The Naked Feminist
Victoria Bateman thinks "my body, my choice" should include how much clothing you wear.

Feminist economist Victoria Bateman was naked on our Zoom call, and so was I, while we discussed her latest book, Naked Feminism: Breaking the Cult of Female Modesty, which will be released in the United States on May 16. "When I reveal my body, I reveal much more about other people than I do of myself," Bateman said. As a semi-retired adult entertainer, I can attest to this. Where my nudity is often for profit, though, hers is for protest. She strips down to illustrate that "all women are both body and brain." She's out to upend the structures in which women's "respect depends on their bodily modesty," which she says undergirds everything from slut shaming to honor killings.
Promoting Naked Feminism during and after its release in the United Kingdom has been a struggle, for reasons anyone who works with nude bodies—much more direct depictions of sexuality—will be familiar with. Amazon initially refused to list Bateman's book next to other feminist works on their massive retail website, citing the cover art as the issue. Bateman said: "There's a belly button, there's lower cleavage. There's no nipples on display. Amazon's view was it was drawing too much attention to the breasts. And because of that, it was sexually suggestive. Tell that to infants breastfeeding from their mothers." When a journalist from The Telegraph contacted Amazon to inquire about this decision, it reversed course—the uncovered belly and underboob could stay and the ads could run.
Bateman's promotional videos have been marked 18+ on YouTube—thus requiring a login to view—despite including large black and white boxes over her breasts and genitals, which cover more than most bikinis worn by influencers on Instagram. The censorship proves one of her points: Women everywhere are still subject to greater nudity taboos than men. What the censors don't seem to realize is that women are often objectified whether we are clothed or not—as discussed by Mona Eltahawy in Headscarves and Hymens: Why the Middle East Needs a Sexual Revolution, whose work Bateman cites in her own book. With 15 years of expertise, I say with certainty that anyone likely to wank over Bateman will be turned on by her dressed in her "smart suit" from her censored YouTube ad, as it underlines her intellectual authority—otherwise known as the librarian trope—and her status as a person who is not an adult worker, therefore not consenting to sexualization. Call it a cross between internet rules No. 34 and 43—if it exists, someone will use it as porn, and they'll enjoy it that much more due to the transgression involved.
For our meeting, Bateman prepared a chart of the 20 most democratic countries according to the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), along with their legal stances on sex work, topless sunbathing, and head and face coverings. Only New Zealand and Uruguay allow all three markers of bodily autonomy. Norway, the very most democratic in the EIU's estimation, criminalizes or bans both commercial sex and covering one's head.
When I asked Bateman why she chose these three categories, she said that were she to do a full survey, she would also include things like access to birth control and abortion, but that "these three particular body autonomy issues are things that seem to apply to minority interests as opposed to majority interests." She'd wondered, "To what extent does democracy uphold the freedoms of minorities? And I think this is where democracy doesn't do a particularly great job." While democracy may be the best option at this time, "Democracy tends to tailor itself to the majority interests. And so as a result, bodily freedoms, minority freedoms can get trampled on by that, by the majority. And that is a big problem."
The problem becomes exacerbated "when feminists also get into bed with those social conservatives and religious zealots…. That's where feminists who might claim to be liberals have actually been really illiberal." The same accusations of having been brainwashed, or unable to understand our victimhood, are leveled at sex workers and women who cover themselves for religious reasons. "European feminists argue that if there are some women who are covering their heads, then that will cause men to think badly of women in general, to see them as different, to see them as a separate species…in the same way that feminists argue that sex work will cause men to see all women as sex objects," said Bateman.
Despite her approval of my choice to "dress" to match her preferred interview costume, Bateman is not advocating for a world where all women wander around nude. "What I'm aiming for is a world in which every woman can make decisions about her own body in terms of the degree to which she covers or not, her body, what she does with her vagina, [and] what she does with her own fertility. I want every woman to be able to decide for herself. And that means to me, the sign of a liberal society is one in which you have variety. It is one in which you have women who are sunbathing topless, but where you also have women who are able to wear burkas and where you have women who are, say, rocket scientists, but also women who are sex workers."
As Bateman points out about herself, I have privilege—I'm white, I'm often referred to as conventionally attractive, and my disabilities are invisible. And yet, my ability to access banking and payments infrastructure is curtailed or jeopardized by the reluctance of those entities to work with people whose businesses involve sexuality. Naked Feminism helped me understand a little more of the history of why that is. It all comes down to reputation. And for Bateman, who is able to survive a few hits to her reputation, "The least I can do is to put my body out there to try and reveal that type of judgment that, as I say, is a million times worse for so many other women out there."
Naked Feminism covers the history of modesty, the economics of honor, and the ideology underpinning sex-worker-exclusionary feminism's refusal to acknowledge the autonomy of sex workers. Happy to have met another feminist who believes in the right of all women to choose from a variety of options regarding modesty, I put my clothes on and went to run errands—the day had already revealed plenty.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why are the nudists always so ugly?
What was the "libertarian" part of this article?
Uggos forcing their objectionable appearance on everyone else?
There is not. It is confusing libertarian with libertine again. She is objecting to the bare minimum legal standard for modesty that exists in Western cultures because they are not quite the same for men, because the secondary sexual characteristics between human males and females are, shockingly, different. And she is objecting to there being any moral judgment about what choices one makes with their bodies despite many having obvious suboptimal consequences.
So, what are your thoughts then on social conformity?
Libertarians generally favor free expression, and oppose government criminalizing it. But, there are times when certain types of free expression are technically legal, but its expression can lead to such a social backlash that the consequences can be almost as severe as a criminal sanction. If that is the case, how much "free expression" does each individual really enjoy?
Libertarians favor personal responsibility. You favor libertine leftism.leftist.
Part of liberty is criticism. Such as fat shaming.
I make $100h while I’m daring to the furthest corners of the planet. Last week I worked by my PC in Rome, Monti Carlo finally Paris… This week I’m back in the USA. All I do are basic tasks from this one cool site. see it,
Copy Here→→→→→ http://Www.Smartjob1.com
Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too.
HERE====)>>> https://www.apprichs.com
Don't remember these cases involving social media censorship...even when the government itself directed it.
As far as clothing etc, given how often men are shamed for even looking at women, cry me more of a river, please.
Except it isn't about social conformity.
You don't pick your nose at dinner because it is inherently disgusting.
Has nothing to do with free expression....You say how much does each individual really enjoy as if you are balancing those who want you to pick your nose at dinner against those who don't
Allowing libertines to be libertines, even if it bothers one’s personal sense of morality, is a part of libertarianism.
