Centralised Shopping

By: Jonathan Seidel

The invention of malls: centralised culture and hypermarkets (Baudrillard, 67)

Malls aren’t new in idea but are in structure. Marketplaces have always been at the centre of the city. Shops with all types of resources from clothing to food. These can still be found in Europe and the Middle East. Yet the modern mall based commonly in America recreates the model but in a standardised complex. Its history and decay demonstrate an interesting development in American culture that seemingly isn’t as common in other areas of the world. 

Shopping malls colloquy date back to the Greeks but these presumably existed in other parts of the world as well. A marketplace like the Greek agora was a destination that people can exchange goods. Buy wares and enrich themselves. The Greek agora had similarities with the contemporary outdoor markets. Owners screaming out their goods and prices, a wide variety of goods as well as hole in the wall gems. The market is a place to walk through and find that good that is desired. A place everybody frequents. A place of socialisation. Built in the city centre to amass the people to a collective unit. A place of joy and competition. This theme has routinely developed. While the merchant use has declined with the nation state, the purchase of goods has not. Middle East marketplaces may hide in the city corners due to the urbanised construction but they are utilised in the primitive manner. Walking to these marketplaces to gather goods for the week even if the social apparatus is not the same as it once was given the technological advancements.    

Shopping malls was the successor to these marketplaces but only after reclaiming the mom and pop shops. Moving out west required pop up shops to act as the resource centre for the new settlers. These local stores became the mom and pop shops that exist in the neighbourhoods all over the country. Urbanisation superseded the mom and pop shops with department stores. Agriculture was replaced with manufacturing. Thus Macy’s and Sears opened in the 1860s in the metropolitan areas. These big retail stores were powerful in urban areas. Acting as the central resource in big cities even making their way into suburban and rural areas in later years. These resource heavy stores were more affordable than the mom and pop shops yet it all came down to transportation. Smaller towns kept to their own local place. There was a stronger homey environment and debt to those around as well as limited transportation that ensured the local shops remained in stock. Not so much for the urban areas that placed these manufacturing at the heart of the city. Providing jobs and new living standards. Prompting many people to follow their trend. Mom and pop shops were outdated and archaic. These manufactures were innovative and creative. 

Malls became more prevalent with the onset of the automobile industry. With many suburbanites travelling to the city, a mall could be placed on the away or in the opposite direction as long as a vehicle was available. This phenomenon reminds me of two different theatres at home. One on a main street and one on the highway. The theatre on the main street opened in 1947 and the drive in off the highway that turned into a sit down a decade later. The suburban life quickly overpowered the main street cinema. The renovation of the mall cinema is much nicer than the recently renovated theatre that was trashed until new ownership a decade ago. Suburban life quickly eclipsed the old way. A mall with all resources in one place overshadowed the old main street. A street akin to a marketplace boarded up with mom and pop shops. Street vendors had become shopping stores. Buildings to cover and house the goods instead out and about. The variance is only stylistically. These main streets though evolved over the years still harbour specific goods instead of a gigantic complex away from the village. The main street is the middle ground for all those citizens living in the surrounding area. A street of shops enclosed from the houses. 

People could walk to the main street and still do. While not necessarily as popping as a mall may be, there are and have revived shops to enjoy over the mall far away. The main street is filled with locals devoid of the department stores. A local barber may be of interest but not the clothing store. It is nested in preference and price. Cars enable people to travel. People even travel for a barber to get a good deal. Loyalty is muddled by cheaper prices. Yet it was only in the fifties that commuting became common. The malls opened the door for cars bought in the previous decades to be utilised for longer drives. The main street was an easy but the fun of car travel and the ease to a bigger cheaper market was worthwhile. Everything was in one arena. Malls skyrocketed in the post-war era with 4500 malls by 1960. Malls operated as social scenes. Becoming centres to shop and walk around. Enjoying the air conditioned complex with many stores to choose from. Acting as an attractive hub for those who wished to spend their day shopping or walking around. It was away from the noise of the streets and the outdoor heat or cold. A tempered area of joy and fun. Everything at the fingertips.

Larger hypermarket stores began opening their own branches in suburban areas. With commuting as a non-issue, people would make their way to the large department stores. Malls could still house mom and pop shops under more enjoyable circumstances. It was more the atmosphere than the stores themselves. Hypermarket stores sold more than one item. Walmart and Kmart focused on delivering a range of goods at a considerably lower price. For smaller towns it became the centre to buy everything instead of the pricey mom and pop shops. In suburban areas the same can be seen as well. It wasn’t a big deal to spend a little more time to arrive at a department store that had everything in one place. Unlike the mall, only one store needed to be visited. Unlike earlier department stores, these hypermarkets supplied everything. It was a single place to get everything one needed. With internet and e-commerce following shortly thereafter malls began to die. What keeps them kicking is their social enterprise. Some hypermarkets are affixed to malls like Target and Costco. While Walmart has always wished to remain distant from one, others have differed on their approach, though in many regards the wholesale store is much larger than the mall construction. 

Walmart brilliantly expanded to the e-commerce business to stay alive but it also seems people enjoy pick-up and shopping in the building. To have multiple options as a top retailer is superbly beneficial. Walmart does not provide the social cohesion that malls do but that doesn’t matter nor does it provide the quality that its competitors may. Yet the price diversity and ease of its usage is promising to consumers. Some people may enjoy the in-person shopping. Some may cling to the classic model but online is the dominant force especially as gas prices soar. Abercrombie & Fitch, and Victoria Secret do not supply the necessary diversity quality and pricing for the new online age. Macy’s is falling short as well as the end of Toys R Us and Sears. The large department stores like the mall shops are no match for the hypermarkets. Amazon and Walmart have benefited from e-commerce and diversity of brand. Kroger and Costco though unique as the former is a supermarket and Costco a warehouse both adapted to the new age. Beyond the e-commerce the shopping assistance in Kroger and the high quality surplus are key for consumers to travel to them. People don’t need socialisation they are just looking to purchase good quality for a good price. 

Malls have resurfaced in the recent years but this may be solely a temporary response. Condemned in apartments during the pandemic lockdowns ushered in a need to get out and a need to socialise. People ordered persistently online but such a habit grew old and people wished to explore once again. It has only been a year or so. The emotional reaction need only to revert back to the norm. The resurgence of the malls will eventually lead back to its downfall. Malls may never entirely close. People like the walk as well as the personal acquisition. Yet the obsession in suburbia may only last a little while longer. Without a social shift malls will crumble in their wake. The ease of consumerism has overtaken the social element. Hypermarkets are gathering places of purchasing. Not a place of wandering like a mall. A place that one moves from store to store. The mall is attached by stores but acts in its own independence. An enclosed main street away from the local housing. Yet the seeming anti-social constituency need no malls to act as marketplaces. People are content with purchasing goods online. The allure of social buying has become foreign in America.

