Well, this is exciting. I actually wrote a post for this blog over a year ago discussing the recent trend of using "trigger warnings" (to warn potential readers about blog articles that might include emotionally sensitive content - most frequently involving sexual assault). But my stance was actually against using trigger warnings, which is a stance that I ultimately felt could be taken as insensitive to victims of sexual assault, so I tabled the post and never published it. But today I found an article discussing the potential harm of using trigger warnings, as encountered by a facility of higher learning. This comment here really sums up my philosophy:
"...some critics of trigger warnings say that higher education is rooted in confronting uncomfortable ideas and experiences. And more practically, critics say, it’s nearly impossible in classes with students with differing sensibilities to define what deserves a trigger warning." (link)
Those are really the two critical issues involved. My blog may not be an accredited institute for higher education, but I am very much dedicated to the values of higher education, and challenging readers to confront uncomfortable ideas is pretty much one of the hallmarks of my writing approach.
Don't get me wrong, I think the heart of the idea of using trigger warnings is in the right place - it's a sympathetic measure to ease the suffering of those who have been through traumatic experiences. I just happen to be a firm believer in freedom over security, and I think that if you were to balance the gains and losses of the trigger warning approach, you'd find that it leans too heavily in the ultra-PC "babyproof everything so that nobody ever gets hurt" direction that we're dangerously headed toward these days. I'm a highly sensitive individual, but even I think some aspects of modern culture are becoming overly sensitive.
But consider, also, the second part of the passage quoted above. As nice as it might be to litter media with warnings for the sake of sexual assault victims, don't you think that's kind of a little unfair to other kinds of victims? Or not just victims, but people with particular sensibilities? And how can you possibly cater to everyone?
It's like the issue of censoring porn - images of sex don't bother me, but I hate seeing pictures of spiders. So why is it fair to censor porn in order to avoid offending the average viewer, yet people can post pictures of spiders willy-nilly with no restrictions? It makes me feel like people don't care about me and my sensibilities as much as someone else's.
But as nice as it would be to never be exposed to another picture of a spider in my life ever again, that's just not the world I live in. I don't expect everybody else in the world to cater to my fears and insecurities, going out of their way to prevent accidentally offending me or setting me off. I'd rather deal with the possibility that I might encounter those things in the world, and work on my ability to deal with them rather than run away in fear.
And to extrapolate the issue to its logical conclusion, its just not practical to set warnings for everything. So then, by issuing warnings for certain topics, you're basically making a value judgment - that those topics are more important than others. Which has the described effect of isolating people who don't fit into your average "sensibility profile".
But it does something else, too. I don't want to minimize the trauma of experiencing sexual assault, but at the same time, I think that under the guise of sympathy, it's possible to go too far and end up actually increasing victims' trauma, by continuously reassuring them (regardless of their own response, sometimes) that yes, it really was that bad.
I just happen to believe that if something bad happens, the best way to heal and move on with your life is to put it in perspective, take it for what it is, and understand that it's not the end of the world. It doesn't fundamentally damage you. If you tell yourself you can get past it, you're in a much better position to heal than if you keep reminding yourself (and everybody else keeps reminding you, in case you start to forget) just exactly how terrible it was.
And that's something trigger warnings have a tendency to do. It's like a note saying, "this topic is so bad, it needs a warning, because some people can't even handle it." It encourages avoidance. Creating taboos is a dangerous game, because it makes things harder to talk about - and harder to deal with.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Monday, April 21, 2014
The Recurring Problem of Sexualizing Nudism
I know that many nudists would love if this issue could just be put to rest once and for all, but it's not for no reason that it keeps coming up, again, and again, and again. And for all the emphasis that nudists put on the fact (and it is a fact) that the purpose and practice of nudism has nothing to do with sex, it is also a fact that nudity - which is, by definition, an integral part of nudism - can be erotic (or not), depending on context.
And so, I think it's inevitable, if perhaps unfortunate (depending on your perspective), that nudism will continue to be confused with sexuality, on occasion, at least in some people's minds (most often those with the least experience with actual nudism), for as long as it remains true that a person can find some erotic appeal in the unclothed human form - and I believe that no amount of prudist protestations will ever change that.
Now, to reiterate my stance that I've described before, this is unfortunate in that sexuality is still so largely looked down upon in contemporary American culture (and likely elsewhere in the developed world, to differing extents - and quite in spite of its own hypocritical obsession with it), such that any association - accurate or not - with a sexual lifestyle can only serve to discredit the practice of nudism in the eyes of the non-nudist majority.
Most nudists are not sexual revolutionaries like I am, and so I imagine it probably does not hurt their conscience to disparage sexuality (of all but the most conservative variety) in the service of keeping the image of nudism squeaky clean. To be exact, I do not stand in opposition to their goal of legitimizing nudism, I just don't think that disparaging sexuality is a worthwhile sacrifice to reach that end. Because, although I absolutely agree that mainstream opinions on nudity and body image and related topics are troubling, and that a nudist approach would be far healthier, I think that our attitudes toward sexuality are also toxic, and in need of a possibly even more immediate reappraisal.
