Philanthropic Profit

By: Jonathan Seidel

NGO’s and philanthropic businessmen: Mr. Beast good or bad? (Sowell, 57)

Mr. Beast, aka Jimmy, the most popular YouTuber was railed for healing the blind. Charities created to do that job took to twitter to shame him. CEOs of these groups chastised the YouTube for clout. Yet is this even fair?

Mr. Beast may be doing it for the clout. If we were to accept the nefarious or even agenda driven narrative, that Mr. Beast is looking for views, is that so wrong? Ought we to shame someone who is making himself famous by helping others? He makes a buck healing someone? These NGOs would have you believe Mr. Beast is a villain. He is extorting the helpless for his YouTube channel. He is extorting them for personal profit. Yet none of the blind actually care. The NGOs may care but the victims do not. The victims are now blind free. They can finally see. It took a flashy profit-driven YouTuber nefariously paying for their medication to make more money. For people to see him as a saviour of the people. Evil man he is. The formally blinded are overjoyed. They hug him kiss his cheek. They may even recite a prayer for him or to him. He has blessed them and saved them from torture. He has committed a beautiful deed but apparently such a deed brought of profit is devilish. It ought to be shamed and censored. I do not think the cured care nor see it that way. 

Mr. Beast has used the ill as an example to show his philanthropy. How terrible. He has exposed the cruelties of the world and aided the downtrodden. He has given awareness to hundreds of millions of viewers to this dire cause. Again how awful a man. These people are unnoticed and even if Peter Berger aspires for people to give charitably to Africa it doesn’t happen. Even more so to a cause incredibly remote from them. People aren’t flocking to aid those downtrodden because they have no connection. NGOs attempt to raise awareness but the funds are insufficient. Seeing this gaping hole, Mr. Beast took it upon himself to travel and show that this is an important cause. Maybe Berger would be satisfied with such selfless aid. Did he make a bunch off the video? Probably. Does it matter? No. Since the people he helped are ever grateful. They are being exploited for his pride. So let him show off his grace. At the end of the day, thousands of people will see. That is a win. Whether or not he is such an angelic figure is of little relevance. What matters is the results. 

Is it so wrong that he is publishing this content online? While he is making a profit he is also exposing the dire circumstances these unfortunate people are living with? How much more can you ask? Profit-driven or profit-induced good is still good. It doesn’t need to be non-profit to be good. To be marked as sacred and pure. Such a belief is idiotic. Why can’t money and fame bring goodness? Why does it matter the motives? So Mr. Beast is trying to win the heart of a young maiden or he is trying to grow his channel or he wants people to like him. It really doesn’t matter. His ulterior motives are saving so many at the time. His ulterior motives are not subjecting anyone to harm. They are not distorting nor undermining the treatment. All he gets is some more love and coverage. If the video does really well maybe he’ll do a second trip or use the profit to finance a different trip for a different cause. What a mensch. What a selfless person. Yet all the chatter is how horrible, how selfish and dishonourable he is. 

The haters seem to forget how money meshes with morality. It is no coincidence that slavery ended at the behest of the industrial revolution. Once machinery was profitable those anti-slavery could push back hard. Not only is slavery evil but is unnecessary. This is a devilish act that needs to be abolished and it can be easily replaced. Then the abolitionists in their financed esteem set off to globally push abolitionism. They returned to the shores of Africa to which they first participated in the slave trade and sought to end it immediately. Just as the Europeans forced natives to end ritual sacrifice here they did for slavery. With the economic prowess to thrive in a technologically developing world they were able to “realign” their values. The abhorrent evils were dealt with. The same can be said of the democratic universalism. Democracy was not only promoted as the most economically viable option but then was battled for its expression. For other countries to enjoy the splendour of free markets. The imperialist threads of the 1870s and 1970s were heavily morally induced. Capital enabled ethical restoration. 

This has been the truth throughout America’s short existence. Slaves, women, blacks and then all races and types to equality. Once it was economically viable it was morally possible. A great contemporary example is going green whether veganism or renewable energy. The anti-group is heavily against due to its ineffectiveness. It’s impractical and poses more torture on the individual. It is economically inviable. Technology hasn’t reached that point where vegan food and renewable energy provide the necessary comfort and necessary quotas. They are both super expensive and unhelpful in the world. The same goes for electric cars. The greatness of Tesla is its sleek supercar type ideal. While it has its faults, it is a good car. Yet it is expensive so for the average person there isn’t an option. Until then people roaming the streets halting traffic for the sake of the earth are just making people more annoyed. Most people know of the issues, there just isn’t an economically viable option absent the advocates own hypocrisy at times. 

