Disclaimer: It is not my intention in this post to develop or propagate any stereotypes about nudists. These are merely observations I have made in my limited experience. Keep in mind that nudists are just like everyone else - we come in all shapes, sizes, colors and patterns.
I've been looking up quite a bit of stuff on nudism the past few days - including reading through some discussions on hot topics within the community. I have to admit, while I still maintain the importance of separating nudity from sexuality, I'm getting the feeling that I can at least see where my brother is coming from in terms of nudists having a conservative knee-jerk reaction to issues of sexuality. Obviously, my experiences are limited to reading the opinions of nudists on the internet from the comfort of my chair at home, but the condemnation I'm seeing of any connections whatsoever between eroticism and nudism do feel to me to be somewhat excessive. It's a tricky issue, because there are all sorts of legal implications to the portrayal of nudists within mainstream society, but I do feel that there are people out there that are being way too stuffy for their own ultimate good.
Small example: the issue of erections. I don't know specifically how it's dealt with 'on location', but some of the opinions I'm reading seem to suggest that there are nudists who believe that the mere sight of an erection is an affront to their sensibilities. Now, I understand that there is a level of conscious control involved, but there are times when things just happen to pop up. Obviously, discretion is a respectable solution, but I feel like having to run and hide, like as if the erection was inherently an insult to the public, or even intended as such, is a little extreme. Now, if someone is actively "encouraging" the erection, then you're dealing with a whole new issue - an issue that I would agree is best relegated to a private moment. But if it's just an innocent happenstance, or even an uncontrolled reaction to the environment, I don't see the offense.
For those who are concerned, lest you get the wrong impression, many people have said that this is much less of an issue than it is often made out to be.
Another discussion I enjoyed reading through was on the topic of nude photography, and how (or whether) it relates to pornography. Most nudists in the discussion had the expected opinion that innocent nudist photography has nothing to do with pornography - that it's not any different than regular family photography, since the nudity doesn't serve any kind of sexual function. I'm in agreement on that. But I sensed a sort of disdain for nude photography that does serve a sexual function, which most people would classify as pornography. Now, a question I feel like I want to ask, is this: Can a photograph of a sexual act ever be considered not pornographic?
This is an incredibly complicated issue, compounded by the matter of defining the term pornography. And I don't really feel like getting into all of that at this time. But the bottom line, for me, is that when it comes to pornography, or what many people would consider pornography, there's trash, and there's gold. Ultimately, it's a matter of taste, but what appeals to my taste appeals to my aesthetic sense of beauty, and that's something that has a certain amount of worth to me, even if the subject matter is sexual in nature. Sex can be as beautiful as it can be dirty. So while a lot of the nudists in this particular discussion seemed to carry an unspoken view against the merits of pornography in any context, my view is that a photograph taken of a sexual subject can be every bit as pure as a photograph of a nude person enjoying innocent, non-sexual recreation, or of a clothed person doing the same, or anything else. Granted, the topic of sex is not necessarily appropriate anywhere and everywhere, or in discussions with just anyone, but that does not mean that it is something to be ashamed of. Isn't that the case with nudity, for a lot of nudists that haven't "come out"? They don't feel comfortable talking about it with just anyone, but they respect the lifestyle just the same. Shouldn't sexuality be considered just as pure as nudity then? More on that disparity later.
That's pretty much the point I wanted to make on that topic. Another interesting issue brought up in the thread was that of sharing nude photographs. Most of the nudists in that discussion expressed general comfortability with being photographed in the nude (in a non-sexual context), but with a decided reservation about who would get to see those photos. I understand my feelings on the issue are a little more liberal than the norm, and I can respect their concerns. Many nudists do have a reputation to uphold - although that's something that I personally don't like the idea of, having to hide oneself. I feel like one of the ideas of nudism is being yourself and shedding the masks and deceptions of clothes that you wear in society. But unlike me, most people do value their position in society, and simply can't risk the implications of being labeled a nudist, particularly in a society with many unfortunate and negative misconceptions about people that take pleasure in being nude.
One person used a phrase that sums up my feelings on the issue of being seen nude quite well. The idea is this: just because you see me, doesn't mean you have me. One of the most pervasive arguments against the sharing of nude photos of oneself with strangers, particularly on the internet, is the fear of what strangers might do with those photos. I think the implications are clear, but I have to ask, just what are these people afraid that someone is going to do? Honestly, how does it hurt you if some creep gets off to a nude photo of you? My feeling is that if somebody finds me attractive, then I'd be happy to indulge them, as long as it doesn't inconvenience me. Now, I enjoy taking nude photographs of myself, and sometimes in sexually suggestive poses. If somebody is interested in seeing those pictures, why should I keep them to myself? As long as they don't do something like stalk me or hound me for more photos or something like that, then what harm is it?
Obviously, that's a real concern. There are freaks out there, and plenty that wouldn't be below (above?) inconveniencing you if they think you've got something they want. And that's a risk. But my view of humanity is one of peace and love. I believe that people should be respectful to one another. Am I being far too idealistic? Probably. But I refuse to live a life consumed by terror. I believe that if you conduct yourself in a way that allows you to respect yourself, while treating other people the way you want to be treated, then you're being true to yourself, and hopefully, the bad seeds in your life will be displaced by the good ones (I'm talking about people - friends and such). In any case, we do live in a society, and there are always measures if things get drastic. But again, it's a matter of standing up to your detractors and showing them that you're free to be who you want to be. I've lived my life in fear, hiding behind a shell, and I'm sick of it. I'm still working on breaking free, and this is an important step in that direction. But when I see other people building walls of protection around themselves - while I can sympathize - I can't help but feel a little sad at the thought of a person living in fear like that. But I guess that's part of what makes me, me. I just wish it were a marketable thing that I could exploit to make a living or at least just teach people, or something...
