sees a nipple or a full breast on TV in the States. Allegedly, “kids would be shocked.” No kidding? Kids sucked such nipples! Children would be shocked to see a penis or a scrotum and testicles. Nobody cares about tits in Europe. I don’t want to see naked breasts in the middle of the city, but in a movie, why not? Why rate such a movie 16+ or 18+? There’s no harm in it.

But in the same American society, every imperfection of a woman’s buttocks can be freely seen because so many women cannot wear normal trousers. Not necessarily dress trousers, but jeans, denims, slacks, khakis, chinos, cargo pants, literally anything that doesn’t leave you half-naked. Even those horrendous, shapeless sweatpants that high school and college students seem to live in all day long are acceptable (faute de mieux) because they at least function as clothing.

Moving on, there are two aspects that need consideration.

First, this is asymmetrical in two ways. By sexes, meaning that men cannot dress with tight-fitting trousers that reveal the shape of the testicles and penis. Only women can reveal their exact shapes. And by ages, meaning that 2-year-old girls now have to wear swimsuits on the beach, but teenagers and adults can walk half-naked on the main street.

Then, this is a regression in civilization. If a person, whether a young girl or a full-grown woman, cannot feel shame (deserved or undeserved, out of modesty), then this really makes everyone thick-skinned. We might as well return to the Stone Age and start walking naked if we wish so.

10. Towards a nude society?

Having a clothing-free planet is unlikely to happen overnight, despite climate change and all. The masculine half of the population still has its insecurities, whereas the overconfidence of the feminine half, happily hopping under the sun, already makes us enjoy the sight of hippopotamuses alongside superb specimens. Just don’t try to objectify women—they do so themselves.

Let me clarify something. The modern “body positivity” movement is a genuinely positive concept at its core. Once “body shaming” became socially unacceptable, people rightly stopped worrying so much about cruel, unnecessary judgments. But in their crusade to dismantle the toxic shame of the past, women seem to have lost the capability of feeling any shame regarding their own bodies. The healthy “learn to accept your body” transformed into a mandate to force everyone else to look at every contour of it. I, as a citizen, have the right to be protected from sights that I don’t want to see and that are not objectively necessary. This is one of the reasons clothing was invented.

This, too, needs further clarification. What do I need to be protected from? I have the right to be protected from the sheer shamelessness of people thrusting their unflattering anatomy into the public eye. It is not their physical imperfections I am judging, but their abysmal taste and total lack of respect for those around them. I, too, deserve respect. They fiercely demand that society respect their “right to self-expression” and their “body image” rights, yet they refuse to respect my right not to have my face practically shoved into their underwear while walking down a main city street. What is undoubtedly appropriate at the beach or the pool is utterly unacceptable in the town square.

Alas, society decided to betray me.

In many European countries, nude sunbathing is completely legal and widely accepted on numerous beaches and in designated zones of public parks (famously the Englischer Garten in Munich). Most of this is normal, but there’s more.

Spain completely decriminalized public nudity in 1988. Legally, you have the right to walk naked down any street in the country. In order to curb tourist behavior that was legal but deemed excessive, some specific cities like Barcelona and Cádiz have passed local municipal ordinances banning nudity on city streets. Too much can be too much, but the legislator passed the burden of regulating to cities!

Then, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it is not a crime to simply be naked in public in England and Wales. Nudity only becomes the crime of “indecent exposure” if you expose your genitals “with the specific intent to cause someone alarm or distress” or for sexual gratification. If you are just going for a walk and “happen to be naked,” you are not breaking the law unless someone complains. So people can still be offended, and police might be called to restore “public order.” Well, the risk of being in the buff…

Apparently, Vermont is famous for being the only US state where the law does not prohibit being naked in public, as long as the behavior is not lewd or lascivious. However, it can be illegal to get naked in public, so you need to “happen to be naked,” but disrobing in front of others can be charged as a breach of the peace. Some cities have chosen to ban nudity in their jurisdictions.

Finally, whereas in places like New York City or San Francisco, general public nudity on the street is illegal, events such as the World Naked Bike Ride (WNBR) get away with it because those cities have specific legal exemptions for nudity when it is part of a protest, exhibition, or theatrical performance. It was enough to classify the WNBR as “a political protest against oil dependency and for cyclist safety” to have the First Amendment protect the naked riders!

The annual “No Trousers on the Tube Ride” in London and “No Pants Subway Ride” in many other cities are useless, infantile nonsense and obviously in poor taste.

50 years ago, people could go to jail if they walked on the streets dressed the way they dress today.

Today, I might go to jail for protesting such a deterioration of social convention and of public taste. I once even had my Twitter account suspended for that reason.