Well, I wouldn't have brought this up if I were just going to reiterate points I've made before. An insight came to me recently, that allowed me to put the issue in perspective, by imagining its comparative application to other matters. Sometimes one can get so focused thinking of an issue in one context, that he becomes bogged down with the specific details of that case, and fails to see its application in other contexts, which might in fact provide new insight into the problem.
The problem, if we are to call it that, is people making sexual associations with nudism. This can occur in the form of people attending nudist functions with entirely the wrong expectations, or - probably more prevalent - people reacting to or "utilizing" nudist media (including images and accounts or even fictionialized stories) with a sexual mindset. I think the first case is more problematic, but I believe the (wishful) desire to eliminate such misunderstandings is not sufficient (either in theory or application) to eradicate all instances of the second case.
As a matter of fact, I don't believe the second case is really all that problematic, as long as it is kept in check. Which is to say that those who do have reason to 'sexualize' nudist media in their minds, for whatever personal gains they may have in mind, ought to have the freedom to do so, so long as it is made clear in the greater discourse (and this is where the frequent corrections that nudists make come into play) that this is a "non-canonical" interpretation of the lifestyle. People are, after all, free to think what they like - even when they are wrong. What's important is that someone is around to demonstrate the truth.
But if we think about it, this "problem" is not limited to nudism. I'm sure that, if you take a second, you can think of other examples of things - lifestyles or products or concepts - that are frequently sexualized by a subset of the population (even if a small, perverted minority), not necessarily to their greater benefit. The only difficulty, in this case, is in identifying those targets who do not have it in their interest or intent, whatsoever, to be viewed in a sexual light.
The fashion industry, for example, can't credibly claim to be entirely asexual in its intentions (unless you isolate specific subsections of it). On the other hand, some people (on either side of the production line) may be made to feel uncomfortable by the sexualization of certain types of footwear, as may frequently be done by those who identify as foot fetishists. How this reflects on those creating and wearing the shoes is the question to ask - and I think the mature response would account for the great diversity of opinions and purposes that such things may be created or utilized for - including, but not limited to, a sexual purpose.
All that remains is the lingering question of whether this incidental "sexualization" actually harms the greater reputation of the thing in question, and if so, by how much. And I would argue that the answer depends largely on how much weight we give to sexual matters, and the nature of our attitude towards them. I would not be surprised if a prude were to express disgust at the thought that another may consider something they have or do to be sexual when they do not. But as for myself, for example, the thought wouldn't faze me because, a) it's not really that big a deal, and b) I'm happy for other people to find ways to get their rocks off, whether it's "traditional" or not.
I mean, think about it. Does it keep you up at night knowing that some people use beds as a prime location for their sexual practices? No? How much of that is because it's a practice you're socially accustomed to, and not unlikely have engaged in, more or less regularly, yourself? What about cars - do you feel uncomfortable getting in the back seat of a car because you know others use that location (maybe not in that specific car, but one just like it - then again, you never know) for sexual liaisons? Neither of these examples, by the way, prove that beds and cars are necessarily designed with sexual performance in mind, or that the majority of instances in which the majority of people use them are sexual in nature.
In a lot of these instances, though, maybe there's not much of a problem because most people don't consider such things to be sexual most of the time. The reason it's such a problem with nudism, then, is maybe because people do often equate nudity with sex. There is obviously no difficulty in the average person seeing the sexual appeal of a naked body, the problem might lie more in people having trouble understanding how a naked body can be non-sexual. Although - and maybe this is due to my own nudist experience, but - I don't see what the difficulty is. I think that most people do, in actuality, understand that not all naked bodies are sexy. Hence the frequent comments about how gross nudism must be.
Well, yeah, if you were to ask me - although it depends on circumstance and who you happen to be hanging out with - most of the time, and on average, nudism is about as [un]sexy as walking in on your grandparents climbing out of the bath tub. I think maybe the difficulty for most people is understanding why, if the only two things nudity can be is sexy or gross, and nudism is "absolutely not about sex", then why do people get so excited about something that is akin to seeing your grandparents naked? And don't you think they're probably just trying to cover up some kind of secret orgy or something - because that would be more believable?
As a nudist, it's hard dealing with the way non-nudists sometimes treat you. The other most popular yet unflattering interpretation is that there's something wrong with the nudists' heads, that they think for some reason that they have to wander around without their clothes on - like a mental patient or something. Of course, the truth is neither one of these, and encompasses the belief that nudity can have another appeal, one that does not fall under the category of either "sexual" or "gross". Although I would argue that it could be considered "sensual" - but in the sense of engaging your sense organs, and not your sex organs.
