Public Nudity

[MystyrMystyry]

For or against?

Is it a good thing? Or bad?

Is there enough of of it? Too much of it? Not enough of it?

Let's hear what the panel thinks...

[G L Wilson]

Not enough.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Good thing if it's a chick and she's hot.

[G L Wilson]

Good thing if it's a chick and she's hot.

Damn right.

[JuniperWoolf]

Haha, wtf?

On the bus, against. It's a sticky-ness issue. Also, the smell of a lot of exposed body parts in an enclosed metal tube can't be good.

[G L Wilson]

What's wrong with Natalie Portman? She has never posed nude, that's what's wrong with Natalie Portman. I want satisfaction, and I ain't getting any.

[Paulclem]

What's wrong with Natalie Portman? She has never posed nude, that's what's wrong with Natalie Portman. I want satisfaction, and I ain't getting any.

Yes we have a partiality of view. The chaps above are only thinking of certain types of people.

Clothes are worn for good reason not least the need to keep things reigned in. No-one wants to get things trapped in bus doors and the like.

[kasie]

Can't think it will ever catch on here in Wales. As my Oz cousin once remarked, she had to emigrate to Australia before she found out it was possible to sit on a beach without a mac and a scarf.....

[Emil Miller]

Be careful you don't get what you wish for.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/1695/fatbikini.jpg

[MANICHAEAN]

What about builder's cleavage?

[Emil Miller]

What about builder's cleavage?

I wouldn't know anything about that but there are one or two on Litnet who probably do.

[Whifflingpin]

not enough of it.

"Clothes are worn for good reason"
Pockets certainly. I wouldn't care if I were seen walking nude into a shop, but I'd be dead before I were seen carrying a handbag.

[qimissung]

Geez, Emil Miller, what is it with you and naked, fat girls?

And guys, nakedness is not just for the opposite sex, capiche?

[Ecurb]

I’d like to see private nudity outlawed. Most accidents happen in the home. Therefore, I think people should be required to wear motorcycle helmets in the shower, and we should install video cameras in all bathrooms to assure compliance.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I’d like to see private nudity outlawed. Most accidents happen in the home. Therefore, I think people should be required to wear motorcycle helmets in the shower, and we should install video cameras in all bathrooms to assure compliance.
:lol:

[qimissung]

I’d like to see private nudity outlawed. Most accidents happen in the home. Therefore, I think people should be required to wear motorcycle helmets in the shower, and we should install video cameras in all bathrooms to assure compliance.

:lol:

[1n50mn14]

For.
For any number of reasons.
I'm from Guelph, Ontario, and we are the home of a woman who fought for women to have the right to be topless in public (as well as men) and some friends and I celebrate this every year with a topless bike ride.

[JuniperWoolf]

Haha, I remember that (not the bike ride, the topless Guelph woman).

[Annamariah]

Against. Generally speaking people just look so much better with clothes on, besides sitting next to a naked person in a bus would just be gross.

At least here it's too cold for nudity for most of the year, thank God for the small mercies :D Though then again, some Finns seem to have a thing for nudity. For example when we won the Ice Hockey World Championship this year, some people celebrated by stripping their clothes and running around naked in the centre... and it wasn't a warm night! Then we have the sauna culture, of course, but that's different. Of course you are naked in a sauna, it's not really a "public" place in that sense, even if it is a public sauna.

[papayahed]

I don't actually see the point of public nudity. Although I have to admit participating in a naked run might be fun.

Think of the hygienic factor, I'd be buying stock in those antibiacterial wipes. I don't want to come in contact with anyone else's *** sweat except my own.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Be careful you don't get what you wish for.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/1695/fatbikini.jpg


I don't actually see the point of public nudity. Although I have to admit participating in a naked run might be fun.

Think of the hygienic factor, I'd be buying stock in those antibiacterial wipes. I don't want to come in contact with anyone else's *** sweat except my own.

Agreed.
If I want to see cauliflower, I will go to the market. I don't want to see it in the form of cellulite of arses and backs of legs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Cauliflower.JPG

RE: The hygienic factor
Imagine the oozing of lesions and carbuncles on public transit seats.
Yes; I can think of some positives such as Barbara Eden, Raquel Welch, but I'm afraid that the negatives outweigh the positives.

My friends and I "streaked" one night when we were camping out in the backyard. We thought we were real hip running through a sleeping, tranquil neighborhood at 3:00 am.

.

