Native Nudity (or, “bastards, part 2”)

I’m watching Apocalypto right now, instantly on the netflix. 

Before the movie started, there was one of those “this movie is rated...” with a list of the potentially objectionable elements.

It’s rated R and contains “adult content, adult language, brief nudity, and graphic violence”. That’s what Starz thinks. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA—the people who assign ratings, which, by the way, is not a law; it’s supposedly voluntary*) list it as “Rated R for sequences of graphic violence and disturbing images”, with no mention of nudity.

If you’re not familiar with the film, it’s about native Americans and the decline of a civilization, enslavement of other native groups, etc. There are a fair number of bare or partially exposed “native” breasts, including nipples.

Seriously, MPAA? You know that if there were that many “civilized” breasts in a film, their ratings would mention it. And Starz probably wouldn’t call it “brief”.

I’ve written briefly about this before. This is just another example of our fucked up ideas about nudity and bodies.

* There’s a great documentary called This Film is Not yet Rated (IMDB.com page) about the MPAA their ratings “system”. 

RSC Marat/Sade

Here’s a BBC article about Royal Shakespeare Company production which a friend of mine posted on the facebook this morning:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15428711

I’d really love to see this production. If you’re not familiar with Marat/Sade, it’s a show with bunch of insane asylum inmates being led by the Marquis de Sade in a production of a play he wrote about an assassination. It has some songs, but it’s not a musical. As written, the play has the potential to be really dark and violent and disturbing.

I’ve seen 2 other productions of the play: what I recall about the first was that it was dark but kind of scattered; the second felt distant—it literally was, as it was on a regular proscenium stage with the audience at a nice, polite distance. It seems to me the show would have to be less effective with that setup.

Anyway, this RSC production sound like it might actually be gritty and disturbing. Any show that regularly has audience members walking out is something I’d be interested in seeing. Or doing. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a production that I would describe as gritty and disturbing. I've seen things other people may've described that way, but I suppose I have different standards.

I did see a production of Man of La Mancha which was kinda gritty, but it wasn’t really disturbing. It’s Man of La Mancha—too hopeful and positive. I was involved with a production of Bent, which was disturbing, but not gritty. I saw a really awesome production of West Side Story which did not (unlike the other WSS productions I’ve seen) seem to be about a bunch of gay boys prancing around stage; it was violent and actually made sense, but neither gritty nor disturbing. There’s a 1994 London cast recording of The Threepenny Opera that sounds awesomely gritty, the opposite of a university music department production I saw, which was more like and operetta.

This new RSC Marat/Sade apparently has “sexually explicit” material and torture. Bravo. Now, I’m not turned on by the idea of violence. But, (and this is much like my recent critique of Hair) if you’re going to explore something, then fucking explore it, don’t shy away from it, or politely tip your hat toward it. If you’re gonna do, say, Cabaret, you can’t be afraid of exploring presentational sexuality—sexy girls skimpily clad. If you’re gonna do Equus, you can’t be afraid of nudity and violence. (If you’re gonna do a naked blog, you can’t be shy about people seeing your genitalia. By the way, people who have a “my naked blog” as a ploy to get people to check out your not-naked-blog: I call bullshit on you.)

A guy I know recently mentioned a show his school was doing, and that they were censoring it somewhat. That shit makes me mad. (See, I’m cursing. Sometimes cursing is the right thing to do.)

I’m tired of polite theatre. I’m tired of pandering to a repressed audiences’ sensibilities. Take a fucking risk of offending someone. Maybe it’ll start a fucking conversation about theatre other than, “Oh that was so good...That must’ve been a lot of working learning all that lines...Didn’t little Susie sing pretty?” Fucking comfortable, middle-class, community-theatre bullshit.

Well... I wasn’t really planning on a diatribe.