Sensuality and Eroticism
Despite its colloquial definition, a "sensual" experience is one that engages the senses. This could include a walk through a flower garden, dinner at a fine restaurant, or a night at the opera. But I like to emphasize experiences that have a tactile focus - for as important as touch is, I feel that it is often neglected in favor of the sights, sounds, smells, and tastes we more consciously encounter in the world. In this sense, nudism is an intrinsically sensual experience - for in casting off our clothes, we become reacquainted with the texture of our world - we begin to feel not just with our hands, but with our feet, with our bottoms, and with the remaining fraction of the entire surface area of our skin.
As you can probably imagine, a sensual experience is not intrinsically erotic, although we have been rightly conditioned to categorize erotic experiences as being sensual (for they usually are). Surely, sensual experiences can be erotic, and I think that this is especially true with tactile experiences - particularly when specific areas of the skin are stimulated - such as the erogenous zones, but also those areas that are frequently covered up, and thus denied that tactile communication with one's environment. This is how nudism can absolutely be an erotic experience, in a way that is neither intentional nor sexually explicit, but that I think is an enjoyable and legitimate part of the experience of nude recreation.
And so, I think it's inevitable, if perhaps unfortunate (depending on your perspective), that nudism will continue to be confused with sexuality, on occasion, at least in some people's minds (most often those with the least experience with actual nudism), for as long as it remains true that a person can find some erotic appeal in the unclothed human form - and I believe that no amount of prudist protestations will ever change that.
Now, to reiterate my stance that I've described before, this is unfortunate in that sexuality is still so largely looked down upon in contemporary American culture (and likely elsewhere in the developed world, to differing extents - and quite in spite of its own hypocritical obsession with it), such that any association - accurate or not - with a sexual lifestyle can only serve to discredit the practice of nudism in the eyes of the non-nudist majority.
Most nudists are not sexual revolutionaries like I am, and so I imagine it probably does not hurt their conscience to disparage sexuality (of all but the most conservative variety) in the service of keeping the image of nudism squeaky clean. To be exact, I do not stand in opposition to their goal of legitimizing nudism, I just don't think that disparaging sexuality is a worthwhile sacrifice to reach that end. Because, although I absolutely agree that mainstream opinions on nudity and body image and related topics are troubling, and that a nudist approach would be far healthier, I think that our attitudes toward sexuality are also toxic, and in need of a possibly even more immediate reappraisal.
Well, I wouldn't have brought this up if I were just going to reiterate points I've made before. An insight came to me recently, that allowed me to put the issue in perspective, by imagining its comparative application to other matters. Sometimes one can get so focused thinking of an issue in one context, that he becomes bogged down with the specific details of that case, and fails to see its application in other contexts, which might in fact provide new insight into the problem.
The problem, if we are to call it that, is people making sexual associations with nudism. This can occur in the form of people attending nudist functions with entirely the wrong expectations, or - probably more prevalent - people reacting to or "utilizing" nudist media (including images and accounts or even fictionialized stories) with a sexual mindset. I think the first case is more problematic, but I believe the (wishful) desire to eliminate such misunderstandings is not sufficient (either in theory or application) to eradicate all instances of the second case.
As a matter of fact, I don't believe the second case is really all that problematic, as long as it is kept in check. Which is to say that those who do have reason to 'sexualize' nudist media in their minds, for whatever personal gains they may have in mind, ought to have the freedom to do so, so long as it is made clear in the greater discourse (and this is where the frequent corrections that nudists make come into play) that this is a "non-canonical" interpretation of the lifestyle. People are, after all, free to think what they like - even when they are wrong. What's important is that someone is around to demonstrate the truth.
But if we think about it, this "problem" is not limited to nudism. I'm sure that, if you take a second, you can think of other examples of things - lifestyles or products or concepts - that are frequently sexualized by a subset of the population (even if a small, perverted minority), not necessarily to their greater benefit. The only difficulty, in this case, is in identifying those targets who do not have it in their interest or intent, whatsoever, to be viewed in a sexual light.
The fashion industry, for example, can't credibly claim to be entirely asexual in its intentions (unless you isolate specific subsections of it). On the other hand, some people (on either side of the production line) may be made to feel uncomfortable by the sexualization of certain types of footwear, as may frequently be done by those who identify as foot fetishists. How this reflects on those creating and wearing the shoes is the question to ask - and I think the mature response would account for the great diversity of opinions and purposes that such things may be created or utilized for - including, but not limited to, a sexual purpose.
All that remains is the lingering question of whether this incidental "sexualization" actually harms the greater reputation of the thing in question, and if so, by how much. And I would argue that the answer depends largely on how much weight we give to sexual matters, and the nature of our attitude towards them. I would not be surprised if a prude were to express disgust at the thought that another may consider something they have or do to be sexual when they do not. But as for myself, for example, the thought wouldn't faze me because, a) it's not really that big a deal, and b) I'm happy for other people to find ways to get their rocks off, whether it's "traditional" or not.