When people call libertarians "libertines" they are usually engaging in a bad faith attempt to shut down discussion by giving the person they disagree with a derogatory label which invalidates whatever they say.
Incorrect.
What I mean by "libertine" is someone who wants to transgress social standards of etiquette and decorum on a whim. Who do not want to be told that any particular action they do is likely a bad idea that will have bad ends.
When the idea involves less government force in our lives, the burden of proof should be on those who claim the idea will have bad ends because they are the ones demanding organized violence on those who disobey.
Who here is advocating laws? People are criticizing her beliefs.
She is not merely objecting to government force, she is also objecting to any social mores, including standards of decorum.
I could care less about the latter and neither should you. There's no force involved. Nobody is trying to make you do anything. It's the government force that requires justification.
You spent half your comments defending the latter.
There’s nothing oppressive about these social standards. No one other than libertines thinks it’s a good idea for men to be walking around with their dicks hanging out. These bitches are only framing it in terms of feminism because they believe the standard will only apply to women, and that they’re “smashing the patriarchy” by promoting public nudity--a similar pretense that Marcuse promoted in "Eros and Civilization," that "capitalism" could be destroyed by indulging in various forms of sexual deviancy. It’s the same belief system that’s led to mentally ill men demanding to walk around naked in sorority houses and women’s locker rooms.
There's a difference between "I think this is a good idea" and "I don't think people should be arrested for this." Like when libertarians suggest decriminalizing drugs the common retort is "You think drugs are a good idea"
You also happened to pick a couple extreme examples where a burden of proof could be made.
There’s a difference between “I think this is a good idea” and “I don’t think people should be arrested for this.”
Except these people whine when their proclivities simply aren't accepted or celebrated, either, irrespective of the legal ramifications. They don't want tolerance, they want to be able to indulge in whatever behavior happens to strike their fancy, and then claim they are being oppressed when others in community reject or ostracize them for it.
The people you're talking about in your comment are the ones who will demand more laws and more government force. That is the opposite of the libertarian point of view.
I posted this below but I'll repeat myself.
One one side are the progressives who see women being oppressed by the patriarchy, and on the other side are conservatives who see amoral women trying to destroy society. Both want government involvement and more laws.
Over on the side are libertarians who see government force as a last resort.
The people you’re talking about in your comment are the ones who will demand more laws and more government force. That is the opposite of the libertarian point of view.
And it's the inevitable consequence of enabling idiots like Bateman--whose arguments are cherry-picked and not even logically consistent--as we've seen time and time again over the last 50 years. "Oh, I just want to be free to make these small choices that won't have any effect on YOU" ALWAYS turns into, "you better codify my deviancies into law or you're oppressing me."
And it’s the inevitable consequence of enabling idiots like Bateman–whose arguments are cherry-picked and not even logically consistent–as we’ve seen time and time again over the last 50 years. “Oh, I just want to be free to make these small choices that won’t have any effect on YOU” ALWAYS turns into, “you better codify my deviancies into law or you’re oppressing me.”
Meanwhile you’ve got others saying “She offends me! I want more laws!”
So when libertarians say “We object to the laws you want” both sides hear “We support the laws the other side wants.”
Meanwhile you’ve got others saying “She offends me! I want more laws!”
You mean more than the ones that are already in place?
That's the point--she's trying to subvert existing norms and laws, influenced by little more than her own false sense of oppression and demand that people enable her own self-indulgence. She's not fighting back against increased restrictions.
Also, these are the same type of women who want to walk around with their tits out–or burned their bras in the 1970s and did “slut walks” in the 2000s–and then whine that men are seeing them as sexual objects as a result of doing so ("DUH MALE GAAAAAAAAZZZZEEEE!"), simply because tits have been considered secondary sexual characteristics for millennia.
She’s not fighting back against increased restrictions.
You're right. She isn't. Though there are people who want more restrictions.
Regardless, the burden of proof should be on the defenders of force. While I agree that men shouldn't be walking around naked in women's locker rooms, that's also an extreme example that goes well beyond anything she is suggesting.
Also, these are the same type of women who want to walk around with their tits out–or burned their bras in the 1970s and did “slut walks” in the 2000s...
They got their way and society didn't crumble. Why is it different now?
While I agree that men shouldn’t be walking around naked in women’s locker rooms, that’s also an extreme example that goes well beyond anything she is suggesting.
And like I pointed out below, she's talking out of both sides of her mouth. She can't logically claim that she just wants "freedom to decide" in one breath, and then claim in the next that this doesn't apply to women around the world walking around naked. Not only is she resorting to hyperbole as a false framing, those restrictions are limiting her "freedom to decide," too. She's deliberately blurring the line in an effort to not be pinned down on her contradictory arguments.
I'm not going to dig that deep into the nuances of what she said and how you interpret it because I really don't care. All I'm trying to say is that the burden of proof should be on those who support the use of force, not the other way around. And labeling someone "libertine" isn't justification for force.
They got their way and society didn’t crumble. Why is it different now?
Are you sure about that? Have you seen the rates of mental illness and general social dysfunction in left-wing enclaves lately? Or the increasingly authoritarian nature of left-wing dominated institutions like universities? Or the demand to accept biological men getting naked in front of women simply because they say they're women, too?
Just because it doesn't happen right away doesn't mean it doesn't happen eventually. You really think it's an accident that there is a persistent push in recent years to normalize and tolerate pedophilia? Just because social conservatives aren't looked on fondly in this country, it doesn't mean they were ultimately wrong when they warned for decades that normalizing various forms of adult-oriented sexualization under the rubric of civil rights was going to lead to that very thing. In fact, time has increasingly borne this argument out, just like increasingly legalizing drug use didn't lead to reduced social dysfunction.
I’m not going to dig that deep into the nuances of what she said and how you interpret it because I really don’t care.
Except her argument is the whole justification for this false rhetoric of oppression that she's pushing, and she's deliberately trying to draw distinctions because she knows that her arguments are inherently contradictory.
All I’m trying to say is that the burden of proof should be on those who support the use of force, not the other way around. And labeling someone “libertine” isn’t justification for force.
Except she's trying to claim that she doesn't believe that women "around the world" should be able to walk around naked, while arguing to remove existing laws and social norms that prevent this very thing. A vague generalization about the use of force doesn't apply here when she's attempting to be very specific about the removal of restrictions that she disingenuously claims won't result in the thing she says she doesn't actually support.
Cite a single person advocating for laws here sarc. Lying fuck.
"There’s nothing oppressive about these social standards."
said the defenders of every tradition, no matter how awful, since the beginning of time.
