Some're to Fall

Even though we're constantly being reminded of it, it's still easy to forget - and hard to imagine - that the world looks different to different people. Although I do have an appreciation for fashion, I tend to take it for granted (because it's how I personally feel) that the unclothed human body is the ideal form of beauty, and that clothes are there to frame and accentuate - like the polished backing that sets off a glittering gem - not to cover and obscure. So that, the skimpier the outfit, the better it looks (provided the person wearing it is attractive to start with, of course). Which is why I love summer fashion so much.

[description: two figures stand in a bedroom - one dressed for summer, the other dressed for fall]
Some like to bundle up; I like to strip down.

Matters of taste are notoriously subjective - this I know. That's the appeal of freedom. Everybody gets to make their own choices, and the result is an abundance of diversity. Something for everyone. Of course, it's human nature to advocate for your own interests, but what gets to me is when cultural pressure is applied in order to lock out certain choices. You don't have to like skimpy clothes, because you don't have to wear skimpy clothes. But it's a consistent pattern that people who do (or would, if they had the agency) like to wear skimpy clothes receive a lot of judgment for their choices, often deterring them from doing it.

We're a social species. Not all of us are as fiercely nonconformist, and immune to peer pressure as I am. In fact, I'd wager that most people are not like me in that respect. We want to fit in. We want to be accepted. It takes a lot of courage to buck the trend and stand out, and stick to your guns while doing it. If I were even a smidge less independently-minded, I'd have given up on presenting as the gender I feel like in my heart, a long time ago. I haven't. But I worry how many people are out there suppressing their identity and their happiness in order to feel that sense of belonging that we all crave.

And the result is that the mainstream tends to railroad minority interests. Isn't it enough that these interests are in the minority? Do we have to exert pressure to stamp them out entirely? If it were simply the case that nobody else liked to walk around with a lot of skin exposed, I'd be disappointed, but I'd be out of luck. I could make a case for my approach, but I can't control how other people think. But the fact that there are people out there who would probably join me, but don't, out of a fear of judgment - well, that just riles me up. If you don't like it, don't do it, but leave others alone to do their thing!

And when you put a moralizing edge on top of it - as there always is, in matters that relate to beauty and the human body, which are inextricably entwined with the aesthetic element of our fundamental sexuality - you're rigging the game against me. I can't say, "but it should be okay for people to walk around town in string bikinis" (much less nude) without losing respectability and sounding like a single-minded pervert (as opposed to a connoisseur of aestheticism*). The opponent has, in effect, hollowed out the base of my argument so that merely standing on it causes it to collapse. It's sabotage!

[description: two figures stand in a bedroom - one wearing a jacket and boots, the other in a bikini]
I wanna go where the weather suits my clothes.

*[This might be a tough claim to swallow, as most people are not attracted to most people they encounter. Perhaps I'm being idealistic, but think about the feeling you get when you do encounter somebody you find attractive, and then imagine getting to see more of them. I keep thinking back to pool culture, and how quickly we become acclimated to a veritable panorama of bare skin. Also, there's a confidence factor involved. Self-consciousness may inspire average-looking people to cover up, but it's the moralizing and the slut-shaming that's jealously heaped on people who should be showing it off that feels distinctly unjust to me.]

The reason we're not limited to an academic discussion of hypotheticals here is because it all pivots on the fulcrum of what we're allowed (or, more importantly, not allowed) to expose our children to. Anything that's deemed inappropriate for children is naturally going to take on an edge of taboo - since it's a form of knowledge that will be actively denied of them. To think that such an ingrown notion will instantly disappear the moment they reach maturity is nothing short of magical thinking. The effect is that we will always carry a little bit of shame surrounding these topics, because it's what we were taught in our most malleable years. (For things like drinking and smoking, I have little sympathy, as those are detrimental to the health. Sexuality, while perfectly natural and healthy, is fraught with complications. But awareness of human anatomy? We're talking about the fundamentals here!).

And that is why conservatives* in Wisconsin are currently trying to criminalize nudism [NSFW], despite the fact that science and unbiased reason back up the claim that there is nothing harmful about people being exposed to the human body from a young age. (How insane is it to outlaw the sight of what every single one of us possesses beneath our clothing?). Why does it feel like we're moving backward; that our civilization is regressing? Haven't we reached a point where we can simply be unclothed humans without assuming that it will turn us into unrestrained sex fiends? Or that we can admire the natural beauty of the human body - simultaneously holding its erotic qualities in our mind, while recognizing the distance between our imagination and the reality before our eyes? Clearly, we have not. And I'm growing tired of waiting around for the rest of society to evolve. I didn't get thrown into this American experiment just to die with my dreams unfulfilled.

[description: two figures stand in a bedroom - one dressed, the other nude]
Being undressed is not an adult activity.

*[A note on partisanship. Although these measures far too frequently receive bipartisan support, conservatives rightfully bear the brunt of the responsibility for them. Liberal politicians should absolutely be held accountable for their spinelessness in not standing up to conservative rhetoric. However, saying that they are just as responsible as the party that consistently brings these issues to bear in the first place would be delusional. It has been proven time and time again that these are issues conservative politicians are concerned about (or, more accurately, know that they can bolster their reputation among their gullible constituents by pretending to be concerned about). When you bring a bill to the table that's been disingenuously labeled the "Child Protection Act" (it sounds like a cliché but this is literally the case in Wisconsin), you're guaranteed bipartisan support because the alternative is political suicide. And that, my friends, is what we call "justice" here in these United States.]