Is Stephen Gough Winning the War by Losing the Battles?

It has been reported that British man Stephen Gough, also known as "The Naked Rambler", could spend the rest of his life in prison if he refuses to wear pants in public. The UK has already spent $400,000 keeping him in jail.

While Gough has been languishing in jail for the better part of the last six years, several participants in sculptor Antony Gormley's "The Fourth Plinth" project in Trafalgar Square used partial and complete nudity in their performances. Only one of the plinth occupants was asked by police to cover up, but later it was revealed that it is "not an offense to be simply naked in the U.K.", and the police had exceeded their powers.

Eventually the persecution of Gough will rise to the level of being absurd. That tipping point might be near, but there needs to be real support from British naturists. Chris Lamb, who joined Gough once on a "naked ramble", had this to say, "It seems a terrible tragic waste for that to happen. It really shouldn't be necessary but I can understand why the Scottish authorities get so upset. They feel their authority is being challenged."

It's time for British Naturism to challenge authority in support of Stephen Gough. Maybe he's not the poster child for naturism that they are looking for, maybe he's a bit too stubborn and eccentric, but there's an important battle here to be won. If 100 nude people march in protest of Gough's incarceration, perhaps it will spark public opinion and make authorities change their mind about keeping this man in jail for his entire life simply because he wants to live in the nude.

The question is: can British naturists afford to ignore Gough any longer without harming their own personal liberties? The longer he remains in jail, the more a person's right to be nude erodes.

Free Stephen Gough, now.

Good Nipple, Bad Nipple, Part Two

Via TERA comes this video of a woman posing topfree atop a public pedestal in London as part of Antony Gormley's art project "One & Other".

While Dr. Rapoport featured this story on the TERA website, he did so with reservations, and made the following comment on the video:

Ms. McDonald's performance, a mild version of what she probably does professionally, reinforced the automatic association of women's breasts with sexual display, which we have to get rid of.

Women should have the right to be without tops as much as men are, possibly more. But actions such as this undermine that goal, whatever their merit or demerit as performance.

While I agree with the essence of what Dr. Rapoport has to say, I feel that there are contradictions which need to be discussed. Yes, Naomi McDonald shakes her breasts and slaps her own behind in suggestive ways, taking her "performance" into something beyond traditional art, and into the realm of sleaze; however, if this were a man up there flexing his biceps and making his pecs dance, there would be no controversy. After all, men have been doing this sort of posing for many years, from ancient Greek statues through today's muscle magazines and pageants. Yet the moment a woman flaunts her body, people get upset and condemn her as an "exhibitionist", and accuse her of undermining women's equality.

Yes, because of society's double standard, a woman expressing her sexuality in public is not good for the topfree movement because our male-dominated legal system tends to pass more laws controlling female nudity whenever a nipple makes an appearance.

I certainly don't have an answer for this issue, and how it will eventually play out is beyond anyone's guess.

What I do know is that women's bodies have been used in fine art for as long as humans have been able to scratch images onto the walls of caves, and some of the greatest examples of the female form, such as Manet's "Olympia", Renoir's and Cezanne's bathers, Picasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon", and so many other works freely celebrate the eroticism and sexuality of females, and the male infatuation with prostitution.

These works are mounted on museum walls without censorship for people of all ages to see and admire.

So when Ms. McDonald freely displays her body and sexuality, it's a time-honored tradition in fine art, merely taken from inside the art museum to the light of day. In addition, eroticism has been a component of ballet and other classic dance, completely acceptable on a stage illuminated with footlights, but somehow unacceptable in burlesque or strip clubs, or in the street. Society struggles with this issue, constantly defining and redefining what is or what is not pornographic.

It is probably a mistake to equate Naomi McDonald's public performance with topfreedom at all - it's more of a statement on art vs. pornography, and society's exploitation of the female body. Art should always push the envelope and get people stimulated emotionally and intellectually. In that respect, Ms. McDonald succeeded.