[Emil Miller]

It's always useful to consider the downside in any proposition.
Take a look at the videos to get the full picture.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://img.izismile.com/img/img2/20090727/japan_subway_01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://izismile.com/2009/07/27/the_rush_hour_in_japan_14_pics_2_videos.html&usg=__OQndH00SJPsvGwnxs5x_X5B2X5s=&h=480&w=640&sz=63&hl=en&start=18&sig2=p6haDTa14TYbGTOvGiVopQ&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=y9A-Rmvq8QxucM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/search%3Fq%3DThe%2BRush%2BHour%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG% 26biw%3D1659%26bih%3D879%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&ei=6-IhTrq5L87E8QP8isW_Aw

[G L Wilson]

I concede my argument is lost.

[Vonny]

Oh Emil, ICK!!! I have to really refrain from using that little puke symbol. :lol:


I watched a movie the other night called Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus, starring Nicole Kidman. She was involved with nudist camps, and she had an affair with a man who looked like an animal, covered with fur or hair. I watched the movie twice and never could figure out what it was about exactly, except that she was drawn to this strange man, and I think he was imaginary. I don't know, there was something compelling about the movie, so I'll probably have to watch it a third time.

[Lokasenna]

One thing that surprised me about Iceland was that the Icelanders don't have anywhere near as much of a taboo on nudity as the rest of Western Europe - odd, given their climate!

As soon as I arrived in Iceland, I went for a swim in the famous Blue Lagoon. Now, in that, obviously, you were required to wear swimming shorts - but in the changing rooms there were signs that enforced nudity in there: "All vistors MUST shower WITHOUT swimwear before entering the lagoon." These showers were very public, by the way - no barriers or curtains whatsoever.

You could tell who was Icelandic and who was not simply by how bashful they were. The Icelanders were striding around the room completely stark and without a second thought, while all the foreigners were much more furtive. I'll admit that while I was in the shower, my eyes were fixed firmly on the ceiling to avoid seeing anything, or even worse, see someone seeing me.

Public nudity is most definitely over-rated.

[Vonny]

Certainly, nudity in an intimate setting is far more compelling.

[tonywalt]

Nudity, generally good. I've never had many bad experiences nude, and many good experiences. I need to insert Semi-Public as another category. Deserted beach for example.

[Emil Miller]

Nudity, generally good. I've never had many bad experiences nude, and many good experiences. I need to insert Semi-Public as another category. Deserted beach for example.

I agree that there may be instances when clothes may be removed in private. Many years ago, I was walking along a valley in the Ticino, the Italian part of Switzerland when I saw a small lake of clear water. The weather was hot and it looked so inviting I stripped off and went in, but that was in a sparsely populated area. I would never dream of doing so when other people, who might be offended, were in the offing.

[Vonny]

Yes, exactly, Tony and Emil. I couldn't sleep at all last night after Googling the Blue Lagoon. I like the idea of geothermal water in a cold climate, as opposed to what we have, warm air and cold water. I understand now that there's more in Iceland than the last attraction of eating a 1,500 year-old chunk of ice.

You certainly wouldn't want shorts in the Blue Lagoon. And then they shove a British guy into a shower right along with the Americans. It shows that any kind of legal system that people put in place, even in Iceland, becomes a disaster.

And I especially wouldn't like all those Icelanders and foreigners in the Blue Lagoon. One Viking would be more than enough.

[tonywalt]

Well, the one Viking in the lagoon. Hm. A Viking can be female, in which case -sure.

[Vonny]

Well, the one Viking in the lagoon. Hm. A Viking can be female, in which case -sure.

Yeah, but I think there's only one blue lagoon, and it's already taken. :lol:

[Melysnl]

I'm all for it on a beach in the Caribbean somewhere. I had a blast hanging out on the beach in St. Maarten in only a thong. I even let a couple of people photograph me there. It's okay to do it on special occasions overseas. In American culture, it just doesn't fly.

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm generally against public nudity, especially around children. I enjoy being naked, sleeping and swimming naked, that's nice. Overall I'm a very modest girl.

There's a nude beach about an hour from my house. I didn't know it was there. A girlfriend of mine and I went to see a sand castle contest. When it was over we walked along beach trails to a cove. We were approached by a very tall naked man. He asked us what time it was and said (I'm not kidding) "A watch doesn't really go with this outfit." It was then we noticed other naked people scattered about the beach. We were 16. We ran as fast as we could away from the horror. Those were some very ugly nakeds.

I participated in some fashion events in Miami. The fitting rooms didn't have individual stalls, just giant rooms with wall to wall mirrors and 20-40 women at a time in all states of undress. I felt shy about it at first, but that goes away, especially when dressers and stylists are ripping clothes off of girls, stuffing breasts into bras, taping garments onto skin, rubbing makeup all over the place. I guess it wasn't a bad experience with "public" nudity, just strange. It was much better than the nude beach.

