@Bellatrix I think my humor was lost on you. I’m having you on.
Of course, many people in the public are interested, but that’s not the same as something being in the public interest. But determining the public interest is a philosophical kind of issue. What is the public good? Normally we think about things like health care and roads and the good of the people.
Is entertainment in the public interest? Certainly. Is entertainment at the expense of public figures in the public interest? It could be argued. Although it would have a cost.
Is public nudity in the public interest? I would argue that it is. I would argue that the puritanical prudery that runs rampant in our society is pretty devastating to a lot of people, especially women, who suffer from the brunt of expectations of beauty. If we were able to be naked more often and in public, then we’d see all kinds of bodies and people would have to stop acting like nudity is a crime, and internalizing the pain from being told their body isn’t fit to see.
As it is, most of us carry a burden of shame about our bodies, and hardly anyone is aware of this. They think of nudity and they get all righteous about it, as if the body is morally wrong, somehow. As if when we show our bodies, we turn into ravening sex geeks. It’s absurd. Yet it is the basis for society.
The more people show their bodies, and especially the more that famous people show they are just like us, the healthier our society will be. Slowly, we will lose the shame we carry about nudity, and as that shame drops away, we will get healthier psychologically speaking. So royal nudity is in the public interest as well as being something the public is interested in.
Of course there are many people who won’t buy my argument. Or won’t get it. Or will have a knee-jerk reaction that I’m being absurd. That just shows you how far we have to go in order to lift the burden of needless shame from our shoulders.