Tuesday, August 21, 2012


The odd relationship between nudity and modern religions defies any logic. For unknown reasons all of today's world religions abhor the the idea of not having the human, especially the female, body covered by some kind of clothes. The most extreme cases are the islamic dress codes that include covering the face. The influence of these religions has made most countries to enact laws effectively banning nudity even for people who don't belong to these superstitious cults. Even the guidelines of the provider of this blog has such restrictions in place banning me from adding a fitting illustration to this topic.
What might be the reason for such irrational restrictions?
Considering that nudity is the natural state of human beings and therefore inevitable during certain circumstitions like birth, body hygiene and replacement of clothes, it appears counterintuitive that there are legal restrictions against nudity instead against excessive clothing, which might sometimes be a security concern.
The restrictions against nudity are apparently related to religion. The more religious a country is, the more restrictive it is against nudity, which can be seen by comparing Europe with Saudi Arabia to name just two examples. Historically the origin of this taboo can be found in the so called Abrahamic religions, although modern India, which is predominantly Hindu, is very restrictive in this matter too. However this seems to be caused by many centuries of Islamic influence. Ancient India before its first contact with Islam seems not to have had this taboo as we can see by the depictions of ancient Hindu temples. Therefore the common denominator of the irrational taboo of nudity seems to be the Abrahamic faith. It might therefore be a good idea to look at the scriptures of these religions in order to find the reasoning behind it.
Since the quran is no original scripture but based on Christian and Jewish sources, we only need to look into these older scriptures. Considering that the Abrahamic faith believes that its deity is the creator of nature, it is quite ironical that the "Work of God" should need to be covered by a "Work of Man". The opposite would make more sense. There would be good reasons that Abrahamic religions should ban clothes and instead require humans to be nude with few exceptions. According to the book of Genesis, the first book of the bible, that includes the Jewish/Christian creation myth, the origin of wearing clothes is closely related to the Original Sin and man's expulsion from paradise.
Genesis 3:6 - 3:11:
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.
And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 
From this chapter of the torah/bible it is quite clear that clothes are a serious offense to the Abrahamic god and therefore sinful. If we follow the religious logic, clothes are the work of Satan (the serpent) and should therefore be banned.
Nevertheless the opposite is the case. Religious people don't get tired settig up minimum requirements of how much clothes needs to be worn. The reason for it is obviously not a divine revelation as we have seen. It seems to have something to do with the general stance towards human sexuality. 
Nudity is associated with sexuality. This is why it is opposed with or without being based on the scriptures. The hatred of the Abrahamic religions against sexuality is also visible in the eagerness of these people to mutilate the genitals of their offspring. The Abrahamic religions have become a refuge for people with severe sexual disorders that enables them to justify their aberrant behavior. If somebody is for some reasons incapable of normal sexual relationships, he naturally seeks refuge in religion. This is how religions have become an asylum for people with all kind of sexual perversions. There are the pedophile Catholic priests; there is Islam with its sex-obsessed prophet raping captives and abusing a 7-years-old girl; and there is the overproportional ratio of homosexuality among Arabs and Catholic priests and monks.
These people have used the power of their religious institutions to influence the society according to their personal sexual aberrations.
This is why we have restrictions on nudity everywhere: in publications, broadcastings, public places. They can be found everywhere, in any country of the world, although they make no sense at all and defy any attempt to understand their reasoning. We have allowed pathologically aberrant people to dictate our laws. Perverted behavior has become so commonplace that we don't even dare to question it. And we have to live with insane laws that seem to be made in a madhouse.


  1. Homosexuality is neither a sexual disorder or an aberrant behavior.

  2. Your statement is apparently politically motivated rather than based on linguistic facts.
    Definition of "aberrant":
    1. Departing from an accepted standard.
    2. Diverging from the normal type.
    Both definitions apply pretty well to describe homosexuality. It is neither the normal sexual orientation nor is it the accepted standard of the overwhelming majority of human cultures.
    In this context it is irrelevant, if you like it or not or if it is politically desirable or not.

    Apart from that I did not explicitly state that homosexuality was a disorder or an aberrant behavior, although you may think that I implied it.

  3. It is neither normal nor abnormal, it just is, and not only in homo sapiens. Why must their exist a hierarchy?

  4. I think you are hypersensitive regarding this topic.
    To say that something is not according to the norm or the standard does not imply any judgement or hierarchy. It only means that it is not the majority.
    The statement that homosexuality is not the norm is not subject to discussion or opinion. It is an empiric fact, that can be observed and measured. The percentage of this particular sexual orientation is lower than 10% in Homo sapiens.