It's wonderfully foggy out tonight. Pretty thick, too - not incredibly thick, but certainly remarkably thick. The ground and trees are damp from thunderstorms, but the only rain is what comes off the trees. The temperature is nice - cool, but comfortable. Anyhow, in an awesome fog like this, I had to go out there.
And I ended up expanding my boundaries, too. I went out in just that blanket, with my camera - tugging the tripod along in its most compact state, which isn't all that compact - all the way out to the main thoroughfare, stopping at just a couple places that looked safe enough to snap a shot of the beautiful fog lit up by the various street and house lights. It was gorgeous.
Coming back, I decided to take advantage of the foggy conditions. I left my blanket and camera on the porch, and took a walk around the block completely naked. Yup, the whole way round. There was even a number of house lights on, but I hope most of the people were asleep anyway. I just acted natural, as if it was no big deal. I was thinking about it, and I figured that if somebody did catch me, then my long hair - a disadvantage because it makes me easy to recognize - might actually work to my advantage since it would give credibility to my characterization as a free spirit who enjoys nude walks instead of some kind of perverted sexual predator...
There were no cars either, which was great. I was mentally prepared (as much as I could be) just in case a car did go past, but I was lucky and didn't have to deal with it. Admittedly, I was a little concerned that the thrill of the experience would cause me to get visually "excited", basically ruining any credibility that my intentions were innocent, but to be honest, I was either too nervous or too relaxed throughout the whole walk for it to even be an issue.
There was only one spot that concerned me. There's a house on the corner, which just so happens to have a bright streetlight just out in front of it, and somebody was awake watching TV with the windows open. I heard them cough, but there was no indication that they actually saw me walk past the house. I went by as casually as I could, as if there were nothing unusual about my state of (un)dress, just taking a nice walk out in the nighttime fog, and made a point not to look towards the window, so I'm not certain whether or not the person inside could have even seen me without getting up or something. I'd have been less concerned if I was walking through the dark, but with that streetlight illuminating me - I even knocked a pebble a little bit as I was walking past, and you can bet I was kicking myself in my head (doing it mentally, not actually kicking my head) because of it!
The part that bothers me even more, is that the night I went out and took a couple pictures under the streetlight not too long ago, there was also a person in that house awake and watching TV (likely the same person, but who knows for sure), and I heard them cough then too. I was halfway sure they had seen me posing for my camera, but I have no way of knowing for sure. I was beyond a bush when I heard the cough, and at that point I just started walking away. So who knows. But now I'm very wary of that house, since it wasn't just a one-time thing.
Anyway, it was a great experience. I kind of got lost in the moment and went and rolled around in the wet grass after the walking was done. My feet are pretty sore, after walking over so much concrete... But they'll survive. The fog sure was beautiful. I really wish I could just go out and not have to worry that I may be doing something illegal...
P.S. I just remembered, everytime I sniffled my nose out there, I got a taste of lakewater. Weird, I know, but the sensation very much reminded me of swimming in the lake from my childhood vacations, when I would get some water up my nose...
15 June, 2008
14 June, 2008
Yet More Movie Nudity
The Dreamers
Awesome film that doesn't demean its brilliance just because of the sexual nature of its plot. This is basically a story about the 60's, except it's not California - it's Paris, France, and it occurs during the 1968 riots in Paris. You can look it up if you want more historical context, but I didn't know what the riots were about, and it didn't much matter, because the brunt of the story focuses on three characters who are pretty much oblivious to what's going on out in the streets outside their house, until the point at which they can no longer ignore it.
But the spirit of the sixties is here in full swing. Peace, protest, and free love are all in there. And the absolutely amazing soundtrack centers on some scorching sections from Jimi Hendrix and Big Brother & The Holding Company (with Janis Joplin, of course), with even a Doors tune thrown in. There's even a pivotal scene where one character sings a line from Hey Joe, as the song plays on the record player.
But what's the story about? Well, it's a personal story about three young college-age people. An American student/cinema buff meets up with a pair of French twins (brother/sister) who share a lot of the same interests. They get real close real fast, and when the parents leave on a trip, the three of them live it out in the apartment, loose and free. There's some tension, because the twins are "joined at the hip", as they say (no, not literally), and the American student understands that they need to grow up and mature and the only way to do that is to split them apart, so they can learn to have some individuality or something. It's complicated. But that's where the drama comes in.
Great movie. There's even a scene where the two guys argue about whether Clapton or Hendrix is better. There's also a lot of talk about classic cinema, as the characters are all cinema buffs, and the director himself (Bernardo Bertolucci) is a cinema buff who was there in Paris during the riots depicted in this film, and a part of the real cinema scene that the characters in the film are a part of.
