Social Media Seriously Needs to Loosen Up the Nudity Censorship
When museums start joining OnlyFans, you know you’ve gone too far.
--
As much as I’d like to spice up my feed with open-legged clit close-ups and Jerkmate banner ads, I’m not trying to make a case for rampant nudity here.
I don’t need to. 14-year-old kids know where to go to get the bare stuff anyway. The best we can do is teach them how to use the adblocker.
Because safety first.
But since this ain’t that kind of rant, forget the lowest-hanging fruit of romanticism for a second.
This is not about nudity — it’s about art
Social media platforms are not blurring out an ass crack here and there; they’re flagging sexually explicit art as if someone in Zuckerberg’s moderation cubicle has never made love with the lights on.
At one point, Instagram even banned a Peter Paul Rubens painting over some boobs. That painting was from the 17th Century. Back then, grown men would get a boner over a calf slip — but apparently, it’s still too daring for today?
This is madness.
The Vienna tourism board did what any financially struggling girl with pretty feet would’ve done in their stead.
They created an OnlyFans account to host all adult material
Vienna’s OnlyFans account is hosting all the artworks that violated social media platforms’ “community standards,” among them the Venus of Willendorf, a 25,000-year-old topless figurine that Facebook flagged as “pornographic.”
I bet Vienna has it sorted under the MILF section now.
This is good news: finally you can either visit OF without an incognito tab, or you can jack off to the fine arts and redefine the meaning of the “posh wank.”
Isn’t that art’s purpose? To push us into new cultural frontiers?
So sexually explicit art is getting banned. Why should you care?
Because this is not just about freeing nipples anymore.
Take me as an example. Never have I seen a pic of a plus-size model and thought, “Well but ain’t that a fine example of beauty and health!”
Let’s just say they’re not my kink.
But that gives me no right to go leave a hateful comment like a miserable dimwit because I get it: for them, the fat acceptance movement is more about acceptance than it is about movement.
Isn’t that a valid human experience? Wanting to be seen and loved for who you are and what you look like?
If we censor art, we take away its power to make us think.
We all know this doesn’t stop at nudity
Of course, being the most brusquely taboo of them all, nudity gets most of the heat.
But every art form has its own thoughtless, pestilent mob of idiots unable to understand that art is never about the content, but about the impression.
Comedy’s been getting hate recently because of Dave Chappelle’s last special. Cancel culture went all PC rage against him and his “transphobic” jokes.
Listen. Whoever watches that routine without planning to write an op-ed woke barf of a review will immediately notice Chappelle’s intent: that of a man willingly (and hilariously) exploring something he struggles to understand.
Isn’t that a valid human experience as well? Isn’t that as worthy of protection as the fat lady’s pictures?
Social media can help us do better
For starters, it has the advantage of letting us react to art in a private way.
You can’t do that in a subway station. If you saw Liv Strömquist’s paintings of bleeding vaginas hanging in the wall, you would’ve probably gone with a cringe or another socially appropriate reaction.
We need more period art for that very same reason. We need more cock-and-balls life stills. More trans and fat and white people jokes.
In the words of Rowan Atkinson, “The best way to increase society’s resistance to hate speech is to allow a lot more of it.”
Social media could be the way to ease everyone into it. So bring up the clit close-ups. I’m ready.
Read Hogan Torah’s piece about the Chappelle controversy. I’m too lazy to try writing in better than he did:
Or read about sloth’s brilliant survival strategy. This one involves sex too:
