Zombie attack! (Naked in the News 3—update)

The other day I wrote about a naked dude eating anothernaked dude’s face. Here’s some more info.

the attacker: Rudy Eugene

the victim: Ronald Poppo

Here are links to a couple of GRAPHIC pictures:

the crime scene, including the dead attacker

the victim after the attack

(It’s kinda gross, but no worse than stuff you’d see in a horror film.)

The attacker was known to have had anger issues and to have been violent. He also was seen sometimes in the area where the attack happened and was described as “frequently confused”.

He is suspected to have been on something called “bath salts”. 

It’s not Epson salts like you’d put in your bath. It’s likely methylenedioxypyrovalerone, although it could be something else.

It’s a relatively new drug, and therefore not illegal in most states. They’re even sold in some stores. (I’d never heard of it.) Apparently there’s no way to test for this. But the attacker’s behavior of stripping and being violent, strong, and out of control. Her was shot 4 times at, I would assume, fairly close range before he died. People using “bath salts” have been described as having “superhuman strength”. And it seems to raise the body temperature to the point, in extreme cases, of cooking the internal organs. 

The drug is a “recreational” or “party” drug. It’s inhaled or snorted, and it’s cheaper than cocaine. It induces hypothermia, paranoia, hallucinations, and agitation. There’s at least one other instance in which someone using this drug tried to bite somebody else.

Okay, so...you people with your crazy drugs are dangerous. It’s one thing to endanger your own life, but if you’re attacking other innocent people, then it’s wrong. Cut it out.

Sources:

KFI AM 640 talk radio

abc news

socialmediaseo.net

WebMD

Naked in the News (3)

Another crazy, likely drugged-up, naked person, made the news. Here’s what I’ve gotten from perusing a few articles.

Apparently yesterday 2 naked men were seen near a busy street. A cop came by and stopped and found one of the naked men EATING the other man’s face. The cop warned him to stop, but the naked face-eating guy growled at the cop and kept eating. So the cop shot and killed him. Drug use is suspected.

I’ve got 2 things to say about this.

1. Crazy people: stop doing your crazy stuff while naked; you’re giving naked people a bad name.

2. Cops: it’s 2012 now; isn’t there some non-lethal way to deal with crazy, face-eating people?

Miami Herald

BBC news

The internet is for porn

So, I was trying to come up with a topic for today’s blog and did a google image search for “famous nudes”. I was expecting some famous paintings and sculptures. But the results are mostly porn, some celebrity nudes and celebrity fake nudes.

Seriously, what the fuck?!?  (Or perhaps I should ask “Why the fuck?”)

The first “art nude” result is Helmut Newton’s “Sie Kommen (Dressed and Naked)”. Okay, yes, This is famous. 

A bit further down is Paul Delvaux’s Nymphs Bathing.

I don’t recognize this painting or even the name of the painter. Does anybody else? Is it famous?

There’s an Edward Weston Nude in the Doorway (Charis, Santa Monica) which I almost missed because it's so subtle compared to all the porn on that results page. Edward Weston is fairly well-known. 

The next non-porn is this: Walter Chin 25 Nudes.

(I don't know this photographer. These seem to be more glamour/fashion photos, even though they’re nudes, i.e., not clothed. These appear to be fashion models, and this photographer’s work appears in fashion magazines.)

Porn, porn, porn, etc...then Arthur Hacker’s A Female Nude at her Toilet.

Again, I don’t recognize this.

Scrolling further down, the first famous nude painting that I recognize isn’t even a famous nude painting. It’s somebody’s imitation of a famous nude painting: Édouard Manet’s Olympia. 

Clearly, Trekkie Monster from Avenue Q is correct: the internet IS for porn.

Naked States (Spencer Tunick)

A few days ago I watched, for the second time, Naked States. It’s a documentary about photographer Spencer Tunick and his Naked States tour.

In 1997 Spencer toured the U.S. states, taking pictures of people (generally not “models”, just “normal” people) posing nude in public. Some were individuals or small groups, some were large groups of people.

The documentary came out in 2000.

He’s been arrested several times, in several locations. In the film his lawyer says that none of his arrests were the result of a complaint, but rather they all resulted from a policeman who happened by while the photographs were being taken.

The Naked States tour was instrumental in bringing Spencer’s work to the public, at least, certainly in the art world. Perhaps the documentary has brought him to a wider general public’s attention. Since doing this tour he’s gone on to do a Naked World tour, and other national tours and large “installations” at various locations.