I love it because this film is high quality /and/ sexually liberated. There's a great scene where the guy and girl have sex on the kitchen floor, for the first time, and the other guy (the brother) is making eggs on the stove, casually. It's all very real. The characters spend a good amount of time all or partly naked, too, and sometimes it's sexual, and sometimes it's not - which is what real life should be like.
I recommend this movie highly, if any of what I discussed here interests you.
9 Songs
I like the idea of this film. It's a story about the progression of a relationship (focusing on sexual encounters) interspersed with 9 live rock(ish) performances the way they would look if you were standing in the audience with a video camera. The problem is that the music is very uninteresting to me, and the girl was kind of a bitch.
The reason people are talking about this film is because the sex is not only explicit, but unsimulated - indeed, you see enough that they couldn't possibly be faking it. Some people argue that that fact alone makes it a porno, and other people argue the film's integrity for taking such an approach while still maintaining some sense of a coherent, artistic story.
The bottom line is, I think this film has some good ideas, but it's far (far far far) from the visionary masterpiece that some people are claiming it to be. I like how real it is - not just the sex but the interactions between the two characters and the concert scenes. But it's the content that leaves something to be desired.
Plenty of nudity for those who are looking - including things you'd normally only expect to see in a porno. But then again, there's plenty of sex, and most if not all of the nudity is sex-related. The couple actually get into some kinky stuff, including a little S&M, but it's not always terribly exciting. One thing I did like is how after they had sex one of the times, the girl stayed naked and walked around a bit. It's always bugged me when after a sex scene the girl gets dressed real quick, even while holding the covers over her body... You're naked, enjoy it, stay that way for awhile! Get up, walk around, quit being such a prude! Although, in those cases, I'll bet the only reason they get dressed so fast is because it's a movie and they can't afford to push the censors by having the characters walking around naked after the sex is done...
Awesome film that doesn't demean its brilliance just because of the sexual nature of its plot. This is basically a story about the 60's, except it's not California - it's Paris, France, and it occurs during the 1968 riots in Paris. You can look it up if you want more historical context, but I didn't know what the riots were about, and it didn't much matter, because the brunt of the story focuses on three characters who are pretty much oblivious to what's going on out in the streets outside their house, until the point at which they can no longer ignore it.
But the spirit of the sixties is here in full swing. Peace, protest, and free love are all in there. And the absolutely amazing soundtrack centers on some scorching sections from Jimi Hendrix and Big Brother & The Holding Company (with Janis Joplin, of course), with even a Doors tune thrown in. There's even a pivotal scene where one character sings a line from Hey Joe, as the song plays on the record player.
But what's the story about? Well, it's a personal story about three young college-age people. An American student/cinema buff meets up with a pair of French twins (brother/sister) who share a lot of the same interests. They get real close real fast, and when the parents leave on a trip, the three of them live it out in the apartment, loose and free. There's some tension, because the twins are "joined at the hip", as they say (no, not literally), and the American student understands that they need to grow up and mature and the only way to do that is to split them apart, so they can learn to have some individuality or something. It's complicated. But that's where the drama comes in.
Great movie. There's even a scene where the two guys argue about whether Clapton or Hendrix is better. There's also a lot of talk about classic cinema, as the characters are all cinema buffs, and the director himself (Bernardo Bertolucci) is a cinema buff who was there in Paris during the riots depicted in this film, and a part of the real cinema scene that the characters in the film are a part of.
I love it because this film is high quality /and/ sexually liberated. There's a great scene where the guy and girl have sex on the kitchen floor, for the first time, and the other guy (the brother) is making eggs on the stove, casually. It's all very real. The characters spend a good amount of time all or partly naked, too, and sometimes it's sexual, and sometimes it's not - which is what real life should be like.
I recommend this movie highly, if any of what I discussed here interests you.
9 Songs
I like the idea of this film. It's a story about the progression of a relationship (focusing on sexual encounters) interspersed with 9 live rock(ish) performances the way they would look if you were standing in the audience with a video camera. The problem is that the music is very uninteresting to me, and the girl was kind of a bitch.
The reason people are talking about this film is because the sex is not only explicit, but unsimulated - indeed, you see enough that they couldn't possibly be faking it. Some people argue that that fact alone makes it a porno, and other people argue the film's integrity for taking such an approach while still maintaining some sense of a coherent, artistic story.
