Specific third-degree frame representations of nakedness self-consciously created

as porn, both function as a form of lightning rod designed to hold the
sexual undercurrents of joy and want that do, actually, exist in non sexual
frameworks of nude behavior — the happiness of gazing and the desire to know,
the pleasure of showing and the desire to be seen. For contemporary postmodern
western culture, sex and sexuality have become signicant themes in advertising,
art, amusement and other frames such that sexuality appears an external force,
roller-coastering or bulldozing its way through formerly ‘shielded’ spaces, and
not only public ones. The ‘protected’ sites of nakedness — children bathing,
Locker room showers — are likewise ‘crashed through’ and sexualized.
If it’s useful to battle the prohibition on nakedness that results from the
(renewed) fall of nakedness into sexuality — and likely it’s — then it is not
done by taking the position of nudists, naturalists and nude activists in try-
ing to reclaim a space or framework for nonsexual nakedness, for the instability of
the myth of the shut frame or circumstance is productive, in the sense that it opens
up all kinds of chances for contingent, constant rethinking of subjectivity,
bodies, characteristics, resources, statuses and individualities. Nor is it useful to fete,
or even necessarily recommend the fall of the contextual bodies per se. Instead,
I suggest it would be productive to consider a reguring of sexuality altogether.
This is where queer theory makes a useful contribution to such re thinking. If
nakedness can be, and is, fell with sexuality, then it is by virtue of the
continued focus of sexuality on genitalia. As Freudian, Marxist-Freudian and
Marxist-feminist scholars have frequently attested, sexuality in modernity is tricked
to the genitals in order to free the remaining part of the body for labour (Jeffreys, 1990:
104–5). In post-structuralist queer theoretical terms, the sexual subject is a

performative delusion of a (genitally sexed) body, gendered culturally and job-
ing a sexual desire towards another body tagged reverse by virtue of its
dichotomously discerned genitals — a program maintained by the ‘heterosexual
matrix’, and where homosexuality becomes the ‘proof’ of heterosexuality by
Merit of its binarial difference.
Critical of this Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment position, Eve
Kosofsky Sedgwick has claimed that sexual interest across gendered (and
Thus genital) lines is not just unproductive but unimaginative. She indicates
Alternate measurements of sexuality that

… differentiate item-choice fairly otherwise (e.g., human/animal, adult/child, singular/plural,
autoerotic/alloerotic) or are not even about item choice (e.g., orgasmic/nonorgasmic,
noncommercial/commercial, using bodies simply/using manufactured objects, in private/in
public, spontaneous/scripted). (Sedgwick, 1990: 35)
Queer theory allows us to add to this list along trajectories that usually are not
encompassed in conversation on sexuality — time, space, place, the disunied body or,
as Grosz (1994: 139) steers, body-parts which are not generally constituted as libidi-
nal or gendered zones. Sex — any theory of sex and thus genitalia — might
be removed entirely from http://nudismsite.com/tube/my-first-naked-outside-experience/ of sexualized desire. What queer theory
opens is what pedestrian understandings of sexuality and public sphere discus-
sions of sex blow off but fear: that sexuality pervades all components of the subjective
and performative body, but not in the gendered, genital terms which continue to
fascinate modern culture, and which modern culture continues to be
incited by, and to fear. The gaze in all its many forms is, by virtue of its in-signi-
ability, always http://partnerpost.net/2016/04/so-your-family-would-be-nudists-then/ , always erotic. In an extremely broad and pragmatic way, and in
light of the failure of the contextual frames, the erotic can be dened as what
occurs in the encounter between performative subject-bodies and other bodies.
For Butler (1990), the performativity of embodied subjecthood is a citation of the
signier, reiteratively performed such that it confirms retroactively an delusion
of an interior individuality core. An extensive and radical treatment of subject perfor-
mativity would consider an ‘individual’ (never quite) subject to be a multiple
citation of an array of coordinates, constantly in ux as those coordinates change and
Change their signications, as new coordinates come into being or are encountered
and cited, always differently, in the procedure for performing subject coherence. An
encounter with other matters, including meeting, greeting, sharing space, gazing,
Talking and listening is always sensual in that it infuses the subject’s body, changes
the signications of the signiers cited by which the subject maintains his or her
subjectivity and sexual identity. It truly is the citation of ‘the sexual’ dened as sexual