The stark truth about stripping off for charity
Some people, including zoo staff, just got naked at a ZSL London Zoo Streak for Tigers charity event for critically endangered Sumatran tigers. Naked people, male and female, some painted as tigers, streaked around the (presumably closed?) area of the zoo, all for a good cause, so where’s the harm? Well…
Whatever happened to raising money and/or awareness while keeping your clothes on? This isn’t really about the tiger-streakers – kudos, in my book, to anybody who helps animals, the collective name for Sumatran tigers is a “streak” (so, erm, there’s kind of a link), and at least, this time, both sexes were involved. Too often, it’s just women who are topless or fully naked – from the radicalised breast-baring of Femen, to the cyclical disrobing of animal rights charity, Peta. Then there’s the “free the nipple” protests – arguing that women should be able to publicly display nipples just like men do, and more.
When, in 1999, some Women’s Institute members posed for a nude charity calendar (props wittily positioned to obscure body parts), it was fresh and unexpected. As was Peta’s initial “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” campaign. And, further back still, John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s “love-in”. However, increasingly, it seems that nudity is a key default charity/awareness/protest position – to the point where it’s become almost drearily automatic to drag your bits out for a good cause. And, if nudity is being used, that usually means that sex is being used – and most of the time, that’s female nudity and female sex.
16 July, 2017, 21:30 pm