The bottom line is, I think this film has some good ideas, but it's far (far far far) from the visionary masterpiece that some people are claiming it to be. I like how real it is - not just the sex but the interactions between the two characters and the concert scenes. But it's the content that leaves something to be desired.
Plenty of nudity for those who are looking - including things you'd normally only expect to see in a porno. But then again, there's plenty of sex, and most if not all of the nudity is sex-related. The couple actually get into some kinky stuff, including a little S&M, but it's not always terribly exciting. One thing I did like is how after they had sex one of the times, the girl stayed naked and walked around a bit. It's always bugged me when after a sex scene the girl gets dressed real quick, even while holding the covers over her body... You're naked, enjoy it, stay that way for awhile! Get up, walk around, quit being such a prude! Although, in those cases, I'll bet the only reason they get dressed so fast is because it's a movie and they can't afford to push the censors by having the characters walking around naked after the sex is done...
10 June, 2008
More Movie Nudity
The Loss of Sexual Innocence
This is a breathtaking arthouse-style film with beautiful filmography, that weaves through a handful of nonlinear stories that may or may not depict different stages of one person's life (not everything that happens is clearly explained - but it's the impact it has on you that matters) - but each story deals with the concept of losing one's sexual innocence, in different senses during different periods of one's life, and the feeling of guilt that sometimes accompanies such experiences.
This film is truly a beautiful piece of work, and I recommend it highly. There are a wealth of emotional scenes, and the film's climax totally blew me away. The nudity mostly comes in during the one story which depicts the fable of the Garden of Eden - in a sense the most basic and original loss of sexual innocence. Adam and Eve emerge from some sort of pond, and then spend some time happily and innocently exploring the world around them, completely naked, with the wonder of newborn children, before finally happening on a bush with a snake in it. After eating the fruit from the bush, as expected, their sexual drive is awakened, and after exploring it adequately, there is a powerful scene in which the couple are driven out of the garden in pouring rain by fascists and their dogs, and then forced to put on clothes in front of a ravenous paparazzi.
Like I said, it's a beautiful, amazing film.
Sirens
This was an entertaining film co-starring Sam "Dr. Alan Grant" Neill as the liberated Australian painter Norman Lindsay, set back in the first half of the last century. A young, uptight, Christian, bourgeois couple are asked to visit the artist in an attempt to persuade him to choose some more appropriate pieces for an exhibition in some museum/art gallery in England. Among the pieces originally chosen and deemed "vulgar" by the uptight authorities is a beautiful painting depicting the figure of Venus being crucified.
It turns out that Norman Lindsay is a deliciously free thinker, and has no qualms about nudity and sexuality, and is in fact quite averse to traditional Christian philosophy. In fact, there are three beautiful models living on his estate in Australia, and they regularly pose nude for the artist. Well, you can imagine the amusing situations that develop between the uptight couple and the liberated "bohemians" - but it's not all fun and games. The wife undergoes a major transformation as she discovers a new kind of freedom and becomes, to a degree, sexually liberated.
It's all very inspiring, and there are some beautiful dreamlike sequences. The nudity isn't /too/ major, but there are a number of scenes here and there where the girls (and even one of the guys) will take their clothes off, mostly in the art studio to pose, or down by the creek, and although the film does explore the concept of sexuality, I'd say that most of the nudity works in a nonsexual context, which, again, is refreshing. Additionally, there are a few scenes where the artist and the bourgeois argue about how harmful nudity and sexuality really is, and whether society is really going to hell in a handbasket, and lots of good philosophy like that.
It's a good movie, and I recommend it. It was entertaining, and despite the weight of the issues it deals with, it comes off feeling rather light, but not like the experience was insignificant. And the transformation of the one woman from uptight prude to free spirit is fascinating to witness.
Lie With Me
I tacked this title on to my buy list on a whim. It's the story of a nympho who learns to love (as opposed to, you know, just fucking). The best way I can describe it is that it feels like a porno for chicks. Like something you'd expect to see on Lifetime After Dark, if such a thing existed. The lead actress /was/ pretty hot, if slutty, and there was plenty of sex, but some of the sexiest scenes were ruined by either emotional melodrama, or too much manflesh...
This is a breathtaking arthouse-style film with beautiful filmography, that weaves through a handful of nonlinear stories that may or may not depict different stages of one person's life (not everything that happens is clearly explained - but it's the impact it has on you that matters) - but each story deals with the concept of losing one's sexual innocence, in different senses during different periods of one's life, and the feeling of guilt that sometimes accompanies such experiences.