Just because laws prevent you from molesting kids is not oppressing you, either.
What a mindless post.
THe ends are already settled in our country
As John Locke said : if anyone accepts the benefits of a government, he has tacitly consented to the burdens that government imposes on him
And anyone who uses monkey phrases like organized violence offends by being a butthead. I don't have to prove anything about someone who annoys me. I get rid of them as is my right
So, a right-wing edgelord then.
My reaction here is unconstrained laughter at the sheer silliness of this comment.
someone who wants to transgress social standards of etiquette and decorum on a whim. Who do not want to be told that any particular action they do is likely a bad idea that will have bad ends.
sure sounds like the people around here who claim the right to be a bigot in public but suffer no repercussions whatsoever for it.
"Criticizing sexual deviance is bigotry."
And Jeff proves the statement below regarding libertine. He wants freedom from shaming and youre a bigot if you dont accept his views.
Sorry, but your ad hominem attack has no power over me.
By that definition, “libertine” would include people who see no problem with being uncivil or impolite to others, including in-person and online interactions.
Are you saying you have a problem with such people? Would you include a certain former President as one of the offenders?
Personal criticism isn't the same as you walking around in front of your kids with your dick hanging out, Mike.
Of course, Trump is also a libertine by the traditional definition, not just by Mickey Rat's definition. (OK, "was" a libertine. He's probably aged out of being able to be a libertine anymore.)
Yet, somehow Trump gets a "King Cyrus" pass from some fundamentalist Christians, and even a "Christian prince" pass from others.
Sounds like someone's miffed that Team Red adopted the same standards as your lefty boos.
Being a politician who does not openly dislike a group might make the group more willing to support him/her over a different one who openly dislikes them.
Obama suing nuns for not supplying birth control was a bit of a bad sign, you know.
And from some he doesn't so why is the one more indicative than the other. IT ISN"T. Grow up and use real adult words and sentences. If I am tall and like Trump does that mean that tall people give him a pass. DO GROW UP.
When people call libertarians “libertines” they are usually engaging in a bad faith attempt to shut down discussion by giving the person they disagree with a derogatory label which invalidates whatever they say.
^A bad faith attempt to shut down discussion by invalidating what others have said.
This is #PatriarchySoCrafty.
"Oh noes, the womens will show me their boobies all the time!"
This is just as bad as that whole 60s "free love" thing, and the feminist insistence that women should behave like men when it comes to sex (giving men, unsurprisingly, much more uncommitted sex than they would normally get).
Here ya go - - - -
"As a semi-retired adult entertainer . . . "
She has some f.u. money so she holds out for only the best gigs these days?
I suppose there is a libertarian case to be made against laws criminalizing public nudity.
"The libertarian case for public taint tanning."
“‘What was the “libertarian” part of this article?”‘
Disclaimer: I could say Victoria Bateman is a bit “bonkers.” But, I will be polite and say that it’s more about her using “shock value” to highlight her interests re public sexuality.
Following that, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that freedom to choose one’s attire, which serves as visual communication to others, falls under the libertarian banner. Whether it be a MAGA hat, a Grateful Dead t-shirt, a $5K gold watch, or an Armani suit, all communicate something to the outside world.
And while her views do seem a bit extreme, I don’t mind folks who “push the borders” a bit. I am old enough to remember when girls in mini-skirts were going to cause the total collapse of society.
And people are free to criticize her beliefs.
The problem with libertine is they usually extend their beliefs to require freedom from shaming.
Exactly.
"And people are free to criticize her beliefs."
But of course!
lol yesterday I had a Dead shirt on under my Armani suit ... but I don't wear a watch
++++
Pretty sure there's a bit of self-selection going on with the term "feminist".
It's a pantomime. She's projecting herself into an invisible prison for other uggos to watch and feel better about themselves. Cool people don't walk around saying "I'm cool.", "Cool people should be allowed to be more naked", and "Why aren't there more naked cool people?" any more than smart people walk around saying, "I'm smart.", "Smart people should be allowed to be more naked.", and "Why aren't there more naked smart people?"
I know you’re just being snarky but there actually is a reason. Most nudists are saying some variation of “I don’t need adornment” – which includes makeup. The hottest supermodel on the planet looks markedly less hot without makeup.
Also related - many of us with less than ideal body shapes have learned to use clothing to hide our paunches. Nudists are no uglier than average - they are simply choosing to expose their averageness.
https://twitter.com/0xAlaric/status/1658366832682717187?t=nTdyak1ZuDrfhKIrRm3DDA&s=19
Today, everything about maleness is demonized to no end.
The only thing allowed, even in “conservative” circles, is some beaten-down notion of servitude
Of masculinity defined by enduring any hardship or humiliation without complaint.
The idea of having standards for anything — living conditions, women, one’s position in life — is disparaged as in some way “toxic”
Competition, sovereignty, training for violence… all are slandered and suppressed in our effeminized society.
If you want wealth (or even comfort) you’re weak
If you want a woman of a certain level of attractiveness or character you’re an “incel”
If you want to achieve something and will do anything to get it, you’re “too competitive”
If you want to fight, you’re violent, dangerous
It goes much deeper than you think.
Basic male methods of social interaction — i.e. frank, declarative language — are branded as “toxic”, “aggressive”
On teen social media, exercise is branded as “fascist”; wanting to be in shape seen as narcissistic.
Again, “toxic”
All of these are innate male traits. Extremely important ones.
Every day, supposedly “traditionalist” voices on social media rail against these basic male drives.
And this is on top of the Left’s constant disparagement of anything resembling maleness in media.
We want to make good men.
We presume that we must first make boys good, and then they will become good men.
But this is backwards.
In order to be a good man, you have to first BE A MAN.
In yet another case of playing by outdated rules, conservatives today are still working off of decades-old assumptions.
Namely that masculinity is innate, and that young men must be then shaped into virtuous men worthy of inheriting the world.
But masculinity is no longer the baseline.
In fact, media and culture do everything possible to make the youth hate masculinity, to distance themselves from it.
No revival of “good masculinity” is possible without first reversing this.
You are so right. Real men make anonymous idle death threats on the Internet. Isn't that right?
Didn't have anything, huh?
Nah. They live in a basement simping leftist policies demanding equality while doing nothing to better their own lives.
Do they drive around with bears in their trunks?
Nice retort, Jeff.
Why not consider what was posted and then ask yourself why all of women's advancement has to be at the expense of what is considered manly. Peterson talks about this. What women forget about our history is it was built with the cooperation of both sexes towards the common goal. Not just men, and not just women. Mostly, towards survival. Both worked together, with the focus on strengths that helped build, not weaknesses and wants that brought each sex down. Competitive drive to equality or equity is what is bringing us down now.
