Genteel genitals

Nudists don't expose their genitals any more than non-nudists expose their noses.

But whether you're a nudist or a streaker, the reasons given for why people should not have their genitals on display is quite interesting.

The "genitals look disgusting" argument, is somewhat subjective. I might find your greasy hair, or those old ill-fitting jeans disgusting too, but what will the response be, if I ask you to cover them up?

The "genitals are private" argument, is also subjective. Yours may be private to you, my bank statement is private to me.

"There are children around" argument, is no different to saying that there are vegetarians around. It pre-supposes that children (or vegetarians) shouldn't see genitals, for whatever reason. Ironically, young children are usually as comfortable with nudity as are nudists; toddlers are happy running around naked nearly anywhere.

The "genitals are used in the sex act" argument, tends to forget that our fingers, mouth and tongue, are often far more versitile during sex and foreplay.

The "genitals arouse me" argument, seems to be contradicted by the "genitals look disgusting" argument. And of course anyone dressed in sexy clothes can be arousing.

I am quite happy for you to have the right not to view other people's genitals. But I'm still curious why.

Masturbation: The Wanker Effect

People will admit to all kinds of indignities, from throwing up after drinking too much, to a dose of diarrhoea after eating the wrong food. But mention masturbation, and you get the kind of look as if you'd accused them of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.

I'm sure it's partly embarrassment. But I think it's more to do with not wanting to admit to something which might compare infavourably with others.

What? You masturbate how often! You can only masturbate with your eyes closed! You do what with your bottom! Whose underwear?!

It's no surprise that if you ask a group of people if they masturbate, and you'd be lucky to get any responses at all. No-one want to make the first move and be singled out as the group wanker.

But ask the same group of people, "Who doesn't masturbate?", instantly equalises everyone, and I'd bet you'd get smiles all round.

I'd guess you'd call this the "Wanker Effect". No-one wants to be a wanker, and it's difficult to explain that I'm in a loving meaningful relationship with myself.

Porn: the ambiguous word

Porn bugs me. Not the material, but the word. On the one hand, it is not specific enough to explain what you and I mean by porn. On the other hand, it is a word loaded with negative meaning: porn by some definitions is inherently bad.

But what surprises me about the use of the word porn, is that with so many points of view, we haven't really bothered to clarify its use.

So when I hear someone argue that porn should be banned, I wonder whether they mean everything that includes a naked buttock, or anything that is deemed illegally pornographic (whatever that means).

Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or obscenity, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it . . . (Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964)).

It is clear that pornography is not only subjective, but the other vital criteria is context. When we stand naked in front of mirror, we see a non-pornographic image of ourselves. When someone else stands naked in front of a public-facing window, the image becomes potentially pornographic, and and perhaps more or less so, depending on whether that person is an old person, someone in their prime, or a child. In other words, a sexually explicity image is not necessarily pornographic.

So does porn apply only to humans? Naked animals don't seem to fall into the category, but copulating animals could. And you would think that objects have nothing to do with porn, except that nude representations of people (ie. statues and paintings) are thought to be pornographic by some, and the Ron Jeremy 10-inch lifelike dildo leaves nothing to the imagination.

So here's my new all-encompassing definition of porn:

Pornography: a subjective, sexually provocative image, that we consider is seen in an inappropriate context.

It is acknowledged that (1) pornography is subjective (2) That an image needs to remind us of sex; nudity does sometimes (3) that there is a time and a place for everything, and this may change depending on culture, religious reasons, etc.

All we need to do now, is define various categories of porn, for example, non-consensual porn, non-violent porn, child porn, that adequately allows us define when we mean that porn is acceptable, or not. But we'll save that for another day.

Nudity on TV

Nudity on TV is in the news headlines again, as Australian Members of Parliament (MPs) talk about whether there is too much in Big Brother on free-to-air television.

And that seems to be the complaint, that it is on regular TV, which is accessible by anyone. There seem to be two extreme solutions: (1) a complete ban of nudity on free-to-air TV (2) for people to chill.

While a complete bans solves the "problem" since nudity could still be available on cable-TV, it would make sense to apply this solution to any aspect of free-to-air TV that offends people. I could argue that I don't want free-to-air TV showing any activity that my adversely affect my kids, such as smoking, drinking, loutish behaviour, bad language or even bad grammar! And other groups may argue for even more chaste behaviour.

On the other hand, chilling out and switching channel takes just a few moments. But where do we draw the line. Do we allow full-on sex on free-to-air TV, and expect people to chill and change channels if offended?

Is there a compromise? Either you see nudity or you don't. One solution I can see is better classification of televised material. I wouldn't be surprised to see nudity in Big Brother, but if I wasn't, how could I check?

It does not seem unreasonable that programmes should be classified, by the programme makers, according to their contents, on a scale of 1 to 10, for sex, language, violence, lawful activity, etc. Online digital TV guides would make it possible to screen programmes based on such critia.

But then again, perhaps those who are offended by the human body should question their perspective. Surely they don't avoid mirrors when naked, and ask their spouses to avert their eyes. So perhaps the nudity is not the issue?

I think people are offended by TV nudity because they are embarrassed, and if they are with company, they do not know what to say or how to behave. I wonder whether people who watch TV alone, would be offended by nudity on free-to-air TV?

The Bible and Dildoes

'Dildoes are bad' says the Bible, according to a headline entry from World Sex News today.

I'm always a little wary about (a) what the Bible writes, (b) what it means (c) what was meant. Here is the same passage (Ezekiel 16:17) from different versions of the Bible:

King James Version

Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them...

New Life Version

You also took your objects of beauty made of My gold and silver, which I had given you. And you used them to make things that looked like men, that you might play with them as a woman who sells the use of her body...

Contemporary English Version

You made idols out of the gold and silver jewelry I gave you, then you sinned by worshiping those idols...

The Message

And then you took all that fine jewelry I gave you, my gold and my silver, and made pornographic images of them for your brothels...

The context of the verse implies that Ezekiel believes that God says that "Such things should not happen". But it is not always clear "what should not happen".

The entire verse is about a married woman called Jerusalem who becomes a prostitute and sacrifices her children to her idols. Using a dildo is just one of the observations.

It does seem that the use of a dildo is mentioned in the same way that a drunk driver would be accused of drinking; it's not the drinking alcohol is necessary bad, but it could apppear so in a wider context. The use of guns are also judged differently depending on whether we are discussing a gun-touting criminal or a gun-carrying policemen. And nudity is judged differently depending on whether the subject is a new born baby or a man in your daughter's changing room.

But I guess we shouldn't forget that the woman murdered her two children. And that God decides that she will be stripped naked and stoned to death.

Other interesting links

• Masturbation And The Bible
  
• Attitudes Of Christians who Masturbate