There is a criticism I hear used against nudism. If nudism is about loosening the boundaries of what is acceptable, and recognizing that the sight of a naked body is neither immoral, nor harmful, but a perfectly natural thing, that should be encouraged and not shunned, then how come nudists characteristically tend to be so uptight about sexuality? You could argue that where nudists draw the line against public sexuality, the rest of society merely draws their line against public nudity. So what makes the nudists' position any more right, or acceptable? Ultimately it comes down to a matter of taste, and it would seem that the nudists are outnumbered. Now, you could throw scientific facts and studies around, but it's hard to change a person's ingrained sense of what is decent and acceptable. You could argue until you're blue in the face that there's nothing wrong with eating sushi, and that it could even be good for you, but that's not always enough to make a reluctant person try sushi (and who's to say they should be forced to?). I mean, who knows, it could turn out that having sex in front of other people is a huge health benefit for everyone involved - but even if that were true, do you think everyone's going to immediately adopt that belief and start practicing it regularly?
It's not a foolproof case against nudism, but it does raise an important concern. As for me, I would love it if nudity were universally accepted, if the choice to go bare was granted as an inalienable right, but I'm not the kind of person to push my beliefs on other people, and I have to accept the fact that there are people for whom public, social, and/or casual nudity is not the way to go, and those beliefs should be respected, too. But the bottom line is, there should be places, communities, where these sorts of things are more acceptable, and places where they are less acceptable. You would think that there would be enough nudists to form communities like this. Not expensive resort destinations, or just limited areas like parks and beaches, but actual entire communities of people gathered together who have the same open ideas about this subject. In various price ranges and sizes and qualities. Are there? Maybe there are. Maybe in a different country. I just kind of wish they were more prevalent. Like, this is stretching it even further, but why aren't there year-round communities like that at Burning Man? Those people all go back to their federal and state jurisdictions, where the laws only differ so much from the rest of the country. You'd think they'd band together and form communities here and there. And you'd hope there'd be enough of them to form enough communities to be spread out.
I think what I'm getting at here is, why does there only seem to be one way to go through life? There's only one option for society. It's a monopoly. I guess moving out of the country is an option. But I mean, that takes a lot of effort and initiative, and probably money - sampling cultures until you find one that you like. If this is the land of freedom, then how come our standards and morals are dictated by an insensitive penal code, constructed for a majority, when we are but one person? I'm quite frustrated with it all.
Can you see why I don't believe in free will? I feel like I have no control whatsoever over how to live my life. Granted, a lot of that is due to psychological limitations, but you have to admit that being raised in a society like this, there are certain things that it's really hard to escape. What if you don't feel like paying taxes? Isn't there some kind of alternative? What if you don't agree with some of the petty laws on the codebooks? Do you have to go to jail just to prove your point? And don't talk to me about lobbying. You could argue with politicians your entire life and not get the results you want. And what if somebody else wants the opposite - isn't that always the case? You die with no results, having wasted your life away on a lost cause. Yeah, I'm bitter.
Maybe I'm spoiled, and maybe I'm a dreamer. But who's to say we should have to compromise? My body is a product of my environment, and my thoughts are a product of my mind. I'd like to think there's something more to what I'm saying than petty idealism... Wouldn't you?
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
23 January, 2008
16 January, 2008
Multimedia Milieu
These days, most of my time not spent wandering through the labyrinths of the internet is spent watching movies and reading books - mostly stuff I got for Christmas and am only now getting around to.
Redemption
I watched The Shawshank Redemption a few days ago. I had seen bits of it on TV before, so I thought I knew what it was all about, but it turns out I had a slightly different interpretation of it than what it turned out to be. I remembered the scene where the old guy got out of prison only to hang himself. Now, what I thought the whole 'Redemption' was about, was that the main character dedicated his whole life in prison to studying law, until finally overturning his sentence on some kind of technicality. Then, having redeemed himself, with his life having been wasted in prison, and with nothing left to prove, he killed himself. Could I be thinking about a different movie?
Anyhow, this one ends on a much brighter note. I like the whole issue of prisoners being "institutionalized" to the point that they can't really function in society - how they grow to become dependant on those walls and bars - and they end up preferring the jailed life to one of freedom, just because they're so used to it. One of the most interesting points, to me, is the point about fear. A man who's spent decades in jail gets used to it - he's no longer afraid of it. To a person such as that, being placed out in the real world, with newfound freedom, is much scarier than being in prison. And I can relate to that fear of the world. I know what it means to live in fear. I've practically jailed myself in this house, and I'm afraid to come out because, though I desire freedom, I'm also terrified of it.
I also like the scenes where Morgan Freeman's character tries to make his case to the parole board about whether he's been "rehabilitated". The first time, you feel bad that the board outright rejects him ("I'm up for rejection in a few weeks"). The next time, you realize that what he said the first time wasn't particularly sincere, since he says just about the same thing every single time - and then you realize why he was so easily rejected. Eventually you begin to realize that he's only saying what he thinks the board wants to hear, which obviously isn't going to convince them. Then, finally, the time he gets parole, he goes through a truly heartwarming speech about the lie of "rehabilitation", and he basically tells the board off, since he no longer really cares, but he does it in a way that genuinely demonstrates the nobility of his character and his regret over his crime - and this time, he's accepted. A little bit of irony, and a very beautiful demonstration of changing attitudes over the passage of time.
Berserk
Berserk is an amazing manga (Japanese comic) series about a man's fight against destiny in a world filled with demons - the true Dark Ages - and his quest for vengeance against a friend who betrayed him in the worst way. I really can't describe how good this series is - I get teary just thinking about it. I was introduced to it through the anime series, which is equally amazing, but only covers the very beginning of the story. Since then, I've been following the English translations of the manga, keeping up with the story.
