amanuensis1 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
amanuensis1) wrote2008-04-24 06:26 pm
amanuensis1) wrote2008-04-24 06:26 pm
Entry tags:
Personal thoughts on some recent hue & cry. (If you haven't heard about it, doesn't really matter.)
Why do nudists advocate nudism?
It's not, I hope, because that way they get to LOOK AT NEKKID PEOPLE ZOMG. It's because they think the cultural taboos on nudity are silly. Who decided what body parts we must cover up? Why are bare buttocks obscene, and bare feet are just feet? Why do some cultures think it's immodest to expose one's hair? Are certain parts sexual only because we've fetishized them to be so? Do we like it better because we have?
If these parts were not taboo, would it be taboo to touch them? To exist in a polite society we have a standard that people are generally not touched without their consent. But we seek that consent often. We extend our hands for others to take them and shake them. We open our arms and lean in for a hug. During meaningful conversation, we seek to deepen communication by reaching to touch one's arm, one's shoulder. We are a society that does touch and considers it acceptable to do so as long as the other person sees it coming, does not withdraw or speak against it, and as long as the touch is on a body part not considered taboo.
So what if we took the taboo off body parts?
If I were out in public with you and you were someone I knew and trusted and you ran your fingers through my hair, I would be in touch-related ecstasy. I would sigh, "Ooh, do that some more," and if you continued, no one would run over and arrest us. They might think we're odd, but because you are not touching a body part considered naughty or dirty, we could have a field day. Fondle my breast or buttock or genitals in public, however, even if they're covered with clothing, and there will be cries of, "Stop that! There are children here! You can't do that in public! Etc.!" Why is that obscene, but the other is not?
If I proposed that we do a social experiment where we treated the public touching of sexual body parts with the same politeness we do non-sexual body parts, would people think that was interesting? Refreshing, liberating? They might. Could there be disapproval? What about people who did not want to participate? Would they fear I might label them as "hopelessly stuck in society's arbitrary rules," and be unhappy at such negative labelling? Might people think I just wanted to get my hands on their naughty bits?
They might. I would be hesitant to propose such an experiment.
It's not, I hope, because that way they get to LOOK AT NEKKID PEOPLE ZOMG. It's because they think the cultural taboos on nudity are silly. Who decided what body parts we must cover up? Why are bare buttocks obscene, and bare feet are just feet? Why do some cultures think it's immodest to expose one's hair? Are certain parts sexual only because we've fetishized them to be so? Do we like it better because we have?
If these parts were not taboo, would it be taboo to touch them? To exist in a polite society we have a standard that people are generally not touched without their consent. But we seek that consent often. We extend our hands for others to take them and shake them. We open our arms and lean in for a hug. During meaningful conversation, we seek to deepen communication by reaching to touch one's arm, one's shoulder. We are a society that does touch and considers it acceptable to do so as long as the other person sees it coming, does not withdraw or speak against it, and as long as the touch is on a body part not considered taboo.
So what if we took the taboo off body parts?
If I were out in public with you and you were someone I knew and trusted and you ran your fingers through my hair, I would be in touch-related ecstasy. I would sigh, "Ooh, do that some more," and if you continued, no one would run over and arrest us. They might think we're odd, but because you are not touching a body part considered naughty or dirty, we could have a field day. Fondle my breast or buttock or genitals in public, however, even if they're covered with clothing, and there will be cries of, "Stop that! There are children here! You can't do that in public! Etc.!" Why is that obscene, but the other is not?
If I proposed that we do a social experiment where we treated the public touching of sexual body parts with the same politeness we do non-sexual body parts, would people think that was interesting? Refreshing, liberating? They might. Could there be disapproval? What about people who did not want to participate? Would they fear I might label them as "hopelessly stuck in society's arbitrary rules," and be unhappy at such negative labelling? Might people think I just wanted to get my hands on their naughty bits?
They might. I would be hesitant to propose such an experiment.
no subject
I do understand the difference in level of directness; my point is, the basic interaction is probably something on the order of "Hi, we haven't met; here in a little bit I'm hoping to touch you somewhat intimately," and in the bar interaction, most of the time it also involves an attempt to lower your defenses (by feeding you alcohol), which I think sort of levels the two interactions somewhat. I'm saying they are similar in type and perhaps not entirely different in degree, though clearly they are not identical, and noting that still, there is relatively little outrage about the bar approach except in situations where the woman says no and the man doesn't go away.
Also, I realize I haven't spent much time in bars as a real adult, so my direct experience is, you know, a bit out of date, but at least in the late 80s in my neck of the woods, the "sometime later" you suggest there might have been in like twelve minutes, you know? Which makes it not so much with the different, though I agree in a bar there is at least some sort of mediation or structure (because generally I think a bartender will stop facilitating someone being creepy and being told no).
I totally agree, again, that the OP was not wise in what he posted or in his assumptions. I just was really surprised by the way so many people seemed so, so firmly of the opinion this had to be unequivocally sick and wrong, rather than seeing how maybe he was ill-informed but not necessarily fully evil.
no subject
Also, never had someone try to pick me up in a bar. But it's not so much the directness that bugs me, but the *complete* lack of interest in the woman as anything other than the owner of a pair of breasts - the "not only do I not know your mind, but I'm not taking even the slightest interest in it, and I'll go away once I've got what I want" part.