This is not the scene abroad. More metropolitan areas have department stores and hypermarkets. Name brands highlight the main areas where mom and pop shops used to prevail. Yet there are more social markets. A respect to the ancients in their primitive classy exchange of goods. Urban areas contain open-air markets and suburbia hosts mom and pop shops. While urbanisation and technology aided conglomerates to expand their businesses across the world, some countries have retained their cultural hub. McDonalds and Starbucks may have locations everywhere but the local models retain their breath of air. Some of the western countries though held onto to the past have also embraced the present. Walmart failed in the EU but England has Asda, France has Carrefour and Germany has Kaufland. The onslaught of the EU does provide international hypermarkets like Tesco to reside in Czech Republic and Slovakia. Hypermarkets have grown across in the Balkans as well. It is a phenomenon of growing economy and centralisation of a product. The hypermarkets themselves are the old fashioned malls. Instead of an arena with stores on the side, the gigantic store houses all these items. It is all under one umbrella easy and simple. 

Some countries like the Netherlands and Israel have held to their local shops. There are retail chains but not as frequent. Dutch are cyclists and Israeli cars are expensive so it is easier to attend the local around the corner. Though modern stores do dominate the Netherlands. On the other hand Mexico and the Philippines demonstrate a more traditional style. It is cultural and at the same time economic. As modern retailers spread their wings internationally there isn’t much that traditional stores can do to keep up. Just to hope they can continue to compete. While it is important for the smaller retailers to adapt to the new age there is also a hope for a social change. For countries that rely on these local branches it is the structure of the culture. Isreal being a perfect example of this. The lack of hypermarkets allows locals to continue their work and the prestige of their classical markets overhauls the new well endowed malls. With high gas and car prices people rather walk a few minutes to the local electronic store or supermarket instead of travelling. There are bigger stores but transportation is a requirement. For Israeli traditional stores their luck is due to convenience. 

Mom and pop shops only need to get customers too frequent to habituate them. It is a difficulty but traditional stores are all about friendliness and assistance. It isn’t about the depth of supplies but the owner. The subject instead of the object. The obsession with mom and pop shops is helping out a friend. Most would rather the cheap brands absent knowledge of the local brand. It is the care to the traditional store down the block that rectifies a communal connection. Mom and pop shops can help themselves by advancing their technology but many of these owners are in their elder years. Yet even the younger ones hold to the honourable connection. The local mechanic or appliance guy. It is the consistency, seeing them outside the store. An entrepreneurial feat. Yet beyond is about social cohesion. The market in suburbia is absent but the main street makes up for it. A street with all the resources diversified by store. More expensive than a big retailer but with more friendliness and more concern. Hypermarkets have centralised life and resources. People could still socialise at Walmart as they would at the community centre. Yet there is a stronger communal hub to the diversification and isolation of goods to various individuals. To purchase goods in the homeland instead of travelling to the outskirts for goods. 

Cars highways and parking lots lead the public astray from their local goods. They amass in a deserted field to purchase. Instead of trotting down Main Street seeing all your friends and heading to the locals goods. Staying in town and recognising the good that is around. The capitalist individualistic culture seeks to isolate socialisation. E-commerce denies leaving the house to attain goods. Where ancient markets were places of gathering to socialise and purchase, the modern Main Street has become a ghost town. There is business but it is nowhere near the prestige of the olden days. The mall was a circus of cultural inclusivity. The repurposed public square. There is a certain lacking in this age since Walmart nor Amazon provides this. Markets were never just about the goods. They were about the social fire. Malls added elements to jog interest but it was always about collectivism. Economics may be the rationale but it is accompanied by a youthful sneer. Looking at the relic as an archaic way of life. Though millennials look at their parents on main street as aliens. Today’s socialising is virtual. Watching elderly men sitting on a park bench by their favourite coffee bar playing backgammon is a blast from a bygone era. The excitement is online or elsewhere. Taking the car to go far away or just staying inside on the virtual landscape. 

Malls may be a hassle to get to but the Main Street is just around the corner from home. Spend a date walking down the street. Check out the local barber. Admire the extent of the town. This was once the gathering spot of the township. A bygone past that must be revived. The elderly need not be the sole collectors of this time. The virtual is parcel of human experience but it lacks the interpersonal. Get off Facebook and go for a walk. Suburbia has expanded and the Main Street may be a little further but don’t fret. Use those legs and check it out. At times it looks a little beaten, a little broken but it can be revived. Only by those who care. Hypermarkets and larger retailers will remain but suburbia can be the first to rekindle the flame of the old Main Street. The centre of township and communication. To actually know the people in the neighbourhood and befriend them. The local street is the foundation of the town and its light, the younger generation must stop running away either fleeing the city or locked up in the bedroom. The mall is a daze and can withstand, yet it is outside of town. It is away from the community. Revitalising the connection to community is to reverse the modernist heritage. To care for the collective and rely on the neighbourhood. For Main Street to renew its place as the core of the community.

Malls acted as that community away from town. A place of paradise in a foreign fantasy. Yet their distance has destroyed them. A generation unforgiving and unconcerned with their downfall. Their interest is withheld. Yet the main street is only a few blocks away. Stepping outside, going for a run or hanging with a friend. All possibilities to enjoy the local atmosphere. The area may need to be revamped but it can. Instead of moving away to the city or moving elsewhere try to rebuild the area. Befriend those in the neighbourhood and reclaim the communal aura. No need to travel, it is right around the corner. 

Heroic Failures

By: Jonathan Seidel

Heroic tragedy and Luke’s demise (terminator, indiana jones etc.): sequels destroying beloved characters (Cioran, 83)

Shakespeare’s heroes always die. Yet the modern tales provide blissful endings. These tales have left the door open for sequels. The character reemerging in a second story. A story that derails the character and makes them a shell of their former selves. 