I'm up to volume 19 now. After leaving Casca for the second time, Guts finally gets to see her again, but only briefly. The pagan ceremony was awesome. Something huge is about to happen, I can tell. They're at this huge religious tower surrounded by practically an army of refugees. And something has been hiding in the shadows, watching all that's been going on. And I think it's finally about to strike. This is a conjecture, but I'll bet the hidden thing is gonna inhabit that freak priest with the flat face (who practices 'prostration'), and we're gonna have a full-blown apostle on our hands. Those scenes in the torture dungeon were pretty hideous. One of the great things about this series is that it is successfully able to shamelessly marry intelligent plot and sympathetic characters with explicit sex and violence. I couldn't possibly ask for more! Except more volumes, that is.
Immortality
The Fountain was among the DVD's I got for Christmas. I remember noticing it when it originally came out. It looked interesting, but I didn't get around to seeing it. Well, now I have. I have to admit, it was a fascinating movie, although it went in a bit of a different direction than I was hoping. I guess you could say I was expecting more fantasy and less drama. But it was still a great tale. With lots to interpret.
I guess the core of the story is what takes place in present time. A doctor on the verge of discovering a medicinal elixir of life, extracted from a tree in Central America, is racing against time while the love of his life is dying of cancer. She in turn is writing a story about the Tree of Life, related to Spanish/Mayan history. Part of that mythology involves the Mayan underworld, named after a dying star observed in the heavens. A star that the main character is traveling toward, in a bubble-like spaceship with a dying tree, presumably far into the future. These three timelines tradeoff as the story unfolds, leaving you to guess just exactly how they fit together.
I guess one interpretation would be that the past scenes are merely an embodiment of the story, and the future scenes part of the doctor's madness - leaving us with just the present. But, if we want to be a little more adventurous, we could conjecture that the doctor does in reality discover the secret to immortality and that the future scenes actually happen as is. But is there an interpretation where the past scenes could be real as well? Because that's what I was hoping for - a tale about two lovers who exist through many ages, from the past through the present and on to the future. But considering what happens when the conquistador in the past finds the Tree of Life, it doesn't seem too reasonable.
Still, the beauty of the story is the sheer imagination of it and the way it was filmed, and how the different timelines interact with one another to create a rich tapestry of storytelling. That, and the question of immortality that is inevitably brought up. Is death just a disease, that needs to be cured? Or is death the road to awe? It's a tough question that's been asked as long as man has been around, I imagine. And I don't think the answer is as easy as some people pretend. Life and death both serve a purpose, and neither one is purely good, or bad. I don't think there is an ultimate answer as to whether or not death *should* have a place in life. But it does have that place, and there is very little we can do about it - and this fact, I believe, will continue to inspire people to fight against it. You have to be careful, though - there is a balance to be found between vying for eternal life and accepting the simple fact of death. If we get too caught up on living forever, we make death all the harder to bear. And I think that's one of the messages that The Fountain carries - the need to accept death.
Millenium
It's a little past its time, I guess, but having gotten the series for Christmas, I just started watching it. From the creator of The X-Files, it's been described as a darker version of that more popular series. I was aware of it when it was on for just a few short years before the turn of the millenium, but I never really watched it. I was totally absorbed in The X-Files around that time, and I don't think I would quite have been ready for it back then. But now, with my newfound interest in the horror genre, and the dark side of human nature, I think it's right up my alley.
I can't say much yet, as I've only seen the first two episodes. The story is about an ex-FBI agent (played by Lance Henriksen, who I've always known as the android Bishop from Aliens) who has a talent for seeing into the minds of killers. He balances his service as a member of a "consultant group" - the Millenium Group, whose aims are catching violent predators (and I suspect there's something deeper that hasn't been divulged yet) - with protecting his wife and young daughter (in general, and particularly from a potentially dangerous but as-yet-unidentified stalker). From the first episode, I get the impression the series will be dealing with catching a lot of truly disturbed murderers and rapists, but the second episode gives me hope that there is something deeper going on - that maybe there's an evil presence pulling the strings, that goes beyond the "cold heart and weak mind" of these killers. I'm anxious to see more.
Redemption
I watched The Shawshank Redemption a few days ago. I had seen bits of it on TV before, so I thought I knew what it was all about, but it turns out I had a slightly different interpretation of it than what it turned out to be. I remembered the scene where the old guy got out of prison only to hang himself. Now, what I thought the whole 'Redemption' was about, was that the main character dedicated his whole life in prison to studying law, until finally overturning his sentence on some kind of technicality. Then, having redeemed himself, with his life having been wasted in prison, and with nothing left to prove, he killed himself. Could I be thinking about a different movie?
Anyhow, this one ends on a much brighter note. I like the whole issue of prisoners being "institutionalized" to the point that they can't really function in society - how they grow to become dependant on those walls and bars - and they end up preferring the jailed life to one of freedom, just because they're so used to it. One of the most interesting points, to me, is the point about fear. A man who's spent decades in jail gets used to it - he's no longer afraid of it. To a person such as that, being placed out in the real world, with newfound freedom, is much scarier than being in prison. And I can relate to that fear of the world. I know what it means to live in fear. I've practically jailed myself in this house, and I'm afraid to come out because, though I desire freedom, I'm also terrified of it.
I also like the scenes where Morgan Freeman's character tries to make his case to the parole board about whether he's been "rehabilitated". The first time, you feel bad that the board outright rejects him ("I'm up for rejection in a few weeks"). The next time, you realize that what he said the first time wasn't particularly sincere, since he says just about the same thing every single time - and then you realize why he was so easily rejected. Eventually you begin to realize that he's only saying what he thinks the board wants to hear, which obviously isn't going to convince them. Then, finally, the time he gets parole, he goes through a truly heartwarming speech about the lie of "rehabilitation", and he basically tells the board off, since he no longer really cares, but he does it in a way that genuinely demonstrates the nobility of his character and his regret over his crime - and this time, he's accepted. A little bit of irony, and a very beautiful demonstration of changing attitudes over the passage of time.
