Naked

I don't have a lot to add to the recent discussions on feminine nakedness, and how it's gross when the women are not hot, and how it's okay for attractive to be nekkid in public. Thanks to the recent episodes of Girls, it's all over the news, with The NewYorker absolutely fawning over Dunham. I've not watched season 2-- I'll probably catch up during my coming stunt at the ahm dungeon.

People are unhappy that Dunhan dared show her naked self -- the almost-flabby self, playing table-tennis nonchalantly. The problem is, I imagine, not that she was naked, but that she was naked in a non-sexual context. She was naked on tv because she could be naked on tv.

That's interesting because it's heard over and over again-- Dunham's nakedness on tv is different from everything else, because it's so..normal. Dunham doesn't have the most desired body for a model. Her kind of body is the body every woman has -- imperfect as it may be, it is what it is, to be shown for what it is. My friends tell me even though they are a lot thinner (and shapely?) than she is, they identified with her body because... they have flabs, and their skin is not rubber-tight, as prime as they are.

Source: http://www.dendrophiliadiaries.com. Credit due to whoever owns it.

So how are we supposed to stare at a non-sexual naked body?

Above, you see an exposed body of tentysomething Nepali (presumably). What are your first few thoughts after looking at the photo? Stare and length, and explain in detail how you feel and why. Would a woman with a wholly unremarkable body in a wholly unsexual nude scene in a film be just as censored as a more attractive women in a similar scene? How does that concept of nakedness extend to your own nakedness? Where are the pants? Did you put them in the laundry and forget to pick them up, so now you have to go to office in sexy tight shorts?