I believe on this tour, he broke the then-record for the largest (most people) in a nude photo with 1,000+ people. His current record is around 18,000 people. (Wow. And by that, I mean “Wow” not “World of Warcraft”.)

On Spencer’s website you can view some of his work, find out about upcoming projects, and even “sign up” to participate in future installations.

Some quotes from the film:

In the documentary, one of his models says about the shoot, “As soon as I had my clothes off—I think it was actually getting them off and getting them back on that was more uncomfortable for me, than actually being nude outside.”

(I can completely relate to that. When I take pictures outside, behind my apartment, I’m just not that nervous while I’m naked, taking pictures. It’s a little before and mostly after that I feel nervous.)

Another of his models, says, “Being naked is just a wonderful experience. I highly recommend it to everyone. They should all run out of their houses immediately, and be naked. You don’t have to have people watching you, just go out at night sometime and walk around in the yard and see how good it feels.”

(Yes, I agree. It totally does feel great. Do it. You know you’re curious.)

In the documentary, Dan Speers, President of the Tri-State Metro Naturists group (based in New Jersey), says “For someone to tell me, especially a government authority, that I have to wear clothes—they’re telling me to be ashamed of myself. Government is mandating that people shame themselves.”

(YEAH! If I ever get arrested, I’m gonna have to remember that. Actually, in that case, it would be really helpful if I could get some of my pictures hung up somewhere—a gallery or coffee shop, even. Also, I’m still interested in taking pictures of other people. Anyone?)

Staccato (Sordid Lives, the TV series)

I just got finished watching Sordid Lives, the TV series on the netflix.

I rather liked it. It’s a prequel to the play/film of the same name by Del Shores.

In the season/series finale there was unexpected full (but brief) frontal male nudity. There were a couple of other glimpses of penises, which mostly seemed like it could’ve been sloppy editing, or more likely something that a censor missed while blinking. But in the last episode the opening night of an all-nude play called Staccato—which is referred to for 11 prior episodes—occurs.

(This is actually 2 separate, unrelated clips...with German subtitles.)

The show aired on Logo, a digital cable TV channel with programming geared toward the LGBT community.

I don’t know that channel. I don’t know how heavily it was edited for airing. There was some profanity, but not tons. But the nudity was just a little surprising for what seemed like a typical TV show. I mean, they could’ve done without the nudity, but it certainly made sense for the character, etc.

It reminded me a bit of The Full Monty, except they did show the big “reveal”.

Anyway, I rather enjoyed the show (you know, the program) and would love to see the film or play now.

I don’t expect that there’d necessarily be nudity. And, despite what some might think, not everything in my life is about nudity. I’m actually curious about the characters and what happens next. 

“Venus” (Anna Utopia Giordano)

In her series, “Venus”, Italian artist Anna Utopia Giordano, using “Photoshop” techniques,  has “updated” a number of Venus paintings to adhere to contemporary standards of beauty for women.

It’s an interesting commentary on beauty standards, but also on the way the commercial beauty industry creates literally unreal images and, therefore, expectations. 

“denuded”

denude [dɪˈnjuːd]

vb (tr)

1. to divest of covering; make bare; uncover; strip

2. (Geological) to expose (rock) by erosion

3. (Medical) to divest of a covering, as myelin

I recently saw the word “denuded” in a book I was reading. It means what I thought it meant, but I immediately thought that it ought to mean the opposite. You know, nude...denude. Sounds like the opposite, right?

Language is odd sometimes. 

Mise à nu

This is kinda cool:

“Mise à nu” by Reynauld Drouhin 

(click the link & hover your mouse over the picture)

However, I wish there were more variety. All these women at least seem approximately the same height and basic size. I think it would be a much more interesting “work” if it had men and women of various shapes and sizes and colors.

It reminds me of a book I used to have: XXX: 30 PornStar Portraits by Timothy Greenfield.

I found a page on tumblr—clothed-nude.tumblr.com—that has a lot of similar type pics, with mostly men—some women and a few couples. But they’re not necessarily the same pose. And, like most collections of male nudes, a fair number of the pictures are a bit porn-ish. I’ve seen other such clothed/nude pictures that were clearly porn, which is kind of interesting too, for much the same reason.

What I find most interesting is that some of the subjects look more comfortable in one or the other picture. Of course, some look almost the same—you know, their face, their expression. And that, to me, is not so interesting.

In this “work” (Mise à nu) it seems the artist has purposely chosen poses which are perhaps supposed to be neutral, and in which the expression is the same in both the clothed and nude pictures. But to me the subjects mostly seem stiff and uncomfortable.