Shakespeare’s tragedies tell wholesome tales of heroes who attempted to conquer their fate. To chart a new destiny. Though in many respects successful, they met their doom at the end. The hero was sacrificed in order to bring his image to the forefront. The hero praised for his skill and remembered for his bravery. The hero is no longing living but his memory is engraved in the audience’s mind. The marvel of his plays was not solely the intriguing plot lines but the character investment. The audience became so enthralled with the character. Following alongside him in his treacherous journey. Rooting from from the sidelines. Only for the character to meet his demise at the end. An end to a worthy protagonist. Mourning over the loss but praiseworthy for his ability. A harsh ending but a legend to persist to the end. 

Their demise engraves their legacy. They are engaging characters who invite the audience into their missions. Their death is a signal to their beauty. Their death is itself mesmerising. Their legend is codified in the art of literature. Their fate sealed from the start. Their legacy to be written in the plot. They begin and end in the storyline. There is no hope for the beyond. Concentration is on the momentarily spectacle. Just as an actor is a character on stage and then off stage resumes his personhood. So too the heroes are actors for the setting. They fit the plot and that is it. There is no desire for the future nor estimation of the sequel. Tragedies fit the one and die. What is relevant is not the end but the cause for the end. The hero’s journey is even swept up in the possibility of survival. Forgetting their inevitable demise. Yet the aspiration undermines its integrity. 

Happily ever after was a periodic phenomenon. While there are examples since the eighteenth century, the Grimm brothers had some awful endings building off the stories of Perrault. Disney introduces the happily ever after to encourage the tale for young children. The gore of the Grimm’s stories are screened for children. The grand movement to teach fairy tale for children transformed fairy tales into innocent plots. Disney’s push in this direction provided an estimation while still ending the storyline. Yet that wouldn’t be for too long. Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty both had sequels. Happily ever after thought denotes the end only provided an outlet for more consumption. A possible storyline to carry over. Happily ever after leaves the door open to ponder what happens next. It will end okay but there may be some ruffles in the middle. It intended to end the tale but consideration of the next stage. What was Cinderella’s life as a princess? How was Aurora’s life as a mother? Curiosity entails more investment in the characters life. Their life is beyond the presented plot. Tragic heroes die marking their end but not so the case for the Disney princesses. Their tale continues inquiring of the next saga.

The idea of the novel sequel began in the nineteenth century but ancient books may also fit this theme. The Bible, Epic of Gilgamesh and Homer’s Epics (though the mythological prose may deem the difference). Recycling characters through their journeys. Yet it is in the modern era that this style is imprinted in fiction. Oresteia is an Ancient Greek trilogy. But its persistence is much more noticeable today. Going beyond the trilogy to seven book series. Contrary to the ancient prose, the modern format was an economic motivation instead of an intellectual one. The ability to recycle characters with new story lines made living possible. Beloved characters in new situations. Just recall the countless number of Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew books. Always the detective books that could surmise a new plot for the brave protagonist. Quite episodic and not necessarily flowing. Storylines that didn’t mesh with the previous book. Selling books didn’t necessarily mean carrying past memories into the upcoming books. The intention of the sequel is to do the exact opposite. It is to relate the second book to the former. For there to be a serialised connection between the two. Had you not read the first book, the second would be unfamiliar and confusing.

Given the prestige of recycled characters for more profit the 1900s saw some of the classics branching out to new adventures. Straying from a single storyline for pluralistic possibilities. The Wizard of Oz, The Martian Chronicles, Sherlock Holmes. Comic books followed up on this trend selling dozens of copies that fell into the episodic genre. Cervantes killed off the protagonist in Don Quixote to ensure no third parties would reuse his characters. A way of voiding stealing characters. Cervantes was providing an end to his character. It was his creation and thus for him to do with as he pleased. The tragic hero may have been of use to prevent others appropriating their characters but the philosophical aspect still remains given Shakespeare could’ve reused his characters. If writers could afford to write more than one book or even more profit from their characters it was well worth keeping alive. A tactic to ensure the utility of a character’s strengths. Whether or not the sequels were linked to their predecessors was of little concern. What mattered was the character’s continuity. The world of the protagonist didn’t change and that was the key to the readership.

Serial writing is most credited to Dickens who popularised it during the victorian era. He wrote his books in instalments. While today such a book of his has been compiled into a single cover, at one point it was published in newspapers every month a new chapter. David Copperfield was once a monthly issued instalment to eventually be codified into a single compilation. The same goes for Les Miserables and Middlemarch. The advance of technology and possibility enabled Weir to translate his blog into a best seller. This serial style of writing boiled over into writing book series instead of extended manuscripts. Instead of publishing eighteen parts over two years in a newspaper, place a single book on the market followed by a cliff hanger. One Harry Potter book is a quarter of The Count of Monte Cristo, but firmly around the size of David Copperfield and Middlemarch. Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones while with some episodic tangents demonstrated a serial link between their books. Continuity is successful as well as it is evolutionary. The author must be aware of his previous work and eradicate all potential contradictions. Unlike James Bond, beginning the Lord of the Rings in book two misses the mark. The first book is necessary to understand the characters. 

Harry Potter by and large is the most famous example. Other recent examples would include Percy Jackson and The Hunger Games. Yet this model of serialising in film goes back to WWI and The Fall of the Nation. In novella sequels to Gulliver’s Travels like The New Gulliver not written by Swift do represent a shine in the sequel department. In contrast to Dickens, this was after the book was published and seeking an alternate setting. Frankenstein’s Son and and Dracula’s Daughter were sequels but did not follow an original movie. They ran similar storylines but were not serialised. Movies like The Godfather have new storylines like James Bond but connect to the previous film. It is an entirely new mission to be ended at the tide of the movie but it is still linked to the former. This comes up with many serial movies such as Indiana Jones, Jaws, The Incredibles and Frozen. The use of the sequel is to reuse the old characters with a new plot. Their growth from the previous film is noted but it is aligned for the new adventure. Even some trilogies fit in this category that of The Dark Knight and Superman trilogies. The same character is rehashed but by the end of each film the setting has ended and a new movie begins. 

Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are the exception. Though A New Hope does end in episodic fashion, the survival of Vader only beckons more to be seen since Lucas wasn’t sure of the reception. To some extent the first one had to be ended in such a manner in the hopes that it would be the last project. The Empire Strikes Back ends on a cliffhanger. The same can be said of Lord of the Rings. It is only in the third movie that Aragon becomes king and Sauron defeated. In the same manner, Voldemort is only defeated in the seventh book of the series. It is this type of storytelling over books that separates from individual movies. These movies are akin to long television series. The mother isn’t met till the end of the ninth season of How I met Your Mother. Even with episodic notations, the ultimate goal is not reached till the end. The story is building to something and must be reclaimed. The Blacklist is followed through seasons to figure out Red’s identity. Until that mystery is solved the series isn’t over yet. There may be a lot of episodic pandering but the ultimate aim is present. The hero’s journey must be accomplished. 

