You Can Leave Your Hat On, and all of your clothes, too

Readability

You Can Leave Your Hat On, and all of your clothes, too

Baby take off your coat
Real slow
And take off your shoes
I’ll take off your shoes
Baby take off your dress

Stop it right here.

Don’t take off your dress.

Nobody out­side of your doc­tor and your most inti­mate mean­ing­ful other wants to know what you look like under­neath your dress. Or under­neath your trousers. Def­i­nitely not while you’re doing [WARN­ING: nudity] Shake­speare in Cen­tral Park.

It was bad enough years ago when I took my fam­ily to see Julius Cae­sar on Broad­way and Julius Cae­sar him­self flashed the audi­ence. It was unnec­es­sary and ridiculous.

Now the whole Shake­spearean cast drops trou. Pleez.

Irony-​poor Spencer Tunick plans to have 100 naked women wel­come Don­ald Trump at the RNC, as if The Don­ald would mind. The Kar­dashi­ans, Madonna and hun­dreds of celebri­ties wal­low in exhi­bi­tion­ism, includ­ing Jen­ner, who’ll be on the cover of Sports Illus­trated wear­ing “noth­ing but an Amer­i­can flag and her Olympic medal,”

The thing is, Why does every­one think we want to see them naked?

If you ask that ques­tion, the PC crowd accuses you of body-​shaming and slut-​shaming, because you must accept unques­tion­ingly some­one impos­ing their gra­tu­itous exhi­bi­tion­ism on you. If pressed, you should not point out that they don’t look good, instead, you should praise them for their “courage.”

I don’t know if this is part of a greater trend towards Ren­der­ing the Sexed Body Legally Invisible

The gross mis­ap­pro­pri­a­tion of exec­u­tive power on the part of the Obama admin­is­tra­tion to utterly remake the mean­ing of very basic legal terms — under­stood by Amer­i­cans to yield par­tic­u­lar mean­ing until May 2016 — threat­ens not only our struc­ture of gov­ern­ment; it threat­ens the rule of law itself. This dis­tor­tion of legal lan­guage is a par­tic­u­lar threat to laws con­cern­ing women.

It may be.

But I think it is a more basic, sim­ple need to call atten­tion to one­self by appeal­ing to pruri­ent inter­est, which is a heck of a lot eas­ier than attempt­ing to ele­vat­ing the qual­ity of dis­course, and much eas­ier for the media to show.

So, please, any two year old can remove their clothes; it takes a grownup to dress appro­pri­ately for the occasion.

Be that grownup.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S, and Latin Amer­i­can pol­i­tics, news, and cul­ture at Fausta’s Blog.

Baby take off your coat
Real slow
And take off your shoes
I’ll take off your shoes
Baby take off your dress

Stop it right here.

Don’t take off your dress.

Nobody outside of your doctor and your most intimate meaningful other wants to know what you look like underneath your dress. Or  underneath your trousers. Definitely not while you’re doing [WARNING: nudity] Shakespeare in Central Park.

It was bad enough years ago when I took my family to see Julius Caesar on Broadway and Julius Caesar himself flashed the audience. It was unnecessary and ridiculous.

Now the whole Shakespearean cast drops trou. Pleez.

Irony-poor Spencer Tunick plans to have 100 naked women welcome Donald Trump at the RNC, as if The Donald would mind. The Kardashians, Madonna and hundreds of celebrities wallow in exhibitionism, including Jenner, who’ll be on the cover of Sports Illustrated wearing “nothing but an American flag and her Olympic medal,”

The thing is, Why does everyone think we want to see them naked?

If you ask that question, the PC crowd accuses you of body-shaming and slut-shaming, because you must accept unquestioningly someone imposing their gratuitous exhibitionism on you. If pressed, you should not point out that they don’t look good, instead, you should praise them for their “courage.”

I don’t know if this is part of a greater trend towards Rendering the Sexed Body Legally Invisible

The gross misappropriation of executive power on the part of the Obama administration to utterly remake the meaning of very basic legal terms—understood by Americans to yield particular meaning until May 2016—threatens not only our structure of government; it threatens the rule of law itself. This distortion of legal language is a particular threat to laws concerning women.

It may be.

But I think it is a more basic, simple need to call attention to oneself by appealing to prurient interest, which is a heck of a lot easier than attempting to elevating the quality of discourse, and much easier for the media to show.

So, please, any two year old can remove their clothes; it takes a grownup to dress appropriately for the occasion.

Be that grownup.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S, and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s Blog.