Yes, that is shameless bait for Google.
Here is the image for your contemplation. This man is neither naked nor nude but he is trying to make a statement about nudity. He isn't making the statement he thinks he is making.
That is a tine crop from a much larger picture. I think it constitutes fair use. This is the safe for work edition. If you want to see the whole enchilada, go here. I have a sneaking suspicion he didn't have to borrow the outfit for the day, that he actually owns that outfit.
San Fransisco has banned public nudity and this, naturally, has inspired a protest. Ironically, the protestors succeed in making a case for the ban in that there are so few of them and they are so obviously exhitionists.
I want to make another point, however. Remember the topless protests of a few weeks ago. Most of the women in that protest wanted the right not to flout their sexuality but the right to hide it. They just want to treated the same as men and they hoped to be ushering in a world where women could walk about without bras and no one would look at their breasts in a sexual way.
This puts them in an odd position of arguing that their breasts are not sexual even though it was painfully obvious that they knew that they are sexual. The irony was that the only woman who looked comfortable in the photographs was the one who was obviously an exhibitionist.
But look at our friend above. Notice how he has to be in a role to do this. He is in costume and wearing make up. And not just any role but he has to be a in a sexual role. If he'd worn a clown suit with a cut out to expose the right bits the message he would be sending about his sexuality would be far different. Likewise, if he had just stood there naked.
Nudity works for him because it is sexual just as it worked for the exhibitionist at the topless protest because it was sexual for her too. There are, of course, other reasons to get naked but they are pragmatic reasons—medical exam, take a shower, change clothes. To get naked to express yourself is to express yourself sexually. Which is why laws against public nudity make perfect sense. Once you allow public nudity, you allow public sex.
And you may say, "And what would be wrong with that?" Well, you don't have to agree with me but pause to consider the larger social consequences of taking intimate things and making them public.
Here is the image for your contemplation. This man is neither naked nor nude but he is trying to make a statement about nudity. He isn't making the statement he thinks he is making.
That is a tine crop from a much larger picture. I think it constitutes fair use. This is the safe for work edition. If you want to see the whole enchilada, go here. I have a sneaking suspicion he didn't have to borrow the outfit for the day, that he actually owns that outfit.
I want to make another point, however. Remember the topless protests of a few weeks ago. Most of the women in that protest wanted the right not to flout their sexuality but the right to hide it. They just want to treated the same as men and they hoped to be ushering in a world where women could walk about without bras and no one would look at their breasts in a sexual way.
This puts them in an odd position of arguing that their breasts are not sexual even though it was painfully obvious that they knew that they are sexual. The irony was that the only woman who looked comfortable in the photographs was the one who was obviously an exhibitionist.
But look at our friend above. Notice how he has to be in a role to do this. He is in costume and wearing make up. And not just any role but he has to be a in a sexual role. If he'd worn a clown suit with a cut out to expose the right bits the message he would be sending about his sexuality would be far different. Likewise, if he had just stood there naked.
Nudity works for him because it is sexual just as it worked for the exhibitionist at the topless protest because it was sexual for her too. There are, of course, other reasons to get naked but they are pragmatic reasons—medical exam, take a shower, change clothes. To get naked to express yourself is to express yourself sexually. Which is why laws against public nudity make perfect sense. Once you allow public nudity, you allow public sex.
And you may say, "And what would be wrong with that?" Well, you don't have to agree with me but pause to consider the larger social consequences of taking intimate things and making them public.
But that's what has happened. Things that were considered intimate at one time are now in the public domain. Moreover, people--some people--believe they have a right to know the most intimate details of other peoples' lives, especially public figures and celebrities. Hence, the notion of persuading people to "come out" if they're gay, or even "outing" them if they appear to be gay. I realize there has always been a political aspect to this, first to prohibit discrimination (a legitimate goal), and more recently to garner support for same-sex marriage (possibly a legitimate goal). But here again people don't consider the long-term consequences of "coming out" and attaching that label to themselves. We now know that sexuality is fluid and changeable, and that people can be homosexual or heterosexual at different times in their lives, though few gay activists will acknowledge this. I don't know that public nudity would necessarily lead to public sex, from what I've heard nudist colonies strictly prohibit any type of sexual activity except behind closed doors. But you can't separate nudity from sex.
ReplyDelete