I mean, think about it. Does it keep you up at night knowing that some people use beds as a prime location for their sexual practices? No? How much of that is because it's a practice you're socially accustomed to, and not unlikely have engaged in, more or less regularly, yourself? What about cars - do you feel uncomfortable getting in the back seat of a car because you know others use that location (maybe not in that specific car, but one just like it - then again, you never know) for sexual liaisons? Neither of these examples, by the way, prove that beds and cars are necessarily designed with sexual performance in mind, or that the majority of instances in which the majority of people use them are sexual in nature.
In a lot of these instances, though, maybe there's not much of a problem because most people don't consider such things to be sexual most of the time. The reason it's such a problem with nudism, then, is maybe because people do often equate nudity with sex. There is obviously no difficulty in the average person seeing the sexual appeal of a naked body, the problem might lie more in people having trouble understanding how a naked body can be non-sexual. Although - and maybe this is due to my own nudist experience, but - I don't see what the difficulty is. I think that most people do, in actuality, understand that not all naked bodies are sexy. Hence the frequent comments about how gross nudism must be.
Well, yeah, if you were to ask me - although it depends on circumstance and who you happen to be hanging out with - most of the time, and on average, nudism is about as [un]sexy as walking in on your grandparents climbing out of the bath tub. I think maybe the difficulty for most people is understanding why, if the only two things nudity can be is sexy or gross, and nudism is "absolutely not about sex", then why do people get so excited about something that is akin to seeing your grandparents naked? And don't you think they're probably just trying to cover up some kind of secret orgy or something - because that would be more believable?
As a nudist, it's hard dealing with the way non-nudists sometimes treat you. The other most popular yet unflattering interpretation is that there's something wrong with the nudists' heads, that they think for some reason that they have to wander around without their clothes on - like a mental patient or something. Of course, the truth is neither one of these, and encompasses the belief that nudity can have another appeal, one that does not fall under the category of either "sexual" or "gross". Although I would argue that it could be considered "sensual" - but in the sense of engaging your sense organs, and not your sex organs.
Sensuality and Eroticism
Despite its colloquial definition, a "sensual" experience is one that engages the senses. This could include a walk through a flower garden, dinner at a fine restaurant, or a night at the opera. But I like to emphasize experiences that have a tactile focus - for as important as touch is, I feel that it is often neglected in favor of the sights, sounds, smells, and tastes we more consciously encounter in the world. In this sense, nudism is an intrinsically sensual experience - for in casting off our clothes, we become reacquainted with the texture of our world - we begin to feel not just with our hands, but with our feet, with our bottoms, and with the remaining fraction of the entire surface area of our skin.
As you can probably imagine, a sensual experience is not intrinsically erotic, although we have been rightly conditioned to categorize erotic experiences as being sensual (for they usually are). Surely, sensual experiences can be erotic, and I think that this is especially true with tactile experiences - particularly when specific areas of the skin are stimulated - such as the erogenous zones, but also those areas that are frequently covered up, and thus denied that tactile communication with one's environment. This is how nudism can absolutely be an erotic experience, in a way that is neither intentional nor sexually explicit, but that I think is an enjoyable and legitimate part of the experience of nude recreation.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Hand Me A Towel, Please
[description: a nude figure, partially obscured by a curtain, steps out of the shower]
Taking more advantage of the gorgeous light in this bathroom.
One of the things you have to balance, as a model, when you're posing, is the naturalness of the pose. I learned early on as a self-portrait artist that a person's natural stances are not necessarily always the most aesthetic and flattering. I find, for example, the arch of the foot to be aesthetically pleasing, but to really showcase it in a standing position, you have to raise the heel, and that's not so often a perfectly natural position (I presume that much the same argument can be made about high heeled shoes). The midsection, also, often looks much more flattering with the belly sucked in and the torso stretched out (arched back, etc.).
All that having been said, there is a danger of going too far, trying too hard, which may in fact result in an aesthetic image from a purely technical standpoint, but could produce the impression in the viewer that the model's position is forced and unnatural. Now, this may be more or less of a problem depending on what kind of image you're trying to produce (and what kind of reaction you want). Whereas some figure artists may be concerned more with the shape of the body and the light falling on it, I've always been more of a portrait artist, in that I want to take pictures of people, and not just bodies.
Moreover, I've been thinking lately that my approach to erotic art is one that puts more emphasis on context than just what is exposed in the image. For example, a person stepping out of the shower, a person cooking breakfast in the nude, a person masturbating in front of a computer; the situation is as important as the figure in the image, and I think that that triggers a more psychological involvement and arousal in the viewer than simply an exposed body on display. So when it comes time for me to grab my camera, I like to think not just about "where is the light and what does the figure look like", but also, "what place am I shooting and what kind of potentially erotic situations could occur there?"
Oh, excuse me. I thought I just heard a knock at the door...
[description: a long-haired man stands completely naked in an open apartment doorway]
Taking more advantage of the gorgeous light in this bathroom.