The power of technology produces like Tesla newer better models that aid people in aligning with necessary good. Advocates have a better job convincing people with a new product than halting the streets. It does nothing but annoy and only creates more hostility. While that may be cruel and unfair, that is the way of people. This is the way of the consumerism world. There is endless competition (ideally) and endless opportunities to reach the pinnacle. Want people to go vegan make it more affordable and delicious. Want people to stop using fossil fuels make better electric cars and stop politicians and Hollywood stars from doing so as well (it can’t be a commoner thing). It is not that people do not care but the options presents are deeply asymmetric. By this lousy electric car that costs a ton to charge and only lasts a few miles. Eat this fake burger that costs double the price and is utterly disgusting. It isn’t that people are immoral freaks but that the options are between delicious and disorienting. 

Alarmists have also caused scepticism to wreak havoc but that is beyond this short piece. Better facilities, better possibilities for all have been provided because someone invented something and made a profit out of it. The consumer market cannot change on a dime to the idealists do it for the sake of whatever. It is just not how the (post/meta)modern man is hardwired. What is attractive is that which is beneficial. Go out and make something that is useful. Spend time working instead of shouting. Morals outshine with cash flow. When an option is better and bolder it will win out. Until such an option is readily available to the consumer it will not be heeded. The question isn’t spare a few bucks, it is upend a lifestyle and pay and extra few thousand at least. It is too early. Yet no one is too entrenched to give up when the better option is safer and better. People love to drive but self driving cars with their superiority will probably win out. Capital has the power to build bridges and mend fences. The opportunity needs to be willing and up to the task.

Mr. Beast has all this money and he with all this capital invests in helping others. Does he win? Absolutely. Do people love him more because of this? You bet. Does that make him evil? No way. He has the funds to do something to help others and he does it perfectly. He waltzes into the area and sets up everything needed to fulfil the ill’s long awaited hopes. He does it because he wants to. He is able to. He pays for everything and makes a return on his investment. His return on investment pales in comparison to the value of sight. The people would pay anything for their illness to be cured. He does it all for free. He does it all for them. So what if it is prideful and selfish. He has saved thousands and intends to do more. Why should we stop him because some NGOs are unhappy? He is helping and they scream menace? They are just upset that he is doing their job smoother and more efficient. He has done what takes them so long to do. He got off his ass and paid instead of running around gathering funds. 

Why are they so mad? NGOs have their own drama and internal issues but more so they are inefficient. They are non-profit organisations that struggle to raise money. People don’t always want to give to causes they know little about. Yet if Mr. Beast opened a gofundme the next day, he would be able to do their job a few times over. His influence and his popularity exceeds their capability. So it is a show. Who cares. They can see that is all that ought to matter. For NGOs to be upset is either because he is ruining their business which is then a good thing since if he heals them all and they do not exist we’ll have a healthier planet. More so he did it better than them. They’re upset because a boastful twenty something year old who makes crafty funky videos on YouTube saved thousands of lives. He is the better model. He doesn’t exist to serve the ill but he is willing to help out. To be angry is to be selfish. If all the NGOs cared about was healthy people like their mission statements say then they would be overjoyed. They would be promoting more people to do so. They just want to be relevant at best and profit at worst. A true charity would be elated that someone else is taking the mantle. 

Mr. Beast’s actions deserve praise not ridicule. He has brought better attention to some issues the intended organisations couldn’t. Whether people like influencers or not, they help. Mr. Beast is healing people. That is all that matters.

Well Intentioned Intervention

By: Jonathan Seidel

Imperialism and abolitionism: the original universal attack (original Vietnam) for a moral good and its contemporary consequences (A day in history, African slave trade)

Europe engaged in the slave trade on a massive scale but the hard truth is that they weren’t the first nor the last to do so especially in the African arena. Yet in a twist of events as quickly as they came they began resenting the system ferociously and persuasively. 

The modern world is rife with global attempts to impose morals on others. Even today, we have yet to reach a point where people can do as they wish. While there is some debate about others do in their countries though this is hotly debated, the nationalistic paradigm is not as much. For example, the classic point is that communists can do whatever they want in their countries but not China nor Islamic countries. Alternatively, due to the inclusion of Islam in the progressive victimisation, the islamic jihad may be okay in other parts of the world (maybe even in east London) but not China’s exploitation or another’s. To some degree many liberals are sympathetic to other regimes like communist ones so that is okay but not another. The same goes for Muslims and Jews. Everyone wants everyone else to get in line with their foreign policy. Where they see human rights violations they wish to get involved. Few people are motivated by isolationist thinking. It is the duty of the west to enter the rest of the world. Whether you are a fan of Russia or you are a fan of Israel. To be a modernist is to believe it is the job of the west to ensure peace in selected biased countries. 

