I'll never understand those who say that human sexuality can't be a beautiful thing, or that it isn't worthwhile to document. Is a portrait like this different in some fundamental way from a completely nonsexual nudist portrait of "simple nudity"? Sure! I won't deny that. But is this not also worth documenting? How would the world be a brighter place for not having images like these in it? And why must this sort of media be seen to exist only at the expense of some other virtue? The existence of porn doesn't make nudism any less legitimate, or any more sexual. And just because nudism is nonsexual, doesn't mean you have to be asexual to be a nudist, or that appreciating the nonsexual benefits of nudity precludes you from also enjoying its erotic potential. I know it's a muddy, politically-charged atmosphere we're wading through. But if anything, nudity is supposed to symbolize truth, honesty, and transparency. And I could never trust anyone who claims that sex - the guiding force of joy and creation in an otherwise miserable universe prone to destruction - is some kind of pernicious influence on life.
No comments:
Post a Comment