WOULD YOU DO THIS?
That is, get naked with 20,000 people in a public square to have your picture taken?
posted by kc @ 12:29 AM
23 comments
Monday, May 07, 2007
That is, get naked with 20,000 people in a public square to have your picture taken?
23 Comments:
Doubtful.
There was some news anchor a few years ago who participated in one of those, bringing along a cameraman to document her activity for a local news story. She looked amazing naked. I wondered, however, whether she would have been so keen on covering the story (as well as participating in the art) if she hadn't been.
Yeah, that's a good question.
My kneejerk reaction to this was, "no way would I do that until I dropped 20 pounds or so and firmed up my fanny." But then I thought, "why the heck not?!" I mean, I would feel terribly self-conscious, but once you are naked and everyone else is naked it must feel really liberating — there must me some sort of profound acknowledgment that we are all just people, made of the same clay.
A co-worker and I were marveling at these photos, saying stuff like "isn't it amazing how everyone looks the same naked — and how everyone looks different, too." We're so used to seeing images of naked people who are really sculpted and marketed, and when you see 20,000 regular people with dimpled thighs and normal flab and sag and vastly varying amounts of body hair, standing there all happy and proud to participate, it's really a marvel. And to see nakedness in a nonsexual context is a refreshing rarity, too.
In one of the photos, they all had their arms around one another.
There was one photo of women lining up and other women were running to join them, and they were smiling and cheering on the newcomers. And they were all perfectly imperfect and beautiful.
Absolutely I would. For exactly the reasons you're talking about: reclaiming nudity as nature, not something to be ashamed of, and tossing out the notion that you have to be "perfect" before anyone can see your body.
I admire them for doing it. I probably wouldn't.
I'm with cl.
It also strikes me, seeing a ton of people naked at once, that gender seems less noticeable in the "equalizing" context of nudity. Gender specific clothing does much more to differentiate the sexes, I think, than a simple state of nakedness, in which, ironically, the things that are supposed to "distinguish" the sexes are laid bare.
I also like Erin's phrase "reclaiming nudity as nature" — and the juxtaposition of lining that "nature" up in a very artificial, geometrically precise way in that most civilized, i.e., un-naked, of spaces: a public square — a place where the norm would be to get arrested for that sort of behavior. It's reclaiming nature in a very specific and a very broad sense, and it's showing how human beings have a deep appreciation for ART and allow things to be done in its name that they normally would not allow.
Our country especially has such a fucked up view of nudity. I mean, think about the Super Bowl nipple fiasco. Could that have been more ridiculous? As if catching a glimpse of a tiny part of the human anatomy warranted a prolonged nationwide freakout. People were saying, "How do I explain that to my kids?" Well, you say, "It's a nipple. Everyone has them." You know, teach them that there's nothing dirty about their bodies.
I noticed that, too, that gender seemed less noticeable in these photos. Kind of fascinating.
Not to mention all the hullabaloo in this town about women breastfeeding in public. I mean, come on, they had to PASS A BILL in the frickin' Legislature explicitly giving women the right to breastfeed in public. I'm sorry, but you have to be a seriously fucked up human being (whether thanks to the culture or not) to see a woman feeding her child and to even give it a second thought. One man said he and his male friends were "bothered" by it. Well, gee, guys, get over it; why should your nasty little stirrings or your fetishizing of the breast mean anything to anyone, let alone the law-making body of our state? Those same dudes aren't bothered when some bra-less co-ed bounces down the street; apparently it's only when a breast is being used to feed something other than their fantasies.
(But I don't have a strong opinion on this matter. hehe)
And yeah, Nipplegate was a sad, sad commentary on this country.
It probably wasn't even her nipple. That would be the harder thing to explain to a child, wouldn't it? — why so many women like JJ get breast augmentations and every manner of lift and tuck and peel to make their boobs — that can never be seen! — look "good."
I don't see how breastfeeding in public is any different than any other breast baring. If it shouldn't be against the law to be top-free, then it shouldn't be against the law to breastfeed in public. But if top-freedom is not allowed, then neither should breastfeeding. Am I right, or is there something I'm missing?
"top-freedom"?
huh?
The purpose of a breast is to feed children. The Legislature has said that a woman has a right to feed her children wherever she has a right to be. It has not revisited the issue of whether it should be legal to expose your breasts just for the sake of exposing them.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I think most people, even in our backward Legislature, acknowledge that there is a difference between exposing a breast to feed a child and exposing it just for the heck of it or for some sort of sexual gratification.
The issue of public nudity in general is another matter, I think.
In many countries it is not illegal to bare a breast, but I think most people in Western countries simply feel more comfortable with clothes on.
Some supporters of top-freedom call it that because it is a term that doesn't have any baggage (they think "topless" has been sexualized).
All I'm saying is that baring a breast for the heck of it should be treated no differently than baring it to feed a child. Either both should be allowed, or neither.
I don't know, friend. I believe there's a difference between mom-feeding-baby and Girls Gone Wild. I see a rather large public policy interest in protecting the first, and a fairly negligible one in protecting the second.
You might have to have boobs to understand this fine point.
That's not what I'm comparing. Flashing is distinguishable from walking around without a shirt on. The only reason to outlaw walking around without a shirt on is if breasts shouldn't be bared in public. And if they shouldn't be bared, there shouldn't be a separate rule for breastfeeding. I can't think of anything that could distinguish top-freedom and breastfeeding in public.
I just told you what distinguishes them. A mother feeding her child is different from a woman walking around topless.
You don't see how that's different. Fine. Let's move on.
Topless might be a sexualized term, but I'll bet you'd hear a whole lot of snickering if you said "top-freedom" around a group of gay men.
Sharon, wouldn't you hear "a whole lot of snickering" if you said anything at all around a group of gay men?
It is entirely possible to discreetly breastfeed a child without baring a breast.
Quite true, anonymous. Thanks.
Point taken, kc. A group of gay men might even sneer at someone who said snickering.
Um ... I'm in the bottom photo, 4th row from the left, 33 people back.
But seriously, I'd do it. I thought about that when I saw footage about this guy on CNN.com. I'd do it if I had friends with me.
And about the breastfeeding thing - I can't say that I'm comfortable with it. I have issues with the idea of a baby sucking on anything of mine ('cept my finger when it's teething, but that's still weird b/c of the naked gums) or having to see it happen to someone else. I *hate* *hate* *hate* it when I happen to see it going on. But I totally appreciate it when I've been in a room with a breastfeeding mother for a while and I didn't notice it b/c it was done so discretely. Still freaks me out, though. I think that it of course should not be outlawed, but I do think that our societal norms about keeping it all under wraps are on target. I don't think I should be subjected to seeing it happen any more than a baby or mother should be subjected to feeding only at home. Go to the restroom or to the back of a room instead of whipping it out in front of everyone.
The need to urinate is a medical issue and we have private rooms for that. I think that it's a little different, but not too far off.
Post a Comment
<< Home