Saturday, May 02, 2009

Between Nudist Morality and Freudian Realism

Andrew Grossman takes on "Christian moralism's filthy legacy."
The ingrained fear of the body — the fear of self-knowledge — has long necessitated safeguarding, mystifying textiles, from primitive skins and furs to the synthetics of capitalistic industries fueled by a mélange of fashion and shame. Our knowledge phobias blind us to the fact that textiles, not nudities, are what eroticize. The full-time nudist does not, and cannot, tease; such rituals are the domain of the textilist, or part-time exhibitionist, intent on mating or evanescent pleasures.

1 comment:

Papa Swamp said...

I agree Christianity has demonized nudity...but it certainly isn't the only religion that does so. Some go much farther. I must disagree with his assessment of pre-christians or native tribes, wearing animal skins. This was a function of necessity NOT demonization. Once tribes migrated out of tropical regions skins were a necessity. Colder regions demanded covering to maintain body warmth during cold seasons. It is quite evident from European explorers discovery of tribes, that skins were usually NOT worn during summer months, but loin cloths were sometimes used to protect certain bits from prickly brush when hunting, traveling quickly etc.. The few remaining native tribes in Indonesia (Andamans) still do not wear covering.