Berserk
Berserk is an amazing manga (Japanese comic) series about a man's fight against destiny in a world filled with demons - the true Dark Ages - and his quest for vengeance against a friend who betrayed him in the worst way. I really can't describe how good this series is - I get teary just thinking about it. I was introduced to it through the anime series, which is equally amazing, but only covers the very beginning of the story. Since then, I've been following the English translations of the manga, keeping up with the story.
I'm up to volume 19 now. After leaving Casca for the second time, Guts finally gets to see her again, but only briefly. The pagan ceremony was awesome. Something huge is about to happen, I can tell. They're at this huge religious tower surrounded by practically an army of refugees. And something has been hiding in the shadows, watching all that's been going on. And I think it's finally about to strike. This is a conjecture, but I'll bet the hidden thing is gonna inhabit that freak priest with the flat face (who practices 'prostration'), and we're gonna have a full-blown apostle on our hands. Those scenes in the torture dungeon were pretty hideous. One of the great things about this series is that it is successfully able to shamelessly marry intelligent plot and sympathetic characters with explicit sex and violence. I couldn't possibly ask for more! Except more volumes, that is.
Immortality
The Fountain was among the DVD's I got for Christmas. I remember noticing it when it originally came out. It looked interesting, but I didn't get around to seeing it. Well, now I have. I have to admit, it was a fascinating movie, although it went in a bit of a different direction than I was hoping. I guess you could say I was expecting more fantasy and less drama. But it was still a great tale. With lots to interpret.
I guess the core of the story is what takes place in present time. A doctor on the verge of discovering a medicinal elixir of life, extracted from a tree in Central America, is racing against time while the love of his life is dying of cancer. She in turn is writing a story about the Tree of Life, related to Spanish/Mayan history. Part of that mythology involves the Mayan underworld, named after a dying star observed in the heavens. A star that the main character is traveling toward, in a bubble-like spaceship with a dying tree, presumably far into the future. These three timelines tradeoff as the story unfolds, leaving you to guess just exactly how they fit together.
I guess one interpretation would be that the past scenes are merely an embodiment of the story, and the future scenes part of the doctor's madness - leaving us with just the present. But, if we want to be a little more adventurous, we could conjecture that the doctor does in reality discover the secret to immortality and that the future scenes actually happen as is. But is there an interpretation where the past scenes could be real as well? Because that's what I was hoping for - a tale about two lovers who exist through many ages, from the past through the present and on to the future. But considering what happens when the conquistador in the past finds the Tree of Life, it doesn't seem too reasonable.
Still, the beauty of the story is the sheer imagination of it and the way it was filmed, and how the different timelines interact with one another to create a rich tapestry of storytelling. That, and the question of immortality that is inevitably brought up. Is death just a disease, that needs to be cured? Or is death the road to awe? It's a tough question that's been asked as long as man has been around, I imagine. And I don't think the answer is as easy as some people pretend. Life and death both serve a purpose, and neither one is purely good, or bad. I don't think there is an ultimate answer as to whether or not death *should* have a place in life. But it does have that place, and there is very little we can do about it - and this fact, I believe, will continue to inspire people to fight against it. You have to be careful, though - there is a balance to be found between vying for eternal life and accepting the simple fact of death. If we get too caught up on living forever, we make death all the harder to bear. And I think that's one of the messages that The Fountain carries - the need to accept death.
Millenium
It's a little past its time, I guess, but having gotten the series for Christmas, I just started watching it. From the creator of The X-Files, it's been described as a darker version of that more popular series. I was aware of it when it was on for just a few short years before the turn of the millenium, but I never really watched it. I was totally absorbed in The X-Files around that time, and I don't think I would quite have been ready for it back then. But now, with my newfound interest in the horror genre, and the dark side of human nature, I think it's right up my alley.
I can't say much yet, as I've only seen the first two episodes. The story is about an ex-FBI agent (played by Lance Henriksen, who I've always known as the android Bishop from Aliens) who has a talent for seeing into the minds of killers. He balances his service as a member of a "consultant group" - the Millenium Group, whose aims are catching violent predators (and I suspect there's something deeper that hasn't been divulged yet) - with protecting his wife and young daughter (in general, and particularly from a potentially dangerous but as-yet-unidentified stalker). From the first episode, I get the impression the series will be dealing with catching a lot of truly disturbed murderers and rapists, but the second episode gives me hope that there is something deeper going on - that maybe there's an evil presence pulling the strings, that goes beyond the "cold heart and weak mind" of these killers. I'm anxious to see more.
10 January, 2008
Hippie Ideals
"When in the flow of human events it becomes necessary for the people to cease to recognize the obsolete social patterns which have isolated man from his consciousness and to create with the youthful energies of the world revolutionary communities of harmonius relations to which the two-billion-year-old life process entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind should declare the causes which impell them to this creation. We hold these experiences to be self-evident, that all is equal, that the creation endows us with certain inalienable rights, that among these are: the freedom of body, the pursuit of joy, and the expansion of consciousness, and that to secure these rights, we the citizens of the earth declare our love and compassion for all conflicting hate-carrying men and women of the world.
We declare the identity of flesh and consciousness; all reason and law must respect and protect this holy identity."
