1. "The option that I'll probably choose ...? Which is it, friend? Are you going to be clothed or aren't you?"


Let's talk a little about social conventions.

The answer is that I'll probably always be clothed, but it depends. If I come across or am presented with a description of a historical ritual that called for nudity and I find it compelling, then I will be nude. I won't gut the rite just to hold to a foolish taboo. But, I won't be easily sold on this. For example, having read a description of the old Lupercalia, I saw nothing beautiful or inspirational in it. I'll stick with Mardis Gras, thank you, I'd really rather not see my beloved get whipped with a strip of bloody leather.

Nor do I find arguments about the leveling effect of nudity or the notion of the dropping of societal masks even slightly persuasive. To begin with, not all bodies are created equal, so what we would get from this wouldn't be leveling, but merely a new unevenness. Nor do I see that sort of egalitarianism as being a good thing. I believe in each becoming the most he can be and the others being supportive of this. Some of us are more intelligent or more determined or more beautiful than others, and the only way that we can all be "equal" in the sense that those desiring leveling call for, is for each of us to join the least among us in his misery, as we throw away that which brings us joy in order to accomodate his petty jealous spite. We are not to be "equal", except in a moral sense, we are to be ourselves, fully. And we find ourselves in our interactions with others.

Throw away those "societal masks"? Never. What we are should find expression in what we do, and if such is the case, we are not "putting masks on" in our dealings with others, but rather coming into being as individuals. That inner self can only be found and brought out through the wealth of experience that a full life offers. By pretending to seperate oneself from one's life, one wouldn't be liberating oneself, one would be regressing toward the relative unconsciousness that is infancy. If you come here, you will find that we don't wish to subtract from your social identity, but to add to it. Life should be more complex, not less - as long as one remembers that "complexity" and "trouble" aren't synonomous.


I have a certain interest in writing and acting (both of which I'm learning to do). At some point, theatrical productions may become part of what we do (though, obviously not all will wish to, or be expected to take part). In fact, performance may become part of ritual. Having said this, I should mention that I believe in realism in theatre, to a large extent. I want to create that illusion of reality, that suspension of disbelief. And that's exactly what is lost if something we do on stage is false.

An example of this, commonly seen, is that of the lovers in bed, who have just finished making love. Maybe they are wearing pajamas or she is covering herself with a blanket. Now, I've been active sexually, as have many of those that I've known, having been with a number of partners, as have they - that's a lot of people having sex. And I've heard of exactly one case where the partners weren't naked. Experience suggests that, generally speaking, in 1998, sex tends to be done in the nude, contrary to what is suggested on stage.

As for those strategically placed pillows and sheets we see so often - having just explored each other's bodies intimately, what would our fictional lovers have left to hide? In the real world, I've heard of exactly one person who quickly covered herself up again, and those who knew of this preference, all thought it was very, very strange. (As, indeed, was she, who admitted that she had an issue with men enjoying themselves too much, and yet saw fit to be with a few hundred of them. There were some unresolved issues, apparently, with rebellion against a puritanical upbringing which she had internalised to a greater degree than she had imagined). I'm sorry, but when this is done on stage, it is so far out of step with common experience that unless it is an expression of some unusual trait we see brought out in the full development of the character, it will ring false, undermining the suspension of disbelief needed to make a play work.

One of the conventions of the stage that usually serves us well, is that of the fourth wall. The characters do not know that they're in a play, nor do they know that the audience is there. I did, in a class exercise, get away with breaking the wall once for comedic effect, but only by making the audience part of the action - not by having my character acknowledge the fictional nature of what was occuring. What would the characters be hiding from? A blank wall? If there is such a scene in a play I am producing, yes, the actors will almost certainly be unclothed, and no, they won't be covering themselves. If I am one of those actors, yes, you will be seeing a great deal of me, but not because I have elected to expose myself to you, but because artistically, it is the right choice and the nudity will simply be part of the job.

Am I planning to write such a scene? Not at the moment. In particular, I don't see such a scene naturally appearing in a mystery play. In productions not tied to ritual, but purely for amusement, I'd be likelier to leave it out altogether. But as one of my old teachers once taught me, in writing one should never censor oneself. One should simply let the development flow unimpeded and let the work write itself. If, in the course of writing a piece, this sort of scene comes up, I won't shy away from it. I don't view the honoring of that taboo to be sufficiently important to justify violating the integrity of the work. Nudity onstage, while not particularly sought, will not be avoided, either, should its presence prove natural to the development of the work.

This is not to say that we are oblivious to the fact that the actors aren't the characters. Being on stage does not mean that anything goes. For an example of what doesn't go, it might be more convincing if, in a love scene, the actors did actually have sex - if the actors were OK with this, so their dismay didn't appear on the faces of their supposedly happy characters. But, the reality is, the actors are people with lives - and often significant others - of their own. Just because the characters desire each other, that doesn't mean that the actors do or that the breach of fidelity that this might represent would be acceptible to their partners, or in general. Dedication to the work is essential, but self abnegation is unacceptable.

The issue is not the presence of the audience, but the presence of the actors. We set aside the nudity taboo because it is a meaningless and arbitrary convention. But the seriousness of sexual intimacy is quite real, and far better to hurt the work than it is to hurt those performing it. Yes, even if it is part of a ritual. A ritual should show respect to those one worships. If one violates that which is sacred to them in the process, what one has shown them is anything but respect. To our beloved Aphrodite, the sense of dignity that we approach our sexuality with is certainly in that category. We fail to honor her, if we fail to respect ourselves and our loved ones. The form of a ritual must never be maintained at the expense of its purpose or the well being of those taking part in it.

As always, it is a question of how far you can go, without hurting yourself, and knowing what is important and to what degree.

This question that we have answered here betrays an assumption that the only valid answers to a question are "yes" or "no". But, even given perfect knowledge, one is still left with the reality that people are free willed to a degree. Events are not preordained. Thus, sometimes the full answer to a question can only be one of the many forms of "maybe, it depends", with the level of certitude reflected by one of these intermediate levels of truth. Life is not to be totally planned in advance, and sometimes it must surprise us. If the surprises are acceptable ones, we won't seek to do away with them just to accomodate the anal retentive.

If someone is bothered by this, our response is - live with it.


Click here to return to the previous page.