[cl154576]

I'm still a child so that probably affects my view but it disgusts me. In statues and babies I don't mind it, but when people expose themselves simply to show off, it strikes me as quite base. Some of you have too much lust.

If this trend of lower tops and shorter bottoms continues, I think someday I will hide myself in the trees and wrap curtains around my body for clothes.

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm still a child so that probably affects my view but it disgusts me. In statues and babies I don't mind it, but when people expose themselves simply to show off, it strikes me as quite base. Some of you have too much lust.

If this trend of lower tops and shorter bottoms continues, I think someday I will hide myself in the trees and wrap curtains around my body for clothes.

You're so smart, cl, and a gentleman already. Those who raised you must be very proud.

[farnoosh]

I really don't care if there is nudity in public, cause normally i don't pay attention to these stuff and my eyes are usually( not intentionally)glued to the ground or to an object far away (normally my father says i'm in space).as for myself, I hate to expose anypart.
But with what i've read on this thread i would make a fool out of myself if i went to such places (blue lagoon or the beach that Varenne described) simply because i find it rather hilarious and VERY funny!!!!

[Alexander III]

For.
For any number of reasons.
I'm from Guelph, Ontario, and we are the home of a woman who fought for women to have the right to be topless in public (as well as men) and some friends and I celebrate this every year with a topless bike ride.

I have just found paradise. It is Guelph. Guelph, Ontario.


But on a more serious note

I think people look better nude than clothed. And this is not lust talking, I think men look better nude too, the sensibilities and lines of the body are beautiful and clothes hide and distort them.

But then again, outside of university nudity is shunned, and with reason. I mean the body in youth is beautiful, the body of old age is repugnant.

But the human body in youth is something of extreem beauty, that beauty which you want to stare at all day and get lost in, that beauty that is just as enticing the day you first see it, as the 1000th day you see it.

I had the fortune of Seeing the David live, and it blew my mind. For when it comes to the male body I look upon it undhindered by lust, and in it I find something far more delicate and beautiful than that of the female body. I don't know why, but I do.

I mean look at this:

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/michelangelo-sculptures-13.jpg


I'm generally against public nudity, especially around children. I enjoy being naked, sleeping and swimming naked, that's nice. Overall I'm a very modest girl.


Im glad someone brought up the naked children thing. Personally I am fine with it and see nothing wrong with it.

I remember, I used to live in a condominium of all expat families. All the european mums would let their children wander around the pool and shower naked. And all the American mum's were horrified that we europeans would let our children be so "exposed"

A child is so undeveloped that I hardly see the problem with a naked one, they are still not sexual beings, so I don't see why we should treat them as such. I remember, when I was little I used to often bathe together with the daughter of my mother's good friend. Most american mums were horrified by the idea. To me it seems quite natural. Of course they stopped bathing us together when, after one bath we asked our parents why I had "a little thing" and why she didn't have one as well. I was a slow child, only after 2 years of bathing with a girl did I realize that girls don't have "little thing"...



If this trend of lower tops and shorter bottoms continues, I think someday I will hide myself in the trees and wrap curtains around my body for clothes.

Shhhhhhhhh - you will jinx it and ruin it for the rest of us :patriot:

[Revolte]

In all seriousness I'm for it. I don't see how nudity is a bad thing anyway. Granted you might not wanna go tripping into everybody, for obvious reasons (including catching something). But other then well placed clumsiness I really don't see any harm in it and it would probably do a lot of people some good to not be afraid of seeing themselves and others naked, might help grow some confidence.

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but I find the claims of nudity and lust being concretely linked to be a bit disturbing. There tends to be less sexual tension when two lovers (or potential lovers) are laying naked together, then when they are fully clothed and making small talk. I think that by demonizing the naked body as a tool of lust, and treating lust as an affliction of mental disease and consequence of cruelness, we are separating ourselves from our bodies. And by doing so we create fears in our nakedness and the nakedness of others around us (Hes naked, so am I, therefor he must be preparing to rape me. So my nudity is the cause of my body being soiled). Which of course presses the idea even further that being naked in non "secure" environments, such as our bed and bathrooms, is a moral crime (with the impression that it will become a physical crime). The end game of this downward spiral results in the overwhelming amount of eating disorders and poor self image. As someone with both, I am well aware that the more I hear about "this is how you should look in little to no clothes" can push forward feelings of insecurity and progress the "disorders" into dangerous extremes. Where as if we started to view nudity as the norm, there is a high possibility that we would start to see the naked body as something to be appreciated and cared for (like how we do with our other visible parts, like our hair and fingernails). And once that happens the worry of aggressive lust should be brought down a few notches from where it stands where we are now, fully clothed, nervous and curious.