- A Prophecy of a Declaration of Independence, Fall 1966
I've never actually considered myself a hippie, despite being sympathetic to their cause and lifestyle ever since discovering them in the course of my fandom of rock from that era (specifically, the late 60's and early 70's). There have even been times when I've felt that I was born too late; that I would have fit in so much better in the [counter-]culture of the 60's. From what I've come to understand, the hippie movement rose to some extent out of the earlier beatnik culture, embracing a more positive outlook on life, and formed a counterculture largely reactionary to the politics of the day, particularly relating to the unpopular Vietnam War. Hippies preached love and peace, and greatly admired their freedom of expression.
Today, the stereotype that prevails is that of the "dirty hippie". Frankly, I think that's an unfortunate stereotype. Just because you have a deeper connection with the earth, or that you let your hair grow long, doesn't mean that you've given up all notions of cleanliness. It's a fact that, at Woodstock, not only were hippies washing themselves in a nearby pool of water - with soap, I might add - but some of them were also shaving - even their armpits! And in spite of all the Rastafarians and Deadheads and generic Gypsies you see these days, it's the groovy people at Woodstock that form the ideal picture of a 'hippie' in my mind.
So what do I get out of hippie idealism? Besides the music, the three main things are peace, love, and freedom.
Peace
Now, I don't necessarily consider myself a pacifist. I believe that there are times when violence is warranted. However, I believe that those times are (or at least should be, in a rational society) rare, and extreme. I believe that a lot of people are way more aggressive, in physical and non-physical ways, than they should be. Anger really pisses me off. It's kind of ironic, but it's true. When people start getting mad, the funny thing is, I'm angrier at the fact that these people (especially if I happen to be one of them) have allowed themselves to get to a point where they feel it necessary to resort to this kind of aggressive behaviour, rather than keeping a cool head and being rational about it, than I am about whatever topic the people have gotten angry about. I hate arguments - I think they're utterly pointless, and serve only to damage the relations between people. You can have rational discussions, and you can agree to disagree, but if you get two people shouting at each other because they each want the other to do or think in their own way, then you've already lost sight of what's important.
People often say I'm a pretty groovy person - in terms of being relaxed and chilled out a lot. Part of that is because I'm pretty timid, and it's not natural for me to express myself and my thoughts and beliefs over other people's. I like to avoid confrontation by letting things be. But if part of that is fear of agression, I'd like to think that part of it is the knowledge of how little aggression usually accomplishes - or the fact that when it accomplishes something, it tends to accomplish the opposite of what I consider to be important in life. Maybe other people put a premium on power and coercion and control, but I'm more interested in mutual understanding and respect. And aggression never accomplishes that.
So chill out, live and let live, and expend your energy in a more positive way. You'll feel a lot better in the long run.
Love
I believe in love. I believe that loving your fellow man does so much more for both you and him than hating him ever could. There's too much hatred in the world. What's all this fighting about, anyway? Can we for once consider our victims' perspectives and stop being so selfish? Love your enemy as you would your friend.
There's another aspect to the hippie's perspective on love - and that's the sexual angle. This one I'm slightly less aligned with. Hippies were all about free love. There was a great sexual liberation in the 60's, and I'm all for that. But the idea of sharing sex with strangers I'm not so keen on. I understand it can be a great way to connect with people, and promote love. But, particularly with all the complications involved, love can inspire some pretty wicked feelings too. Jealousy, resentment, control, possession, obsession. There is a dark side to love, as much as there is a light side. And then you've gotta worry about pregnancy, as well as diseases.
So in this case, I'd say I'm more on board with the psychological component of promoting love. I still don't think people should be too hung up on the physical aspect of love, but I'm not exactly about to promote having sex with everyone you meet.
Freedom
Freedom of mind and body. Freedom of expression. Freedom to be yourself. Freedom from the rules of the Establishment. I'm all about freedom. Dress code? Fuck that, I'll go naked if I feel like it. Only girls wear their hair that long? Fuck that, I'll let my hair grow as long as I want. You can't do or say or think or feel this or that? Fuck you, I am who I am and I'm gonna embrace that, not hide away from it, locking myself up into a rigid shape of a man that's been defined for me by an inanimate entity (the Establishment) that doesn't know a single thing about me, and cares only to further its own cause. If you really gave a damn for me, I'd be more willing to listen to your suggestions, but if that were the case, you'd understand that restricting me from expressing the things that are important to me is tantamount to slavery of the soul. And there's no way I'm gonna stand for that!
(This discussion is continued in the following entry titled "Drugs")
We declare the identity of flesh and consciousness; all reason and law must respect and protect this holy identity."
- A Prophecy of a Declaration of Independence, Fall 1966
I've never actually considered myself a hippie, despite being sympathetic to their cause and lifestyle ever since discovering them in the course of my fandom of rock from that era (specifically, the late 60's and early 70's). There have even been times when I've felt that I was born too late; that I would have fit in so much better in the [counter-]culture of the 60's. From what I've come to understand, the hippie movement rose to some extent out of the earlier beatnik culture, embracing a more positive outlook on life, and formed a counterculture largely reactionary to the politics of the day, particularly relating to the unpopular Vietnam War. Hippies preached love and peace, and greatly admired their freedom of expression.
Today, the stereotype that prevails is that of the "dirty hippie". Frankly, I think that's an unfortunate stereotype. Just because you have a deeper connection with the earth, or that you let your hair grow long, doesn't mean that you've given up all notions of cleanliness. It's a fact that, at Woodstock, not only were hippies washing themselves in a nearby pool of water - with soap, I might add - but some of them were also shaving - even their armpits! And in spite of all the Rastafarians and Deadheads and generic Gypsies you see these days, it's the groovy people at Woodstock that form the ideal picture of a 'hippie' in my mind.
So what do I get out of hippie idealism? Besides the music, the three main things are peace, love, and freedom.