I suspect this was brought on by several things; the timid nudity in the show I saw the other night; recently hearing a theatre artistic director talk about the “politics” of casting (i.e., figuring out who you need to cast for various reasons other than who would be best in what roles); someone’s mentioning that they heard other people talking about this blog who presumably aren’t talking to me about it nor commenting on the blog (there’s a significant dearth of comments on this blog); and the continuing trend of people unfriending me on the facebook (the hemorrhaging has stopped, but there’s still the occasional trickle).

Hmm...

So...
I really just wanted to say how I’d like to see that RSC Marat/Sade production.

HAIR response

Last night I saw a production of Hair at Elon University.

I’d seen another production—a community theatre production—several years ago. So, I guess I’ll be comparing the two a little.

But first, let me say this:

I don’t really like the show. I have issues with the show. In its day, it was probably very important. It was putting something on stage that people weren’t accustomed to seeing, at least not on stage in a polite theatrical setting. But the story isn’t always clear—the hippie-freedom of the thing gets in the way a lot. Certainly one might make the argument that the show is simply that: hippie freedom.

In fact, one of the people who went with me last might said he’d met the author years ago, and the author said the show should be really loose and free. But that’s not what I generally go to theatre to experience. I wouldn’t’ve gone to see this show if I’d had to buy the tickets. Someone I know had connections.

I’m sure it’s absolutely possible to have a show about hippie-freedom but that makes a stronger point by having a clearer story. As it is, Hair just seems to be throwing a bunch of entertainment at you in a self-aware sort of way. There are several lines in the script which refer to the audience, etc.

But if the point is to “experience” a taste of free, crazy fun then there are better ways to do it. For example, attend a theatre party. If it’s the right party, there’ll be people actually smoking pot (or doing something)—it may be in a back room somewhere, but you can find it. If you stick around long enough, there will be nudity. There will be talk of sex, and there may be actual sex. Definitely there will be loud music and singing and dancing and occasional moments of tender emotional outpouring.

So, this production last night:

Generally, it was extremely well performed. That’s very typical of Elon—they have some amazing singers and dancers and actors and various combinations of all three. The first act was strong, much more focused than the other production I saw several years ago, and probably more so than most productions. The second act seemed weaker—maybe due to the writing, maybe not. I don’t know. But it seemed lacking after act 1. It’s an odd act—most, or a big chunk, of it is a drug trip which is a series of vignettes. But that doesn’t stand out as being significantly different, as the rest of the show shares that quality. There were video projections and a chick in a black unitard with what I think were bones painted on it I assume representing death—the trip mostly deals with anxiety about Viet Nam. There were some nice moments in act 2, but it just didn’t live up to the energy and excitement of act 1.

The nudity:

In the original production there was nudity. In the production I saw several years ago there was nudity. In a production a friend of mine was in a few years ago there was nudity. I would assume it’s always done with nudity, although I’m not naïve enough to think there aren’t theatres who would choose to do the show but who would never consider putting nudity onstage. It’s the same kind of groups who’d put up a show that has a lot of profanity, but then censor it, so as to not upset the delicate sensibilities of their audience. (Or perhaps it’s more about the fears and timidity of the producers/directors.) And to those people I say, “Choose a different fucking show, assholes. There are tons of “family-friendly” options out there.

Or better yet: http://christianplays.net/ or http://www.christiantheatre.org/ I mean, isn’t that the issue? (Oddly, there’s no heathenplays.org or .com or whatever. Oh yeah, that’s just regular theatre.)

So, there was nudity in last night’s production. It was in the typical place: the act 1 finale. Here’s what the director said in her notes in the program:

“In the spirit of this theme of freedom, my point of view as director was not to censor, nor require, the nudity, but rather to leave it as an individual option for each member of the company. Although there was much rehearsal for every other part of this production, this particular moment was never rehearsed. The final decision is ultimately left up to the performer, based upon his or her character’s beliefs, in the given moment of the scene.”

Now, I know this director. I don’t particularly want to hurt her feelings (and if you’re reading this, feel free to respond—for that matter, anyone should free to respond to any of these blog entries; in fact, please do), but...to me that feels like a bit of a cop-out. And the way that the nudity was presented felt a little bit like a cop-out.