This kind of thinking always has a laugh at Lyotard. There has not and will not cease the pursuit of a single truth. No relativism just monism unless relativism means my way is correct therefore hold to it or else. Yet the prevailing themes of western participation in the global world is frequented by all. Those anti-colonialists believe in partaking in the the rest of the world to rectify the errors of the west. For their imposed imperialism. For civilising those areas. The west did partake in the slave trade and did take their colonial efforts a little too far but their case was just. Their cause was moral. They freed hundreds of thousands of slaves. They used force but the African nations were not going to do so nicely. While the west’s war on communism can be debated, the erosion of slavery shouldn’t. Unlike illiberal Arab or Asian countries it wasn’t religious, it was economic. The imperialists in their rabid abolitionism took to the nations to dispel the horrid practice. To end such a defiant practice. Some lefties may oppose such an action since it is invading another country. Another country can act as it wishes yet when two countries act as they wish, they ought to also do as they please. Deciding where to side is generally on whomever is the smaller group. The invader is not always the devil, it is the perceived problem. Standing beyond the practice is the status. 

In this regard, lefties today may decry the actions of the imperialists. Even if the imperialists rid slavery and moved on it would still be a problem. This is not to say that the imperialists did right by the nation but they did try to rebuild. They eviscerated the economy by ridding slavery. Just like the southern states without slavery inflation robbed any plausible attempt for proper institutionalisation. There was exploitation and conflict rising but it was of freed people. At times inferior status but not slaves shipped off to other areas of the continent. They were limited but free to live. This did give the imperialists a superiority complex which they wove but forgetting the liberation cheapens the growth and stabilisation of the area. Going as far back as the Roman Empire helped bury conflicts and engender prosperity. The idea of an expansionist territory wasn’t always terrible. If a smaller group was being mauled by a bigger fish, the whale came along and swallowed them whole. As a part of the empire the small group and the big groups conflict died and instead provided  privileges as members of the Empire. It wasn’t all good and stole autonomy but assisted the downtrodden which the abolitionist did in the Africa. It destroyed their empire but saved lives.   

A westerner must contest with the issue of slavery. Whether it was handled adequately is a separate story. It is interesting where contemporary left leaning liberals weigh on the Russia-Ukraine war. Those who wish to give foreign aid because of democracy or big bad Russia does sound similar to the anti-communist plunges of the mid century. Those who support Russia against anti-expansionism seem to permit Russia to conquer a freedom seeking people. This push for Russia has little to do with the moral failings of the other and a reflection of the national spot. Maybe some lefties are quite alright with Ukraine and muslims in China situation. Though most liberals and even conservatives find their footing in the western assistance locket. Even these lefties are not isolationists but support staff. The question then becomes what about the good parts that seek to route out the devil. If slavery is highly practiced ought it be eradicated? If China is placing  Uyghurs in concentration camps ought we step in? The reason for not doing anything seems to be not moral but political. If China was not as powerful maybe intervention would be approved. Yet there is much verbal protest by leaders and the citizenry. People care what happens in the world even if there is no actual military invasion. 

The imperialists saw that nothing was going to happen by complaining and crying so they took action. Much of the grief is to the morbid ramifications. Yet the end of slavery entered an occupation. Is slavery worse? Uncertain but it is an important measure to remember. It may have been wrong but it was ethically charged. It was not in search of exploiting at least not the first thing to come to mind. Instead it was to rid the evil slavery and then potentially be the new master. To take over from the horror for a lesser horror. Whatever the take on the intervention it was a noble thought.

Victim Justice

By: Jonathan Seidel

Pain as justice: reciprocated violence and comfort (Foucault, 127, 136)

Prison is the decision of the state to curtail the desire of the victims. The victims want his head but the law prevents it. The law acts as the moral order of man to suspend his vengeful hatred. An ethical society doesn’t murder evil men it imprisons them. The state protects criminals while the victim suffers awaiting salvation in the next life.

Every life is sacred except the one that was taken. Everyone deserves a second chance. Everyone makes mistakes. No one has the authority to take a life. Not even the state itself all the more so an individual citizen. Those wronged are powerless against the state’s suppressing power. The criminal is another citizen who was led down a broken road. Poverty is a rationale for his horrid actions. Destiny was predicated for him. His fated sealed at birth. He was bound for this life. With repudiation and rehabilitation he can be changed. He deserves that much sympathy. He was a robot deprived of freedom to act otherwise. A murderer on a mission. A man deeply neurotic. No man is evil just a screw loose. It is on the victim to provide a second chance. For the perpetrator to pay for his crime and rehabilitate. To make something better of himself. An error that will be paid in full. Isolated from society for such destructive action. He is not evil just mistaken. A man in need of direction.