This film is truly a beautiful piece of work, and I recommend it highly. There are a wealth of emotional scenes, and the film's climax totally blew me away. The nudity mostly comes in during the one story which depicts the fable of the Garden of Eden - in a sense the most basic and original loss of sexual innocence. Adam and Eve emerge from some sort of pond, and then spend some time happily and innocently exploring the world around them, completely naked, with the wonder of newborn children, before finally happening on a bush with a snake in it. After eating the fruit from the bush, as expected, their sexual drive is awakened, and after exploring it adequately, there is a powerful scene in which the couple are driven out of the garden in pouring rain by fascists and their dogs, and then forced to put on clothes in front of a ravenous paparazzi.
Like I said, it's a beautiful, amazing film.
Sirens
This was an entertaining film co-starring Sam "Dr. Alan Grant" Neill as the liberated Australian painter Norman Lindsay, set back in the first half of the last century. A young, uptight, Christian, bourgeois couple are asked to visit the artist in an attempt to persuade him to choose some more appropriate pieces for an exhibition in some museum/art gallery in England. Among the pieces originally chosen and deemed "vulgar" by the uptight authorities is a beautiful painting depicting the figure of Venus being crucified.
It turns out that Norman Lindsay is a deliciously free thinker, and has no qualms about nudity and sexuality, and is in fact quite averse to traditional Christian philosophy. In fact, there are three beautiful models living on his estate in Australia, and they regularly pose nude for the artist. Well, you can imagine the amusing situations that develop between the uptight couple and the liberated "bohemians" - but it's not all fun and games. The wife undergoes a major transformation as she discovers a new kind of freedom and becomes, to a degree, sexually liberated.
It's all very inspiring, and there are some beautiful dreamlike sequences. The nudity isn't /too/ major, but there are a number of scenes here and there where the girls (and even one of the guys) will take their clothes off, mostly in the art studio to pose, or down by the creek, and although the film does explore the concept of sexuality, I'd say that most of the nudity works in a nonsexual context, which, again, is refreshing. Additionally, there are a few scenes where the artist and the bourgeois argue about how harmful nudity and sexuality really is, and whether society is really going to hell in a handbasket, and lots of good philosophy like that.
It's a good movie, and I recommend it. It was entertaining, and despite the weight of the issues it deals with, it comes off feeling rather light, but not like the experience was insignificant. And the transformation of the one woman from uptight prude to free spirit is fascinating to witness.
Lie With Me
I tacked this title on to my buy list on a whim. It's the story of a nympho who learns to love (as opposed to, you know, just fucking). The best way I can describe it is that it feels like a porno for chicks. Like something you'd expect to see on Lifetime After Dark, if such a thing existed. The lead actress /was/ pretty hot, if slutty, and there was plenty of sex, but some of the sexiest scenes were ruined by either emotional melodrama, or too much manflesh...
08 June, 2008
Burning Man Checklist
I meant to do this in February, so now that it's June, I better get on the ball.
Transportation
- Rental Car
- Travel Plans
- Bicycle
Food
- Water (1.5 gallons per day per person is the rule)
- Food (that can survive harsh conditions for more than a week without going bad)
- Non-water beverages?
Clothing
- Sand goggles, sand mask?
- Hat?
- Sunglasses?
- warm weather clothes
- cool weather clothes (the desert can get chilly in the evening)
Shelter
- Tent
- Shade structure?
- Sun umbrella?
Other
- Sunscreen (and lots of it)
- Bag to carry around and hold important stuff
- trash bags
- toilet paper (one ply) (in case the facilities run out - can also be used as general purpose tissues)
- towel/s?
- soap? other cleansing products?
- journal
- camera(s), with batteries
- ???
It'll be a miracle if this trip works...
Transportation
- Rental Car
- Travel Plans
- Bicycle
Food
- Water (1.5 gallons per day per person is the rule)
- Food (that can survive harsh conditions for more than a week without going bad)
- Non-water beverages?
Clothing
- Sand goggles, sand mask?
- Hat?
- Sunglasses?
- warm weather clothes
- cool weather clothes (the desert can get chilly in the evening)
Shelter
- Tent
- Shade structure?
- Sun umbrella?
Other
- Sunscreen (and lots of it)
- Bag to carry around and hold important stuff
- trash bags
- toilet paper (one ply) (in case the facilities run out - can also be used as general purpose tissues)
- towel/s?
- soap? other cleansing products?
- journal
- camera(s), with batteries
- ???
It'll be a miracle if this trip works...