It was not, “Hey, look at us, we’re naked, we’re free, it’s a part of who we are.” The cast, except “Claude” (the “main character”), was in a semi-circle across the stage, standing pretty tightly packed together. Clause was out in the middle of the audience, standing on the arms of two seats with a spotlight on him. With that staging, he should be the focus of the scene, although most people were probably looking, squinting, trying to see more of the naked people onstage. So, to me, it seemed more like, “this is Hair; we’re naked, but you can only sort of see it.” You could tell that some were totally naked, some were clothed, but there were very few individuals. Perhaps if I knew the cast, I might recognize more individuals. But the lighting was about as dark as you’ll see onstage except for a blackout.

Now, I’m not old enough to have been around back in the day, so I don’t know exactly how nudity of that group (hippies) in that time (the 60s) should play. But it didn’t feel like freedom or self-expression or defiance of social convention. It felt like they were doing Hair, and that’s what you’re “supposed” to do at that moment, so they did it, but not in a way that would be too offensive.

The other production I saw several years ago embraced that nudity much more. If I recall correctly, in that production there was nudity in a couple of other spots as well, not just the act 1 finale. There didn’t seem to be any fear or uncertainty or reluctance concerning the nudity. It was unapologetically part of the show. My feeling is that it should be unapologetic and unfearful. If you’re gonna be naked (and free), just do it.

HAIR

Last night I saw a production of Hair at Elon University.

I’d seen another production—a community theatre production—several years ago. So, I guess I’ll be comparing the two a little.

But first, let me say this:

I don’t really like the show. I have issues with the show. In its day, it was probably very important. It was putting something on stage that people weren’t accustomed to seeing, at least not on stage in a polite theatrical setting. But the story isn’t always clear—the hippie-freedom of the thing gets in the way a lot. Certainly one might make the argument that the show is simply that: hippie freedom.

In fact, one of the people who went with me last might said he’d met the author years ago, and the author said the show should be really loose and free. But that’s not what I generally go to theatre to experience. I wouldn’t’ve gone to see this show if I’d had to buy the tickets. Someone I know had connections.

I’m sure it’s absolutely possible to have a show about hippie-freedom but that makes a stronger point by having a clearer story. As it is, Hair just seems to be throwing a bunch of entertainment at you in a self-aware sort of way. There are several lines in the script which refer to the audience, etc.

But if the point is to “experience” a taste of free, crazy fun then there are better ways to do it. For example, attend a theatre party. If it’s the right party, there’ll be people actually smoking pot (or doing something)—it may be in a back room somewhere, but you can find it. If you stick around long enough, there will be nudity. There will be talk of sex, and there may be actual sex. Definitely there will be loud music and singing and dancing and occasional moments of tender emotional outpouring.

So, this production last night:

Generally, it was extremely well performed. That’s very typical of Elon—they have some amazing singers and dancers and actors and various combinations of all three. The first act was strong, much more focused than the other production I saw several years ago, and probably more so than most productions. The second act seemed weaker—maybe due to the writing, maybe not. I don’t know. But it seemed lacking after act 1. It’s an odd act—most, or a big chunk, of it is a drug trip which is a series of vignettes. But that doesn’t stand out as being significantly different, as the rest of the show shares that quality. There were video projections and a chick in a black unitard with what I think were bones painted on it I assume representing death—the trip mostly deals with anxiety about Viet Nam. There were some nice moments in act 2, but it just didn’t live up to the energy and excitement of act 1.

The nudity:

In the original production there was nudity. In the production I saw several years ago there was nudity. In a production a friend of mine was in a few years ago there was nudity. I would assume it’s always done with nudity, although I’m not naïve enough to think there aren’t theatres who would choose to do the show but who would never consider putting nudity onstage. It’s the same kind of groups who’d put up a show that has a lot of profanity, but then censor it, so as to not upset the delicate sensibilities of their audience. (Or perhaps it’s more about the fears and timidity of the producers/directors.) And to those people I say, “Choose a different fucking show, assholes. There are tons of “family-friendly” options out there.