Women are more sexually free to have multiple partners and explore their drive. How is that working out? Even in nature, the species that protects its young and finds the best provider is the one that survives long term.
Repeal the 19th.
Is a Revanchist Putin invading Ukraine and slaughtering innocent non-combatant women and children "masculine?"
I do not get why people who think we should not be getting involved in foreign entanglements are labeled as Putin lovers.
We've been asked, for my entire life, to stop involving ourselves with other countries' issues. I am inclined to honor the request.
Y’all “intimately familiar” with nudist culture, like me? Did you know that after the vows, at a nudist wedding, the officiator doesn’t say, “You may kiss the bride”, he or she says, instead, “You may fuck the bride”?
So then nudists ALSO have some pretty fancy blow-out Halloweenie parties, even at swank hotels! At normal parties, we impress one another with fake Frankenstein plastic masks and fake stitches and bolts on our necks and heads? The nudists do that same thing with their peckers!
Terry Brazier, now, HE, with his REAL stitches with his added-back-on hoodie… Especially if they add some small, tasteful golden Frankenstein-style bolts to it ass well… He will have a SWANKER WANKER than ALL the rest!
Butt no, sorry, I will ***NOT*** be his SWANKER WANKER YANKER!!!
Well, it can always get worse!
Recall the gay Canadian airline steward way back when, who spread (just then “going viral”, literally) AIDS all over the place? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ga%C3%ABtan_Dugas … Kaposi’s sarcoma spread all over the place… (As a prominent sign of the new mystery disease).
Terry Brazier (see https://reason.com/2019/08/23/brickbat-the-first-cut-is-the-deepest-2/ ), now, HE, with his REAL stitches with his sewed-back-on hoodie… Especially if they add some small, tasteful golden Frankenstein-style bolts to it ass well, for swank nudist Halloweiner Parties… He will have a SWANKER WANKER than ALL the rest! Butt no, sorry, I will ***NOT*** be his SWANKER WANKER YANKER!!!
Well anyway, hopefully Terry Brazier will NOT be the starring attraction for a bunch of young fan boys, who might otherwise become the spreaders at the nexus of the next AIDS-like horror, known as SWANKER WANKER YANKER CHANCRE!!!
Greedy capitalists as usual will crank out new drugs to cure it, at VASTLY inflated expenses, backed up by their bankers, so then we’ll have SWANKER WANKER YANKER CHANCRE drug-CRANKER BANKERS!!! Riots in the streets, from the anti-1% folks, I’m a-tellin’ ya!!!
Many newscasters will take the side of the bankers… But one of these newscasters will be caught by a mob of angry anti-1% rioters, some of whom will proceed to PUNISH the newscasters… Said punishment-dishers-outers will be known as…
SWANKER WANKER YANKER CHANCRE pro-drug-CRANKER-BANKER-ANCHOR SPANKERS!
There will be those who are squeamish about personal punitive violence, but who still secretly support those with less such squeamishness. When no one is looking or listening, they will privately utter their support of the punitive, anti-gay and anti-banking ones. These more shy and secretive supporters of such things will be known as…
SWANKER WANKER YANKER CHANCRE pro-drug-CRANKER-BANKER-ANCHOR SPANKER THANKERS!
There will inevitably be those who will want to play gay hanky-panky with those who semi-secretly oppose the pro-gay bankers and anchors in this case, as a method of embarrassing them. Gay passes will be made! Gay hanky-panky will be attempted! Such prospective unwanted-gay-pass-makes will be known as “hanker-pankers”. The recipients of such unwanted passes will be tempted to SPANK the makers of unwanted passes! They will be known as…
SWANKER WANKER YANKER CHANCRE pro-drug-CRANKER-BANKER-ANCHOR SPANKER THANKER HANKER-PANKER SPANKERS!
Leo Kovalensky II 4 years ago
But will you yank them on a boat? Will you yank them with a goat?
MatthewSlyfield 4 years ago
I will not yank them Sam I Am, I will not yank them on a goat. I will not yank them in a moat. I will not yank them here or there. I will not yank them anywhere.
She strips down to illustrate that "all women are both body and brain."
For a complete illustration, shouldn't she also have a trepanation?
It's actually a pretty misogynist and anti-humanist statement to make. But, again, smart people don't walk around going "I'm smart. Why aren't there more naked smart people like me around?"
When your peer group are the other strippers at the club or other girls on the corner it's fairly easy to think you're smart.
Is the idea behind the joke that she is dumb, so to reveal how truly dumb she is she should have her brain removed? That doesn't make any sense.
I think he's saying that, based on the ideal she believes in, she shouldn't just be taking her clothes off to reveal her body, she should also be taking her skin and skull off to reveal her brain.
Reason does a book review and conservatives in the comments have kittens. In other news, water is wet.
DON'T CRITICIZE REASON!
The reviewer did some silly performantive mirroring of the author, it is hard to take such a review seriously.
Didn't you hear Sarckles?
Don't criticize Reason, Mickey Rat!!!!
Seems pretty libertarian to me in that it criticizes laws that serve no useful purpose.
All decency laws are connected to free association, in the sense that communities retain the right to organize themselves as they see fit.
So yeah, it's libertine pretending to be libertarian.
Female nipples will cause the end of society as we know it!
You can mock all you want, but who are you to tell them they cannot govern themselves?
Are you defending Muslims who condone killing women who don't cover themselves in public?
Talk about dishonest argumentation.
So you do know what strawmanning is after all.
In other countries, I don't care.
It may surprise you to learn, but locality matters.
Remember that all laws are ultimately enforced by death. Don't believe me? Well it goes like this. Someone is stopped by the cops and issued a citation. They ignore it. Cops come to their house to
kidnaparrest them. They resist with force. A little more escalation and guess what they're dead.Is public attire really worth killing people?
By this standard, no law is acceptable and every man is for himself.
Good luck to you.
Not at all. Just saying that if something is going to be made illegal then there better be a good reason.
"That makes me feel icky" isn't sufficient. At least not in my mind anyway.
The irony being sarc mocks government killing a j6 protestor.
I gave you a good reason, it’s called free association.
You accept the rules of any community when you move there, and it’s incumbent upon you to change them. If they don’t want to permit it, you either change their minds or you move.
Legislating what people wear is free association? I have no idea where you get that. Looks to me more like a free speech issue.
It's called community standards and is an extraordinarily well practiced and well respected precedents in civil law.
Your ignorance is no excuse for your position.