06 June, 2008
Movie Nudity
Recently on the nudist forum I mentioned once before, a discussion emerged about the best nude performance in a movie. Unsurprisingly, a lot of foreign titles were considered. Since this is just the sort of thing I've been looking for, I kind of went on a binge and ordered a bunch of these movies...
The first of them is a film called Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus, starring Nicole Kidman. It seems that Diane (Dee, not Die) Arbus was a pretty influential photographer somewhere in the middle of the last century, and she was known for photographing strange and freaky people, and bringing to them a sort of humanity that people might be quick to deny them.
Fur is a fictional - but compelling - biography about "what might have been" the steps that led Diane to realize her artistic vision and step out of the traditional housewife role. It focuses around her fascination with a "circus freak" - the wolfman type who uncontrollably grows hair all over his body - who turns out to be quite an enchanting character (played by Robert Downey Jr.), after he moves in upstairs. It's a very touching drama, and beyond that, it's a great exploration of the kind of dedication an artist needs to step away from convention and not back down on their singular artistic vision. I recommend it.
And for the curious, the nudity-related scenes bookend the film, in which the character of Diane visits a nudist resort (nudists being part of that fringe element that fascinates her) - and they don't shy away from the scenery, though the scenes are pretty short. It's certainly not the kind of "hot" nudity you expect in a film - the kind that's always accompanied by sexuality - and for that alone it's refreshing. It's also simply interesting to get even a brief glimpse of what a populated nudist resort might look like.
The second film in my binge is an interesting French-directed film titled Quest For Fire. It really is remarkable. It's a story based 80,000 years ago, about a hominid clan's adventure to recapture the secret of fire, and the dangers they face - including animals (the sabre-tooth tigers and woolly mammoths have to be seen to be believed!), as well as other more and less advanced hominid tribes. The languages used are all invented primitive languages, and there are no subtitles - the point is that you can figure out what they're saying pretty much from the body language (it's not like their conversations are very complex, anyway).
Unlike some other novelty attempts at prehistoric drama that may or may not have been made, this film is really well-done, and a lot of work went into it. It doesn't shy away from adult themes, and the content ranges all the way from humour to drama - you can laugh at a scene here or there without it degrading the seriousness of the story. Considering the setting, it's probably not really like any other movies you've seen, but I very much recommend it. The only comparison I can make is to the first section of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but remove the Monolith, and add a TON of story. You get so into it that when the lead journeyman witnesses the secret to creating fire on his own, it brings a tear of wonder to your eye.
As for the nudity, this movie is also refreshing in that, though most of the hominids are mostly covered, either in thick hair or fur pelts, depending on the clan/species, in certain cases where they're jumping around fighting and whatnot, there's an obvious lack of an attempt to cover up anything and everything that might offend - not to say that there's anything there that should offend any reasonable person. But the real splendor comes in the form of the female lead, actress Rae Dawn Chong, who spends most of her on-screen time naked from head to toe, though covered in body paint (tribal patterns). Now there's a refreshing sight, if I ever saw one.
As for the rest of the titles in my binge, I have yet to watch them.
The first of them is a film called Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus, starring Nicole Kidman. It seems that Diane (Dee, not Die) Arbus was a pretty influential photographer somewhere in the middle of the last century, and she was known for photographing strange and freaky people, and bringing to them a sort of humanity that people might be quick to deny them.
Fur is a fictional - but compelling - biography about "what might have been" the steps that led Diane to realize her artistic vision and step out of the traditional housewife role. It focuses around her fascination with a "circus freak" - the wolfman type who uncontrollably grows hair all over his body - who turns out to be quite an enchanting character (played by Robert Downey Jr.), after he moves in upstairs. It's a very touching drama, and beyond that, it's a great exploration of the kind of dedication an artist needs to step away from convention and not back down on their singular artistic vision. I recommend it.
And for the curious, the nudity-related scenes bookend the film, in which the character of Diane visits a nudist resort (nudists being part of that fringe element that fascinates her) - and they don't shy away from the scenery, though the scenes are pretty short. It's certainly not the kind of "hot" nudity you expect in a film - the kind that's always accompanied by sexuality - and for that alone it's refreshing. It's also simply interesting to get even a brief glimpse of what a populated nudist resort might look like.
The second film in my binge is an interesting French-directed film titled Quest For Fire. It really is remarkable. It's a story based 80,000 years ago, about a hominid clan's adventure to recapture the secret of fire, and the dangers they face - including animals (the sabre-tooth tigers and woolly mammoths have to be seen to be believed!), as well as other more and less advanced hominid tribes. The languages used are all invented primitive languages, and there are no subtitles - the point is that you can figure out what they're saying pretty much from the body language (it's not like their conversations are very complex, anyway).
