Michigan Vagina

So, Michigan State Representative Lisa Brown

has been banned indefinitely from the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives, for using her word “vagina” during a debate on an abortion bill.

At least, that’s what everybody’s saying. Apparently, the reason wasn’t specified.  

Another Representative—Barb Byrum—was also banned, for trying to speak out of turn, which is a violation of the rules, but rarely results in being banned.

Now, concerning Representative Brown’s banning, I’m sure it’s quite possible that it was simply her use of the word “vagina”. But it might also be more her attitude when using the word. She said, “I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but no means no.”

I feel, after listening to her, that the tone changed there at the end with what seemed perhaps a mildly incendiary comment.

That’s not to say she should be banned for it. I’m sure plenty of other things that I’d find offensive have been said on that and other legislative floors.  

Anyway...if, in fact, she was banned for using the word “vagina” because the Michigan House Speaker felt it was inappropriate...well, that’s absolutely ridiculous.  

And here’s why I’m writing about it in my naked blog.

I think, and have said many times before, that if people were generally more comfortable with their bodies and others’ bodies, it would likely be part of a more general openness and comfortability in dealing with topics like sex, or perhaps scary words like “vagina”.

Vagina, vagina, vagina.

Come on, Michigan—you need to get comfortable with vaginas.

I’d certainly like to.

(Hey, just puttin' it out there, ya know?)

politico.com article

Topless in New York

In the state of New York it is legal for a woman to go topless anywhere that a man can go topless, except if she’s selling something. It has been since 1992, after the NY Court of Appeals ruling in People v. Santorelli.

Holly Van Voast has been going around New York City topless.

Holly Van Voast as Harvey Van Toast

And so has Moira Johnston.

Moira Johnston as Moira Johnston

Van Voast appears as her mustachioed alter ego “Harvey Van Toast” taking pictures and video of herself, other people, and herself while taking pictures and video of other people.

Yes, that is Bill Cosby in the background.

And sometimes other people video her.

At NYC Apple Store

She seems to be interested in the attention, and seems to consider toplessness as a possible route to fame or notoriety or something.

Moira Johnston just appears.

She’s promoting awareness of the law.

Yay! Go ladies.

Holly Van Voast was arrested and went to court last fall for her topless appearances. While in court she removed her jacket, exposing her bare breasts.

The New York Times article

Huffington Post article

She says about the incident that “not much” happened.

At comic con 2011

Moira Johnston was taken into police custody and detained for a short time.

But it’s legal and the police can’t really stop a woman from being topless.

She talks about it in part of this video. 

A few years back another woman was arrested in New York for being topless. She was released 12 hours later, sued the city and settled out of court for $29,000.

Tuscon Citizen article

Yeah! Ya gotta hit ‘em where it counts. 

“Venus” (Anna Utopia Giordano)

In her series, “Venus”, Italian artist Anna Utopia Giordano, using “Photoshop” techniques,  has “updated” a number of Venus paintings to adhere to contemporary standards of beauty for women.

It’s an interesting commentary on beauty standards, but also on the way the commercial beauty industry creates literally unreal images and, therefore, expectations. 

Mise à nu

This is kinda cool:

“Mise à nu” by Reynauld Drouhin 

(click the link & hover your mouse over the picture)

However, I wish there were more variety. All these women at least seem approximately the same height and basic size. I think it would be a much more interesting “work” if it had men and women of various shapes and sizes and colors.

It reminds me of a book I used to have: XXX: 30 PornStar Portraits by Timothy Greenfield.

I found a page on tumblr—clothed-nude.tumblr.com—that has a lot of similar type pics, with mostly men—some women and a few couples. But they’re not necessarily the same pose. And, like most collections of male nudes, a fair number of the pictures are a bit porn-ish. I’ve seen other such clothed/nude pictures that were clearly porn, which is kind of interesting too, for much the same reason.

What I find most interesting is that some of the subjects look more comfortable in one or the other picture. Of course, some look almost the same—you know, their face, their expression. And that, to me, is not so interesting.