The completion of a project embeds that character in the mind of the reader. In many regards it is the lack of sequel that keeps the character alive. Recycling James Bond or Doctor Who works because of the nature of the sequel. The episodic nature keeps the character fresh. There are rare links to preceding tales and live by their own accord. It is the continuous use of the same actor that inquires a reboot. The changing actor also changes the storyline. It is a fresh face to observe and enjoy. It is obviously episodic and entertaining. The same goes for comic books and their film adaptations. Changing batman keeps the story fresh and the plot interesting for different generations. The lacking link furthers the character’s divestment. A character can only go for so long. Characters are mortal insofar as they are written linearly. If written in a serial manner they follow the mortal coil, yet in the episodic realm it is fragmented bits that can be from whenever. Each storyline depicts a varied memory. The plot is temporary before moving to a different time period or universe. 

A series can last long. The Fast and Furious franchise is at number ten but it is finite. The actors are aging and the storyline is blurring. The Transformers franchise has muddled in its inability to create new storylines from its linear development. Characters reflect societal rules and are mortally redundant. Yet the sequel factor in its serial nature seeks to build off the the predecessor. Yet its accomplishment is generally deficient. There are exceptions but many originals cannot outdo the originals. They flop in their incapability to measure up. The first storyline was captivating the second is mortifying. Iron Man 2 and 3 paled in comparison to the first while The Dark Knight was better than Batman Begins. The Joker storyline was more compelling and executed better. The same goes for the Godfather II over the original and The Empire Strikes Back. The originals left something to be desired and the sequels capitalised on their originals beauty. Toy Story and Indiana Jones both did well fell off and redeemed themselves by the third movie. Providing a beautiful ending to a trilogy. Even if the episodic material is strong. It is the rebooting later on that destroyed the movie. 

Characters do their thing and then move on. Indy’s final moments with his father completed the series just as Luke blowing up the Death Star or batman’s death. The new batman worked because it didn’t bring Bale out of retirement to tell a new story like they did to Hamill and Ford. Their characters were a shell of their former selves. The new Matrix centred around a new character after having defeated evil twenty years ago. The issue for these reboots is prolonging a story already ended. Doing the characters an injustice by reviving the evil they rid. The end was the end. The characters survive and are beloved for their bravery. Bringing him the glory and fame. That is the end. All is well, happily ever after. Nope, not so fast. A new evil arises. Their entire plot line in vain. Their actions meant nothing. They are now crummy and old. Mentoring the youth on an evil that they seemingly never erased. The heroes failed and their characters shattered. 

Sequels work if they are different from the original. Indiana Jones develops through the movies. Even though Nazis return for part III, the introduction of his father and quest to assist bring a new variable. The same can be said of Return of the Jedi and the Palpatine vestige. Though the lagging elements of the sixth movie find parallels with The Dark Knight Rises in their finale of fighting an enemy similar to the original. It is the middle movie that is unique. Since they need to close up the trilogy and the storyline, the plot has some identical pieces as it races to finalise the timeline. The failure of the new Star Wars trilogy against the prequels is the direct consistency between the new and the original. It is the same storyline albeit different characters. Rey is Luke Fin is Han and Luke is Obi Wan. They have different personas but they are the same type of people. The prequels present an alternative metric one with an evil lurking behind the shadows one that builds up to an empire not a parody of the same. Bringing back Palpatine secured this ridiculous reincarnated retconning. 

Obi Wan’s death in the original fits into the series, since his feats of his youth are then eased in his early exit. His mentorship beyond the grave demonstrates a shift in development. He has ceased fighting as a warrior and instead has evolved into a sage. Luke does nothing of the sort. Rey rarely struggles and the mentorship is attempting to be there but sitting on the side doing nothing. The absent Luke does diverge from the Obi Wan character but it decimates his great prestige. Killing Luke off would’ve been better than his wallowing. He was still around and yet not around at the same time. Luke’s absence is the extreme of change. There is no continuity. Change needs to be balanced. A hermit dealing with the blow of his failures works but to bastardise him into a supporting role that diminishes his view ultimately kills the franchise and dooms his legacy for younger viewers. The same goes to the elderly Ford bastardised in both Star Wars and Indiana Jones while somewhat redeemed in Blade Runner 2049. It is alright to elderly and at times a sidekick mentor type but not to become a wriggly old tiresome individual to watch. 

The failures of the previous two Indiana Jones movies do well to erase the growth in the former films. The third movie ended the trilogy and the newer ones brought the same themes with worse action. The over the top cartoony aspect, the nuked fridge and of course the aliens. While it isn’t as bad as the most recent one it does prove that sometimes a franchise meets its end and moving on is the necessity. The same can be said of the matrix. Neo is just a shell of himself catering to an overpowered protagonist. The enemy was dealt with it and that is the happily ever after. The opportunity to see what happens after is credible but it is a door left open that need not be opened. Just because more can be speculated doesn’t mean it should. Sometimes it’s time to hang up the cape. They reached the finality. Though if a sequel is to be spawned the sequel must meet the original in some regard. Obi Wan being a main character made sense given his eventual mentorship. His friendship with Anakin only bolstered his importance. The transition from warrior to mentor was smooth something that was disoriented with Luke because it was the same ideal done worse. If Luke was given a pivotal role alongside a second character like Rey it would further his resolve and interest.

Luke was dead from the get-go. His appearance was hard to watch. While there are divergent theories that could have been tried. One being the good guys and bad guys working together against a new enemy or the bad guys helping purify the imperfect good guys as done in The Mandelorian. Disney’s decision for new characters broke with the past. It created a new limelight without letting go of the beloved characters. Had none of the beloved characters been screened then it wouldn’t have received the ire it did. It would be annoyed at the poor writing. Yet to take the beloved characters and make them inferior and suppress them to fools underscored a disastrous intent. It wasn’t about the story it was about a personal desire. Control over Star Wars and thus an ideological bind. A sequel may have worked. It may never be up to par with the original but it could have made waves and well received. Instead it burned the bridges. It attempted to banish the past for a monstrous new world. One that cares little for development as well as for legacy. A revolutionary paradigm that focuses on cheers and power. 