Says the guy who just equated open carry with brandishing. Sorry but I'm not taking law lessons from you.
It's basic reason
if anyone accepts the benefits of a government, he has tacitly consented to the burdens that government imposes on him
Incels will take whatever nudity they can get.
Please extend your arguments to public masturbation.
But water isn’t wet.
'She strips down to illustrate that "all women are both body and brain."'
But what if neither one is appealing?
Then you're a misogynist for not celebrating her.
This article didn't really do anything other than reaffirm that feminism is the ultimate expression of post-modern solipsism.
I wonder if they have thoughts on the trend of young women on, say, TikTok shaming men who look their way when they work out in a gym, even if their glance is not sexual in any way.
"I want to completely change hundreds of thousands of years of human nature."
Good luck with that.
It can be done... Slowly! We no longer take "enemy women" as sex slaves when we are victorious in combat, in most places on the planet today, for starters. Culture, to include law, (along with biology), does matter!
People already go pretty much naked in public, by the standards of times not to long past. Things do change a lot sometimes. Covering breasts and genitals is a more persistent more, and probably for good reason (especially genitals).
Ever see pictures of men on the beach pre 1930s? They're all wearing tops. It was culturally unacceptable for men to show their nipples in public until a century ago.
I haven't bothered to look up the legality.
So you argue against youself. This is now and not a century ago.
OR are you going to do your never-ending Progress is always upward Booooring.
Eh, American culture tends to be very stupidly prudish when it comes to the naked human body.
Take the recent controversy over the Statue of David. I'm sorry, that is not a pornographic statue. If someone thinks that statue is porn, then that person's standards is what's fucked up, not the statue.
Europe on the other hand is much more relaxed. FFS they had a dating show on broadcast TV where the contestants were fully naked. That type of show could never happen here.
“Eh, American culture tends to be very stupidly prudish when it comes to the naked human body.”
Especially the kids, right?
And the rolls were hiding your penis anyway.
American culture is prudish compared to what, exactly?
Most of the world with the exception of Muslim enclaves and totalitarian states.
Continental Europe isn't most of the world, you idiot. Try going naked in La Paz, Tokyo, Ulan Bator, Seoul, Medellin or anywhere in Fiji and see what happens.
Fijians might appreciate it. Could help decide who they're having for dinner.
Most of the world is probably oceans in international waters.
Muslims comprise over 2 billion of the total 7.88 billion world population. That is some enclave.
21st Century American culture is one of the most hypersexualized in history. The idea that we are an outlier of "prudishness" is a laughable assertion.
Most of the world with the exception of Muslim enclaves and totalitarian states.
Wrong. Do some traveling.
Those libertine Indonesians, Chinese, Koreans and Saudis.
And we'll whistle past liberal democracies like Japan.
We had temps above 75 in Seattle for the first time this year and I was at the grocery story and holy cow, I was like, "Tone it down a little, ladies". And what I meant by "tone it down" was "Damn, I sure do like these relaxed social mores".
She strips down to illustrate that “all women are both body and brain.”
She strips trying to have her body distract from her lack of brain.
Significantly, the person refuses to acknowledge that there is no longer a difference between what used to be men and what used to be women.
I get paid more than $140 to $170 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $10k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on the accompanying site…
Here is I started.…………>>> http://www.works75.com
"Victoria Bateman thinks "my body, my choice" should include how much clothing you wear."
SP Buttplug thinks "my body, my choice" should include masturbating in the park by the jungle gym.
You can't completely control how others perceive you, but you can put in the effort.
Sarc can. He took an online test showing his 120 IQ and he is the one true libertarian. Printed it out and everything.
Keeps it in his glove compartment under his registration so he can show it every time he gets stopped.
She is free to be naked. I'm free to laugh and criticize her.
First, I have a question: How is this not edgelord provocation that often gets highbrowed disdain from the "adults" in the Libertarian party? Post a meme on twitter to protest vaccine mandates and you are a shitposter, but dress up in sexy librarian costumes, and try to sneak pictures of your breasts onto book searches, and you are a brave fighter for feminist rights?
" Only New Zealand and Uruguay allow all three markers of bodily autonomy. Norway, the very most democratic in the EIU's estimation, criminalizes or bans both commercial sex and covering one's head."
I can think of at least one interpretation of this data that does not support the Author's argument. The first is that the author is very clearly cherrypicking her data, as she admits. Another is that perhaps there is some correlation between setting standards in a commons, and people having faith in (and strengthening) the democratic process.
In any case, this is a problem solely due to the socialization of private property. There is nothing wrong with people who don't want to read expletives on clothing, or see shirtless men or women while they are eating a fine dinner, or at their kids' school. That isn't immoral.
But the government has appropriated massive swaths of land and declared them commons. Ostensibly this was done with the promise that people would manage that land collectively through a democratic process. But to many Libertarians, if someone advocates to set standards of decorum or dress on these public spaces- a right they would enjoy if this were their own property- it is suddenly wrong to exercise the same powers through collective will.
Simply put, if the bargain we have struck means our "Rights" have been given to a public trust, where decision making is handled via a democratic process, you cannot say that it is automatically, logically wrong for people to advocate for setting standards of dress and speech.
Note: I have no problem with people seeking to move the needle towards permissiveness. I enjoy the fact that I can wear jeans into most restaurants these days. I also have no problem with people that want to argue that more permissive atmosphere is a good use of property. Just as some might have the right to set our standards on a property very strict, others have an equal right to set the standards very loose.
My point is rather that there is no moral imperative here. The infringement of liberty happened when this property was made public. Everyone gave up some liberty to determine how their property will be managed in return for the ability to have a say in many properties. That was the bright line, and if you want to advance property rights, you need to fix that- not limit one set of the infringed people by demanding that they are morally prohibited from using certain rights.
This is the public school debate writ large again. The government has appropriated our money to create a monopoly on government schooling. They have said, "You don't get to exercise your rights to choose directly. Instead we have these school boards and other democratic processes to manage what will be taught."
That was the moral line that was crossed. And you cannot argue for it is immoral for someone to advocate for exactly the same choices in the System, that they had the right to choose if the government hadn't meddled in the first place.
In a way this is an unseen cost of a different kind. When we break windows, we create jobs for window makers, at the cost of the small business who would have spent the money on something else. When we "maximize the liberty" of people walking around nude, we do that at the expense of people who would have set a different standard if it were their own property.
Here is the problem with this analysis:
When we “maximize the liberty” of people
walking around nudecarrying guns, we do that at the expense of people who would have set a different standard if it were their own property.Do you still agree? If it is permissible for the state to ban public nudity (because that is what the private property owners would have chosen had the land been private), is it permissible for the state to ban public gun possession (because that is what the private property owners would have chosen had the land been private)?