Unlike some other novelty attempts at prehistoric drama that may or may not have been made, this film is really well-done, and a lot of work went into it. It doesn't shy away from adult themes, and the content ranges all the way from humour to drama - you can laugh at a scene here or there without it degrading the seriousness of the story. Considering the setting, it's probably not really like any other movies you've seen, but I very much recommend it. The only comparison I can make is to the first section of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but remove the Monolith, and add a TON of story. You get so into it that when the lead journeyman witnesses the secret to creating fire on his own, it brings a tear of wonder to your eye.
As for the nudity, this movie is also refreshing in that, though most of the hominids are mostly covered, either in thick hair or fur pelts, depending on the clan/species, in certain cases where they're jumping around fighting and whatnot, there's an obvious lack of an attempt to cover up anything and everything that might offend - not to say that there's anything there that should offend any reasonable person. But the real splendor comes in the form of the female lead, actress Rae Dawn Chong, who spends most of her on-screen time naked from head to toe, though covered in body paint (tribal patterns). Now there's a refreshing sight, if I ever saw one.
As for the rest of the titles in my binge, I have yet to watch them.
Naked Vulnerability (and stuff)
This is an issue that I almost brought up once before, in an entry I ended up scrapping. But the idea came back to me tonight.
In a way, being naked brings a reality to my fears. I'm afraid of people. I'm afraid of people knowing what I'm doing, because I'm certain they'll judge me for it, and might possibly disapprove, or suggest something else, or even actively get in my way. I try to keep things secret, partly to keep them from being compromised, I guess, but moreso because I'm simply afraid of people judging them, because that allows for the potential of disapproval, which is something that hurts me, even when I'm only imagining it.
Anyway, in normal situations, I try to hide myself from people, and it's purely because of inner, mental reasons. But when I'm naked, I have a more immediate reason to keep myself hidden. I have a pretty good feeling that being seen naked, especially by unsuspecting strangers, will only fare poorly for me. So it's almost like getting naked gives me a solid, substantial reason to feel the vulnerability that I feel anyway. It's like it validates my cautious behavior.
I just want to make the point here that this is not the /reason/ I get naked. I get naked because I like being naked. It's just that I've noticed a sort of correlation between the vulnerability that being naked in this society brings, and the psychological vulnerability that I usually feel.
I think I've probably mentioned my distaste for the suburban warrens before. There are relatively small plots of land, each belonging to a different person/family, each with a house where they live, and each right smack up against its neighbors. The only public land between them is the streets, which are not especially wide, and do not especially create much space for hiding oneself from the private plots of land on either side, and on down the road. In other words, there's nowhere to go where you can be away from the eyes of strangers, short of being behind the walls on your own private plot of land. There are no large stretches of public/unclaimed land. Even the parks in this area are so small that you're lucky to find a spot that's not within a stone's throw (let alone visual distance) from a row of houses.
And the trouble with public property is that it's not neutral. It's owned by the social government. Police are on regular patrol to make sure nobody uses it in any way that hasn't been condoned, in one way or another, by the general populus. If you want to engage in some kind of activity that doesn't sit well with the general populus, you have to steal back some of that land for private use. It's a hell of an inconvenience, and it makes it incredibly hard for some unaverage Joe to just go out and live his eccentric life without being hounded by the Code of Standards Patrol simply for being different, for being an outcast, for wanting to live a different life than what he was prescribed.
Freedom. The land of the free. I realized today that the American Dream is Revolution. Simple as that. It's the fight against corruption. Following the heart out of bondage and into a new world where your personal rules are law. Some country we've got now. Who the hell came up with the idea of morals anyway?
I just want to burn it all away. All these chains and things. The inhibition that keeps me locked up in my own mind. I want to just be me, and live my life the way I want to, and say fuck you to the police, and kick them in the crotch if they get in my way. I never agreed to be governed by other people. I don't recall signing a contract that says I will submit to the will of others, and abide by their morals and standards. Whose life am I living, anyway? So far, it hasn't been my own. I'm the one that's got to go when it's my time to die. So let me live my life the way I want to.
I just can't stand this waiting. This wondering and worrying. Hiding. I don't wanna spend my whole life hesitating. I gotta let loose and shame the devil.