In this “work” (Mise à nu) it seems the artist has purposely chosen poses which are perhaps supposed to be neutral, and in which the expression is the same in both the clothed and nude pictures. But to me the subjects mostly seem stiff and uncomfortable.

I’ve seen other nudes that seem to take this neutral approach. It’s as if the artist is trying to not present an emotional expression, but rather just present the body. But I think that expressionless faces are almost impossible. I think we tend to either look for emotional content in faces or impose emotional content onto face.

I tend to find that unsatisfying in much the same way I find it unsatisfying to hear someone read a poem with a neutral sort of presentation. (I had a college professor who did that. I hated it. It all tended to be monotone except the end of each line would go up just a little in inflection.)

I do realize that in many of my pictures in this blog I have a similar, arguably neutral expression. So, maybe I’m not the best model. If I could ever find anyone else to actually pose for me (I’ve had a few people who’ve said they might be willing to, but it’s not happened yet), I’d be interested in trying this kind of thing.

Any takers?

Purrrlesque and the Squidling Bros

A friend, knowing I like taking off my clothes, invited me to a burlesque show last night. Actually, it was sort of a double show with two groups: Purrrlesque—a local burlesque group,

check 'em out herrre

and the Squidling Brothers—a “side show” troupe from Philadelphia.

http://squidlingbros.com/

It wasn’t far from my apartment, and I wasn’t too busy, so I went.

(hand stamp)

It was the first burlesque show I’ve attended. It was also the first whatever you wanna call the Squiddling bros—a contemporary dark, tattooed, side show?—that I’ve attended. I’ve seen video of both before, but never live.

It was partly what I expected and partly not. I could put on my critic hat and say this could be more something, and that could be more something else. But I won’t. I’ll just say that I had a great time. I drank a bit, spent too much money, and went “Whoo!” a whole lot. It was so much fun.

Here are some pictures. There was a guy from a local paper and some other guy taking pics. They both had real cameras, and, I’m sure, come out with much better quality pictures.  Or, check out the groups websites.

PURRLESQUE:

They had some actual singing (by the woman on the left),
not just lip synching.

Yeah, that’s Osama.

And there was the requisite little girl skipping. 

It was part of a “Anything you can do” duet. 

(Yay for musical theatre!)

And here’s the ensemble.
Yes, that's a dude on the left.
Boylesque?

THE SQUIDLING BROS:

Nothing like some atmospheric accordion playing and strange singing to set the mood.

Your MC, clothed, and half-clothed.

...and swallowing a sword.

Yes, a dude on a bed of nails and with a cinder block on his chest.

You can’t tell very well, but they’ve got a long tube 

running up through their noses and out their mouths.

Nice, huh?

Betty Bloomerz: she’s one of the nose-tubers. 

Here she’s eating fire. She is also a sword swallower.

The finale: the MC, naked, 

about to have his scrotum stapled 

by a member of the audience. 

Yeah. Stapled scrotum.
It could’ve been me doing the stapling. What an honor, but I declined. Despite the fact that he’s probably done that tons of times before, I haven’t. And I’m just not that interested in hurting someone on purpose.

I will say this (I guess it’s somewhat of a critique): 

Betty Bloomerz was amazingly awesome and my favorite by far. Her onstage character was sad and funny and strange and quirky and captivating and beautiful. I think I’m in love.

Or maybe I just need a girlfriend.

Here’s a picture from their website:

(I hope they don’t mind too much that I stole it. 

It’s a much better pic than my sad camera phone could do.)

I took more side show pics than burlesque pics, but they a rule: once the tops come off, no pictures. And I didn’t want to accidently break a rule, so, I didn’t take so many pics of the ladies.

I suppose if I go to another burlesque show, I may do more of a critique. 

Nude House

If you regularly read (& by “read” I mean read, not just look at pictures) this blog you may’ve read before that I’ve come to the point where ideas aren’t coming so easily.

So I occasionally look online for news or other ideas that might pertain to this blog. Well, I found something today. It’s not new news, but it’s certainly new to me and perhaps to you as well.

