As a fan of science fiction and fantasy, I know the female breast is a frequent guest in many works of the genre. Honesty compels me to admit that, as a straight male, I am not fundamentally opposed to such nudity. However, there are some reasonable grounds for objecting to nudity in works of fantasy and science fiction, at least in certain contexts. The first is ethical and the second is aesthetical.
A stock moral objection to nudity is that it is inherently wrong, perhaps because it is seen as dirty or filthy. This view is often based on a religious view that sees nudity as shameful. Some base this view on the story of Adam and Eve in which they learn to be ashamed of their nudity and this seemed to set the stage for a persistent puritanical view. There is also a feminist tendency to cast female nudity as being especially bad—there is an abundance of feminist literature addressing this point and hence I will not expand on this here.
Some people take a different view, claiming that it is men that are the problem and the moral weakness of men entails that women must always be covered. However, the result is ironically similar in that female nudity is seen as a moral threat.
While this sort of view is popular, it is not one I subscribe to. As far as the religious foundation is concerned, there are two obvious replies. The first is that the burden of proof rests on those who make this argument—they need to prove that God exists and He thinks the human form is “dirty” and his creations should be covered in shame. The second is that the human form does not seem to be dirty and although some people might stand some more time working out, there does seem to be a beauty to the human body—as the ancient Greeks and others believed. Thus, while the shame argument is not without merit, I do not find it convincing, and it is not the foundation of my dismay at gratuitous nudity.
A second stock moral objection to nudity is based on Plato’s criticism of art, namely that the portrayal of lustful behavior can corrupt the viewer. On this view, it is not that nudity itself is bad; rather it would be the lustful behavior that is typically associated with nudity. As such, the concern about nudity would be secondary, although the display of nudity would presumably augment the alleged corrupting power of art.
This argument does have some appeal. After all, what people experience (even fictional experiences) does help shape how people think and behave. Hence, exposure to nudity and lustful behavior in art could shape people in negative ways. This is like a common argument against pornography based on it alleged ability to corrupt. Of course, the nudity in science fiction and fantasy is supposed to be secondary whereas pornography is supposed to be focused primarily on nudity and sex.
While this argument does seem reasonable, the corrupting power of the occasional breast or other nudity in science fiction or fantasy seems limited. To use an analogy to radiation, the amount of exposure does generally not seem enough to provide a dangerous dose of nudity (and this assumes there is a dangerous dose). As such, the corruption argument does not really motivate my criticism of gratuitous nudity.
A third moral argument is a specific variation on the corruption argument and is one that is sometimes presented by feminist thinkers. The idea is that female nudity of this type demeans women by presenting them as mere sexual objects. This is harmful to both females (who are demeaned and objectified) and males (who learn to demean and objectify) and hence wrong.
This argument has some appeal. After all, looking at the stereotypical demographic targets for science fiction and fantasy that includes nudity it seems likely that nudity is there to attract and titillate male viewers. Women are being exploited as objects for the amusement of men. This does work—I recall, as a young guy, people talking about seeing certain movies specifically for the nude scenes.
Even then, this struck me as a bit odd—I recall asking a friend why he didn’t just get a Penthouse or Playboy if he wanted to see nudity (this was long before the internet). The internet now serves up nudity and porn 24/7 and this seems to make gratuitous nudity make even less sense. My suspicion is that this is like how people used to say that they got Playboy for the articles and perhaps people do the same thing with science-fiction and fantasy works that feature nudity—they can say they are watching it for the story and that the nudity just happens to be there. Maybe this works in a way like the psychology that allows a person to feel that they are dieting when they have a diet soda with their super-sized meal.
Getting back to the main subject, this line of argumentation does have merit—most cases of nudity in such works seems to be there to appeal to the target demographic and clearly seems to be objectifying and demeaning women. This does not, of course, even consider women being cast as sexual victims (prostitutes, rape victims and so on) in such works.
That said, there is a reasonable concern that this sort of argument can bring one into the moral territory of the other two moral arguments. After all, if it is claimed that nudity demeans a woman and presents her as a mere object, then this might seem to entail that there is something wrong about the female body, which seems problematic from many feminist perspectives. The easy reply is, of course, that it is not the woman’s body that is wrong, but rather the way the woman is being treated and the specific context. This seems a reasonable reply.