The sequel turns the tables on the main character. Testing the limits of the audience’s patience with the variance of the protagonist. How many ways can he be stretched. How can he be empowered and expanded. A perfect storyline is extended with much caution. The horizon is creeping up. The fairy tale ending is halted. Instead the fairy tale ending is challenged with a new story. The hero is now at a new struggle. One not foreseen. His peaceful persistence is forced otherwise. A director awaking the zombie from his peaceful slumber. Restless forcing him into a new role away from his his genuine personality. A zombie addicted to the new set without care for the audience’s input. The sequel must provide a new adventure that allows the character to evolve. For the fairy tale to end more progress. His happily ever after has not been achieved. The former ending was the first successful mission. Balance between caution and risk. Evolve with integrity.  

The Great Wall of China

By: Jonathan Seidel

Symbols and letters: Chinese literate traditionalism   

The Chinese language doesn’t have an alphabet. Unlike its asian contemporaries Japanese and Korean both have alphabets. The linguistic explanation is logographic versus syllabic. The Chinese model is quite ancient while the Japanese and Korean is quite more modern. Yet the syllabic languages use Chinese characters. The uniqueness of the Chinese language is its longstanding un-alphabetic paradigm. Even the Egyptians hailed for their hieroglyphics eventually evolved their system. What is so special about China?

Chinese hanzi is used throughout the asian continent. Both Korea and Japan utilise these characters for their languages. Korea created its own language hangul in the fifteenth century and for Japan hiragana in the fifth century. The use of Chinese characters may suggest the belated effort of a writing system. Writing became relevant for political and technological advancements. Its necessity grew out of urbanisation. For China it began during the Shang dynasty as for Korea it began under the Joseon Dynasty. A sense of nationalism as well as coordination was critical for political logistics. Since the empire needed to keep records of people and taxes. Pictograms which preceded the alphabet was a measure of symbolically recording data. The need to ensure vast quantities of the past whether treaties or philosophies was printed on tablets. Chiseled into the stone from right to left. The larger the group the more necessary the announcement to be encoded. 

Pictures were the first written symbols. Each of the classic empires had a similar pictographic theory. Each of them began by drawing a fish or a bird. In contrast to other cultures, Egypt’s drawings are more exact; they look like drawing while others look like stick figures. Pictographs developed into logographic signs to expand the language. The evolution of Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Chinese languages slowly morphed their depictions of the figure into a sign. The sign was an ideogram similarly to mathematical symbols such as 1 means one. Just by looking at the number the viewer is aware of its meaning. The same is of the Chinese characters. Fish is pronounced “yu” but the symbol is the convincing part. Chinese has over five thousand characters. Characters that symbolise various features in nature. Instead of drawing a fish or a tree every time, draw a few lines in a certain shape to denote the image itself. Just as the sound bird inflects an image of the creature so does the character. This is not an easy system which is why Chinese is so difficult to learn. A way to ease was to combine symbols in a similar vein that combined pictures would mean a new thing. Chinese already does this with dawn combining two characters. 

Japanese kana is a syllabary system in which Chinese characters change from concept to syllable. When seeing a character it will be sounded out instead of applying an image to it. Similar to an alphabet but different. In the alphabet each character makes a sound, individualistically recorded but the syllabary character makes a consonant plus a vowel sound. So in English, two letters are necessary for the sound ka (“k” and “a”) but in Japanese only a single character is necessary. In this way there are less quote on quote letters to be used in a syllabary system. They operate in a similar way as a phrase of letters or symbols will be sounded out. Both grouped characters will sound the same but spelled differently. Japan took on a sound-based system. Even the Egyptians in their hieroglyphics turned into a syllabary system. Hieratic served as the cursive form turning pictograms into loose depictions and then into symbols. The demotic was its successor more easily written with ink on papyrus. It was extended for public use. Simplifying its parental style for others to utilise easily. Coptic was the final nail in the coffin turning the symbolic language into a lettering alphabet. The hellenised influence marked the shift. The addition of autonomous vowels properly distanced itself from its ancient heritage.

The first alphabet goes back to the Phoenicians who inspired the greeks to make their own in the wrong direction. Well even before the Phoenicians, unskilled labourers compiled it because hieroglyphics were too complex. Letters were independent and bunched together to make words which symbolised objects. Yet the sounds mustered by the vowels were not clear and were based on the reader’s inference. In this regard the spoken word was projected on the page and reflected back to the speaker. The word was marked by oral understanding. The difference between the Torah scroll and a Chumash will be blatantly obvious. The scroll has no vowels and the reader must guess but the Chumash presents the vowels to tell the reader how to pronounce the word. Classical arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew were abjads with prior knowledge or context to interpret the word while today they are impure. A great hebrew example would be “zaken” is old and “zakan” which is a beard. Sometimes the sounding is different based on the chronology of the words. In English letters are vowels but that is not the case in the ancient alphabets. Each character has its own sound but that sound is not obvious from the lettering like English. Technically the greeks have the first alphabet given this adage to the current English language.

Alphabetisation is a simplification of the syllabary and even more so of logographs. The letters are to make words that stand for objects. It is twice removed from the object itself. Instead of a symbol whether a picture or an ideogram, it defines the object. Yet to explain a situation various images are necessary to detail the picture. Some are simple other situations are not easy. Ideograms are also not so simple in this regard. A character mixed with other objectification are combined to explain the situation. In an oral society it is more intact. The character phraseology is easy to discern as a reflection of the verbalism but the complexity and advancement of recorded data desires a more advanced system. While this may be a decorative approach, dynasties of eras have survived in China. It may have more to do with expansion and cultural pluralism than primitive simplicity. The birth in the eastern Mediterranean region along the fertile crescent makes sense with a frequent tradespeople who travelled through the region. Spreading their alphabet marked their territory. For an expansion of trade a simpler use of characters to explain enhances literacy. Sharing a literacy with others is a democratising force to discuss with foreigners. A system other cultures could adopt and transfer goods simpler. 