In a way, being naked brings a reality to my fears. I'm afraid of people. I'm afraid of people knowing what I'm doing, because I'm certain they'll judge me for it, and might possibly disapprove, or suggest something else, or even actively get in my way. I try to keep things secret, partly to keep them from being compromised, I guess, but moreso because I'm simply afraid of people judging them, because that allows for the potential of disapproval, which is something that hurts me, even when I'm only imagining it.
Anyway, in normal situations, I try to hide myself from people, and it's purely because of inner, mental reasons. But when I'm naked, I have a more immediate reason to keep myself hidden. I have a pretty good feeling that being seen naked, especially by unsuspecting strangers, will only fare poorly for me. So it's almost like getting naked gives me a solid, substantial reason to feel the vulnerability that I feel anyway. It's like it validates my cautious behavior.
I just want to make the point here that this is not the /reason/ I get naked. I get naked because I like being naked. It's just that I've noticed a sort of correlation between the vulnerability that being naked in this society brings, and the psychological vulnerability that I usually feel.
I think I've probably mentioned my distaste for the suburban warrens before. There are relatively small plots of land, each belonging to a different person/family, each with a house where they live, and each right smack up against its neighbors. The only public land between them is the streets, which are not especially wide, and do not especially create much space for hiding oneself from the private plots of land on either side, and on down the road. In other words, there's nowhere to go where you can be away from the eyes of strangers, short of being behind the walls on your own private plot of land. There are no large stretches of public/unclaimed land. Even the parks in this area are so small that you're lucky to find a spot that's not within a stone's throw (let alone visual distance) from a row of houses.
And the trouble with public property is that it's not neutral. It's owned by the social government. Police are on regular patrol to make sure nobody uses it in any way that hasn't been condoned, in one way or another, by the general populus. If you want to engage in some kind of activity that doesn't sit well with the general populus, you have to steal back some of that land for private use. It's a hell of an inconvenience, and it makes it incredibly hard for some unaverage Joe to just go out and live his eccentric life without being hounded by the Code of Standards Patrol simply for being different, for being an outcast, for wanting to live a different life than what he was prescribed.
Freedom. The land of the free. I realized today that the American Dream is Revolution. Simple as that. It's the fight against corruption. Following the heart out of bondage and into a new world where your personal rules are law. Some country we've got now. Who the hell came up with the idea of morals anyway?
I just want to burn it all away. All these chains and things. The inhibition that keeps me locked up in my own mind. I want to just be me, and live my life the way I want to, and say fuck you to the police, and kick them in the crotch if they get in my way. I never agreed to be governed by other people. I don't recall signing a contract that says I will submit to the will of others, and abide by their morals and standards. Whose life am I living, anyway? So far, it hasn't been my own. I'm the one that's got to go when it's my time to die. So let me live my life the way I want to.
I just can't stand this waiting. This wondering and worrying. Hiding. I don't wanna spend my whole life hesitating. I gotta let loose and shame the devil.
01 June, 2008
If You Don't Vote, Then Don't Complain
Obviously, I strongly disagree with this statement. Well, maybe it's not so obvious to you. But being a non-voter who is inclined to complain about the way things are, it reasonably follows that I would disagree with that statement. There's this really perverse notion in this country - this pro-voting hysteria - that suggests that a person who chooses not to vote is also choosing to give up certain of his rights. Like the right to voice his opinion, for one thing. "If you really gave a damn, you'd vote. Since you don't vote, then you're all talk. You're a hypocrite. You're wasting our time." Bullshit.
Okay, so this country is supposed to be run by a democracy, or something similar to a democracy. By the people, for the people, of the people, all of that stuff. But I'm afraid it's not that simple. There are people, and there are persons, and frequently the people trample the persons. But the reason that this is a problem, is because not one of us is a people; no, each and every one of us is a person, and each of every one of us is getting trampled by the people. Luckily for the majority, they are persons that most closely resemble the people, and so the damage done to them is considerably less. But for the minority persons out there, it's a nightmare.
I've explained this philosophy before. What I wanted to say was, the idea of a democracy is that every person gets a say in the governing body. Politicians do the governing, and it's our votes as citizens that represent our participation in that governing. It's a representative sort of thing. But that's exactly where the "democracy" part fails. How the fuck am I supposed to get my voice heard in the governing body, when I'm in the minority? We're running on a popular vote system here. The minority will ALWAYS lose. It doesn't matter if every single minority voted for their cause, the majority will STILL trump them. Voting is a meaningless exercise in this context.