One of the things you have to balance, as a model, when you're posing, is the naturalness of the pose. I learned early on as a self-portrait artist that a person's natural stances are not necessarily always the most aesthetic and flattering. I find, for example, the arch of the foot to be aesthetically pleasing, but to really showcase it in a standing position, you have to raise the heel, and that's not so often a perfectly natural position (I presume that much the same argument can be made about high heeled shoes). The midsection, also, often looks much more flattering with the belly sucked in and the torso stretched out (arched back, etc.).
All that having been said, there is a danger of going too far, trying too hard, which may in fact result in an aesthetic image from a purely technical standpoint, but could produce the impression in the viewer that the model's position is forced and unnatural. Now, this may be more or less of a problem depending on what kind of image you're trying to produce (and what kind of reaction you want). Whereas some figure artists may be concerned more with the shape of the body and the light falling on it, I've always been more of a portrait artist, in that I want to take pictures of people, and not just bodies.
Moreover, I've been thinking lately that my approach to erotic art is one that puts more emphasis on context than just what is exposed in the image. For example, a person stepping out of the shower, a person cooking breakfast in the nude, a person masturbating in front of a computer; the situation is as important as the figure in the image, and I think that that triggers a more psychological involvement and arousal in the viewer than simply an exposed body on display. So when it comes time for me to grab my camera, I like to think not just about "where is the light and what does the figure look like", but also, "what place am I shooting and what kind of potentially erotic situations could occur there?"
Oh, excuse me. I thought I just heard a knock at the door...
[description: a long-haired man stands completely naked in an open apartment doorway]
Friday, March 28, 2014
The Initiation
[description: two anonymous figures with erections approach a nude man on all fours]
Lighting is spotty in this apartment. It looks gorgeous in front of the windows, but then you have these dark corners. I put a large mirror against the wall to reflect the light and shine it into one of those corners (where the bed is strategically placed). I didn't think there'd be enough light to get a decent picture, but look how it turned out. Surprisingly bright, and very clean and white.
I was in a picture-taking mood, and started wondering about a thing that's been on my mind. Namely, how does one go about shooting a subject that is blatantly and explicitly pornographic, in a way that makes it "artistic", and maybe even beautiful? I'm not sure if I succeeded this time around, but I am very happy with the result either way.
Basically, I came to the conclusion that it would depend primarily on the light used (hence my acrobatics with mirrors). This light may be a little too harsh, and not dynamic enough for a truly "artistic" portrait - it even looks kinda flash-y, though a bit prettier than your typical head-on flash.
But where an amateur pornographer would only be concerned with exposing the subject and getting the audience's blood pumping, I, as an artist - in addition to those goals - am concerned with posing my model in an aesthetically pleasing way that is as flattering as possible.
Success or failure is ultimately going to be a matter of subjective opinion. Obviously, there are some who would curl their nose at the most artistic depiction of human sexuality, and others who think the raw act is the very definition of beauty itself. Me? I'm content to produce an image that I think covers both goals of being aesthetic and erotic. That's what separates me from the non-erotic artists and the non-artistic pornographers.
And I'm not concerned, either way, with whether my art is suggestive or whether it is explicit. There are merits to both approaches, and I see no reason why an artist should limit himself to one or the other. "Going all the way", so to speak, does not prohibit one from continuing to appreciate subtlety. It's not quite like tasting the apple and being expelled from the garden. I see it as more of a revolving door.
Lighting is spotty in this apartment. It looks gorgeous in front of the windows, but then you have these dark corners. I put a large mirror against the wall to reflect the light and shine it into one of those corners (where the bed is strategically placed). I didn't think there'd be enough light to get a decent picture, but look how it turned out. Surprisingly bright, and very clean and white.
I was in a picture-taking mood, and started wondering about a thing that's been on my mind. Namely, how does one go about shooting a subject that is blatantly and explicitly pornographic, in a way that makes it "artistic", and maybe even beautiful? I'm not sure if I succeeded this time around, but I am very happy with the result either way.
Basically, I came to the conclusion that it would depend primarily on the light used (hence my acrobatics with mirrors). This light may be a little too harsh, and not dynamic enough for a truly "artistic" portrait - it even looks kinda flash-y, though a bit prettier than your typical head-on flash.
But where an amateur pornographer would only be concerned with exposing the subject and getting the audience's blood pumping, I, as an artist - in addition to those goals - am concerned with posing my model in an aesthetically pleasing way that is as flattering as possible.
Success or failure is ultimately going to be a matter of subjective opinion. Obviously, there are some who would curl their nose at the most artistic depiction of human sexuality, and others who think the raw act is the very definition of beauty itself. Me? I'm content to produce an image that I think covers both goals of being aesthetic and erotic. That's what separates me from the non-erotic artists and the non-artistic pornographers.
