The Relationship Between Nudity And Sexuality

My mouth is used for the consumption of food, but this is not the only thing that it can be used for.  I can also use it for speech and for breathing.  If someone thinks that I must be about to eat just because my mouth is visible, they clearly do not understand the nature of the mouth.  Likewise, the human body as a whole can be used for sexual purposes, but that is not the only thing it can be used for.  In affirming the default nonsexual nature of nudity, the fact that whether nudity is sexual has nothing to do with whether it is sinful is often overlooked. 

Even if nudity was inherently, overtly sexual irrespective of context or intent, it would still not be sinful.  A thing is not immoral or dangerous just because it is sexual, after all; the idea is a lie of asceticism.  Equating sexuality with evil is an extra-Biblical construct, as the demonization of sexuality is entirely contrary to Christianity.  Thus, sexual intentions alone should not factor into someone's moral analysis of nudity.  Distinguishing between sexual intentions and the nonsexual nature of nudity itself, however, is significant.

One reason people might mistake nudity for a sexual thing is that arousal of the genitals (at least in the case of men) is apparent to all when people forgo clothing.  Arousal of the body is not a guarantee that arousal of the mind is present, but there is no need for the physiological arousal of a naked body to frighten either onlookers or the one experiencing arousal even if the arousal is due to sexual thoughts or feelings.  After all, there is nothing shameful or vile about experiencing either, even if doing so results in a prominent public display of excited genitalia.

There is a sexist double standard when it comes to such a display, however.  The male genitalia are far more visible than those of women, protruding outward even when the penis is not in an erect state.  Whereas the penis is stark even if not aroused, women can be physiologically aroused without detection, even when nude.  Because of this fact--and because of bullshit narratives about male sexuality being predatory--arousal of the male body might be treated with suspicion or concern even in scenarios where female arousal would be tolerated.  This reaction is asinine.

In fact, in addition to it being sexist to panic over the bodily arousal of men but not over that of women, it is outright hypocritical to accept nonsexual nudity without accepting genital arousal that has nothing to do with sexual thoughts or behaviors.  Accepting the former without accepting the latter entails a selective, arbitrary affirmation of the human body.  If nudity is neither unnatural nor sinful, how can bodily functions, even sexual ones, be unnatural or sinful?  They can't be.

Sexual or nonsexual, nudity is not an anathema to God, as the Bible repeatedly teaches (see Genesis 2:25 with Genesis 1:31, Isaiah 20:1-6 with James 1:17, Deuteronomy 4:2, Romans 7:7, and 1 John 3:4).  In both cases, it is the pinnacle of his physical creations.  Whether nudity is sexual is completely beside the point.  Depending on circumstances and intent, it might be sexual, or it might not.  In either case, it is something that should never be regarded as inherently shameful nor immoral, for it is neither.