There's an office in Syndey, Australia where everyone is naked all day. It's a requirement. They hire naturists. It’s on their website. Prospective employees know this before their (naked) interview.

Here's a video from aolnews.

Now, I think the idea is great. It’s a place where naturists can be themselves at work. Awesome.

Here’s an article from the Sydney Morning Herald.

If were inclined to work in an office, and I lived in Sydney, then I’d certainly consider applying.

I checked out the company’s website. It’s called “Nude House”.

They do computer software and sales. Their main program allows you to attach to a picture all kinds of "pop-up" info: text, links, other pictures, whatever. It seems legit.

But there’s a problem. Or two.

Problem #1: There are a few pictures on the company website. Okay, it makes sense that a company would have office environment pictures.
The pictures do not seem to have the attached pop-up info, which I would think they should, that being the company's major product. But you can “click to enlarge” the photos. There are three pictures, and they’re all pictures of women. Here are links:

2 women at computers—one is on the phone, the other appears to be typing

“One of the salesgirls getting dressed after work”

...and here’s the biggest part of problem one (don’t say I didn’t warn you):

“One of the girls to be interviewed with her lovely demonstration photo”

What the fuck!!!???
That is not "naturism". Clearly, that's porn.

As far as I can tell, the “demonstration photo” is something all applicants have to submit along with their CV. But if this is non-sexual naturism, then why is that kind of photo on their site? And why is it all women in the pictures?

Problem #2: According to the website, women don’t come in to work during their period. Okay, if everyone is really cool with nudity and bodies and all that jazz, then why do women have to stay home from work while having their period? It strikes me as a very Old Testament policy. Why not say when you’re having your period, you can wear panties? Apparently that would go against the all nude, all the time policy. 

If it's something else, any experienced naturists out there want to explain that to me?

So, as I said, I think the idea is great. I'm a little suspicious about the execution.
I'm also a little suspicious of this dude and his sort of creepy photo:

Nude House founder, Chris Taylor

Nude-face

I kind like nude-faced women.

(face made of nudes)

http://rwsphoto.blogspot.com/2008/07/photo-illustration-nude-face-of-cathy.html

No, that's pretty awesome. But I mean this:

(yeah, yeah, they’re models, but...)

http://www.kissandmakeup.tv/2007/11/nars_makeup_you.html

I understand what makeup does—evens out skin tone, hides reduces the appearance of blemishes, it emphasizes the redness of lips & cheeks and makes eyes look stand out—things that are signs of youth & health and qualities which are considered sexually attractive.

But I have to ask (because it’s the way my brain works) what is the price?

When I was a freshman in college I wrote a paper about make-up for my English class. The assignment was something that included statistics. So I looked it all up. I don’t have that paper available to me at the moment, and I’m sure the numbers have changed.

So I haven’t done any hard research lately, but a couple of references I’ve found online...

this one . . . and that one

...say 7 or 8 billion dollars spent in the US annually. That just seems like a crazy amount to me. Couldn’t some of that money go to something more productive...basic health care or clean water...I don’t know, whatever...OH! I know! Supporting the arts.

But there’s another price. Self-esteem. I simply cannot imagine how it would feel if I thought I needed to “put my face on” daily before leaving the house. The idea that no one is supposed to see me without this veneer of paints and tints. That I’m not attractive enough as is for everyday normal contact with everyday normal people. That just can’t be good for the psyche.

I’m not saying that women should never wear makeup. It probably wouldn’t bother me all that much if they didn’t. But I am asking is it really necessary to wear makeup daily? If you always or usually wear makeup then, sure, with no makeup you’ll look washed out. But most men go about their daily routine with no make at all, and their skin looks okay.

(look...am I not be-yoo-ti-ful?)

Sure there are arguments that beauty & appearance are more important to a woman’s success (& how she is viewed by men) than they are to men’s success. Maybe that’s true, but if so, I think that’s unfortunate.

(Yeah, yeah, no penis in this “a penis a day...” entry. If that’s all you’re here for, feel free to browse other entries.)