And I'm not concerned, either way, with whether my art is suggestive or whether it is explicit. There are merits to both approaches, and I see no reason why an artist should limit himself to one or the other. "Going all the way", so to speak, does not prohibit one from continuing to appreciate subtlety. It's not quite like tasting the apple and being expelled from the garden. I see it as more of a revolving door.
Monday, March 17, 2014
A Visual Lesson
So I'm still in the process of posting some of my images on deviantART, and gathering fans. I'll be honest, there's a lot to dislike about deviantART, and a significant subset of the community is one of them. But there are also good people on there, and they're less restrictive on the posting of erotic (although not "pornographic") art than a lot of sites that won't even allow the posting of nudes. But it's inevitable that I will find myself frequently frustrated by the rules they do have in place. I'm not gonna go all into that here, but I did want to show an example of some of my underlying thoughts on the issues involved.
I was looking through some of my old photos, picking out ones I want to post on dA, and I came to this one set that I've always really liked. It's a very tasteful and artistic set, with some beautiful lighting emphasizing the pale glow of my skin, while I strike some erotic and/or statuesque poses in the kitchen. Some of them I'll be able to post. Others I will not, because, in them, my penis is in a state of partial or full arousal. I get why the full arousal pics won't be allowed on deviantART, but with the semi-arousal pics, it kind of emphasizes how much of a shame it is, that I can't post this beautiful, artistic image, which isn't even very in-your-face sexual, all because of a technicality based on human anatomy. What really strikes me as ironic is that there's this other picture in the set, which I feel is a lot more in-your-face sexual, and yet it violates none of dA's rules. Take a look:
Maybe I'm just strange. Maybe I have warped perceptions. It's entirely possible. But even though the first image involves the male organ in a state of mid-arousal, it doesn't quite scream "sex" to me as much as the second image, which despite not showing any of the physiological changes that accompany sexual arousal, nevertheless involves a pose that is very suggestive of receptive intercourse. Now, I'm not saying I would call either one "pornography", necessarily, and it's not as though the first image doesn't suggest sex to me at all. Maybe it's because I view the tumescence of the male organ as more of a physiological change, a demonstration of anatomy, moreso than sexual intercourse.
It seems kind of strange to me, if the view of a penis by itself is not restricted, that its allowance should depend on its physiological state. I know people associate erections with sexual intercourse, and there is probably no more obvious sign of sexual arousal in the human male or female - and they're not wrong to do so. But isn't there more to it than that? Maybe it's because I'm a highly sensual person, and that I can become aroused very easily, not always due to blatantly sexual triggers? If I should be enjoying myself, in the nude, and taking pleasure from the tactile sensations of the world around me, and if I should happen to become erect as a result, why should that be assumed to be a change of state from "pure and non-sexual" to "raging pervert, lock up your daughters"?
I guess I do just have different standards. And I fear the prevailing mentality is the result of stereotypical male behavior, which poisons the well for us more gentle, sensual creatures.
Here's another irony, that I've been wanting an opportunity to point out, that relates to dA's rules on what is and is not permitted. It wouldn't be practical (and isn't really in the mission statement) for the staff at dA to enact a quality control gateway restricting the uploading of images on their website. So, even though the members often complain of poor quality images ruining the site's image as an "artiste website" (I say that with derision in my voice, aimed not at true artists, but at those pretentious lot who are concerned more with image than substance - many of which are, ironically, poor quality artists themselves - go figure), the fact is that bad art is welcome on the site as much as good art.
Which just makes it all the more frustrating when members argue about the allowance or restriction of porn on the site via the argument that it couldn't possibly be artistic. 1) an image doesn't have to be "artistic" (i.e., good, or tasteful) to be allowed on deviantART, and 2) pornography is restricted due mainly to laws about minors (the participation of which the site allows) being exposed to it, and not due to questions of taste or decorum. I'd love to have the opportunity to prove to all these naive whiners that pornography CAN be beautiful and artistic, and even, in my opinion, tasteful (although I wonder how other people define the word "tasteful", because to me, it's not what you can see that determines a piece's tastefulness, but rather in how it's presented - it seems that a lot of people can't imagine the possibility that a depiction of human sexuality could be anything but tasteless; poor souls). But I can't post my beautiful pornography to show them. However - and here's where the irony comes in - I can post some pretty smutty stuff, as long as it doesn't cross the lines defined in the rules that describe pornography. For example:
I haven't actually tried it, as I'm not actually all that fond of this image, personally (although it does have a certain basal thrust), but from my reading of the rules, this image would be permitted on deviantART (and I have seen others very much like it, especially depicting women). I don't think it's very tasteful. It's crude, and it's crass, and it's got pretty much one thing on its mind. But then again, as far as dA's rules go, that was never the issue. But I can post this image, meanwhile I have much more beautiful ones that will not be allowed. It just makes me sad, is all. I am, therefore, restricted to posting all of my tasteful NON-pornographic images, in the hopes that I can at least prove that NON-explicit erotica can be tasteful. (But then, a lot of people already know that, so what am I really proving?). Ah well, it is what it is.
