So we have two, rather different, men in the news this week for appearing nude. Prince Harry for playing strip pool at a party and Stephen Gough, the Naked Rambler, incarcerated again in Scotland for walking nude down the street. Neither has done anything overtly illegal (Gough is convicted of breach of the peace, although frankly from what I’ve read I don’t see how) but both are being punished. Both might reasonably stand accused of stupidity, given what they know; but stupidity alone isn’t illegal.

Uneasy bedfellows?!
Heresy Corner has a scathing summation of the issues. On Prince Harry:

And if a 28 year old man takes his clothes off in the company of other consenting adults, who cares?

It’s only a naked body. We’ve all got one of those. If you’re a distinguished actor you may well have displayed it to all the world in the name of art. This is the 21st century.

And, more tellingly, on Stephen Gough:

Gough has spent most of the past six years in prison since making the mistake of bringing his naked frame north of the border, where a Presbyterian horror of the body lingers despite repeated SNP claims that Scotland is a mature, progressive democracy ready for full independence.
[…]
Gough’s case is simple: “there is nothing about me as a human being that is indecent or alarming or offensive.” He poses no danger to society. He has never physically attacked anyone or interfered with property, nor has he used insulting language: his “crime” is to upset the sensibilities of prudes, of whom there are obviously a large number in Scotland.
[…]
Is nudity “indecent”? Only if you assume, as Anglo-Saxon prudes tend to do, that nudity implies sex. There are other reasons for being naked that have little to do with sex — taking part in a game of strip-billiards, for example.
[…]
It’s hard to escape the view that Gough’s real crime is not so much outraging public decency as refusing to conform. Keeping him upholds the majesty of the law which Gough’s defiance challenges, at a cost to the taxpayer of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

[I would also take issue with the assertion that sex is indecent. Like nudity, sex and sexuality have to be normalised not criminalised and/or marginalised. But let’s leave that aside for now.]

At least there appears to be a tiny amount of common sense appearing in all this. Prince Harry is apparently likely to be punished only by being given a dressing down (pun intended) by his commanding officer (though GOK what it has to do with his CO) and made to donate some of his salary to charity. Meanwhile the Kirkcaldy Sheriff has ordered Gough to undergo psychiatric tests, which might give him a way out of the corner he and Scottish “justice” have painted him into.

Nevertheless, frankly, both cases are ridiculous. We need to come to terms with the fact that nudity is a normal part of the human condition. Get over it! Our princling has done nothing most of us wouldn’t have done; his only crime is his parentage. Gouch is agreed by all to be harmless but eccentric. The former should just be ignored. The latter allowed to go on his way and also ignored.

What is perhaps more important is to ask why people appear so outraged by these cases. I suspect it goes back to what I was writing about yesterday: most people need some outside influence to give them their moral code because they are unable (or unwilling) to think it through for themselves. Once that happens these people are prey to ridiculous, even dangerous, influences: anything from the abhorrence of nudity, through male dominance, to terrorism.

But it isn’t just the traditional religions that are now occupying this morality defining territory. The tabloid media (papers, TV, radio) have become the new religion — the definers of morals — and thus the definers of what people think. Too many people still adhere to the “if it’s in the paper, it must be true” and pause to think no further.

Well it’s time to grow up and start thinking. Time to rise up against the Mrs Grundys of this world.

If it harm none, do as you will.