Fairly Messy Rant: Sex, Nudity, And Battle Kittens

  • Post category:Archived
  • Reading time:11 mins read
  • Post comments:0 Comments

Well, time for another Fairly Messy Rant.  The needed father of a generation, and messiah figure of several novels, that have yet to be written, Jonathan Holmes, is one of my favorite human beings.  It is hard to place why, it is like explaining the appeal of chocolate to someone without taste buds, but I find his general oddness and likability to be very hard to find traits, and his lack of traditional human extremes simply makes him a fascinating individual.  However, I am not here to talk about him, but rather Battle Kittens, and why it makes me very uncomfortable.

Battle Kittens is a series of sketches done by a person who works on My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, which I am a fan of.  I know, shocking isn’t it?  The actual sketches feature what amounts to overweight and muscular female barbarians riding on giant kittens and getting into fights.  And I think that is a great concept, purely by the untraditionally awesome spectacle.  But here’s my deal breaker, the women in question are topless.  I grew up on the internet, part of the first generations to really do so, and I encountered some especially odd pornography, the least of which contains numerous rule 34 oddities, vore, weight gain, diaper fetishes, foot fetishes, shrinking, growth, and sissification.  All of those I find creepy or unsettling to varying degrees, but I amazingly find plain old nudity to be unsettling or unnatural, but why?

While I could do research on psychology and demonization of nudity, I do not like going out to research that stuff, and this is a spur of the moment kind of thing.  I do not need to explain to you that the modern, and pretty universal consensus is that female breasts being exposed is considered nudity.  When you think about it, it does not make a lot of sense why one even considers female breast to be nudity, but not male breasts. There are two primary differences, the fact that the female’s breasts can produce milk for their offsprings, but the male’s breasts, are really just there for storing fat.  And while the female breasts do that as well, their size being larger is considered attractive, since they indicate the amount of milk that can be provided by the mother, raising a healthier child.  

But society tends to play this card to advertise anything to men, since their natural instincts find that to be an appealing trait.  But as to why they are covered up, and not men’s, I think that it might be because women, along with nearly every human being, want to look good.  And if the breasts do not have a harness in the form of a bra, they will begin to sag as time goes on, and the attractiveness levels go down.  

However, this does not get to the real issue.  Society tends to demonize the showing of female breasts, and for levels that I am sure are not out of wanting to prevent numerous sagging breasts, but to prevent them from being seen.  But it is only when a nipple is show, that is is considered nudity.  And to be honest, that is just dumb, a nipple merely serves as a one way passage of transporting milk from the breast, but due to the nerve placed in the breasts, and especially the nipples.  It causes them to be sensitive near the levels of genetalia.  But just seeing them, that does not cause them to show how sensitive they are, so there’s really no difference with seeing a breast with a blocker for the nipples, and a breast with a visible nipple.

The only real negative to showcasing breasts, is that it will cause females of an impressionable age to feel uncomfortable with their breasts unless they are a perfectly round pair of DDs.  And why are they named after letters anyways?  But why do I, a teenage male, the target demographic of advertisements that feature large amounts of large breasts, get annoyed by this?  It is because we find going into our natural urges to be a sign of weakness, and pretty pathetic, we have created a sense of pride, and demonization of lustful acts, when we are just doing what our minds are telling us to do.  

Human society has created numerous rules, and restrictions, which has never really been done by any other animal.  Hell, how many animals have what can be called a society when you look at the sheer complexities and double standards in human society?  Breaking down one’s viewpoints can be a bit of a scary idea, since you are taking what you believed in at the base level, and maybe learning that you are wrong, and nobody likes to be wrong.  Even I, who likes to make harsh claims that he wants to be proven wrong, only makes those to encourage people to make themselves right by proving me wrong, and everyone likes to be right.  But back to nudity, I stumbled upon it several times when I was around my 9-11 phase, where I acted like I was 6-8, I was odd like that.  