Peace
Now, I don't necessarily consider myself a pacifist. I believe that there are times when violence is warranted. However, I believe that those times are (or at least should be, in a rational society) rare, and extreme. I believe that a lot of people are way more aggressive, in physical and non-physical ways, than they should be. Anger really pisses me off. It's kind of ironic, but it's true. When people start getting mad, the funny thing is, I'm angrier at the fact that these people (especially if I happen to be one of them) have allowed themselves to get to a point where they feel it necessary to resort to this kind of aggressive behaviour, rather than keeping a cool head and being rational about it, than I am about whatever topic the people have gotten angry about. I hate arguments - I think they're utterly pointless, and serve only to damage the relations between people. You can have rational discussions, and you can agree to disagree, but if you get two people shouting at each other because they each want the other to do or think in their own way, then you've already lost sight of what's important.
People often say I'm a pretty groovy person - in terms of being relaxed and chilled out a lot. Part of that is because I'm pretty timid, and it's not natural for me to express myself and my thoughts and beliefs over other people's. I like to avoid confrontation by letting things be. But if part of that is fear of agression, I'd like to think that part of it is the knowledge of how little aggression usually accomplishes - or the fact that when it accomplishes something, it tends to accomplish the opposite of what I consider to be important in life. Maybe other people put a premium on power and coercion and control, but I'm more interested in mutual understanding and respect. And aggression never accomplishes that.
So chill out, live and let live, and expend your energy in a more positive way. You'll feel a lot better in the long run.
Love
I believe in love. I believe that loving your fellow man does so much more for both you and him than hating him ever could. There's too much hatred in the world. What's all this fighting about, anyway? Can we for once consider our victims' perspectives and stop being so selfish? Love your enemy as you would your friend.
There's another aspect to the hippie's perspective on love - and that's the sexual angle. This one I'm slightly less aligned with. Hippies were all about free love. There was a great sexual liberation in the 60's, and I'm all for that. But the idea of sharing sex with strangers I'm not so keen on. I understand it can be a great way to connect with people, and promote love. But, particularly with all the complications involved, love can inspire some pretty wicked feelings too. Jealousy, resentment, control, possession, obsession. There is a dark side to love, as much as there is a light side. And then you've gotta worry about pregnancy, as well as diseases.
So in this case, I'd say I'm more on board with the psychological component of promoting love. I still don't think people should be too hung up on the physical aspect of love, but I'm not exactly about to promote having sex with everyone you meet.
Freedom
Freedom of mind and body. Freedom of expression. Freedom to be yourself. Freedom from the rules of the Establishment. I'm all about freedom. Dress code? Fuck that, I'll go naked if I feel like it. Only girls wear their hair that long? Fuck that, I'll let my hair grow as long as I want. You can't do or say or think or feel this or that? Fuck you, I am who I am and I'm gonna embrace that, not hide away from it, locking myself up into a rigid shape of a man that's been defined for me by an inanimate entity (the Establishment) that doesn't know a single thing about me, and cares only to further its own cause. If you really gave a damn for me, I'd be more willing to listen to your suggestions, but if that were the case, you'd understand that restricting me from expressing the things that are important to me is tantamount to slavery of the soul. And there's no way I'm gonna stand for that!
(This discussion is continued in the following entry titled "Drugs")
04 January, 2008
Obscenity Laws & Body Freedom (or Communing With Nature)
"Can I walk down your street naked, if I want to?"
- Moby Grape - Naked, If I Want To
Indoors, your nudity is limited by the amount of privacy you have, as well as the attitude of the people you live with, and whether or not they accept your lifestyle, regardless of whether or not they join in. But step outdoors, and you've opened a whole new can of worms. Laws and customs vary from place to place, but I would wager that there are very few (if any) places on this planet where you could casually step out into a public area that is not specifically designated to be nudist-friendly, and not as part of some kind of artistic or political expression, wearing nothing but your skin, freely exposed to the air and the sight of others, without incurring considerably inhibitive negative reactions from the forces of authority in that particular jurisdiction. Granted, this is not something I have tested myself, but you can see that I believe it well enough not to particularly want to.
So what's the big problem with a naked person walking down the street?
"A person commits indecent exposure if that person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or in any place where there are present other persons under circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm."
Now, there's a huge difference between happily reveling in the sense of freedom that casual nudity gives you, and walking up to a stranger and exposing yourself for some kind of thrill. The difference has to do with respect. In the second case, you're actually specifically disturbing someone and subjecting them to a kind of advance that they have no power to stop. So what's offensive about a quick flash of the genitals that's not offensive about putting them out there for the whole world to see? The point really has nothing to do with the nudity itself. It's about bothering a person. What's worse - walking past someone while completely nude, and politely ignoring them (unless they specifically call for your attention), or walking right up to them while fully clothed, and soliciting them with attention, without even considering whether or not they want it? Nudity really should not be the issue here, but because people have been predisposed to be offended, affronted, or alarmed by nudity alone, it undeservedly becomes an indecent state of being.
This begs the question of whether or not the naked human body is inherently indecent. And depending who you ask, you'll get a wide range of opinions. I personally think that there is nothing inherently indecent about the nude body, only that there is much potential for it to be used for indecent purposes - depending on a person's actions, not their being. For example, there is nothing inherently indecent about the genitals (despite cultural conditioning). Yet, if you come up to me and stick them in my face, that is incredibly rude, and would constitute indecent behavior, in my mind.
But on the other hand, there are people who think that even the sight of the genitals is lewd, and that the mind that chose to expose them in such a manner that they could be seen by another is by default up to no good. The trouble is, you can't realistically expect to convince everyone of a certain viewpoint. I would be happy to see nudity become more accepted and well respected in society in the future, but it just wouldn't be practical to expect every person to accept it the way I do. And so, in the end, it all comes down to basic individual rights. Where does my right to be nude end, and your right to not be exposed to naked people begin?
