Unrevelatory brooding

U.B.

When I see a stranger, I think: “I’d like to get to know this person.” Then I put on my special goggles that have the power to see through clothing. I feel that I know the stranger better when I view the stranger undressed, but in actuality I still know nothing about this person. Why does anyone equate nakedness with knowledge?

It’s a type of knowledge—the sight of the stranger’s nude body is a fact among many. Although the shape of a person’s body can be manipulated to a small extent via diet & exercise (etc.), each body is roughly assigned to its wearer by Bad Luck (which some call God, Devil, Fate, Chance, Everything, Nothing, or Who Knows What)— so it has little to do with the genuine person in question.

I said that each body is assigned to its “wearer,” as if the body were clothing. That is how I think—I am convinced that there must be something underneath the body, just as the body lies underneath the clothes. But maybe there’s just the body and nothing else.

In the King James Bible, one human is said to have “known” another human once they copulate. “…Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain…” (Genesis 4:1) Also, “…God knew Mary; and she conceived, and bare Jesus…” (I’m joking about that last quote—the scripture doesn’t say that God copulated with Mary: it only says that she gave birth to His baby.)

And then there are publications that boast of offering “nude celebrity photos.” So an actor appears in a situation-comedy on TV, and then people desire to see that actor naked. And some actors willingly appear unclothed in films. And some movies show actors copulating. —My question is: Do we know these actors any better, after we have watched them suffer through sexual intercourse?

If you had been born and raised on a farm, as I like to imagine I was, then you’d have witnessed physical coupling semi-regularly among the innocent animals. Let’s say that you walk into a barn with the intention of casting pearls to swine, and you happen upon the sight of three pigs that are engaged in tender lovemaking. So you fetch your motion-picture camera, press the record button, and zoom in for a close-up. This sexy video that you captured contains as much worth as it would’ve possessed had its contestants been human.

Pig porn, horse porn, sheep porn, cattle porn, human porn: it’s all the same portrayal of functioning organs. You know very little about any of the animals involved, after you’ve seen them commit this act that God commands (Genesis 1: “Be fruitful, and multiply”). If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t remove their clothes; you spend time with them: participate in the many other activities that life has to offer. This is why we are so devastated by the loss of our pets—I think that people, on average, mourn the death of pets more than the death of lovers; and this is precisely on account of the fact that the pet/owner bond remains nonsexual.

Admittedly, however, most pets are (strictly speaking) nudists; so maybe clothing does have an adverse effect on human relationships.

Nonetheless, I consider the fur of a cat—or the feathers of a bird—to serve as that creature’s evening wear; therefore, contra nudism, all pets remain perpetually well-dressed.

Except pigs do seem to be wearing a flesh-colored body stocking. But then they roll in the mud; so mud is kind of like a pig’s tuxedo.

And certain monkeys have an extremely colorful rump. I wonder if the doctrine of that species considers this attribute to be officially “modest” OR “sexy.” I mean, the color is either a covering and thus demure (as it renders the act of baring one’s backside impossible); or else it’s an accent, serving to highlight that particular organ, and therefore provocative (like the way that a push up bra enhances the shape of one’s breasts).

I am sorry to end on this note, but I’ve run out of time.