Or better yet: http://christianplays.net/ or http://www.christiantheatre.org/ I mean, isn’t that the issue? (Oddly, there’s no heathenplays.org or .com or whatever. Oh yeah, that’s just regular theatre.)

So, there was nudity in last night’s production. It was in the typical place: the act 1 finale. Here’s what the director said in her notes in the program:

“In the spirit of this theme of freedom, my point of view as director was not to censor, nor require, the nudity, but rather to leave it as an individual option for each member of the company. Although there was much rehearsal for every other part of this production, this particular moment was never rehearsed. The final decision is ultimately left up to the performer, based upon his or her character’s beliefs, in the given moment of the scene.”

Now, I know this director. I don’t particularly want to hurt her feelings (and if you’re reading this, feel free to respond—for that matter, anyone should free to respond to any of these blog entries; in fact, please do), but...to me that feels like a bit of a cop-out. And the way that the nudity was presented felt a little bit like a cop-out.

It was not, “Hey, look at us, we’re naked, we’re free, it’s a part of who we are.” The cast, except “Claude” (the “main character”), was in a semi-circle across the stage, standing pretty tightly packed together. Clause was out in the middle of the audience, standing on the arms of two seats with a spotlight on him. With that staging, he should be the focus of the scene, although most people were probably looking, squinting, trying to see more of the naked people onstage. So, to me, it seemed more like, “this is Hair; we’re naked, but you can only sort of see it.” You could tell that some were totally naked, some were clothed, but there were very few individuals. Perhaps if I knew the cast, I might recognize more individuals. But the lighting was about as dark as you’ll see onstage except for a blackout.

Now, I’m not old enough to have been around back in the day, so I don’t know exactly how nudity of that group (hippies) in that time (the 60s) should play. But it didn’t feel like freedom or self-expression or defiance of social convention. It felt like they were doing Hair, and that’s what you’re “supposed” to do at that moment, so they did it, but not in a way that would be too offensive.

The other production I saw several years ago embraced that nudity much more. If I recall correctly, in that production there was nudity in a couple of other spots as well, not just the act 1 finale. There didn’t seem to be any fear or uncertainty or reluctance concerning the nudity. It was unapologetically part of the show. My feeling is that it should be unapologetic and unfearful. If you’re gonna be naked (and free), just do it.

Purrrlesque and the Squidling Bros

A friend, knowing I like taking off my clothes, invited me to a burlesque show last night. Actually, it was sort of a double show with two groups: Purrrlesque—a local burlesque group,

check 'em out herrre

and the Squidling Brothers—a “side show” troupe from Philadelphia.

http://squidlingbros.com/

It wasn’t far from my apartment, and I wasn’t too busy, so I went.

(hand stamp)

It was the first burlesque show I’ve attended. It was also the first whatever you wanna call the Squiddling bros—a contemporary dark, tattooed, side show?—that I’ve attended. I’ve seen video of both before, but never live.

It was partly what I expected and partly not. I could put on my critic hat and say this could be more something, and that could be more something else. But I won’t. I’ll just say that I had a great time. I drank a bit, spent too much money, and went “Whoo!” a whole lot. It was so much fun.

Here are some pictures. There was a guy from a local paper and some other guy taking pics. They both had real cameras, and, I’m sure, come out with much better quality pictures.  Or, check out the groups websites.

PURRLESQUE:

They had some actual singing (by the woman on the left),
not just lip synching.

Yeah, that’s Osama.

And there was the requisite little girl skipping. 

It was part of a “Anything you can do” duet. 

(Yay for musical theatre!)

And here’s the ensemble.
Yes, that's a dude on the left.
Boylesque?

THE SQUIDLING BROS:

Nothing like some atmospheric accordion playing and strange singing to set the mood.

Your MC, clothed, and half-clothed.

...and swallowing a sword.

