Bruno

Discussion (3) ¬

1. 
   Kona

   August 8, 2016 at 10:30 am | #

   I don’t know about puritanical, but in my experience, with the exception of the particularly fit, nudity is not that attractive. Also distracting. You can’t help judging things that shouldn’t matter. Then there’s the whole hygiene issue. And I would miss pockets. But having said all that, I can’t think of a moral reason, just practical ones.
2. 
   M.A.

   August 8, 2016 at 3:00 pm | #

   I think attitude has a lot to do with it. I once saw a burlesque dancer talk about her art — she’s a large woman, but she carries herself like a queen and is totally fearless, and it makes her beautiful. I want all of my “fat” friends to learn what she knows.
3. 
   Pete Rogan

   August 8, 2016 at 4:42 pm | #

   I live north of the forty-second parallel of latitude. Clothing is pretty essential to being outside three out of four seasons. In any case, nudity here is a smokescreen.

   We are not open books, even in skin. Our politics, our education, our acculturation, our work, our social standing, our sense of self does not appear without markings. Clothing has done that for thousands of years and we have yet to find a way to do without them. In many cases, clothing can serve as a warning — there are some things you might not do or say if your minister or local cop were listening and/or watching, for instance.

   None of this has anything to do with Sean’s attitude, which is simply outrage and projected shame, the typical tools of males wanting females to conform to their idea of proper deportment. It doesn’t matter that he thinks it’s for her own good; dress this attitude up as you will, its urge to control will always come shining through.

   Imagining that the process is degrading, and about nothing more than sex obscures the very complexities that Bruno is addressing by, if you will, putting on the role of a stripper. Making it no more than that is Sean’s wish; you can always tell the limited people because they want their limits on you, and one of their first wishes is that you don’t think about these things more than they do — which isn’t much; it’s pretty much a knee-jerk reaction to female nudity. For pay! In public!

   In fact the societal norms that Sean wants to apply here are also more complex that he’s willing to think about. People forget, until they’re forcefully reminded, that feminine nudity is okay, but MALE nudity is taboo. The appearance of male genitals halts discourse and understanding, and completely disrupts the immediate surroundings, and has and does so for nearly every culture on the planet. Women naked are naughty, but men naked is an offense to God and brings a much more terrible punishment, at least spiritually.

   Sean is merely reflecting an echo of this taboo in his expectation that female nudity is bad in and of itself, prurient and vile, and speaks to a wish to do harm to the public, if not to God. He can’t separate out his outrage from his acculturation, and cannot perceive nuances here. Which leads him to the absurdity of claiming that stripping is de facto a self-degrading act to the woman who doesn’t feel that way at all. He’s exposed a very ancient religious view dressed up in modern psychological language, and a prejudice he’s not capable of examining, even if he wished it.

   It’s been my finding that some heads are so hermetically sealed that opening them up means breaking them. Not worth the effort and the side-effects. No explanation of Bruno’s own interest here is going to budge Sean’s prejudices in the slightest. And he has no interest in being budged at all. Nothing more to do or say here. Fini.