I was looking through some of my old photos, picking out ones I want to post on dA, and I came to this one set that I've always really liked. It's a very tasteful and artistic set, with some beautiful lighting emphasizing the pale glow of my skin, while I strike some erotic and/or statuesque poses in the kitchen. Some of them I'll be able to post. Others I will not, because, in them, my penis is in a state of partial or full arousal. I get why the full arousal pics won't be allowed on deviantART, but with the semi-arousal pics, it kind of emphasizes how much of a shame it is, that I can't post this beautiful, artistic image, which isn't even very in-your-face sexual, all because of a technicality based on human anatomy. What really strikes me as ironic is that there's this other picture in the set, which I feel is a lot more in-your-face sexual, and yet it violates none of dA's rules. Take a look:
[description: a nude figure bathed in soft light glances down at his semi-erection]
Beautiful Art
Beautiful Art
[description: a nude figure bathed in soft light bends over a counter top, legs apart]
Suggestive Erotica
Suggestive Erotica
Maybe I'm just strange. Maybe I have warped perceptions. It's entirely possible. But even though the first image involves the male organ in a state of mid-arousal, it doesn't quite scream "sex" to me as much as the second image, which despite not showing any of the physiological changes that accompany sexual arousal, nevertheless involves a pose that is very suggestive of receptive intercourse. Now, I'm not saying I would call either one "pornography", necessarily, and it's not as though the first image doesn't suggest sex to me at all. Maybe it's because I view the tumescence of the male organ as more of a physiological change, a demonstration of anatomy, moreso than sexual intercourse.
It seems kind of strange to me, if the view of a penis by itself is not restricted, that its allowance should depend on its physiological state. I know people associate erections with sexual intercourse, and there is probably no more obvious sign of sexual arousal in the human male or female - and they're not wrong to do so. But isn't there more to it than that? Maybe it's because I'm a highly sensual person, and that I can become aroused very easily, not always due to blatantly sexual triggers? If I should be enjoying myself, in the nude, and taking pleasure from the tactile sensations of the world around me, and if I should happen to become erect as a result, why should that be assumed to be a change of state from "pure and non-sexual" to "raging pervert, lock up your daughters"?
I guess I do just have different standards. And I fear the prevailing mentality is the result of stereotypical male behavior, which poisons the well for us more gentle, sensual creatures.
Here's another irony, that I've been wanting an opportunity to point out, that relates to dA's rules on what is and is not permitted. It wouldn't be practical (and isn't really in the mission statement) for the staff at dA to enact a quality control gateway restricting the uploading of images on their website. So, even though the members often complain of poor quality images ruining the site's image as an "artiste website" (I say that with derision in my voice, aimed not at true artists, but at those pretentious lot who are concerned more with image than substance - many of which are, ironically, poor quality artists themselves - go figure), the fact is that bad art is welcome on the site as much as good art.
Which just makes it all the more frustrating when members argue about the allowance or restriction of porn on the site via the argument that it couldn't possibly be artistic. 1) an image doesn't have to be "artistic" (i.e., good, or tasteful) to be allowed on deviantART, and 2) pornography is restricted due mainly to laws about minors (the participation of which the site allows) being exposed to it, and not due to questions of taste or decorum. I'd love to have the opportunity to prove to all these naive whiners that pornography CAN be beautiful and artistic, and even, in my opinion, tasteful (although I wonder how other people define the word "tasteful", because to me, it's not what you can see that determines a piece's tastefulness, but rather in how it's presented - it seems that a lot of people can't imagine the possibility that a depiction of human sexuality could be anything but tasteless; poor souls). But I can't post my beautiful pornography to show them. However - and here's where the irony comes in - I can post some pretty smutty stuff, as long as it doesn't cross the lines defined in the rules that describe pornography. For example:
[description: starkly lit nude man on a bed on all fours, genitals clearly visible from behind]
Smut
Smut
I haven't actually tried it, as I'm not actually all that fond of this image, personally (although it does have a certain basal thrust), but from my reading of the rules, this image would be permitted on deviantART (and I have seen others very much like it, especially depicting women). I don't think it's very tasteful. It's crude, and it's crass, and it's got pretty much one thing on its mind. But then again, as far as dA's rules go, that was never the issue. But I can post this image, meanwhile I have much more beautiful ones that will not be allowed. It just makes me sad, is all. I am, therefore, restricted to posting all of my tasteful NON-pornographic images, in the hopes that I can at least prove that NON-explicit erotica can be tasteful. (But then, a lot of people already know that, so what am I really proving?). Ah well, it is what it is.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Sexism? Sexisn't
Following on the theme of my last post, I just wanted to say that...sexism isn't men taking pictures of naked women for magazine covers. That's just sexuality. Sexism is criticizing a man for carrying a hot pink purse (for example) due to a belief that it is somehow demeaning for a man to "lower himself" to expressing an interest in anything typically associated with women.