[osho]

If you take nudity for beauty it is OK. The way you look at a nude dog. The way you see a nude child. This is a beauty, an artifact. You stint somebody the right of what he or she comes with birth.

If I want to see a nude body, in full and unclothed with no malice
If I want to kiss her naked body with no remorse and she feels elevated

Tell me where is ugliness

[Lokasenna]

The trouble is that such a viewpoint is subjective - not everybody can admire the beauty of the naked form.

Quite a lot of the undergrads here seem to engage in casual nudity - most often in the stretch of corridor that links the shower blocks with the student dorms. While they might think they are being free-spirited and uninhibited, it really isn't fair on other people who use that corridor as a main route for getting round the college buildings, myself included. If I'm going to the Great Hall for lunch or something, I don't want to suddenly turn a corner and find myself looking at the last turkey in the shop - it's rather off-putting. Others might find it beautiful, but I'm afraid I do not.

A lot of the sports societies also seem to have weird rituals that involve public nudity. The number of times I've seen the rowing/rugby/football crowd parading around outside stark bollock naked in the middle of winter amongst the falling snow is really horrifying. Not only is hypothermia a worryingly real possibility, but sub-zero temperatures really do the human body no favours on the visual front either.

One of my ex-girlfriend's parents used to go on holiday to some nudist camp somewhere. She went with them, as it was the 'family holiday', but she used to hate it, and always insisted on wearing a bikini or something. I'll always remember something she said about it: "Why is it always the one's who have nothing to display that want to show off?" To put it simply, in her experience the people with beautiful bodies seemed the least inclined to public nudity.

Try it. When you next go to the supermarket (as I am about to do), just look around at all the people and ask yourself just how many of them you would actually like to see naked? If it's 15%, you've been lucky.

[Emil Miller]

Well there are different aspects to nudity. I once worked with a m an who was a nudist but none of his colleagues, including myself, knew of it.
Then, one day, a new member of staff came along and became friendly with the nudist to the point that he was invited to attend the nudist camp one weekend. That was how we got to know about the nudist's penchant for public display. Previously I had been introduced to his wife who was, shall we say, a well-built woman in a rotund sort of way and when the new staff member revealed that he had spent part of the nude weekend playing table tennis with her, it conjured up a mental picture both hilarious and strangely satisfying at the same time.
If using the supermarket analogy we arrive at 15% of customers as being fit for full frontal display, imagine what the percentage would be for a Wetherspoons pub. By my reckoning it would be zero and that includes the barmaids.

[Melysnl]

The derelicts and pedophiles ruin it for everyone else. Kids and public nudity in America shouldn't ever mix.

If America was comfortable with public nudity we would already have public bath houses like in Japan or nudity in ads like in parts of Europe. I remember traveling to Germany and seeing nude girls on regular tv any night of the week after 10 pm.

Our society can't handle it. It's taboo and too late to change now.

[LitNetIsGreat]

If using the supermarket analogy we arrive at 15% of customers as being fit for full frontal display, imagine what the percentage would be for a Wetherspoons pub. By my reckoning it would be zero and that includes the barmaids.

Ha, ha, I thought of that. You should even see my local supermarket, Nebitville - it's enough to put you off nudity for life. I'm going to find it difficult popping in there the next time I shop. I'm going to imagine more than I bargained for.

[Lokasenna]

To report back on my morning mission to ASDA, I can honestly say that there was not one single person I saw there who I would want to see naked. Not one. Ancient and/or obese seemed to be the order of the day.

[Varenne Rodin]

Exactly right. The nude beach was disgusting. I'm a sculptor. I love the human form. I've even seen elderly people who exercised regularly and kept lovely figures. The nude beach, however, was filled with the worst formed people I have seen. I don't think their nudity inspired them at all to improve their fitness, or shower, or get their skin infections looked at by doctors.

A room full of naked models was fine. Go figure.

I do think there should be more nudity in some films. For fun, but also for realism. I understand not allowing for child nudity, but what's wrong with adults being naked together in a movie scene? America gives action movies full of killing PG ratings, but a bare breast is an automatic R. Fake sex that looks too real gets an NC17, which would be death to box office sales, so no respecting U.S. director puts it in movies anymore. 80s movies were full of random nakedness in lighthearted comedies, and I was not warped by them as a small child.