Yes, a dude on a bed of nails and with a cinder block on his chest.

You can’t tell very well, but they’ve got a long tube 

running up through their noses and out their mouths.

Nice, huh?

Betty Bloomerz: she’s one of the nose-tubers. 

Here she’s eating fire. She is also a sword swallower.

The finale: the MC, naked, 

about to have his scrotum stapled 

by a member of the audience. 

Yeah. Stapled scrotum.
It could’ve been me doing the stapling. What an honor, but I declined. Despite the fact that he’s probably done that tons of times before, I haven’t. And I’m just not that interested in hurting someone on purpose.

I will say this (I guess it’s somewhat of a critique): 

Betty Bloomerz was amazingly awesome and my favorite by far. Her onstage character was sad and funny and strange and quirky and captivating and beautiful. I think I’m in love.

Or maybe I just need a girlfriend.

Here’s a picture from their website:

(I hope they don’t mind too much that I stole it. 

It’s a much better pic than my sad camera phone could do.)

I took more side show pics than burlesque pics, but they a rule: once the tops come off, no pictures. And I didn’t want to accidently break a rule, so, I didn’t take so many pics of the ladies.

I suppose if I go to another burlesque show, I may do more of a critique. 

Nude House

If you regularly read (& by “read” I mean read, not just look at pictures) this blog you may’ve read before that I’ve come to the point where ideas aren’t coming so easily.

So I occasionally look online for news or other ideas that might pertain to this blog. Well, I found something today. It’s not new news, but it’s certainly new to me and perhaps to you as well.

There's an office in Syndey, Australia where everyone is naked all day. It's a requirement. They hire naturists. It’s on their website. Prospective employees know this before their (naked) interview.

Here's a video from aolnews.

Now, I think the idea is great. It’s a place where naturists can be themselves at work. Awesome.

Here’s an article from the Sydney Morning Herald.

If were inclined to work in an office, and I lived in Sydney, then I’d certainly consider applying.

I checked out the company’s website. It’s called “Nude House”.

They do computer software and sales. Their main program allows you to attach to a picture all kinds of "pop-up" info: text, links, other pictures, whatever. It seems legit.

But there’s a problem. Or two.

Problem #1: There are a few pictures on the company website. Okay, it makes sense that a company would have office environment pictures.
The pictures do not seem to have the attached pop-up info, which I would think they should, that being the company's major product. But you can “click to enlarge” the photos. There are three pictures, and they’re all pictures of women. Here are links:

2 women at computers—one is on the phone, the other appears to be typing

“One of the salesgirls getting dressed after work”

...and here’s the biggest part of problem one (don’t say I didn’t warn you):

“One of the girls to be interviewed with her lovely demonstration photo”

What the fuck!!!???
That is not "naturism". Clearly, that's porn.

As far as I can tell, the “demonstration photo” is something all applicants have to submit along with their CV. But if this is non-sexual naturism, then why is that kind of photo on their site? And why is it all women in the pictures?

Problem #2: According to the website, women don’t come in to work during their period. Okay, if everyone is really cool with nudity and bodies and all that jazz, then why do women have to stay home from work while having their period? It strikes me as a very Old Testament policy. Why not say when you’re having your period, you can wear panties? Apparently that would go against the all nude, all the time policy. 

If it's something else, any experienced naturists out there want to explain that to me?

So, as I said, I think the idea is great. I'm a little suspicious about the execution.
I'm also a little suspicious of this dude and his sort of creepy photo:

Nude House founder, Chris Taylor

Walking In

I remember hearing once that my dad saw somebody naked. I was maybe 13? We were on some church retreat thing with my family and several other folks from our church. Apparently my dad walked into this woman’s hotel room when she had just gotten out of the shower and was naked. I was intrigued. I remember it was surprising to me that my parents and this woman and the other adults were talking about it, like it was funny and no big deal. That didn’t quite mesh with the feeling or the concept I was developing up to that point about nudity.