An alphabetical system beyond trade was also helpful for the commoners though it not shocking that with the advent of imperial rule of Assyria, Babylon and Persia the use of Aramaic was nationwide. Influenced by the Phoenician alphabet it gradually spread across the kingdom. Diverging into various dialects across different nations. Even if the script was different the sounds were similar. Paleo-Hebrew of the Israelites and Canaanites is identical to the Phoenician alphabet. The current form of Hebrew is a modified form of the Aramaic alphabet (in the Talmud there is a distinction between Hebrew script and Aramaic script). When hellenisation rose Greece sent by their alphabet and when Rome rose they inquired of the Latin alphabet. While not entirely identical the ironic similarities between the Phoenician greek and latin is genuine. The greek alpha and latin a is a right side up Phoenician alep. For bet, the greek and latin added a second loop, for giml greek turned the letter around while latin changed the shape to a curve.  Delta is the same as dales though the latin is different but he is backwards for both greek and latin. Though the old italic Etruscan alphabet already made room for the delta to be a d but turning it sideways while lambda was turned forty five degrees east to then be straightened out. Most semitic alphabets varied slightly from the Phoenician with similar sounds while the greeks simply inverted them to write in the opposite direction. Each variation is small and gradual creation of the seaport accounts.

While all the alphabets were swarming, China remained with its logographic creation. Unnerved and unconfined of the shifts. With its centralised isolationist mentality it rarely needed to alter its language. Japan and Korea wishing to distance themselves sought alternatives. By then trade had reached and linguistic information was well expanded. The combination of symbols and letters was a nice touch to combine the western and eastern halves in an eurasian combination. For the Canaanite workers in Egypt hieroglyphics were implausible. They had little relation to the culture and older found it difficult to read. In a sense, the lower class invented the most profound evolution in history. China’s strict hierarchy is unable to reckon with the historical plunges of bottom-up western progression. There is certain ideological input into maintaining the tradition of old. China still uses its old ways because it wasn’t hampered by the outside influences in the same manner. It did have its share of external impacts but linguistically it remained part of its own world. Away from the Middle Eastern crowd that turned into the European centre did not require such noble shifts. China was filled with various dialects but all under the same rubric. Orality was very strong and writing was for the select elites. China remained true to form throughout the generations restricting venturing off into the abyss. 

To foreigners the Chinese language is vexing. Head-scratching peculiar signs drawn with precision. The foreigner wouldn’t know where to begin. The characters so foreign how do they sound. Yet the insider recognises the ease of the language. The characters symbolise objects; it makes sense visually. Emphasising meaning at the expense of transparency. Yet its transparency is difficult for foreigners. A young child can point to the character for blue or fire while struggling to sound out the words. To some degree the difficulty of character quantity may have led literacy rates to be minimal until the recent century. Whether this is imperialistic or merely a marker of oral centricity is debatable. Given the extensive strokes to write characters literacy was not necessarily desirable. China did quite well without a writing system. There is an anti-democratic notion in the lapse of literacy but individuality as well as protest is not foreign. There was a strict hierarchy embedded in the social stature which divided the literate from the illiterate. To some extent its isolationism allowed its literacy to remain on the fringes at the same time it was a weapon of the elite to remain atop the food chain. Though its restricted literacy muddled technological advancement, it maintained a communal fire and moral affinity affixed into the core of society.   

The pride of china refused the convenience of alphabetising. Yet to some degree it is an inevitable part of their isolating stance. If the alphabet was created by illiterate workers finding a better solution only to be utilised throughout the expansive imperial rule of various cultures. The letters are similar, the sounds are identical. China didn’t have that issue staying true to its successive rule. There is a deep level of respect for keeping the age-old method of literacy. For keeping to their particularistic structure. Adorning the quasi-oral nature of their characters. Keeping the image alive even if it’s expansive and complex. It is cultural and unique to its isolated history.

Triangular Nipples

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Free the nipple: prideful shirtless men and shameful half naked women 

A decade ago, a movement began for women to embrace freely topless in public. It hasn’t caught on globally with many conservative respondents feeling a bit inappropriate. What is the difference?

Anyone who tells you that wearing a bra is a part of the patriarchy is either delusional or speaking of a specific religious society. Ask a man on the streets if woman should walk topless and he’d happily welcome it. Apparently seventy years ago men weren’t able to be topless. Men fought and were provided the access. There was a certain religious asceticism that has barred skin. Reminding of the classic epidermis tease. Skin is apparently a nose bleed away from fainting. Arousal at the expense of freedom. Norms stapled into the psyche. Liberation is the cause for oppressive cover up. Pigs do roam the streets delighted to see a nudist colony surrounding them. Oh the freedom they’ll say. Eyes bloodshot boners stiffly erected. Nipples hardened and vulva irrigated. Quite the imagery. Horniness amidst a mood swing. Even with clothes on, men get erections, all the more so naked. Libido won’t miraculously vanish. While it may become more normal to see boobs it doesn’t take away from the desire. Will everyone be walking around with a boner? Potentially. In the span of a few years will it prevail normally, maybe. Though the accursed reaction to a boner is quite negative, so maybe it’s good to get it out in the open instead of hiding it behind some garment. 

Wearing clothes seems to originate as a function of safety. Wearing clothes to prevent disease or death. Fur coverings would protect from the cold. Ironically in the same breath moving to warmer climates humanity began shedding its hair to a halt. Then during the dispersion to colder climates they had to adapt with animal fur for survival. In the evolutionary regard, we are the naked of the animals. Our clothing covers our bare exposed skin. Sunburns and tans alter the skin tone either to a darker shade or a red stain. Yet humans are not the only hairless mammals, elephants and rhinos also fit this display. The same evolutionary argument can be made between mammoths and their elephant descendants. Whether Africa was cold before the ice age or the only habitable place during the ice age, humans in Africa didn’t need their fur no longer. Romans really held to the hairless phenomenon. While clothed, they saw contrary to the germanic barbarians poise and posture to be manly. A demonstration of human excellence. With less hair and sweat glans the brain enlarged. Oh for the evolved beast to demonstrate his distinction with dress. He is no longer a beast but a man. 

Recent studies believe clothes began before migration. A way of modesty in the hairless adaption of the mind may have proposed a need for covering up. Self reflection and social interactions necessitated a charming veil. Fitting beautifully with Adam and Eve. Mythologically displaying the human attainment of knowledge. While hairlessness depicted Adam’s intuitive division of animals, only after eating from the tree does he recognise his nakedness. His mind enlarged and interacting naked erotic. Banished from Eden he must migrate fulfilling the command of conquering and settling the land. Forced to fend for themselves amidst the droughts and impending starvation. Dress symbolised higher knowledge, distinct from animals. A mode of higher being. Cain’s wandering may also resemble the migration until he settles and builds a city. Whether the biblical stories align with historical lineage is debatable but the mythos is clearly teaching a shared memory of humanity’s early development. Clothes mark a new force of human experience. A way of survival in the colder areas but even prior in the hot African sun, found intelligence to reconcile nakedness as immodest and needing concealment. 