Take Code Geass. Suzaku and Lelouch both want the same things - a peaceful world where people are treated with respect. At least I think that's what Suzaku actually wants, sometimes it's hard to tell through his hypocritical actions. Anyhow, the difference in their two methods is key. Suzaku wants to work within the system, but what Lelouch understands that Suzaku fails to see, is that Britannia itself is corrupt. As long as Britannia remains in power, Suzaku and Lelouch's goal will never be completed. That's why Lelouch is determined to fight and overcome Britannia, to install his own better plan for the world. Suzaku can spend his entire life working within the Britannian system, getting promotions here, overturning rules and bylaws there, but he will never accomplish that goal, because Britannia is Britannia.
Aiming back at the democracy thing, and the American Empire, voting only encourages them. The greatest thing you can do is to not vote. Imagine the result if a record number of people simply did not vote. Do you think it would mean that all those people simply don't care? Of course they care. It would be a powerful wake-up call to the people in charge, a huge message of "this isn't working, and we refuse to continue to take part in it."
Am I implying that the American government is so corrupt that it needs to be overthrown? Perhaps, but I don't necessarily feel that strongly about it. This is just an example. I am only a minority, and no matter what my opinions are, it won't make a difference, because I'll always be drowned out by the voice of the majority. So it doesn't really matter what I think or say. But my ultimate point is, voting does nothing for me. Whether I vote for Candidate A or for Candidate B, it's not gonna change my life or my world in the way that I want to see it change. When faced with two evils, I refuse to willfully choose either one. I don't support evil. (Keep in mind that there's a HUGE difference between what I consider to be evil, and what the majority labels as "evil") . Does this mean I have no right to complain about that evil? Ridiculous.
I don't vote, but don't take that as a sign that I don't care enough to speak out. Quite the contrary - my willful choice not to vote is the loudest call I can think to make to profess my personal feelings about the issue.
Okay, so this country is supposed to be run by a democracy, or something similar to a democracy. By the people, for the people, of the people, all of that stuff. But I'm afraid it's not that simple. There are people, and there are persons, and frequently the people trample the persons. But the reason that this is a problem, is because not one of us is a people; no, each and every one of us is a person, and each of every one of us is getting trampled by the people. Luckily for the majority, they are persons that most closely resemble the people, and so the damage done to them is considerably less. But for the minority persons out there, it's a nightmare.
I've explained this philosophy before. What I wanted to say was, the idea of a democracy is that every person gets a say in the governing body. Politicians do the governing, and it's our votes as citizens that represent our participation in that governing. It's a representative sort of thing. But that's exactly where the "democracy" part fails. How the fuck am I supposed to get my voice heard in the governing body, when I'm in the minority? We're running on a popular vote system here. The minority will ALWAYS lose. It doesn't matter if every single minority voted for their cause, the majority will STILL trump them. Voting is a meaningless exercise in this context.
Take Code Geass. Suzaku and Lelouch both want the same things - a peaceful world where people are treated with respect. At least I think that's what Suzaku actually wants, sometimes it's hard to tell through his hypocritical actions. Anyhow, the difference in their two methods is key. Suzaku wants to work within the system, but what Lelouch understands that Suzaku fails to see, is that Britannia itself is corrupt. As long as Britannia remains in power, Suzaku and Lelouch's goal will never be completed. That's why Lelouch is determined to fight and overcome Britannia, to install his own better plan for the world. Suzaku can spend his entire life working within the Britannian system, getting promotions here, overturning rules and bylaws there, but he will never accomplish that goal, because Britannia is Britannia.
Aiming back at the democracy thing, and the American Empire, voting only encourages them. The greatest thing you can do is to not vote. Imagine the result if a record number of people simply did not vote. Do you think it would mean that all those people simply don't care? Of course they care. It would be a powerful wake-up call to the people in charge, a huge message of "this isn't working, and we refuse to continue to take part in it."
Am I implying that the American government is so corrupt that it needs to be overthrown? Perhaps, but I don't necessarily feel that strongly about it. This is just an example. I am only a minority, and no matter what my opinions are, it won't make a difference, because I'll always be drowned out by the voice of the majority. So it doesn't really matter what I think or say. But my ultimate point is, voting does nothing for me. Whether I vote for Candidate A or for Candidate B, it's not gonna change my life or my world in the way that I want to see it change. When faced with two evils, I refuse to willfully choose either one. I don't support evil. (Keep in mind that there's a HUGE difference between what I consider to be evil, and what the majority labels as "evil") . Does this mean I have no right to complain about that evil? Ridiculous.
I don't vote, but don't take that as a sign that I don't care enough to speak out. Quite the contrary - my willful choice not to vote is the loudest call I can think to make to profess my personal feelings about the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