I grew up in a Christian household, but it wasn’t one of those super-crazy-guilt-laden places, where the children are being yelled at all the time about how horrible and sinful and evil sex is and that you’ll burn in hell, blah, blah, blah. In some conversation that I, as an adult, had with my mom about church and faith and how we were raised, she said that they didn’t feel like they needed to preach at us all the time at home because they figured we were getting what we needed (to be good Christian kids) from church. However, at that point, to me, the idea that seeing somebody naked could be amusing or anything other than a serious breach of appropriate behavior was just out of the realm of possibility. I basically never saw anyone naked except myself in the shower and rarely my younger siblings when they were small babies, and generally that was when they were in the baby-tub. But I was old enough to be interested in sex, so the idea that you might see someone naked was exciting.

Anyway, I’ve occasionally heard other people mention walking in on someone naked, or being walked in on. I’ve never walked in on anyone naked. One Sunday afternoon early my freshman year in college, I had gone home for the weekend and was returning, with my parents (and my high school “sweetheart” I think), and we walked in on my roommate in bed with a girl. They weren’t actually having sex, nor were they naked. But it was strange, because I’d never met her before, and she was in my room, cuddling with my roommate.

Now, other people walking in on my while I was naked...it doesn’t feel like it’s happened. (Except “the neighbor”.) Then again, if I were walked in on, I probably wouldn’t care all that much. I guess that’s the idea that I have—the sort of oops!/oh-my-god!/whaah! sort of thing. Yeah, society has somehow convinced me that people are supposed to react that way in a walking-in-on-someone-naked situation. So even though I don’t feel that way, it’s in there, in my brain that way. Sometimes I really hate “society” and it’s “values”.

There was one place I lived which had a screened in porch, so sometimes we’d just leave that door open. And a girl I know and her guy friend dropped in while I was sort of lounging on the couch naked under a blanket. We chatted for a bit until I needed to get up for something, and they realized I was naked. That type of thing has happened a few other times in other places as well. There’s always that issue of thinking, well, I need to get up, and they’re gonna see me naked; I don’t care, but they might...

Where I live now, there’ve been a couple of people I was expecting, but who showed up early, when I was still naked or just then getting dressed. I’m not sure exactly what they saw. But like I said, it really doesn’t bother me. I’m a little curious what they actually saw or were aware of, and went through their minds.

So I guess if any readers out there have “walked in” on me, feel free to share. If it doesn’t make you uncomfortable.

Or if you have your own walked in on story, chime in.

unfriends

I just lost another facebook “friend”, which prompts me to post this.

By the way, I’ve figured out who a lot of you are, and there are a few surprises. Oh well, whatever.

Dear ≈50 people who’ve unfriended me on the facebook:

(Yeah, I know they’re not gonna see this, but...)

I understand if the posts about my new blog made you uncomfortable. But, ya know, several times I’ve mentioned in a facebook post that if you don’t want to see these posts let me know. I could’ve taken you off the list.

I would never simply unfriend someone because they posted something I didn’t like. I might hide them from my news feed, as I have with a handful of people who constantly post religious claptrap &/or right-wing conservative nonsense &/or sports crap that I care nothing about. Or if I had a normal job where I was concerned with what my boss might see on my computer screen when I was on facebook during work hours.

But I wouldn’t unfriend you. I’d probably say something about it: maybe ask you to not post that to me, you know, make a list or something. Or if I found it really troubling or disturbing I’d say so. I might say, “Hey. This is really offensive...or troubling...whatever”. I would start an actual conversation.

Wow, imagine that, actually saying what you think. Expressing your feelings. Oooo, a confrontation.

Why is that so scary? Why can’t people handle that?



Update: 11-7-2011

In the news: NYC artist & public body-painting

Artist can paint nude models only after dark

(Reuters article)

So, this artist—Andy Golub—was arrested for painting nude models in public in New York City. New York State law allows public nudity by people “entertaining or performing in a play, exhibition, show or entertainment".

