joreth: (Nude Drawing)


http://blog.blowfish.com/culture/greta-christina-caution-contains-nudity-and-sex/831

This touches on several of my problems with nudity in our society.  For instance, I believe that wherever men go topless, women should also be allowed to go topless because I don't see the difference.  Many people think that mamary glands automatically make breasts a sex organ and therefore there is a difference.  I disagree.  I think that, when the rules are first changed, there would be a big stink about topless females, but that's a cultural issue that will evolve with acceptance over time.  It is clearly not a biological issue because other cultures do not view breasts as sex organs and I know plenty of guys who are sexually aroused by contact with their nipples.  I also know plenty of people of either gender who get aroused by caresses and kisses on the neck, but we regularly expose those and no one has been unable to prevent himself from attacking a woman in a sexual frenzy over the sight of someone's neck.  No one has been struck blind or developed cancer by looking at a woman's genitals, and expecting a person to cover up because someone else can't control himself is not solving the problem, it's ignoring it.

I also see no problem with children running around naked within the context and confines of an environment that does not include adults who sexualize all nudity (particularly nudity in children).  I had a discussion about this recently with a mother of a child who likes to run around the house naked.  The mother has no problem with it, but a close family friend suggested that this behaviour be discouraged when company comes over, or at least when certain individuals come over that outsiders might use as a wedge to cause trouble for the family.  At the moment, the child's nudity is not sexualized because she has no concept of sexuality.  As soon as you start enforcing clothing, particularly if it is inconsistent with regards to whom, when, and where, she will start to learn that there is something "wrong" with with her body.  It's important for her to eventually understand that *some people* think nudity is "inappropriate" in certain contexts, but it's a very delicate matter to separate social "appropriateness" from her own feelings of "wrong" about her own body.  And anyone who has ever tried to convince a toddler to wear something when she doesn't want to knows the futility of the argument, all philosophical issues aside!

I also have conversations trying to explain that nudity is not automatically sexual.  When a woman gets naked at a party where others are also getting naked, and then hugs someone goodbye, she is not "pressing her breasts" and initiating a sexual act.  In this context, the nudity is not sexual.  Like love, nudity is separate from sexuality but often entertwined. 

The point that Greta Christina is making in her article is that people who are comfortable with their own sexuality also tend to be comfortable with nudity in general in a non-sexual context.  She seems to note that there is a correlation between people who get uncomfortable with casual nudity and people who believe that any and all nudity is erotic.  And it's my opinion that the belief that all nudity is erotic can lead to feelings of shame, low self-worth, & low self-esteem about their own bodies and selves, and can contribute to a difficulty in relating to other people, particularly to those members of the gender one is usually attracted to. 

In my observation, people who are more comfortable with casual nudity, who understand that nudity is not always sexual, have an easier time relating to members of their preferred romantic gender and have less confusion and less awkward situations regarding what is "flirting" and when someone is interested or not.  People who understand that  nudity and sexuality are separate (but related) have an easier time understanding when nudity is being separated and when it's being used for sexuality.

"The more grown-up part of me understands that bodies have lots of functions, of which sex is only one. The more grown-up part of me understands that other people’s bodies exist for their own pleasure and their own purposes, not necessarily for mine. The more grown-up part of me understands that being comfortable with my body doesn’t just mean being comfortable with my sexuality — it means being comfortable with my body when I’m not feeling sexual."

Greta Christina makes a few good points in this article, so I recommend that everyone read it.

(deleted comment)

Date: 9/16/08 08:27 pm (UTC)From: [identity profile] leora.livejournal.com
The purpose of a tie is to cover the buttons of a man's shirt, because if the buttons were visible, women might think about how they are used - to unbutton the shirt, and that could cause people to think about naked chests, and we simply cannot have that.

When toplessness in men started to happen, it was very controversial. Old bathing suits had tops for men as well. This absolutely is cultural.

Date: 9/16/08 09:11 pm (UTC)From: [identity profile] leora.livejournal.com
Plus, I find it quite upsetting that we enforce a sexist cultural disparity in toplessness. The sexism bothers me more than the inability to go topless.

Exposure to virii is still a bad idea. A chunk of the protection that vaccinations provide is that they decrease the expsoure rate of that virus. If all of the population is vaccinated, then you have fewer carriers, so you both have protection from it directly, and it spreads less providing indirect protection. The indirect protection is actually very important (how important varies from vaccination to vaccination, but they have percentage of the vaccinated who would likely catch different viruses if large percentages of the population are unvaccinated). This is actually really important, because it is why other people idiotically not vaccinating their children not only endangers their children, but endangers me and my family.

Date: 9/20/08 01:10 am (UTC)From: [identity profile] may-dryad.livejournal.com
I also remember reading something about ties coming into fashion after the Edwardian style of tight, knee-length breeches with long, open-front jackets went out of style. When the genital bulge became less visible, the tie became a replacement phallic symbol.

Anyway, I like to think that both explanations are true, that a simple article of clothing is meant to both entice and repress women sexually. After all, that would be pretty typical of the other ways in which society tries to manipulate women's sexuality.

Or maybe the lacy cravat was just considered too feminine without the masculinity-affirming bulge to offset it.

Date: 9/17/08 02:45 am (UTC)From: [identity profile] phyrra.livejournal.com
This was a really good read. Thank you for sharing.

I like non-sexual nudity and sexual nudity.
However, I've taken to getting naked less and less these days because of the people around me. It's not because I feel it's wrong, but I feel that some of the other people's behaviors have been wrong/inappropriate, so I don't want to deal with.

Date: 9/17/08 05:25 am (UTC)From: [identity profile] james-the-evil1.livejournal.com
I tend to get nude less because of the people around me too. It makes me sad that they're mostly disgusted by it.
Not because of nudity taboos, but because I am ugly.

Banners
























OSZAR »