The government memt can ban guns. They just need to change the constitution. Try again.
States and localities regularly disallow total public carry of guns (brandishing).
Brandishing is using a weapon in a threatening manner. For example waving a gun around or threatening to shoot someone over a verbal argument. Open carry by itself is not brandishing.
And yet, some states make no such distinction. Whether I agree or not, the point was to show that, yes locality still matters.
If I hold my pistol in my hand as I walk around the *checks youtube* Whole Foods, that could reasonably be interpreted as brandishing. No verbal threats required.
A 2nd amendment "absolutist" who wants to carry his assault rifle at the 'low ready' as he orders a Starbucks is also guilty of edge-lording, and isn't helping anyone.
Sometimes they get shot in the process.
Remember Austin?
Diane, that is utterly irrelevant. The fact you picked that as an example shows that you know you are wrong. I have not met in my entire life a 2nd Amendment absolutist because it can't exist. Starbucks would not allow a person with a sweatshirt that said "all gun owners are asssholes" either. It isn't the gun or the lack, it isn't the view of guns or its opposite, it is what the society as a whole allows.
Playing a radio too loud in a Starbucks is the case that covers all this.Has nothing to do with liking radios or Jay Z, nothng at all
"Do you still agree? If it is permissible for the state to ban public nudity "
Again, my point is where the moral necessities lie.
Is it a good idea to ban the carrying of weapons? No, though I can see where open-carry may breach some standard of decorum like at a concert or whatever.
So no, I don't think your scenario conflicts with my construction. People are free to advocate for setting limits in these public spaces. However, the democratic process has made that very hard to change (2nd Amendment). People are not immoral to try and insert their limits.
Here's the thing--what makes Bateman any different than some wierdo exhibitionist like Lena Dunham, other than Bateman's trying to paint a veneer of intellectual justification for that exhibitionism?
She'd be a lot more honest if she just said, "I want to walk around naked in public whenever I feel like it, and anyone who won't support that and not criticize me is a misogynistic oppressor." She'd be full of shit, but at least it would be honest.
"I have the right to walk in public and not be bombarded by everyone else's deviancy. Society should have strict rules codifying traditional values into law, and anyone who disagrees is a weirdo libertine deviant who should be not only shunned by society but punished by law."
sound about right, RRWP?
Don't be mad just because there are laws in place that prevent you from walking your fat ass around in public naked.
I think I hit the nail on the head there.
That is what you so-cons believe: the role of government is to enforce *by law* traditional values. It is what I have been saying for a while now: to your team, liberty is a privilege that is earned by the morally worthy. Those who are not morally worthy are labeled "deviants", stripped of their liberty and thrown in jail.
The entire conceit of civilization is that crime doesn't, or shouldn't, pay.
Why should deviancy be morally equivalent in the eyes of the law to other standards?
I think I hit the nail on the head there.
That's the problem, you actually think you made a good point.
That is what you so-cons believe: the role of government is to enforce *by law* traditional values.
You mean "traditional values" such as pedophilia being verboten? Then again, you want child molesters to be allowed into the country, so this is understandable.
She’d be a lot more honest if she just said, “I want to walk around naked in public whenever I feel like it, and anyone who won’t support that and not criticize me is a misogynistic oppressor.” She’d be full of shit, but at least it would be honest.
Yes. 6th paragraph, is where it really goes off the rails and she veers away from "I just like being naked." into "If you're with us, you're against us." batshit crazy Marxist territory.
"If you aren't with us, you're against us."
questioning whether I want to be against that.
I wouldn't mind being against Stoya. She was pretty smokin' back in her porn days.
I liked it better the first time, because this "brand" of "sex positive" feminism, if you will, is trying to put us in a Chinese finger trap, and they're annoyed we're not falling for it.
Another is that perhaps there is some correlation between setting standards in a commons, and people having faith in (and strengthening) the democratic process.
This is the reasonable interpretation.
Your body, sure, but my eyes.
The rights of your National Geographic tube tits end where my eyeballs begin.
Progressives see women oppressed by the patriarchy, conservatives see amoral women trying to destroy society, and libertarians want government to protect our rights while otherwise letting us mind our own business.
This has never been an intelligent response any time you’ve attempted it. Broad group generalizations. But God forbid someone call you a leftist or neocon.
I mean you again defended Australian covid camps because they weren't gas chambers. Or j6 non violent arrests because they weren't gulag. Talk about freedom.
As I state below, Reason is becoming a caricature of itself. It swivels its hips and prints 800 word chin-scratching navel gazers on why our oppressive society doesn’t let women wander around nude, and stuff, while the administrative and deep state security meat grinder apparatus marches on, unopposed.
PS And when a Fox News mouthbreather speaks out about the administrative and deep state security meat grinder, we’ll mock them.
*rubbing my temples*
Fuck me, culture war indeed.
I don’t see where anything was printed. They are paying some space on a disk drive and the bandwidth for anyone interested in the story to download the bytes. If you weren’t interested you could have simply skipped the blog post.
Meanwhile, what specifically did you want Reason to cover or say that they didn’t cover or say the way you wanted them to to make you claim, “the administrative and deep state security meat grinder apparatus marches on, unopposed”?
You want Pravda to cover the abuses of the communist party, Diane?
It's two, two, two spokespeople in one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gca44bqPZyA
I don’t know about you all, but when I think of nudity and sex, I like to think of Rudy Guilani:
https://abovethelaw.com/2023/05/rudy-giuliani-a-gross-drunken-sex-pest-no-that-cant-be-right/
Y’all can thank me below.
Oh look, more never-reported-sexual-assault civil litigation against Team Trump.
Strange how they never report these things to the police, but suddenly decide to sue years later in Alvin Bragg's New York County Supreme Court.
The excuse usually given is that these are "free from" ways of protecting women's freedom: that it's men that "make them" do commercial sex or cover their head. And in societies where covering their head is mandatory, the same excuse of protecting women from exploitation by men is given.
And in societies where covering their head is mandatory, the same excuse of protecting women from exploitation by men is given.
Their reasoning is that men cannot control themselves once they are aroused. So if a woman goes around in public without covering herself and makes a bunch of men aroused, there will be chaos in the streets. And all the blame goes on the woman, not the men.
What is wrong with men being aroused and masturbating in public in front of women. Cmon sarc. Be consistent. Defend public masturbation.
Why stop at public masturbation? Trump's "grab them by the pussy" wasn't him being a massively chauvinist egomaniac, he was just a liberal trying to expand norms around handshakes and social greetings.
