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.
No comments:
Post a Comment