Get your priorities straight, people.
Oh, and actually, criticizing men for taking pictures of naked women for magazine covers is sexism - sexism against men, which is no more justified than sexism against women. This isn't supposed to be a men vs. women thing. Whatever happened to equality?
Get your priorities straight, people.
Oh, and actually, criticizing men for taking pictures of naked women for magazine covers is sexism - sexism against men, which is no more justified than sexism against women. This isn't supposed to be a men vs. women thing. Whatever happened to equality?
Monday, February 24, 2014
This is what I'm talking about
The current trend is to disparage the male pattern of sexual behavior as demeaning and objectifying of women, which is an extension of the feminist mindset. I'd hate to be labeled as a misogynist for my views, because the truth is, I have oodles of respect for women. But I'm also sexually attracted to them, and whatever portion of the feminist movement is righteous (and a significant portion of it is, don't get me wrong), this whole subset of it that aims to demonize men for thinking women are sexually appealing is misguided and destructive.
My thinking on this matter is further clarified by my recent reading of the female half of the Kinsey Report, particularly on the statistical differences in sexual attitudes between men and women. Although the existence of exceptions and deviations from the average are important to note, the great diversity of attitudes present in women (more so than compared with men) also contributes to the problem of the sexes wherein men are pretty much of an understanding with one another when it comes to sex, while women are lost in a sea of confusion, not just as to how men feel about sex, but as to how other women feel about sex, too.
My conclusion, at any rate, is that an awful lot of this politically correct hullabaloo about men degrading and objectifying women is merely a symptom of a fundamental misunderstanding about the way men feel about sex, and the differences in the ways that men and women feel about sex. For example, this article [broken link] bemoans the fact that in a GQ shoot (which, in all fairness, is a magazine that caters to men's interests), several men were photographed in suave business suits, whereas the one woman included (who happened to be pop singer Lana Del Rey) was photographed naked (though obviously not exposing anything of significance) in a number of alluring poses.
Is this evidence of the patriarchal subjugation of women as submissive sex slaves as compared to the power and sophistication that men wield? A resounding no! It's simply a matter of men being sexually attracted to beautiful women, and having a strong instinctual desire to see them naked, and in poses that may suggest to them the promise of sexual intercourse. It's not as if women's magazines don't similarly stereotype shirtless muscle-bound men - but if it happens less often than the gender-swapped alternative, it's only because men are more (openly, at least) interested in sex than women (and more responsive to visually suggestive depictions of it, too), and - not to ignore the homosexual population, but since the majority of the population is mostly heterosexual, that is, most of the time, going to result in more (and more noticeable) sexualized depictions of women than men in the collective cultural media. It's not some gender-based power play, it's just basic human sexual nature! You fail Sex Ed 101, people. Go back to the first grade.
My thinking on this matter is further clarified by my recent reading of the female half of the Kinsey Report, particularly on the statistical differences in sexual attitudes between men and women. Although the existence of exceptions and deviations from the average are important to note, the great diversity of attitudes present in women (more so than compared with men) also contributes to the problem of the sexes wherein men are pretty much of an understanding with one another when it comes to sex, while women are lost in a sea of confusion, not just as to how men feel about sex, but as to how other women feel about sex, too.
My conclusion, at any rate, is that an awful lot of this politically correct hullabaloo about men degrading and objectifying women is merely a symptom of a fundamental misunderstanding about the way men feel about sex, and the differences in the ways that men and women feel about sex. For example, this article [broken link] bemoans the fact that in a GQ shoot (which, in all fairness, is a magazine that caters to men's interests), several men were photographed in suave business suits, whereas the one woman included (who happened to be pop singer Lana Del Rey) was photographed naked (though obviously not exposing anything of significance) in a number of alluring poses.
Is this evidence of the patriarchal subjugation of women as submissive sex slaves as compared to the power and sophistication that men wield? A resounding no! It's simply a matter of men being sexually attracted to beautiful women, and having a strong instinctual desire to see them naked, and in poses that may suggest to them the promise of sexual intercourse. It's not as if women's magazines don't similarly stereotype shirtless muscle-bound men - but if it happens less often than the gender-swapped alternative, it's only because men are more (openly, at least) interested in sex than women (and more responsive to visually suggestive depictions of it, too), and - not to ignore the homosexual population, but since the majority of the population is mostly heterosexual, that is, most of the time, going to result in more (and more noticeable) sexualized depictions of women than men in the collective cultural media. It's not some gender-based power play, it's just basic human sexual nature! You fail Sex Ed 101, people. Go back to the first grade.
[description: tasteful celebrity nude of a woman seated on the floor, knees bent toward chest]
Social evil? Or just beautiful art?
Beware the (wo)man who looks for evil under every stone.
Beware the (wo)man who looks for evil under every stone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)