*LMAO!*
That's a hell of a hello.
Awww, bad example for sure.
A study commissioned by the ministry of Justice found that severe physical violence, domestic violence and rape have increased in Norway over the past nine years. Almost one in four Norwegian women reported having been the victim of rape at least once in their life. Violence in close relationships was estimated to cost Norwegian society 9 billion dollars in 2021.
Norway does not have the moral foundation that the US does.
We ruled against bigamy and slavery on MORAL grounds.
wait no dont
The problem is that no one wants to see most feminists naked
"Ever notice the women at those anti-abortion rallies? You wouldn't want to fuck any of them anyway!"
-George Carlin
You would want to with any of the ones at pro-abortion rallies either. The ones that are not unattractive are way over the crazy/hot line.
“Women face greater nudity taboos than men?”
Hmmm. Women can wear see-thru swimsuits that, while technically covering their boobs, butt, and genitals, can offer you a pretty clear view of them, but if a guy wore a swimsuit where you could see his junk, he would be asked to cover it or the cops would be called within a few minutes if he weren’t in P-town or Key West.
“Women face greater nudity taboos than men?”
Social taboos are almost always created and perpetrated by women anyway. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.
And, through that lens, the alienation and the malice does make women inhuman and vile... like her.
It's a rather transparent play to bait women against each other and blame it on men.
Good point. One big motivation here is keeping their own men. Sexual allure fades much more quickly with women, than men, as their fertility also fades. So a lot of women don’t want their spouse looking at much more sexually attractive, younger, women in sexually provocative dress (or undress), and the spouses getting ideas about trading up for a newer model.
Of course. Don't you know that penises are violence? Unless, of course, attached to a brave "female" body.
Despite her approval of my choice to “dress” to match her preferred interview costume, Bateman is not advocating for a world where all women wander around nude. “What I’m aiming for is a world in which every woman can make decisions about her own body in terms of the degree to which she covers or not, her body, what she does with her vagina, [and] what she does with her own fertility. I want every woman to be able to decide for herself.
Bateman’s talking out of both sides of her mouth here. It’s a fundamental contradiction to claim that you only want women to be able to “decide for herself” to what degree she wants to be dressed, and also say that you don’t support them walking around in public completely nude. “Deciding for herself” inevitably entails indulgence in the latter and claiming that you're being oppressed if you're not allowed to do so. It's nothing more than a variant of the marxist oppressed/oppressor duality.
And like feminism in general, this logic will inevitably be applied to trannies who think they are women but actually aren’t, as it has with other forms of feminist praxis. It’s really nothing more than a subversion of long-held social norms to marinate in self-indulgent social deviance, and is of the same mindset that’s trying to be normalized that pedophilia is a benign form of gender identity, rather than a predatory mental illness that sexualizes children.
What I’m aiming for is a world in which every woman can make decisions about her own body in terms of the degree to which she covers or not, her body, what she does with her vagina, [and] what she does with her own fertility. I want every woman to be able to decide for herself.
Bateman is the quintessential upper middle class feminist, convinced that the oppressive Western Liberal society (that she probably rails against-- in exchange for... what I don't know) is constantly pressing its social mores down upon her. You know, social mores like, "Hey, stop staring at my cleavage, I'm not an object, you know!". Those kinds of oppressive social mores.
““Hey, stop staring at my cleavage” — Oddly specific, as if you are relating something you get told a lot.
Illogical in the extreme. The degree to which she covers is not even a legal promblem, only secondarily. She doesn't want every woman to decide. Christian and Jewish woman are who she is attacking.
We already decided this issue ages ago.
I think you misunderstand. She's saying she isn't advocating a world where *every* woman walks around nude - like, one where clothing is prohibited instead of mandatory.
She has every inherent right to be nude on her property. She has every right to lobby for a nudest city/beach and even run around naked in her enclosed yard.
What she doesn’t have a right to is demanding public law/property conform to her psychotic BS by pretending it’s her ‘right’ to RULE every location she wonders.
That is what this is really all about. It’s what the whole gender-based (‘feminist’) entitlement-me of [WE] psycho-females RULE gang has always been all about. POWER… It’s no secret it’s part of their BS propaganda. “Empowering Females”. And everyone knows this because she isn’t looking to practice any inherent right; she’s looking to upset other people on their turf.
If she wants her entire city to accept her nudity; she can get the proper public support for it. Funny how Democrats only want "democracy" when it entitles them to other people's money but all the sudden care about 'rights' when it might entitles to them to other people's property. The most criminalistic, greedy and psychotic people you'll ever meet are Democrats.
"Women everywhere are still subject to greater nudity taboos than men."
Really? Try being a man dressed in clothing that's as revealing as something women would wear and go to a park with a playground. See how long it takes before the cops are called on you.
Just showing some ball cleavage… What’s the big deal…. lol... /s 🙂
Yep; The Feminists are wildly full of themselves beyond belief.
Tends to happen in [WE] identity-affiliated gang RULES democracy.
Precisely why the USA was never designed to be a democracy.
yeah this is such absolute nonsense. it's embarrassing for her to say something this unintelligent.
Moreover, pay a female stripper dressed as a female stripper to go play on the playground. Note who calls the cops.
If women are subject to greater nudity taboos than men, it's a pretty inhuman/misogynist attitude to assume, especially in the modern era, that men are the only ones who have anything to do with it.
Hmm, but pay a drag queen stripper to visit the playground, and suddenly it's story hour.
She's probably intentionally conflating global restrictions and applying that to her intended Western audience.
Victoria Bateman thinks "my body, my choice" should include how much clothing you wear.
Not a single feminist actually believes in "my body, my choice"
this insufferable piece reads like a grad school paper. my god.
“No atheists in fox holes” litmus test time: Does Bateman approve of Trump’s “grab them by the pussy” ideology or not?
His body, his choice, right? Women’s stodgy social mores against being touched by people like Trump have been too rigidly enforced for far too long. He’s both a body and a brain and hands and who is society to deny him his true self, right?
No threats, no promises, just fact: if you leave it out it’s going to get touched/grabbed more often.
Although I find atheists annoying, I will grant that some of them fight in foxholes - look at the commisars in the Soviet army, for instance.
Feminist economist Victoria Bateman was naked on our Zoom call, and so was I
Working in engineering, THANK GOD we don't allow this.
Working in engineering, THANK GOD we don’t allow this.
I would bet $1,000 that neither one was nude and another $1000 that neither one can actually prove the other was nude because the whole thing was shot from the neck up.