In my own case, I do admit that this is part of the reason that I often feel dismay at such nudity. It is not so much the nudity itself, but the way it is used and the context, which is often demeaning. However, the moral aspects of the matter do not exhaust the issue and there remains the aesthetic aspect.
When it comes to aesthetics, I am something of a traditionalist. To be specific, I draw much of my aesthetic theory from thinkers like Plato and Aristotle. While I have already mentioned Plato’s argument, I will now borrow a bit from Aristotle.
When I teach my students how to write the paper for my classes, I discuss the matter of deciding what should and should not be in the paper. I base this discussion on Aristotle’s view that a work should be a complete whole as defined by the purpose of the work. I tell my students that there is a simple test to decide whether something should be left in or left out, which is to leave it out and see whether this improves, worsens or leaves the work the same. Obviously, if leaving it out makes the work worse relative to its purpose, then it should be retained. Otherwise, it should be removed. This same sort of principle can be applied to nudity in works of science fiction and fantasy.
While a discussion of the purposes of science fiction and fantasy would go beyond the limited scope of this essay, it does seem reasonable to accept that their primary purpose is not to serve as a platform for displaying nudity to men. That is, of course, one purpose of pornography. As works of fiction, their main purpose is to present a story (at least as Aristotle would argue) and that should be the focus. Sticking with Aristotle, the display of nudity would typically seem to be part of the spectacle rather than part of the story. The nudity does not (in almost all cases) advance the plot in a way that is probably or necessary in order to achieve the purpose of the work.
Science-fiction and fantasy have a long tradition of gratuitous nudity that has no connection at all to the plot. For example, in the movie Moontrap there is a completely gratuitous stripper scene that has nothing to do with what little plot the movie has. I use this example because the image of Chekov (Walter Koenig) in a strip joint has stuck in my mind since 1989. Obviously, gratuitous nudity by its nature lacks aesthetic justification.
Interestingly, some movies and shows have attempted to merge plot and sex, creating what Myles McNutt called “sexposition”, which is when characters present exposition while having sex.
Not surprisingly, merging sex and exposition seems to be an aesthetic failure. First, it seems odd to have people engaged in lengthy exposition during sex. While I am not an expert on what most people do during sex, it seems that is not something that people would do. As such, this makes the scenes less in accord with what is probable. Second, the nudity still seems to add nothing to the plot—the exposition is doing all that and hence the nudity is gratuitous and would seem to have no aesthetic justification. But one could argue that it is keeping the audience’s attention during the exposition dump. But that assumes the audience is, obviously, listening to the exposition. Also, if a sex scene is needed to keep the audience’s attention, then that is a flaw in the work—some other way should be used to inform the audience, perhaps by showing rather than telling.
In addition to not adding anything to the story, the use of gratuitous nudity has two other flaws. The first is that it can be seen as an insult to the audience—that they will only retain interest in the work if they see nudity. Of course, this might be true in some cases. Second, it would seem to show a flaw in the work. After all, if the story cannot sustain interest through aesthetic means and they need to throw in nudity to keep people interested or to fill the visual space while characters are engaged in lengthy exposition, then they would seem to be lacking in their craft. Of course, it is fair to keep in mind that a show or film is subject to many influences and creators and that the nudity stuck in a work might not be the idea of the writer or director. For example, some of the famous nudity and sexposition in the Game of Thrones might not be what Martin envisioned.
These arguments do not exclude all nudity from works. After all, there can be cases in which it is warranted on aesthetic grounds. For example, the nudity in a scene might be required for realism and the scene might be an important part of the plot. That is, removing the scene or the nudity would result in an inferior aesthetic result. I am sure that there are such cases, but none comes to mind.
As another example, nudity might be an important part of the experience the work is supposed to create. For example, the horror movie From Dusk Till Dawn could be seen as intentionally embracing the stereotypes of a genre that must, of necessity, include gratuitous nudity. As such, nudity could serve a legitimate aesthetic purpose in that work and other similar works. One could draw an obvious analogy to violence as being a necessary ingredient in certain subgenres and styles.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.