And even though, I never have seen it before, I was told that it was a bad thing, and that really does not make any sense.  the act of wearing clothes was first done for warmth, and later for protection, but somewhere, it became wrong to not coat your body with cloth or animal skins.  I understand the protection being applied to sexual organs, so placing a waist and crotch covering piece of clothing does make sense, since it is harder to find your nerve filled genetals, but this goes back to the safety issue, since I am not worried about the protection of badass warriors, but there is something that I imply when I see nudity, and while that used to be general indecency, that was eventually removed when I realized just how stupid that idea was.

Decency is like good and evil, a word that has such a broad meaning, and so many double standards from countless societies that it might as well be non-existent.  But even if they are decent, and the act of nudity implies sex, since the only thing you really must be naked for is sex.  bathing can also be applied, but bathing is still a fairly new concept in human history, at least compared to sex.  And since clothing was armor, nudity can also be a sign of weakness, hence the phrase, “Caught with your trousers down”.  

But then I find the heart of my problem, the fact that it implies sex.  I’m sure that the second paragraph implied that I was one who has yet to participate in the act of sex, so my views are based on things I have seen, not done.  And as I stated before, my views on the act of sex are so clouded by fetishes, that I don’t really think of traditional sex, when I think of sex.  But in my mind, the most sexual act there is, meaning that it is an act that I consider to have sexual meaning, involves the retardation of grown women, who are about to be sent off as sex slaves who have the minds of horny dogs.  

But for the sake of context, these were normal and relatively innocent women who were greedy and ruthless at worst, but the destruction of one’s mind, the loss of any control they have over their life.  I think that if anyone had the choice to be turned into a mere toy for an individual who owns you like a chair, or get a bullet in the head, would take the shorter and more immediate option.  So in short, when I think of sex, I think of a loss of identity, or self-control.  That is beyond society’s demonization, and is a whole new ball park.  Sex is not an evil act, it is natural, and is the way that most animals create life.  I have no idea why I desired to find a new form of demonization for it, but since I needed to have a good reason to not want to do it, other than the consequences, since that dual reason excuse is how the world I grew up in handled it, I felt a desire to fill that void, and I did so with sex trafficking. 

However, this oddly does not cross with sexual acts.  I find the idea of groping to be innocent, fun, cute, and to be played for laughs, since I prefer a world that is more fun, since the current version of the world is kinda shit.  When I dream, everything is drawn, and the world feels just as real as the true one, except it is more enjoyable.  But here’s the thing, I do not consider sex and sexual acts to be related unless nudity is involved.  Is this a double standard?  You bet your ass it is!  

I was exposed to numerous sexual themes as a child, more so than nudity, but they never really connected, and I am very thankful for that.  If you want an example of how this works, Sanae, from Squid Girl,  is cute, because she does not feel lust, but thinks Squid Girl is cute, and wants to grope her because of it.  Yet a rapist does so after lust, a sexual urge that relies on someone being naked and the fulfillment of one’s libido.  I do not really have a libido, and the act of sex does not interest me, but physical contact is okay if it involves a smile of child-like glee, and the only thoughts of sex are more of a joke than anything.  And if staged, you must make it clear that you do not intend for there to be anything other than fun going on.  A character can be uncomfortable, but as long as they are not in a situation where they are in real danger of losing anything that is seen as valuable in this world, it is all fun.

However, Battle Kittens plays it straight, not even noticing nudity, or acknowledging any sexual themes, yet I somehow come to the conclusion that it is directly related to sex.  I know that it is not about sex, but I just mentally relate nudity with sex, since they were introduced to me as connected element that I ended up mutating, since their relation did not make a lot of sense if they were presented in the context of being generally bad things.  I shouldn’t think of sex and retardation, and nudity is a more natural form for a human, my viewpoint is pretty irrational, but I just felt like sharing it, since Jonathan Holmes, the greatest person to ever speak to me, got me thinking about it.

Leave a Reply