You can be naked if you’re “entertaining”, but not just because you like it? Well, whatever.

The court is allowing the artist and his model to go free, and the charges will be dropped in 6 months if they are not arrested again. He’ll be allowed to paint bare breasts any time, but during the day the models have to at least wear “g-strings”.

I’m not sure whether or not this is a good thing for public nudity proponents. It’s half-way good for artistic expression, in that he can paint mostly nude people, but a little bad that he has to wait until dark to paint fully nude people.

But on the bad side (for public nudists) is that the court is upholding a distinction: some nude is good and some nude is bad. Just being naked is bad, but naked entertainment is okay.

As is often the case, I don’t quite understand. 

bastards

Why is this acceptable...

...but not this?

And why is this...

or this (post ancient Greece/Rome)...

...much more common than this?

...and this?

Why is this sort of shocking or maybe even disturbing?

Okay, I know the reason, and you probably do too. White European males—those bastards—and their double standards concerning nudity (and sex).

We should all have a healthy sense of shame...but look at these “innocent natives” or “artistic nude depictions”.

Aren’t they the same guys who wanna keep people from having affordable health care and stop gay marriage?

...bastards.

Interesting article: Nat'l Geo nude discrimination

The Vagina Monologues

I support being against violence toward women. (That's an awkward phrase.) 

I’ve read The Vagina Monologues and seen a production. Maybe two? I think so. Well, I think one of them was a reading. It’s an interesting piece.

But I ask this: why no “Penis Monologues”? “My penis is like...some phallic object...” Or better yet, “My cucumber is like a penis..."

My screwdriver is like a penis..."

My TV remote...?”

Why no “Penis Monologues”? Because every other play being done is about dead white men and their penises.

...okay, maybe not.

What do men have to say about their penises? I’m not sure. Men? Chime in.

As for me, my penis is like...a penis.

(Yes, a rare moment: another penis on my penis-blog. Ya know, 

it’s not easy to find a decent picture of a normal, non-erect penis.)

Anyway, guys talking about penises would probably deteriorate into a list of “dick-names”. (Yeah, I kinda made that up, but feel free to use it.)

Reminds me of a suggestion that someone made that I write a “schlong song”. I replied that the idea strikes me as a bit more vulgar than something I’d do. She said I could probably make it something clever, but nah...it’s just not me. Again, it seems like it would end up as a list of penis names. You know, dick, cock, peter, willy...that sort of thing. Who’d want to wade through that?

(If you want to wade through that... here’s a list... ‘cause mine’s not that long. ¡Ha, a penis joke!)

I’m just not much on using creative or funny names for the penis. I typically say “penis”. Similarly, I typically say “breasts”. In fact, while I love breasts, I don’t much care for “tits” and even less for “boobs”. They both sound like a stupid person. (Probably because both words can also mean a stupid person.) Granted, some breasts may seem kind of dumb, but I don’t really want to use those terms for breasts in general. And to make them cuter or whatever by adding “-ies” is worse still. I don’t actually talk a lot about vaginas. I'm not sure why. It just doesn't come up much. So, I’m not quite sure what word I use. It depends on the context, I guess.

Well...back the whole vagina/penis monologues thing.

Since The Vagina Monologues is generally seen as a piece dealing with female empowerment and often specifically dealing with rape, incest, and violence against women...

...to actually write a “Penis Monologues” seems a little anti-The Vagina Monologues. Of course, it wouldn’t have to be, but the concept itself might be offensive to many feminists. I imagine the idea that men would need “empowerment” is foreign to most folk.

But I think that “male empowerment” is something worth exploring. I was chatting with someone not long after starting this blog, and I mentioned my feeling that male nudity or male sexuality should be explored. Whoever I was chatting with suggested that it has been, but I don’t feel that way. Maybe the stereotypical, aggressive, macho, male sexuality has been explored plenty. But that’s certainly not me.

I can't imagine exploring my "maleness" by going out in the woods, sitting around a fire, and grunting, yelling & banging sticks on the ground. Sitting around a fire having a conversation? Absolutely. But no sticks. And no grunting.