There are so many variables to this nudity thing. The human body as art is beautiful. Two people enjoying intimacy together is fantastic. Being naked all the time, along with everyone else, is not sanitary or civilized. We may as well become tribal again and live in mud huts. Gravity would weigh down certain parts. Weather, parasites and infection would pose more serious problems. A lot of people express themselves artistically in the clothes they choose. I would miss that.

Seeing random people in obvious states of arousal would make for some very awkward situations as well. There is much to be said for mystique, and value in only bestowing certain privileges to a select person.

[joelavine]

Love it. Of course, think it should be limited to places where those who don't love it don't have to deal with it.

[Revolte]

I would rather see a 1000 lb naked man then dance clothed with people who think someone is disgusting naked. I think judging someones nudity is rude. I saw this picture of this lady who looked like a walking jacket, leather at that, and she was in a bikini. That makes her beautiful. Because she's true to herself enough to be who she is and not make special exceptions for people who have no business judging her (let alone on something as unimportant as looks, yeah I went there, as far as I'm concerned the idea of what is pretty, at least in the states, is pretty ugly).

[osho]

I worship the nudity of you, not the hypocritical of you. We all kind of are living pretentiously with double standards, one keeping to ourselves furtively and the other morally, religiously and hypocritically. Imagine which part of me is honest, the nude or the clothed with hypocrisy

[1n50mn14]

I would rather see a 1000 lb naked man then dance clothed with people who think someone is disgusting naked. I think judging someones nudity is rude. I saw this picture of this lady who looked like a walking jacket, leather at that, and she was in a bikini. That makes her beautiful. Because she's true to herself enough to be who she is and not make special exceptions for people who have no business judging her (let alone on something as unimportant as looks, yeah I went there, as far as I'm concerned the idea of what is pretty, at least in the states, is pretty ugly).

^This. Let's also be friends. ;)

[Alexander III]

I would rather see a 1000 lb naked man then dance clothed with people who think someone is disgusting naked. I think judging someones nudity is rude. I saw this picture of this lady who looked like a walking jacket, leather at that, and she was in a bikini. That makes her beautiful. Because she's true to herself enough to be who she is and not make special exceptions for people who have no business judging her (let alone on something as unimportant as looks, yeah I went there, as far as I'm concerned the idea of what is pretty, at least in the states, is pretty ugly).

I am glad that you are able to perceive the world in the manner, but I neither can nor want to. It may be shallowness on my part, but I have no interest in seeing "everyone is beautiful" - some people are and some people aren't. In the majority of cases, those who work at it are, and those who don't work at it are not.

If an obese woman is proud of her body, great for her, but that fact that she is "true to herself" doesn't matter a fig to me.

We are not all special unicorns, some people are just better than others in some things. SOme people are beautiful and some ugly, some are intelligent and some are stupid, some are just and some are cruel, some are charming and some have the social appeal of boiled cabbage. I don't see what is with he whole craze of everyone is great in their own way. It isn't true, some people are just better than others. And some people are just worse than others.

:rant:

[Vonny]

You're very intelligent Alexander.



There is much to be said for mystique, and value in only bestowing certain privileges to a select person.

This makes me think of the Mennonite people, who wear the dresses commonly called "prairie dresses." Married women have their hair pulled back and covered in that little bonnet because their hair is reserved for their husbands. It's not what we do, but it's nice.

There's a time and a place for everything. This is how I feel about some of the disgusting "art" that appears on the forum, completely off topic. It's not that I have a problem with art. But I think Emil said it well, that the eye can only take in so much at a time. When I have 50 images all thrown at me at once, I can't assimilate it. Also, a lot of it resembles a dead plucked turkey, or as the artist described it - a car crash. Not everyone enjoys looking at car crashes. It's fine if a person enjoys looking at car crashes, but others who don't enjoy them aren't necessarily inferior. It's kind of like spiders - there are people who love them - but they've not been bitten by a Hobo Spider. Spiders are necessary though to keep down insects. I've been reminded in the last few days the importance of that. And there's no way to poison Hobos without killing off the good spiders that only eliminate insects.

I go to the lake to my brother's houseboat on weekdays when I can because hardly anyone is there. I went there yesterday, and it is a piece of heaven. I thought of the person on here who asks me, "Why do you live in a place like that, where there's no art? :skep:" Anyway, I'm just glad he feels that way and isn't here.

On weekends there's a man at the lake who has a $400,000 boat docked. He gets very drunk and obnoxious and whips his pants down and urinates in the lake. It's too bad. The water looks clean, but I'd certainly never get in it. Well I guess I won't discuss the wealthy Conservative people now.

