Thursday, June 14, 2012

In Which I Cover Coverage

This is not an explicit post. Not in my opinion.

Earlier I believe I gave my views on general censorship, and now I shall focus specifically on something with which many people seem uncomfortable: the human body in its purest form, which would be the nude figure. I consider myself to be one of the least perverse people alive, and I don't see why we ought to be required to wear clothing. That is to say, it can be useful to have a coat for winter or one of those Eastern articles for sandstorm protection, but no law with which I am familiar bans running around the Arctic tundra wearing nothing but a Speedo or bikini. It may be a plea for frostbite but I don't know that it is actually illegal. But if said swimwear comes off within public view, the person is automatically arrested for public nudity.

What I mean to say is not that clothing ought to be banned, for I understand that many people are more comfortable wearing it, but those who do not wish to do so should not be punished for removal. Shielding a child's eyes from a bare human is not protection so much as hiding said child from what's really there. Think about it: what serious harm comes to one from gazing upon another's so-called privates? Staring at the sun is legal and its effects are far more harmful. Also, people don't seem to be able to distinguish between nudity and pornography. A pornographic image in my opinion involves an act of sexuality. A plain nude doing otherwise or naught at all does not denote that. Neither am I saying that images that are actually sexual are wrong; as long as it's consensual and between appropriate parties, I don't see who it harms. STD's are a different topic entirely. Personally I don't see the appeal in watching other people engage in intercourse but I'm not condemning it.

This is indeed a "taboo" topic if I am not mistaken, but I think they need to be addressed. Perhaps I'll cover the death penalty someday.

No comments:

Post a Comment