But that just seems to lead to a dead end. Should nude people have to be segregated? Should they only be free to practice their chosen lifestyle in secluded camps and within walled resorts? Should they have to cover their true beliefs and feelings in the clothing of the majority while dealing with the rest of the world? Should people be judged by the covering on their skin? I just don't feel that that's right. I should be able to walk down the street naked, if I want to. It's not like I'm doing it to try to shock or offend people. I'm just being me. What's so wrong with that?
I've fantasized about living in a nudist community - I'm talking not just a vacation resort or a weeklong camp, but something like a whole nudist village, just like a normal town, but with freer ideas about nudity. You could go to the store nude, catch a movie at the local theatre nude, take a walk through the neighborhood nude, drive to work nude and then work all day nude, head out to a fancy restaurant and eat nude. You wouldn't have to be nude, as it's not always practical, but the important thing is that nobody would think (or look) twice if you were. There's probably a lot of complicated issues to be dealt with in the actualization of an idea like that, but frankly, I think it could be amazing. Why should we be so uptight? As long as it's not actually hurting anyone, there should be no problem. Apparently there's a place like that in France, but I imagine it must be pretty expensive to actually live there. And then, supposedly, there are hippie communes, but I don't know how expansive they are, or how much of a 'normal town' kind of atmosphere they can accomplish.
Communing With Nature
So, in the meantime, there's this thing called "secret naturism". There unfortunately seems to be some stigma attached to it within the regular naturist community, though, due to the understandably questionable intents of the secret naturists. Although there may be some who do it for questionable reasons, I think it can also be a very positive thing. The basic idea is to circumvent the unreasonable obscenity laws by going nude outside of designated areas (kind of like free-range nudity), but doing so in a secretive manner so as not to get caught. One of the great advantages secret naturism has for closet nudists is that it allows the nudist to experiment, and go further than he/she otherwise would, without having to expose his/her secret (assuming he/she does not get caught, which is always a risk). One of the disadvantages of secret naturism that most open nudists tend to cite is the fact that those who practice it are reinforcing the idea that their nudism is something they feel that they have to hide - which can give the whole lifestyle, secret or not, a more negative image to outsiders.
Now, I'm on the fence on that issue. I think nudism is something that nudists should never have to hide. But that's an ideal, and I'm a realist. I understand, that in this society, there are times and situations when it's practical to keep your nudism a secret. There are absolutely times and places to further the cause of nudism by putting yourself into the social consciousness. But there are also times and places where it is in your best interest to stay out of sight and out of mind. And that's where secret naturism comes into play.
I can confess that 1) I've practiced a little secret naturism, but that 2) my boundaries are depressingly limited. My desire for the thrill of going further is balanced by my methodical evaluation of the sheer risk of getting caught. So only twice have I actually wandered beyond the boundaries of this plot of land, and then not very far, or for very long.
I read about people who have secluded backyards (or 'gardens', in the UK), and private swimming pools, where they can swim and sunbathe nude - outdoors, but within the protection of their private property - without fear of being seen and reported to the authorities for ridiculous reasons. But I currently live in a suburban warren, where the houses aren't separated by very much space, and the foliage is rarely thick enough for any kind of reliable shielding from unwanted eyes. And though it gets quiet at night, it's not unheard of for someone in the immediate neighborhood to be going out or coming home, or simply stirring, in the middle of the night.
Just the same, my experiences are limited to the deep night, when it is quiet, while still always on a constant vigil. No warm sun for me. But you might be surprised how well your naked body can cope with the temperature of the air around you. Of course, there's a reasonable limit to that, but it does tend to get rather warm during the summer, even throughout the night. Cloudy (but dry) nights and new moons are best, although the allure of basking in the white light of the full moon is hard to resist, despite the drastically increased visibility (and the potential for other people to be drawn to it as well). For once, I almost wish I had darker skin, as my light skin shows up pretty bright against the dark backgrounds of the night, even when there is little light to be found. Dancing naked in the rain can be an exhilarating experience (and certainly more pleasant than doing so in clothing), but only when the temperature, and the rain itself, is warm enough. Otherwise, it could become quite unpleasant, instead.
Being outside nude can be very relaxing as well as very thrilling, depending on the night's conditions, and the current condition of the mind. Though doing so tends to leave me wishing there was actually something for me to do while I was out there. I'd love to go for a walk, but being out on the streets is incredibly risky. Anything I might think to do is usually foiled by the risk of either making noise, or needing light - both decided attention grabbers. Still, just being out there is an experience not worth giving up...
- Moby Grape - Naked, If I Want To
Indoors, your nudity is limited by the amount of privacy you have, as well as the attitude of the people you live with, and whether or not they accept your lifestyle, regardless of whether or not they join in. But step outdoors, and you've opened a whole new can of worms. Laws and customs vary from place to place, but I would wager that there are very few (if any) places on this planet where you could casually step out into a public area that is not specifically designated to be nudist-friendly, and not as part of some kind of artistic or political expression, wearing nothing but your skin, freely exposed to the air and the sight of others, without incurring considerably inhibitive negative reactions from the forces of authority in that particular jurisdiction. Granted, this is not something I have tested myself, but you can see that I believe it well enough not to particularly want to.
So what's the big problem with a naked person walking down the street?
"A person commits indecent exposure if that person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or in any place where there are present other persons under circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm."
Now, there's a huge difference between happily reveling in the sense of freedom that casual nudity gives you, and walking up to a stranger and exposing yourself for some kind of thrill. The difference has to do with respect. In the second case, you're actually specifically disturbing someone and subjecting them to a kind of advance that they have no power to stop. So what's offensive about a quick flash of the genitals that's not offensive about putting them out there for the whole world to see? The point really has nothing to do with the nudity itself. It's about bothering a person. What's worse - walking past someone while completely nude, and politely ignoring them (unless they specifically call for your attention), or walking right up to them while fully clothed, and soliciting them with attention, without even considering whether or not they want it? Nudity really should not be the issue here, but because people have been predisposed to be offended, affronted, or alarmed by nudity alone, it undeservedly becomes an indecent state of being.