I don't know why I seem to go around complaining here all the time. I guess it's just problems in my life that have put a negative spin to my thinking lately.

[Emil Miller]

Ha, ha, I thought of that. You should even see my local supermarket, Nebitville - it's enough to put you off nudity for life. I'm going to find it difficult popping in there the next time I shop. I'm going to imagine more than I bargained for.

Yes once the idea is lodged in the mind, it's difficult to shake off. I won't have that problem though because the sight of all that conspicuous consumption in supermarkets sends me into a cataleptic trance and I'm on autopilot until I get out of the place.

[Varenne Rodin]

I adore your commentaries, Vonny.

I think people are assuming that those of us opposed to public nudity have a hatred for ugly or fat people. That simply isn't true, though I do appreciate people who wash their hair more than people who don't. It's slobs I don't care for. If I can do the work I do, and juggle several responsibilities, and still look after my personal care and fitness, it seems reasonable to think that other people can and should if they are planning to go about nude in public.

[Emil Miller]

I adore your commentaries, Vonny.

I think people are assuming that those of us opposed to public nudity have a hatred for ugly or fat people. That simply isn't true, though I do appreciate people who wash their hair more than people who don't. It's slobs I don't care for. If I can do the work I do, and juggle several responsibilities, and still look after my personal care and fitness, it seems reasonable to think that other people can and should if they are planning to go about nude in public.

Don't worry, I'm not planning to go about nude in public, regardless of the hair washing routine.

[Varenne Rodin]

Don't worry, I'm not planning to go about nude in public, regardless of the hair washing routine.

Hehe. I won't either.

[Babyguile]

I am glad that you are able to perceive the world in the manner, but I neither can nor want to. It may be shallowness on my part, but I have no interest in seeing "everyone is beautiful" - some people are and some people aren't. In the majority of cases, those who work at it are, and those who don't work at it are not.

If an obese woman is proud of her body, great for her, but that fact that she is "true to herself" doesn't matter a fig to me.

We are not all special unicorns, some people are just better than others in some things. SOme people are beautiful and some ugly, some are intelligent and some are stupid, some are just and some are cruel, some are charming and some have the social appeal of boiled cabbage. I don't see what is with he whole craze of everyone is great in their own way. It isn't true, some people are just better than others. And some people are just worse than others.

:rant:

That's....not true. At all.

But yes I'm all for attractive people not wearing clothes.

[Revolte]

It isn't true, some people are just better than others. And some people are just worse than others.

:rant:

No, some people are better at certain skills.

You are probably great at something, and better at it then someone else.

But there is probably someone better at something that you could never do.

This doesn't make anyone better, or worse. Reminds me of a song:



Stiff Little Fingers - Doesn't Make It Alright


Just because you're nobody
It doesn't mean that you're no good
Just because there's a reason
It doesn't mean it's understood

(Chorus:)
It doesn't make it all right
It doesn't make it all right
It's the worse excuse in the world
And it doesn't make it all right

Just because you're a black boy
Just because you're a white
It doesn't mean you've got to hate him
Doesn't mean you've got to fight

(Chorus)
Some people think they're really clever
To smash your head against a wall
Then they say 'You got it my way'
They really think they know it all

Just because you're a black boy
Just because you're a white
It doesn't mean you've got to hate him
Doesn't mean you've got to fight

(Chorus)

It doesn't make it all
It doesn't make it all
It doesn't make it all right

[cl154576]

No, some people are better at certain skills.

You are probably great at something, and better at it then someone else.

But there is probably someone better at something that you could never do.

That is true, but skills are not valued equally.

[1n50mn14]

'Value' is relative. People being better than each other or worse than each other is judged by us which makes the view point a little tainted/biased. No, I don't believe in a love-y dove-y 'everybody is equal, let's hold hands and dance around the world singing Auld Sang Lyne' world, but that is the sort of view point that begets genocide, racial/sexual divides, and PROMOTES inequality.

Holy hannah I am inarticulate tonight but that post made me so mad my eyes are still spinning a little bit. Every time I come back to lit-net this happens. Back to the blogs!

[cl154576]

Society sets values. It is easier for a famous pop singer to make money than for a famous classical musician. It is easier for a doctor to make money than for a fast food cook.

The relative 'values' do not make one person intrinsically better than another, but they can have a significant life impact.