I’ve seen other nudes that seem to take this neutral approach. It’s as if the artist is trying to not present an emotional expression, but rather just present the body. But I think that expressionless faces are almost impossible. I think we tend to either look for emotional content in faces or impose emotional content onto face.

I tend to find that unsatisfying in much the same way I find it unsatisfying to hear someone read a poem with a neutral sort of presentation. (I had a college professor who did that. I hated it. It all tended to be monotone except the end of each line would go up just a little in inflection.)

I do realize that in many of my pictures in this blog I have a similar, arguably neutral expression. So, maybe I’m not the best model. If I could ever find anyone else to actually pose for me (I’ve had a few people who’ve said they might be willing to, but it’s not happened yet), I’d be interested in trying this kind of thing.

Any takers?

On Amendment One

I am taking a day off from the nakedness of my naked blog to post about North Carolina Amendment One. I mean, I’m naked while I write this, and I assume I’ll be naked much or all of the day. But, this isn’t my typical “naked blog” blog. Mainly, I’m posting this here because I know that MANY more people view this blog than my other “PG-13” blog.

So, Amendment 1 in North Carolina passed yesterday.

If you don’t know, it’s an amendment to the state constitution which says “that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”

One major result of this amendment being passed is that if or when “gay marriage” is recognized in the state, it will be harder to get it passed. “Gay marriage” was already illegal here, but now that it’s part of the constitution, the process to change the law is more difficult. But another concern of opponents is the impact on non-married heterosexual couples. Similarly worded laws have been used in other states to deny legal protection in cases of domestic abuse when the individuals involved are not married, etc.

I’ve seen it said in several places that the timing of this amendment is an issue, and that its backers did this on purpose—putting the amendment on the primary ballot, when turnout is generally low.  

For many potential voters, apathy is an issue. Unless you’re particularly interested in some race or the amendment, it just may not seem that important.

Apparently it was a high (possibly record) turnout for a Primary election. Presidential election turnout is perhaps twice that of Primaries.

Amendment 1

For: 1,303,952 (61.05%   )

Against: 831,788 (38.95%)            

Registered voters: 6,296,759

Ballots cast: 2,164,074 (2,135,740 voting on the amendment)

That’s 34.37 % of registered voters who cast a ballots, and 33.92% of registered voters cast a vote on the Amendment issue. (from: results.enr.clarityelections.com)

Well...

Last night and this morning I’ve read many facebook statuses expressing sadness, anger, hurt feelings, etc.

I don’t happen to feel that way. It went down pretty-much as I expected it to.

I think that those against the amendment were very vocal. That was certainly my experience.

I would say that the vast majority of my friends and friendly acquaintances are liberals or social moderates. Also they are mostly educated. I’m sure many would consider themselves religious—Christians mainly, but again, moderate or liberal in their views.

Most of the people that I know, I know from “the arts”. They’re either currently or have been in the past involved somehow with theatre or music or dance or perhaps visual arts or writing. That’s what I do, so that’s who I know.

I think I have 1 for sure, possibly 2, facebook friends who expressed their position for the amendment. Most who mentioned it were against.

In the city where I live there’s a lot of community theatre here, and a little bit of professional theatre. There’s a state university here and several colleges. This county is one of a small number that voted against the amendment. I did not see a single “vote for” sign here, but I saw plenty of “vote against”.

I’m sure there places where that wasn’t the case, and I’m sure there are social circles wherein people were openly for the amendment.

But I think there’s a much larger silent conservative population here in “the South” and perhaps in many other parts of the country. These are people who may put up a sign in support of a conservative candidate, but they aren’t going to go out of their way to tell you that they support intolerance.

There are tons of smaller towns full of folks who don’t know (or don’t know that they know) people who are different from themselves. So they think that everyone does, AND SHOULD, think and live the way they themselves do.

These may be “nice” people, “well-meaning”, or older people “from a different time”. Or maybe these are “devout” people: people who hold strongly conservative religious beliefs, and as everyone know, religion, faith, belief, “spirituality”, etc is “a personal thing”. So if someone’s social/political stance is based in their religion, we’re not supposed to criticize it.

Well, I say that is bullshit. That’s like sitting there mute, or laughing uncomfortably while grandpa complains about the “japs” or the “kikes” or the “niggers”. I’m sorry, but NO, that’s not acceptable. Neither is it acceptable to give people a “pass” on discrimination because their religion tells them to.

Fuck religion.