Prison will guide him elsewhere. He will be rehabilitated under the state’s watch. Marking him on the sidelines alienated from any positivity. In a backwater hellhole he has little to better himself. He will be provided for on the taxpayer. He messed up but he can change. The disastrous joint will alter his perspective. Time to reflect and decide to do better. The devilish guards demeaning the mistaken are assisting the situation. The guards who treat them like insects are inspiring positive change. A hellhole as a punishment for his crime. He must demonstrate that he has changed. Overcome the obstacle of his treacherous act. The excessive disciplinary persecution is horrifyingly counterproductive. A rehabilitation of coercion torture and displacement. Isolating the criminal to specific guidelines. An extended time-out with more physical punishment without compliance. Babied into submission with little recourse. The time-out is measured by limited hope for hope. 

This punishment is destroying the criminal’s soul. Even more than temporary bodily punishment is the literal soul crushing psychological warfare perpetrated by the state. The state honours judgement by employing a corruptible and tragic system. One easily overwhelmed with exploitation. The guards are the enforcers of rules. Yet these rules are discarded for disembodied felons. Giving felons a beating for their status. They are caged animals to be treated as such. If they step out of line they are punished but they may also be punished for just being criminals. A negative aura shines on their heads. Prison is a dangerous place where all the bad guys are locked together. A criminal may receive some ill-treatment from seasoned veterans, from a rival gang or part of new hazing procedure. Locked up is already a deprivation of human mobility. On top of the forced isolation they are enclosed in a facility that is surrounded by angry mean criminals. A hub of correspondence and violence. The destination is not the country club but the boxing ring.

The state takes responsibility by isolation this person and even offers indirect violence as compensation. Yet it is the state that decides this matter. The individual has too much emotion as stake. They are not thinking rationally. Only the law can provide the adequate response. The stable apathetic legal quandary. The mark of order. Yet the law follows the state’s agenda. The state is not innocent of its feelings to the situation. The law has a purpose. To propose order. To ensure logic and reason prevail over heated emotion. No desire for victim regrets or obtuse revenge plots. Stability is necessary. The state is looking out for the family. Her generosity is limitless. She is representative of the people. She is a loving mother looking out for her children. So Cain screwed up and killed Abel. God doesn’t kill Cain he banishes him to wander, reflect and develop. The criminal screwed up, the state in its divine compassion offers a second chance. The humanism, the empathy is off the charts. A true revolutionary reform that values human life in its totality. 

Such apologetic responses for the state make her to be a woman of valour. A righteous queen. Yet she may be the devilish queen Jezebel in disguise. The state seeks stability for its own cause not for the sake of the victims. She incarcerates her citizens in epic proportions. Dealing a detonating blow to any contact between victim and perpetrator. The feds have outflanked the local police. The perpetrator is protected by the state against any harm from the victim. The victim is powerless against the treacherous villain. The law must prevail. Yet the law only decides the verdict of the case. Imprisonment is an added bonus punishment that is forced upon the citizenry. The death penalty played the same role aligning due process with fatal consequences. The inhumane violence has been repudiated. What if the accused is innocent? Lies are woven but this doesn’t take away from the genuine cases that have no retaliation and have no rectification. The victim is left to watch the state haul the perpetrator out of sight. Protected from their anger and vengeful spite. 

Where is the victim’s say in all of this? How is the victim to cope? Is he to stand by while the perpetrator breathes? Sully the memory of his tragic loss? The humanistic reform seeks to overrun the savagery of old. Humanity is no longer archaic nor barbaric. Humans are civil. If one acts barbarically it isn’t on the victim to respond in kind. That is animalistic. That is unenlightened buffoonery. Humans have transcended their devolved devils. With the intellectual prowess there is no more harm to be done. Be the bigger man and send him off to prison. Prison is the evolved form of punishment. Killing a foetus no big deal killing a murderer big deal. The parasite may be kicking at your tummy but it ain’t ending your loved ones in cold blood. Evolved humanity blames society for the rampage. So it is society that will take the reins. Society will compensate for the loss by punishing him. The victims sit there in terror as the state marshals him off to live freely. The victim stands idly by with his dick in his hands. The state ties his hands behind his back. He is chained by the law. The cuts need not restrain him since the legal consequences are scary enough. 