Unlike the greek myth nudity wasn’t as common as it is was prior to the invention of clothing. Humans were hairless for a time prior to their boosted intelligence sparking a veiling revolution. Whatever the reason, social or hunting, clothing became a necessary barometer of success. For sexual mating or for body armour. Both may be the cause but clothing across the board measured the success of human proliferation. While clothing was necessary for hunting and protection, in warm climates, the frequency seems to side on the social enterprise. For status or for seduction. Materials means wealth which means production and superiority. Clothing symbolising status eases interest for seduction and procreation. To what degree people cover up is debated. Meaning wearing a gold chain and gold watch in a birthday suit may only cover the neck but it does demonstrate one’s wealth. Though the principled manner in which one carries themselves is more than just gold. Dressed up portrays an enlightened individual. Man has evolved from a beast. He no longer looks or hunts like a beast. He dresses to differentiate and place himself above. 

Seeing a well dressed man is synonymous with solicited looks. For females, a man well dressed placates his own arrogance. In the human evolution, the more dress the more financed the more capable. As humans drifted to colder areas, clothes were even higher demand. Only those with the means could afford to keep themselves warm. In hotter climates, clothes still remained particularly necessary. Just because clothes weren’t necessary, did not mean that they were worthless. Societally, the presence of clothes showed that even in this warm climate, it is still well regarded. Today, suits are worn in nice areas despite the sweat that accompanies the wealthy wearer. Slaves wore nothing, though out of modesty they may have had a tunic but usually was ragged. As clothes became more common, the design became a model of status. Only those with the unique brands. Wearing a tattered shirt meant poverty. Ironically, girls who wear ripped jeans are a style that is more expensive than whole jeans. A girl who rips her jeans is poor, a girl who buys pre-ripped jeans is rich. It is just how society operates. It is not necessarily about how much something covers insofar as it is socially incumbent. Wearing a wig or a hat is out of style but fifty years ago it was appalling to not wear one in public. 

Ancient Greece for all its nudity was selective about its use. In gymnasiums during sport but not along the road. Even if it was for men, it sure wasn’t for women. Greeks took dress seriously. Shaving themselves to the ideal physique. While greek art may present nudity in all forms of activity, it doesn’t necessarily translate to actual everyday life. It may have appealed as an ideal to the artists. Greek soldiers probably fought with armour instead of naked bodies as depicted in art. Realistically, nakedness is dangerous and armour protects those areas. Craftsmen weren’t stupid enough to handle dangerous conditions naked. Smartly enough covering themselves to prevent injury. Summarised that Athens was not a nudist colony, quite the contrary. Nudity in sports as well as rituals either idealised the archetypical expression or exposed the bare to the easiest form. In rituals its purity and in sport its mobility. Both examples demonstrate nude behaviour but for specific situations. Next exercise workout solely in underwear the freedom is massive compared to the extra layers worn. The gym demands a dress code but at home in the confines of the home, bare is the best to strengthen. The hedonistic side has its context modified and mitigated in the grande scheme.  

Greek cults did perform sexual rituals. Some ended with child burnings and others with priestly castration. The hellenisation of Rome added some nuance to these rituals. While in public nudity was rare, private occult groups found their calling in violent practices in the nude. Emperors and wealthy royals held sexual parties. The sexual promiscuity did meet on more lively matters with wine and music but was relished for the moneymakers. For those with status to cleave onto their desires. With mysticism stretching its yoke in antinomian terms. Shed the yoke of the legal chains that bound the peasant. Stand up against the oppressors. Their roles are drowning your freedom. Sabbateanism had a sexually deviant side and strong celibate side. Taking the mysticism of Kabbalah to an unhealthy promiscuous level. Modern cults who hail magical elements involve in orgies. Each of these while breaking the norms of religious fraternising are secretly executed. A deified brothel in the religious circle. Finding liberation and at times crewed manipulation to exploit sexual infidelity and restrictions.     

Naturism otherwise known as nudism began in the late ninetieth century. With the enlightenment in full swing and religious norms cracking, German scholars promoted the first journey of nudism in 1902 with a club opening in Hamburg the following year. By the end of WWI it was quite frequent in Western Europe even becoming an international federation in 1951. Due to pressure of rouges undressing in the street, clubs were appointed post WWII for designation. Undressing was allowed just in certain areas. Apparently some people couldn’t let go of religious dogma. Though ironically membership has dropped. Seeing naked old people is not a fine sight for many youngsters. Scandinavia is a sight for nudity in saunas and beaches but publicly its not so different from other European countries. In the past thirty years public nudity has become more legal but not necessarily acceptable. There seems to be a stronger liberal chain to permit than the general public actually wishes. While art has always canvased erotica citizens themselves held themselves to a formal dress code. 

Though the naturism is a step ahead of the free the nipple ideals. Bare-breasted is only half nude. Certain native societies were bare chested while others exposed boobs. To some extent, there is a utilitarian motive. Potentially covering boobs was to prevent chaffing when strapping a baby on the back. To preserve the function to nurse her babies. Convenience may have gradually determined dogma. The bra was invented by a woman for her own comfort. A combination of possibilities demonstrates the variables that led to dressed women. Men wandering shirtless wasn’t too fond in western culture until recently. Certain climates were better for toplessness. Cold climates would wish to cover up the easily prone boobs. It is not clear that is specific religious dogma or mythological poems that orchestrated coercive concealment. It may have bolstered or elongated dress but not the root of covering up. Hair covering may have originally been about placing hair together to keep it out of the eyes, placing it in a ponytail so you can do the dishes easier. Covering up was practical that over time added a spiritual layer and later a legal dogmatic part. Given the lack of pictures and seemingly playing to art which at times was idealised even Egyptian culture was debatably nude. Then again Egypt was warm and Greece could get cold in the winter. 

