On Nudity, Privacy, and Consent

Last week, nude photos of several famous women were stolen from the "cloud", that nebulous storage facility. It is still not clear whether these photos were hacked from individual iDevices or from the cloud itself, but the photos were certainly obtained without the consent of the women in them, and almost certainly obtained illegally. Most of the coverage of this theft (and subsequent unauthorized distribution of the photos) has thankfully focused the blame where it belongs: on the hackers, who stole these women's personal property and invaded their privacy, and on the websites hosting these photos, who refuse to take them down due to some complicated legal shenanigans that make it harder to take down illegally obtained nude photos than potentially copyrighted material. But some of the media frenzy has blamed these women, stating that they should not have taken nude photos in the first place, or that having taken the nude photos they should not have stored them in the cloud (as if that's easy). Others have said that they are celebrities and should shrug off this involuntary porn as simply one of the challenges they face in their profession (as if only celebrities suffer from the unauthorized distribution of their private nude images).

The Church, whether it publicly condemns this event or not, is in some way responsible for the latter interpretation of this scandal. After all, many women who have been victimized find themselves condemned by the Church for their behavior. The first thing we need to say is that nudity is not, on its own, a sin. After all, Adam and Eve were created and lived in Eden naked, and it was only after they ate the fruit of the tree (that is, only *after* they had already sinned), that they became ashamed of that condition. One could interpret the Scripture as saying that their shame about their bodies was among the sins they invited into their lives by disobeying God and eating the fruit.

So if nudity isn't a sin, is sharing that nudity (consensually) a sin? We know that for at least one of these women, the photos were created within the covenant of marriage. Assuming that there was no coercion involved in their creation, that seems entirely sinless. As for the others, we cannot comment on the quality of the relationship that engendered their creation, nor do we know for a fact that they were intended to be shared with anyone at all. Taking a nude photo for one's own enjoyment can certainly fit within a Christian sexual ethic. Even if they were consensually shared with a loved one to whom these women were not married, is that not a healthier sexual expression for a couple seeking to grow closer than one that involves all of the risks and intimacies of a physical pairing?

Regardless, the proper emphasis for a Christian sexual ethic ought to be on consent. We see in Scripture that God himself has shown us this example. The "power of the Most High" does not overshadow Mary and she does not become pregnant with Jesus until after she has said, "Let it be with me according to your word." It is Mary's consent that initiates the Incarnation of Jesus. Even Abraham - not well known as a particularly sexually ethical man - tells the servant he sends to find a wife for his son that if the woman will not consent to follow him, he is released from his responsibility.

So: nudity ≠ sin. Consensually sharing one's nudity with another = only potentially sinful in certain cases. Stealing private nude images and knowingly sharing them without the owner's consent = definitely sinful. Let's keep the focus where it belongs.