[stlukesguild]

I would rather see a 1000 lb naked man then dance clothed with people who think someone is disgusting naked. I think judging someones nudity is rude. I saw this picture of this lady who looked like a walking jacket, leather at that, and she was in a bikini. That makes her beautiful. Because she's true to herself enough to be who she is and not make special exceptions for people who have no business judging her (let alone on something as unimportant as looks, yeah I went there, as far as I'm concerned the idea of what is pretty, at least in the states, is pretty ugly).

In reading this post I find myself nodding in agreement in recognizing a certain hypocrisy in these postings about public nudity. Many of the same people who took Alexander to task for his shallowness on the thread about fashion... exclaiming that judging someone by their looks... judging a book by its cover... is so pathetic, seem to be just as shallow in that they have no problem judging others bodies: old... ugly... fat... wrinkly... etc... This really seem to undermine the idea of not judging others according to appearance. Is it really that huge of a step from judging someone in a negative way because their body fails to meet the ideal of youth and sexual attractiveness to judging them because they are wearing the "wrong" clothes? Indeed... how far is it from this point to judging someone upon the basis of their skin color or racial features?

[osho]

This is a concept and something publicly censured and lift the curtain of publicity and see:

Where is shame but in your eyes and concepts
Your eyes want it, your heart wants to embrace it
Your attitude is a problem and attitudes limit your altitudes

Get out of the box of shame and all you eye is beauty. The nudity in you is something you stealthily want to expose and why you out of arrogance and nothing more than it.

[ftil]

I would rather see a 1000 lb naked man then dance clothed with people who think someone is disgusting naked. I think judging someones nudity is rude. I saw this picture of this lady who looked like a walking jacket, leather at that, and she was in a bikini. That makes her beautiful. Because she's true to herself enough to be who she is and not make special exceptions for people who have no business judging her (let alone on something as unimportant as looks, yeah I went there, as far as I'm concerned the idea of what is pretty, at least in the states, is pretty ugly).

I would argue that. To be true to oneself is one thing and to understand how our behaviors affect others is another thing. I love beauty, and sorry to say, but I don't see anything beautiful in 1000 lb body........ no matter how she or he loves herself or himself. It has nothing to do with judging those who love being naked......They can still have their freedom and enjoy being naked....at home. :biggrin5: Some people are more sensitive to surrounding beauty than others. :wink5:

[cl154576]

This is a concept and something publicly censured and lift the curtain of publicity and see:

Where is shame but in your eyes and concepts
Your eyes want it, your heart wants to embrace it
Your attitude is a problem and attitudes limit your altitudes

Get out of the box of shame and all you eye is beauty. The nudity in you is something you stealthily want to expose and why you out of arrogance and nothing more than it.

osho, please stop pretending to know everyone. I really don't "stealthily want to expose" anything. Maybe you do, but I am thirteen, and I can tell you most people my age really do not have these stealthy wants.


I agree with stlukes about hypocrisy – but it seems inevitable. We are told not to judge people by their looks, race, age, &c., and as Drkshadow said on another thread, most people do not admit their prejudices openly. 'On Fashion' was too direct maybe.

I mainly mind nudity with the intention to show off. I don't care how beautiful the body is, the idea of advertising one's body appalls me ...

[osho]

We all want to secretly see nudity and our social blankets and values censor them.

And these social manners, mores are double standards.

If you are really daring you like it
You want to prove to your society that you decent but remove the layers of your mind your sense of decency, not your actual decency is under threats

[OrphanPip]

In reading this post I find myself nodding in agreement in recognizing a certain hypocrisy in these postings about public nudity. Many of the same people who took Alexander to task for his shallowness on the thread about fashion... exclaiming that judging someone by their looks... judging a book by its cover... is so pathetic, seem to be just as shallow in that they have no problem judging others bodies: old... ugly... fat... wrinkly... etc... This really seem to undermine the idea of not judging others according to appearance. Is it really that huge of a step from judging someone in a negative way because their body fails to meet the ideal of youth and sexual attractiveness to judging them because they are wearing the "wrong" clothes? Indeed... how far is it from this point to judging someone upon the basis of their skin color or racial features?

Are they the same people, because Emil seemed generally in agreement with Alex in the fashion thread.

I don't really mind nudity, even with the elderly. We all have preferences, but I don't think I've ever felt revulsion at the appearance of another person. Except, perhaps, images of the starving, sick or injured.

Even sexually, I do not really value appearances that much relative to personality, there are certain appeals to rounder flesh.

(Edit: And really, I think there is a difference between insisting that a person is ugly, beautiful, or sexually alluring and speaking of what one prefers personally.

[osho]

osho, please stop pretending to know everyone. I really don't "stealthily want to expose" anything. Maybe you do, but I am thirteen, and I can tell you most people my age really do not have these stealthy wants.