The most banal part about this is, once again in the social media era, how absolutely insane these people are and just don’t grasp that men and women who don't agree with them aren’t persecuting them, they just don’t happen to share their particular brand of insanity.
Worst porn ever.
I dunno. One side of it is pretty good to look at.
The other is the female version of Ron Jeremy, but Stoya's pretty.
Women everywhere? I'm pretty sure there are some tribal societies where everyone walks around naked all the time.
Uh...
So, did any of you European feminists actually ask any men if this is what they thought or did you just treat them like they're a separate subvocal species who's thoughts you have to intuit from the ether?
Fuck you anti-humanist assholes.
Ever meet a "modern" woman who did not know better than all men?
If there's one thing that Western, and American men specifically want, it's women to be more covered up.
Apparently there are feminists who argue that women wearing head coverings will cause them to be unrecognizable to men as though they were a separate species.
Actual view inside European feminists’ heads… apparently.
I wonder what her opinions are on masks, vaccines, sex work, trading sex AT work for a promotion, and men leering at the ankles of unclothed women.
Modern sex-positive feminism: Keep your eyes off my ankles, asking me to have a cup of coffee on an elevator is rape, and... Hey! Subscribe to my Onlyfans!
Again, oddly specific complaints.
Again an oddly useless and valueless comment. Clearly you want to imply something but don’t do it.
They seem specific to you but if you step back from your bias you realize that you can say that with any comment that uses examples. Any and all examples have to be specific or they aren’t examples.
What is odd is you thinking there is some untoward reason behind the examples, yet can’t justify why they are somehow “oddly specific”.
Hint: I don’t really think Diane/Paul is some gal/guy who regularly gets told she/he is being creepy.
Spain to draw up laws to abolish prostitution
The proposal would also punish anyone using a premises for prostitution, and men buying sex, with aggravated sentences if the victim is a minor or classed as vulnerable.
Using exactly the same premise for the opposite conclusion. the vast majority of sex workers today are immigrants.some 80 to 90 percent of all sex workers in Spain are migrant women from Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Africa. Most of them live in poverty, which makes them especially vulnerable to exploitation.
You can't defend a right to involuntarily suffer.
Bateman said: “There’s a belly button, there’s lower cleavage. There’s no nipples on display.
Why not, and why didn’t Reason picture Bateman in the nude? Why perpetuate this oppression?
"To what extent does democracy uphold the freedoms of minorities? And I think this is where democracy doesn't do a particularly great job." While democracy may be the best option at this time, "Democracy tends to tailor itself to the majority interests. And so as a result, bodily freedoms, minority freedoms can get trampled on by that, by the majority. And that is a big problem."
Right, this is why you WILL use my preferred pronouns, and if you don't, you'll be arrested... all in service of... you know, preserving the rights of a minority.
By the way, just for the record, I couldn't give two shits about Bateman and her... "ideas"... this is the fucking whitest of white people, first worldliest of first world problems she's writing about.
This is like a caricature of the hip-swiveling libertarianism that wonders aloud why anyone is like, wearing any clothes and stuff, man, while the administrative state marches onward unnoticed.
This is like a caricature of the hip-swiveling libertarianism that wonders aloud why anyone is like, wearing any clothes and stuff, man, while the administrative state marches onward unnoticed.
A bunch of half-naked slaves were just as effective at bringing down the Pharaohs and the Romans as Hitler was when he bombed Pearl Harbor, it could happen again!
Those who don't learn history are doomed to wonder why everything seems new.
That’s why you’ve made about five comments now complaining about her.
"when feminists also get into bed with those social conservatives and religious zealots…. That's where feminists who might claim to be liberals have actually been really illiberal."
So, the 1980s called. They want their feminist tropes back.
Seriously, is THIS the thing that feminists are engaging in today that is illiberal? Not the hyper-puritanical nature of the progressive left. Progressivism which feminists were all for when they though it gave them power over men, but now is causing all kinds of sticky issues like how "women" have to deal with their penis in the locker room.
An article, written by a porn star, about a nudist performance artist. This is Reason, the libertine magazine.
Jessica Stoya is a part time adult performer and sex advice columnist living in Serbia. Her first book, Philosophy, Pussycats, & Porn was released in 2018 and is now available as an audiobook.
"For someone who sucks dick for a living, you talk too much." -- Patrice O'Neal.
The Bold Look of Kohler-- ad that can't be made any more because stop looking at my ankles!
For someone who doesn’t care about this blog post, you have made 15 comments so far bitching about it.
If there’s one thing I do know, is my posts trigger you like no others, and I can be as sure as the sun rises in the east, you’ll post a string of above-it-all one-liners in response to everything I post.
For someone who used to have me on mute, you sure do follow me closely.
You’re maybe third, behind A Thinking Mind and Idaho Bob.
I get paid more than $140 to $170 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $10k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on the accompanying site…
Here is I started.…………>>> http://www.works75.com
The fact that Reason would waste a single second or byte on this issue, when there are so many more important things, is another reason why my days of not taking them seriously are definitely coming to a middle.
Also, a P. J. O'Rourke quote comes to mind: "But liberals aren’t very interested in such real and material freedoms. They have a more innocent -- not to say toddler-like -- idea of freedom. Liberals want the freedom to put anything into their mouths, to say bad words and to expose their private parts in art museums."
Also the freedom to do all kinds of dumb shit and make stupid choices as long as somebody else bails them out and makes everything all better.
Yes, like toddlers.
Yeah, P.J. O'Rourke hung out with a superior class of liberal than the one we have today.
"Private parts in an art museum? What is this 1973? Private parts in K-3 or GTFO!" - Modern "Liberal"
Apropos:
How to take off a wetsuit if you’re a girl.
Nice educational video.
One picture without books is worth 500 words.
Put it on, baby, put it all back on!
Bears are natural nudists.
And as I put below this will extend to allowing people to masturbate in front of her kids if she extends her logic.
My guess is she does agree there is a line, but doesn’t agree with where the line currently is.
To a libertine the line is generally about their own kink.
And they practice it anywhere they want to. 🙂
Obviously, that is dumping a dangerous biohazard in a place where it could do harm to others. Mere nudism, not so.
Yes, because I am your neighbor and it's on your side of the sidewalk. Clean it up, fucker!
Does the pope shit in his hat?
I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website
…............>>> http://Paycash710.blogspot.Com
But it could be cultural expression. Check your colonial privilege.
This comment has been deleted by its author.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
Bear naked is a thing.
Well apparently these “natural nudists” don’t want to be. They wear a fur coat everywhere they go.
You need an IQ above room temperature to be funny.
The poor dear.