John P. wrote: "To continue the analogy, perhaps the last pieces of clothing should be kept cryogenically frozen in a vault somewhere, like the last smallpox bacterium."
There is something about this statement, although far fetched, akin to some science fiction, curiously gives me a sense of calm and peace inside when I picture it.
We, I, have been persecuted as such by prudes. We have been stigmatized, criminalized, broadly accused of and assumed to be the carriers and purveyors of mental disorder. We have been told that we are immoral and legislated as suchl. We are none of that. It is all unjustified, ignorant and utterly just plain wrong. Any degree of prudishness actually creates outlets and opportunities to fester and enhance the nature of exhibitionism and voyeurism to problematic destructive dimensions, which can and are called a disorder.
Here, we have the shoe on the other foot. Here, we can see how prudes have treated us and let them have an eye for an eye. Here, we do not turn the other cheek. Here, socio-cultural conscripts are turned around. If we are right to be treated like this, then it is right to treat prudes like this, too. Is this how to treat people? Some of you object to that and have supported a "live and let live" ideal quite strongly here. I share that ideal. However, prudery is a social toxin that does need to be eradicated and it does get extremely out of hand and compulsive. At times, the delineation of defining perversion is when you get hung up on it, when you need it for gratification and that is something to think about. I see no reason why prudery cannot be treated as any other disorder, when it becomes harmful. To be upset by the sight of a human body is not a moral, sociological, cultural question. It is sick weird, a foolish blind more, irrational...cripe, it is stupid.
This article makes sense, maybe not great sense, polished sense, but there is a good argument in there. I haven't yet, dug into the references, they may even be a hoax for all I know. So, this being said, it leads me into response to another disagreement. I wrote "Credentials don't mean crap, but the text and argument given do." I confess that I mis-spoke by way of such a strong statement, but I'd like to correct that now by putting it better.
A teacher (I have a BA in education, I have taught school) can be educated. But, the best teachers, most effective, for many reasons as well as the less scholastic notions, are those that learned over years in the classroom, possessed unique personalities, are empathetic, passionate, insightful, etc. An education and degree can only go so far. I know a Ph.D. who was on a school board, and a governed of a private school. He had to fill in a few weeks in the classroom. He was eaten alive. He was an abject failure. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to ride on a jet plane that wasn't designed by an engineer with an education. Working with people is different.
Another "working with people" activity is psychology. I have a Masters degree in that with several years experience over decades. Psychology has had a donor driven, insurance provider profit driven and ivory tower shell over it, for decades. Behavioral modification, and evidence based has its place and it is grounding, but it has been like a road block to many a much more effective means. Prevailing psychological study is in its infancy. Here to, there are many practitioners that can run circles around most Ph.D.'s. I could go on and on, but I digress. Point is that academia in these two schools has been a hindrance to millions who could have been helped...better.
Peer review papers in these two schools can be written by anybody, regardless of credentials. Letters behind the name are of a very minor significance to the rest of the body of the presentation. It is an argument first, a debate and expected to be challenged. One has to sometimes limit what one says, which sometimes excludes some very useful information. It is an intellectual game, and a power struggle, very positional. Positional attitudes often close minds and also, power and position are at risk, so defensive acts arise that damage the free flow. The basic reason, to help others, is generally lost in the game. I do have a chip on my shoulder. It weighs a ton. I am adverse to knowing that people are suffering needlessly.
Among us within our responses, I think that we have shown that is position presented by whoever wrote this, could use some academic debate.
I have indeed felt very uncomfortable near a prude. Fearful, threatened, attacked. My life, my freedom, my wealth, and my human dignity can be at risk, clearly and arguably. A prude feels the same fearfulness, threatened, and attacked. However, a prudes reaction is irrational, conditioned and harmful to others.
I get tired of being defensive. Offensive often makes positional prudes dig in even deeper, but I'm tired of being nice in the face of obnoxious ignorance. Sometimes countering rude with rude doesn't accomplish anything, but it feels good. I'll call a prude a prude. They hate that. Twice now, I've had the very person that is attacking our lifestyle make a big point of trying to explain that they are not a prude, very defensively, without my provocation. They both went on and on. I think that prudes should be branded prudes as a tactic. I most likely wouldn't do it during an encounter, unless attacked, but in discussion, or public verbal debate, probably, particularly if I know that I'll get nowhere anyway. What the heck, they insulted my humanity and ticked me off. Eye for an eye. Anyone who has a problem with the sight of a nude human body is a prude, call a prude a prude. Prude is a dirty word. Nobody identifies as a prude. They may even try to prove it in someway, or fall back on "what about the kids," which is easily picked apart.
Jbee
Jbee