Okay...what is my point? (I often loose track of my point, don't I?) I guess my point is: I’m a male; I have a penis; I am a sexual being; and I have feelings about all that. As much as I’d like to think I’m open and articulate (or at least willing to write about stuff), I’m not always sure what my feelings are about all this stuff. 

Novelty

If you’ve been keeping up with this blog for any length of time, it’s likely that the sight of me naked is no longer shocking.

The novelty has worn off. Maybe that means you’re reading the text now. Someone I knew mentioned scanning through the blog to look at the pictures. I guess that’s okay, but I hope that’s not what most people are doing. I mean, if you’re just looking for penises, there are much better places on the internet for that. Penis‘R’Us-dot-com? I’m sure it’s out there.

(I’m having a sense that maybe I’ve written about this before. I’m at the point with this blog that I can’t quite recall if I wrote about something or if I just thought about writing about it. Maybe I should just not worry and write about things more than once if that’s what happens.)

I’m sure the same people on the facebook are seeing the posts that I “share”. That’s probably most of you folk reading this. I don’t know, though, who’s reading this. (I’m sure I written this before.)  There are some exceptions—a few people with whom I’ve chatted about this—but I wish I were getting more feedback. It’d be great to start some dialogue about nudity, social nudity & taboos, my penis, whatever...wait, maybe not that third one (heh-heh).

I’ve discovered that several people have shared links to this blog on the facebook. But I only know who one of them is. I can’t see the shares, as I normally can. I don’t mind that people I don’t know are seeing this, but I’m curious who’s sharing and who might be viewing.

Anyway...back to the topic of novelty.

I think the search for novelty likely feeds the porn industry. Porn consumers are looking for something new. I think watching the same videos (or whatever) over and over eventually loses its spark. Different people have to “couple” and perhaps more people have to “couple”...more has to become even more...bigger has to become even bigger...unusual fetishes have to become even more unusual...the unusual become the extreme...

What exactly does that have to do with my blog? Umm...not sure.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe people just don’t get enough of nudity. Maybe it doesn’t have to be more extreme or unusual to keep our interest.

I think about the “Naked News”. I’ve never subscribed to it, but I’ve seen a few clips. It’s women reporting the news while taking off their clothes. It’s really kind of boring. They’re not particularly great newsreaders. And they’re attractive women, but the “stripping” isn’t very seductive. Also, there’s no surprise, no suspense, no novelty. There are different women, but that’s about it. I don’t know what the reader turnaround rate is. It wouldn’t surprise me if they bring in new talent on a fairly regular basis. As boring as it is, they’d kinda have to. So maybe that is about novelty.

I have found that when I look at this blog or look for a picture that’s on the blog occasionally I’ll be surprised. Whoa! That’s me naked. It’s odd because I’m generally naked when I have that reaction, and I know I’m about to see a picture of me naked. Weird.

Also on this topic...there’s a musical called Naked Boys Singing. I’ve not seen it live, but there is a video that I’ve seen. [And you can find a few clips online.] I didn’t care for it. I’m fine with the idea of a musical with a bunch of dudes who are naked off and on throughout. But that seems to be all it is. I just watched it once, but I thought the music’s not great or clever or interesting. I don’t remember a lot of details, but there may’ve been some nice moments here and there, but nothing that would make me recommend it. I mean, if you want to see some fit, attractive (I guess—again, I don’t really remember) “boys”—they’re young men—singing, then check it out. (I used to have a copy; it was part of a gift bag for some benefit I was involved with in NYC. But I either gave it away or sold it.) If you’re looking for a good musical that happens to have a bunch of nude dudes, then keep looking. It’s not even a novel idea—onstage nudity (that’s another entry that I’ll write soon). But it’s something that a lot of people probably haven’t seen.

Maybe I should write a nude show, with good music and clever writing. I just need a good idea. And a theatre willing to produce it.

Anyone?