Freedom in liberalism is usually defined as “freedom as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s freedom” but that’s a pretty incomplete definition. Our freedoms are diverse and can be broken down into things like physical freedom and mental freedom. Here’s where it gets tricky: while a woman might express her physical freedom by wearing a bikini, that choice could directly affect the mental freedom of the men around her.
Men don’t choose to see a woman’s body, which can trigger sexual instincts. But when lots of women are dressed in revealing outfits in public, these men can’t help but be impacted. Freud argued that repressing sexual feelings too much can lead to psychological harm. So not only is this kind of sexualized appearance affecting men without their consent, it might even harm them mentally. And this isn’t just about bikinis ,other revealing clothing can have the same effect.
The question is: does a woman’s freedom to dress however she likes outweigh the potential harm it could cause to others? This seems to be a contradiction in the whole idea of “freedom” when it comes to clothing. It makes you wonder if the concept of personal freedom in liberalism is really as logical as it seems.
It’s not just about women, either. A lot of men can’t help but get aroused when they see certain parts of a woman’s body, like her chest. This is a natural, involuntary reaction , it’s not something men choose. So in a way, their mental freedom is being affected too. Women, in choosing what to wear, can unintentionally take away other people’s mental autonomy, even though they have the right to dress as they please.
Now, if the government wanted to make rules about what people can wear, who decides what the limits are? For example, why is nudity totally banned, but wearing a bikini, something not too different, doesn’t seem to cause any issues? Who decides where the line is? And more importantly, how do we figure out what’s acceptable?
In a secular government, this whole issue gets even more complicated. Imagine lawmakers want to set a law about the minimum amount of clothing people should wear. How do they make a fair decision? If it’s based on the majority opinion, in a country where most people are Muslim, for example, the majority might want to impose Muslim dress codes on everyone else. But if majority rule isn’t the deciding factor, then what’s the standard to follow? Without a clear principle, how do we even define what’s the minimum acceptable level of clothing?
This is where culture and religion come into play. Culture and religion can help define the boundaries of acceptable clothing naturally, without needing strict laws. In this sense, societies can avoid heavy-handed legal restrictions and instead let cultural norms guide people’s choices.
In countries like the US and Iran, both try to protect people from harm with their laws, but in very different ways. In the US, men don’t have the freedom to choose whether they want to be sexually stimulated by what they see in public. In Iran, women aren’t allowed to wear bikinis. Both countries think their laws protect people, but in both places, there are groups that disagree with the current policies and want change.
So here’s the big question: should bikinis and other revealing clothing be banned because they might cause harm to others? Should there be total freedom in what people wear, and let culture and religion decide the limits? Is the liberal definition of freedom really complete, or is there something missing?
If freedom is defined as the right to act as long as it doesn’t harm others, then mental stimulation caused by seeing someone else’s body could be considered harm as well. If mental stimulation is not considered harm, then why is nudity banned, but other forms of sexualized clothing , like bikinis or revealing outfits aren’t treated the same way? In a rational society, how should the boundaries of acceptable dress be determined? Should they be based on harm to others? Social norms? Practicality? Or something else entirely?
Is Liberalism’s Definition of Freedom Complete
Freedom in liberalism is usually defined as “freedom as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s freedom” but that’s a pretty incomplete definition. Our freedoms are diverse and can be broken down into things like physical freedom and mental freedom. Here’s where it gets tricky: while a woman might express her physical freedom by wearing a bikini, that choice could directly affect the mental freedom of the men around her.
Men don’t choose to see a woman’s body, which can trigger sexual instincts. But when lots of women are dressed in revealing outfits in public, these men can’t help but be impacted. Freud argued that repressing sexual feelings too much can lead to psychological harm. So not only is this kind of sexualized appearance affecting men without their consent, it might even harm them mentally. And this isn’t just about bikinis ,other revealing clothing can have the same effect.
The question is: does a woman’s freedom to dress however she likes outweigh the potential harm it could cause to others? This seems to be a contradiction in the whole idea of “freedom” when it comes to clothing. It makes you wonder if the concept of personal freedom in liberalism is really as logical as it seems.
It’s not just about women, either. A lot of men can’t help but get aroused when they see certain parts of a woman’s body, like her chest. This is a natural, involuntary reaction , it’s not something men choose. So in a way, their mental freedom is being affected too. Women, in choosing what to wear, can unintentionally take away other people’s mental autonomy, even though they have the right to dress as they please.
Now, if the government wanted to make rules about what people can wear, who decides what the limits are? For example, why is nudity totally banned, but wearing a bikini, something not too different, doesn’t seem to cause any issues? Who decides where the line is? And more importantly, how do we figure out what’s acceptable?
In a secular government, this whole issue gets even more complicated. Imagine lawmakers want to set a law about the minimum amount of clothing people should wear. How do they make a fair decision? If it’s based on the majority opinion, in a country where most people are Muslim, for example, the majority might want to impose Muslim dress codes on everyone else. But if majority rule isn’t the deciding factor, then what’s the standard to follow? Without a clear principle, how do we even define what’s the minimum acceptable level of clothing?
This is where culture and religion come into play. Culture and religion can help define the boundaries of acceptable clothing naturally, without needing strict laws. In this sense, societies can avoid heavy-handed legal restrictions and instead let cultural norms guide people’s choices.
In countries like the US and Iran, both try to protect people from harm with their laws, but in very different ways. In the US, men don’t have the freedom to choose whether they want to be sexually stimulated by what they see in public. In Iran, women aren’t allowed to wear bikinis. Both countries think their laws protect people, but in both places, there are groups that disagree with the current policies and want change.
So here’s the big question: should bikinis and other revealing clothing be banned because they might cause harm to others? Should there be total freedom in what people wear, and let culture and religion decide the limits? Is the liberal definition of freedom really complete, or is there something missing?
If freedom is defined as the right to act as long as it doesn’t harm others, then mental stimulation caused by seeing someone else’s body could be considered harm as well. If mental stimulation is not considered harm, then why is nudity banned, but other forms of sexualized clothing , like bikinis or revealing outfits aren’t treated the same way? In a rational society, how should the boundaries of acceptable dress be determined? Should they be based on harm to others? Social norms? Practicality? Or something else entirely?