This begs the question of whether or not the naked human body is inherently indecent. And depending who you ask, you'll get a wide range of opinions. I personally think that there is nothing inherently indecent about the nude body, only that there is much potential for it to be used for indecent purposes - depending on a person's actions, not their being. For example, there is nothing inherently indecent about the genitals (despite cultural conditioning). Yet, if you come up to me and stick them in my face, that is incredibly rude, and would constitute indecent behavior, in my mind.
But on the other hand, there are people who think that even the sight of the genitals is lewd, and that the mind that chose to expose them in such a manner that they could be seen by another is by default up to no good. The trouble is, you can't realistically expect to convince everyone of a certain viewpoint. I would be happy to see nudity become more accepted and well respected in society in the future, but it just wouldn't be practical to expect every person to accept it the way I do. And so, in the end, it all comes down to basic individual rights. Where does my right to be nude end, and your right to not be exposed to naked people begin?
But that just seems to lead to a dead end. Should nude people have to be segregated? Should they only be free to practice their chosen lifestyle in secluded camps and within walled resorts? Should they have to cover their true beliefs and feelings in the clothing of the majority while dealing with the rest of the world? Should people be judged by the covering on their skin? I just don't feel that that's right. I should be able to walk down the street naked, if I want to. It's not like I'm doing it to try to shock or offend people. I'm just being me. What's so wrong with that?
I've fantasized about living in a nudist community - I'm talking not just a vacation resort or a weeklong camp, but something like a whole nudist village, just like a normal town, but with freer ideas about nudity. You could go to the store nude, catch a movie at the local theatre nude, take a walk through the neighborhood nude, drive to work nude and then work all day nude, head out to a fancy restaurant and eat nude. You wouldn't have to be nude, as it's not always practical, but the important thing is that nobody would think (or look) twice if you were. There's probably a lot of complicated issues to be dealt with in the actualization of an idea like that, but frankly, I think it could be amazing. Why should we be so uptight? As long as it's not actually hurting anyone, there should be no problem. Apparently there's a place like that in France, but I imagine it must be pretty expensive to actually live there. And then, supposedly, there are hippie communes, but I don't know how expansive they are, or how much of a 'normal town' kind of atmosphere they can accomplish.
Communing With Nature
So, in the meantime, there's this thing called "secret naturism". There unfortunately seems to be some stigma attached to it within the regular naturist community, though, due to the understandably questionable intents of the secret naturists. Although there may be some who do it for questionable reasons, I think it can also be a very positive thing. The basic idea is to circumvent the unreasonable obscenity laws by going nude outside of designated areas (kind of like free-range nudity), but doing so in a secretive manner so as not to get caught. One of the great advantages secret naturism has for closet nudists is that it allows the nudist to experiment, and go further than he/she otherwise would, without having to expose his/her secret (assuming he/she does not get caught, which is always a risk). One of the disadvantages of secret naturism that most open nudists tend to cite is the fact that those who practice it are reinforcing the idea that their nudism is something they feel that they have to hide - which can give the whole lifestyle, secret or not, a more negative image to outsiders.
Now, I'm on the fence on that issue. I think nudism is something that nudists should never have to hide. But that's an ideal, and I'm a realist. I understand, that in this society, there are times and situations when it's practical to keep your nudism a secret. There are absolutely times and places to further the cause of nudism by putting yourself into the social consciousness. But there are also times and places where it is in your best interest to stay out of sight and out of mind. And that's where secret naturism comes into play.
I can confess that 1) I've practiced a little secret naturism, but that 2) my boundaries are depressingly limited. My desire for the thrill of going further is balanced by my methodical evaluation of the sheer risk of getting caught. So only twice have I actually wandered beyond the boundaries of this plot of land, and then not very far, or for very long.
I read about people who have secluded backyards (or 'gardens', in the UK), and private swimming pools, where they can swim and sunbathe nude - outdoors, but within the protection of their private property - without fear of being seen and reported to the authorities for ridiculous reasons. But I currently live in a suburban warren, where the houses aren't separated by very much space, and the foliage is rarely thick enough for any kind of reliable shielding from unwanted eyes. And though it gets quiet at night, it's not unheard of for someone in the immediate neighborhood to be going out or coming home, or simply stirring, in the middle of the night.
Just the same, my experiences are limited to the deep night, when it is quiet, while still always on a constant vigil. No warm sun for me. But you might be surprised how well your naked body can cope with the temperature of the air around you. Of course, there's a reasonable limit to that, but it does tend to get rather warm during the summer, even throughout the night. Cloudy (but dry) nights and new moons are best, although the allure of basking in the white light of the full moon is hard to resist, despite the drastically increased visibility (and the potential for other people to be drawn to it as well). For once, I almost wish I had darker skin, as my light skin shows up pretty bright against the dark backgrounds of the night, even when there is little light to be found. Dancing naked in the rain can be an exhilarating experience (and certainly more pleasant than doing so in clothing), but only when the temperature, and the rain itself, is warm enough. Otherwise, it could become quite unpleasant, instead.
Being outside nude can be very relaxing as well as very thrilling, depending on the night's conditions, and the current condition of the mind. Though doing so tends to leave me wishing there was actually something for me to do while I was out there. I'd love to go for a walk, but being out on the streets is incredibly risky. Anything I might think to do is usually foiled by the risk of either making noise, or needing light - both decided attention grabbers. Still, just being out there is an experience not worth giving up...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