I know people have strong feelings about their faith, their need for there to be a god and a heaven and some happy, feel-good stuff with which they can comfort themselves and each other. I get it. We as individuals grew up with this nonsense of moral codes and laws, coupled with a powerful sense of guilt and hive-minded “appropriateness”. It’s a great way to discourage mass public outrage at the inequalities of our way of life—“opiate of the masses” indeed.

I also get that we “grew up” as a species—as humans—with religion, with a sense of wonder and awe at the unknown and a desire to have some kind of assurance about things we can’t explain. It’s a part of our genetic makeup, in the same way that artistic expressions and storytelling and a need for belonging to some community are inherently part of us.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t get over our ignorant, blind acceptance of what the preacher tells us.

Religions come and go, religions change, religions get abandoned. It happens. I just wish to (the lack of a) god that it would happen faster.

Sadly, most people are lemmings. And, despite how they may be viewed by most folks, all of our societal institutions—church, the state, schools—are at their core in the business of supporting and furthering that lemming-ness. They keep people doing what they’re “supposed” to do, while distracting them from questioning the validity of those institutions.

And that also goes for marriage. Oh yeah, it’s so pretty and nice and romantic and happy and it makes me cry. It’s the end of one of the great stories in our culture: out of all the people in the world, Mister & Miss Right find each other; Prince Charming rescues his princess, happily ever after.

Bullshit.

“Mother Culture” has such a tight hold on us that she doesn’t have to whisper in our ear that everything’s gonna be okay if we just “go with the flow”. No, she’s shouting it and throwing and throwing us all a huge party that we think will never, in fact can never, end. And meanwhile, we’re drunk on the cheap booze and laughing as we do the limbo, or fighting valiantly to get our turn at the karaoke machine, ‘cause everyone ought to get a turn that wants it, right? That’s only fair.

P’shaw. Stuff and nonsense. It’s time to leave the “party”.

Okay, I realize that nobody checks out this blog to hear me ranting about my non-naked politics.
And, since I AM a stickler, and this IS a naked blog, so here’s a picture. Happy?

In the Night Kitchen

Maurice Sendak died today.

He was a beloved children’s author, best known for “Where the Wild Things Are”.  He also wrote other things. I remember in elementary school watching “Really Rosie” (music by Carole King).

I even vaguely recall there being some kind of live performance, maybe by the class a year or two ahead of mine. Or maybe I’m remembering that wrong.

Anyway, the Sendak work I remember liking the most was “In the Night Kitchen”.

It’s about a boy who falls (or dreams) into the “night kitchen” and has a little adventure there.

I remember thinking that the cooks looked weird.

They all look the same, which is weird, and they also all look like Oliver Hardy from the Laurel and Hardy comedy team.

(He's the the one on the right.)

I also remember noticing that Mickey (the kid) was naked, and knowing that was unusual for kids’ stories. But I didn’t find it bothersome or perverse.

So, there was also an animated version.

I wish the picture quality were better, but this is all I could find.

The music was composed by, and the narration performed by, Peter Schickele (a.k.a. P.D.Q. Bach).

Apparently, the book was really controversial and banned in various places back in 1970 when it was written. According to this article—“The 15 Most Controversial Picture Books” —it remains on various lists of banned or controversial books.

Also, It was a Caldecott “Honor” Award recipient (which is like first runner up).

Well, I applaud Maurice Sendak for having the balls to let his character have balls. 

"May the fourth be with you."

Okay, so the first time I saw this whole “May the fourth be with you” thing, I didn’t get it right away. And here’s why.

This is how you generally say “May the Force be with you”:

Right?

...unless maybe you’re not so secure about it.

But, to my ear, nobody says “May the fourth” that way. 

No. Nuh-uh.

I mean, I certainly don’t.

I say it with an approximately equal emphasis on “May” and “fourth”.

Like any normal person would.

So...I just think we should try to “force” it. Just let it happen...naturally.

Aw, yeah.

“What’s the point of it all?” (two articles)

I happened to see these two articles yesterday. 

One (“What’s the point of it all?”) looks at the question (from non-nudists) “What's the point of going to such lengths to take your clothes off?” The answer being basically, “what’s the point of putting your clothes on in the first place?”

The other (“As the Day You Were Born”) presents a few beginner ideas for people interested in being naked. 

I’ve seen this type of article before. There’s one on pretty-much every nudist or naturist website. To me it’s kinda weird and obvious, as if people can’t figure out times they can be naked in their own home or whatever.

Anyway, that’s what I’ve got for you today. Terribly exciting stuff, I know.