Toplessness in western culture elevate the libido. In topless cultures they are used to it. The erotica is from the fancy added whether that be jewellery or makeup. In this regard, nudity and sexuality are not always mirrored. The complacency with the naked female body finds erotica with added layers. With varied positioning. For westerners who have clothed themselves publicly see nudity in its erotica. The difference in erotic art today than medieval is striking. It is the consistency that prevails. Consistency lowers erotic dimension. It is the constant coverup that leads to bikinis being a sore sight for horn dogs. The simple unveiling of an ankle to a kneecap only frightens the erotica more. This happens on both sides. Dress is conduct but it also hides the sexual feelings. There is a certain stare for the revealing of inch by inch. It is the lack of realism or more fantastical idealism. The objectification happens on both sides of the aisle. There are fetishistic and voyeuristic attempts to undermine the promiscuity of nudity. The taboo only exists insofar as it is covered. Once unveiled, once normalised it is no longer erotic. It is no longer objectified in the same way. To some extent it is chilling. There is a sanctity and intimate linkage to the body. Covering is not so much status insofar as it has developed its spiritual prowess.

Nudist colonies are able to manoeuvre without boned arousal. There is a freedom to sexual impunity but it is also the desacralisation of sexuality. The nudist areas are desensitised to sexual appearance. It isn’t perfect of course but in time seeing the body up close and personal doesn’t arouse the same emotions. Guys will get erections but it needlessly is a part of their biology. Covering up is a quick way to void the embarrassment. The erection indicates that you have yet to overcome the objectification and arousal period. Just some more time. Patience is key and respecting time is the nudist way. Using a towel though ousts the personal perpetrator is consoled in his own journey from failure to success. A lacking sexual interpersonal relation is bolstered. No longer is objectification the mainstay of human activity. Conversations see beyond the peril eyesores A traumatic concern with the nude is a portrayal of insolence and insecurity. A subconscious interpretation of bodily expression. One that is sensitised to sacred purity. Naturism is an acceptance of the social product. A gradual transition to “subjectification”. Focusing more on the encounter than the person’s ability.

The one reservation is if the relational attitude becomes more surfaced. If right now we focus on face. Now we can do so by all deciding which figures look the best plain. Then again, desensitised to the beauty is a method of overcoming the     dogmatic barrier so inherent in the physicalisation of others. Those dimensions are not aspired. The naked is only desired with clothes covered. Libido may be present, emotions will swirl but the attraction will extend beyond traditional norms. Beauty becomes less tangible. The anthropological aspect of sexualisation is the desire. It is that which is not seen. That which is made taboo concealed behind a veil. Once that veil is released emotions mobilise. The striptease is the quintessential depiction of this event. Undressing in motion is more sexual than the nude. The performance of reducing clothing is gradually accepting the taboo. Just as a story slowly brings the plot to the climax for the awe sensation, so does the movement of undress. It is not to appear naked but to reach the finality of nude. To some degree it isn’t even the nude but realising the nakedness unveiling in plain sight. A more solicited yet stingy sensation in the hormonal magnification. 

Does this mean that content beats colour or that internal beats external? Will people finally see what is inside over what is outside? At first for sure not. People will be overwhelmed with the bodily imagery. Whose dick is bigger, whose boobs are nicer. The objectification is the first realisation but in plain sight the pornographic visual will be diluted with speculative nonsense. Real life boobs beat videotaped boobs. It is then the urge to stare without touching. To enjoy the sight without copping a feel. The stimulation is flaunted in normative routine. Boobs will be awesome and will always be awesome but they won’t be as centred after some time. Seeing boobs all day will minimise their importance. Going about everyday in the nude in passing glancing at the female bosom. People will still judge the appearance. This is not a solution to personality over looks. Attraction still matters but it may matter a little less. Though it will also open those to strive to look better or for those not to care. In whatever direction society shifts. It would seem that if the visual nude is projected consistently its urgency will fade. It is only due to the secret, the taboo and the potential that musters so much mystery and desire. 

Clothing has its necessity. Protection status and honour. In a way, naturism removes those status symbols. Equality is truly impending. Without all the designer dress and coverup insecurities is the bare minimum human creation. Was Adam’s sin ingratitude? Was Eve’s sin insecurity? Their nakedness an embarrassment from of their ineptitude. It the realisation of their sin, profound knowledge and thus shame from nakedness. Was there need to be ashamed? Did Adam and Eve invent shamed nudity? To some degree the more figurative explanation of caught redhanded is a far superior model. Attempting to cover up their sin with garments. Changing who they to desist from the sin but no matter how they dress, they can’t outrun the sin. The original Hebrew uses the word “arum” as cunning and naked. The cunning desire that was compelled now became part of nature. The shame came from the unsolicited desire. Knowledge does not mean purely intellectual understanding but the negative desire for urgency. The shame encountered required covering to delineate the objectification that was pronounced with the new intellect feeling superior with status. The skin garments were better than the loincloth since the skin would protect them in their migrations. Life outside needed innovative clothing. Covering nether regions needed more nuance and more emphasis. There is a mystical reading that seeks to return to this edenic paradise. To be nude vegetarians is the highest goal of man. Reversing Adam’s sin and becoming pre-sin Adam. 

Modesty even in the biblical books is about actions than dress. It is only in the hellenistic ruin that modified dress becomes a pillar of necessity. Customs emerge demanding the sexes cover certain parts of their body. Body parts become unclean to see by the naked eye. A strong mystical front seeks to purify by abstaining in hyper-dressy nature. Modesty becomes intertwined with dress. Through the Middle Ages such debates and dilemmas have questioned the nature of modesty. Dress has become a cardinal element of presentation. A status symbol as well as an identification symbol. Though ironically, while Jews were forced to wear yellow stars even nude they would be singled out. The abrahamic circumcision indefinitely will guide the familial element. Even in the nudist world there can be factions. Sexualisation may be down a peg but that does not delete colour or culture. A liberating feeling but not one that necessarily breeches the barriers of hate. Though a start would refocus modest on character than clothing. Every era presupposes its clothing norms. How to dress and where to dress. Revoke the institutional claims for the nudist foundation. Not entirely a blank slate given the physicalisation. Even in Rick and Morty nipple shapes determined groups so too cup size may. 

Free the nipple is a motion of relaxation. It has its perks but does it solve everything no. Is that the point? No. Clothing is overrated but we are ashamed of nudity. We wish to hide our figure. Maintaining a distance and mystery concerning it. Birthday suits are honest reflections of he self. It is not bold it is straightforward. More boobs in sight will discount the sexualised features but it also may divide into big boobs and small boobs. Growers and showers. Hypothetical but reasonable. While nudity feels free in the moment of excess from constant wear does a constructive nudity, a generational nudity feel the same way. Liberation only feels truly liberating when shackled to a norm for so long. Breaking free of the curse is a victory but growing up with the new norm has no liberating cause and sees the nude as a model of life. Little objectification but much bullying on behalf of grandiose figures.