Phobic hysteria refuses the victim to vengefully retaliate. Revenge only leads to lawlessness. It is an inevitable chaotic jungle. Only the Leviathan can act accordingly. Preferring incarceration over the death penalty. Preferring living devils than dead ones. On the off chance one may be innocent but at the core it’s reformed humanity. Encasing the soul away in isolation is the greatest hell the state can ask for but not the victim. Prison is the greatest option for a state that demonstrates control. Capital punishment turns uncool to reformers. Especially with the false imprisonments. She controls the societal order by dividing the innocent from the guilty. The guilty are placed in facilities away from the innocent. Provided nourishment but stolen freedom. Plaguing the emotional with soulful surgery. Stability is necessary, the state is the honest protector. Yet even so, the victim is left helpless. Forced to move on while the perpetrator enjoys his taxes in prison. He breathes and lives off his money. The victim is employing the perpetrator. The murderer continues to haunt the victim. The state has control but the victim does not by any regard. Time is the only imperfect healer. 

If the victim was provided the choice that would change the dynamic. There are biases but this isn’t a permitted open season hunt. Trial must precede the execution. A relative may chase a murderer and kill him in his rage. This redeemer must wait for the court to decide its verdict to hunt the perpetrator down. Once the court finds the perpetrator guilty, the avenger may take his revenge in earnest. Violence is consigned with legal stability. This isn't the king nor the state doing the deed. The court carefully fairly deduces the trial. The verdict is capital punishment. His death is not by a random firing squad nor an electric chair. Lethal injection just removes the pain entirely. How ethical to create a paradigm where the monster receives a fraction of the pain that he caused the victim. So much equity present, really have turned over a new leaf. Where are the feminists? The liberals? Really anyone who claims to stand up for a victim. Nowhere to be found since every life is sacred unless it applies to some ethnic standard. The perpetrator deserves the suffering he caused to others and who better to do than the victim himself. 

Is the victim out of place for acting in revenge? Should he be prosecuted for a state failure? Clyde killed Darby in cold blood. Was he wrong? Darby killed his wife and daughter. The state then let Darby off to catch a bigger fish. Making a deal with murderers. Ensuring their safety on the streets of the innocent. The victim shocked by such betrayal. Uncertain of their case so his lawyer circumvents and causes the victim more harm. The bastard isn’t even imprisoned. The victim in his anger at the failure of the justice system takes matters into his own hands. He murders those who killed his family. Mr corrupt lawyer comes back and tries to take down this murderer. Clyde turns into a cold calculated murderer by murdering random people to make a point. While his descent into madness may be off-putting and diabolical, his autonomy to rid the devils that roamed the street is sympathetically accepted. On the legal round maybe he shouldn’t even be processed. If incarceration is a time-out then we're all just babies needing parental judgement but if it is to remove the dangers from the street then the victim isn’t a danger since his job is done. He doesn’t need punishment for the sake of learning a lesson. The state failed so he took matters into his own hands. 

An avenger is perceived with disgust. Barbarism is the old. Only the state punishes. Yet it doesn’t even punish well. Prisons are problematic and the justice system imploded. Election isn’t necessarily the answer nor is criminalising drugs. The one size fits all theme is dangerous and disastrous. The victim must inflict pain to receive some compensation. If the state takes all the credit it does the victim a disservice. The victim consensually participates in the punishment of the perpetrator. The state is a reflection of the victim but is not the victim. It may be a big brother but not the   victim. The big brother can protect the little brother from the bully but the little brother must learn to fight the bully on his own. He must show the bully he means business. The victim must violently respond to the violence done to him. The goal isn’t ignorance but showing dominance. With the help of the state the little brother stands a top and teaches the bully a lesson. Maybe it's lashes maybe it's a few punches. The physical punishment endured must be countered equally with pain reciprocated. Forcing the victim to bottle up his feelings is a deplorable psychological travesty. Violence is only barbarism when unprovoked. Done in reciprocation is self-defence. Barbarism is unsolicited while retaliation is compensation. A way to elevate the victim to salvager. 

The state's prison system cages the body for the cornered soul. It steals the holistic body from the victim who is wounded terribly. The victim sits at court brokenhearted as the perpetrator snarls at him as the state hauls him away from the victim’s clutches. A reformed system would rekindle the violent reciprocation suppressed in the name of asymmetric warfare. Permitting the murderer to exit unscathed. Such moralistic elitism strangles the victim and defends the perpetrator. Harming the innocent and benefiting the guilty. Instead, the victim is voluntarily provided a defined outlet to reciprocate. To harm the perpetrator just as he harmed him. To provide the solace to the victim and elevate his dignity he must avenge his loss. He must retaliate for his sanity.

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.