I agree with stlukes about hypocrisy – but it seems inevitable. We are told not to judge people by their looks, race, age, &c., and as Drkshadow said on another thread, most people do not admit their prejudices openly. 'On Fashion' was too direct maybe.

I mainly mind nudity with the intention to show off. I don't care how beautiful the body is, the idea of advertising one's body appalls me ...

I apologize for all this and I have never the intent to direct at you and I will withdraw my abuse if it has hurt you. I want to treasure your personal values and sense of decorum. This is my personal opinion. I like nudity for its sheer beauty and I have not judged it promiscuously and perversely.

Your sense of nudity maybe different than mine and I do not say mine is better since to claim my view is better is sheer stupidity. I like the beauty of nudity par excellence

[Vonny]

I adore your commentaries, Vonny.

I think people are assuming that those of us opposed to public nudity have a hatred for ugly or fat people. That simply isn't true, though I do appreciate people who wash their hair more than people who don't. It's slobs I don't care for. If I can do the work I do, and juggle several responsibilities, and still look after my personal care and fitness, it seems reasonable to think that other people can and should if they are planning to go about nude in public.


Thanks Varenne! After I write here I usually worry some. It's a strange, irrational fear I guess. I'll stick with this over time and see if I get over it. Sometimes I know my thinking is a bit distorted, so that adds to my self-consciousness - this happens especially when my mom is ill, like today.

I'm fortunate I suppose that I'm able to structure my life so that I'm not really subjected to people who don't wash their hair, and things like that. I wouldn't want to be around people who don't wash, or people who gorge on junk food and swill soda, or smokers. As I write this about smokers, I know there are smokers here and I don't want to offend them, only I can't be around smokers.

Being nude in public is another thing I hadn't thought much about before this thread. The disgusting man who drops his pants at the lake is the only person I've known in real life to do this.

I had the opportunity to swim nude in a warm pool at night with my girl friend, and it was really great. We did it secretively. It's a memory I like to relive. Swimming nude feels very good! We didn't do it to be exhibitionists, and no one was around to see. I couldn't imagine walking around nude in front of people, other than my friend. But there's nothing in the world like swimming nude, skinny dipping, in warm water, especially at night.

[Lokasenna]

For goodness sake... I'm amazed that I have to make a point this simple and obvious here, but I'll do so anyway:

To make a comment on the aesthetic appeal of someone's naked body is ABSOLUTELY NOT the same thing as judging them as a person. There is no correlation whatsoever between beauty of appearance and generosity or warmth of spirit. To say that someone is unattractive physically (particularly if naked) is not to say that they are somehow an inferior person! God knows, I'm no looker - when people evaluate me, I hope they do so on the grounds of my better, more personal qualities.

Secondly, to all the people who are slamming those of us who dare to make a judgement on beauty: are you seriously saying that all naked bodies are beautiful? Are we that homogenous as a species? Surely we have the ability and intellect to make aesthetic judgements for ourselves, based on our subjective opinion? Not everyone finds the naked form beautiful - to be quite honest, in 99/100 cases I find the human body fairly off-putting; that might just be me, but don't be so sanctimonious as to say that it is wrong of me to hold an opinion on the subjectivity of aesthetic appeal! It is simultaneously naïve and sinister.

[Vonny]

You explained that point very well, Lokasenna.


God knows, I'm no looker - when people evaluate me, I hope they do so on the grounds of my better, more personal qualities.


But, come on, you do have some distortions in your thinking, and other people have a right to their subjective opinions. You know, there is a whole person.

(I know I shouldn't do this. I know it, I know it.)

[stlukesguild]

And really, I think there is a difference between insisting that a person is ugly, beautiful, or sexually alluring and speaking of what one prefers personally.

Orphan Pip... I'm not questioning the fact that we all make judgments based upon appearances. I'm a visual artist, after all... that's the name of the game. All I intended was to play the devil's advocate for a bit and point out that there is a certain inconsistency between the comments concerning Alexander's "shallowness" for daring to admit that he finds appearances important with regard to fashion and the blatantly judgmental comments concerning the appearances of the naked body.

[stlukesguild]

For goodness sake... I'm amazed that I have to make a point this simple and obvious here, but I'll do so anyway:

To make a comment on the aesthetic appeal of someone's naked body is ABSOLUTELY NOT the same thing as judging them as a person. There is no correlation whatsoever between beauty of appearance and generosity or warmth of spirit. To say that someone is unattractive physically (particularly if naked) is not to say that they are somehow an inferior person! God knows, I'm no looker - when people evaluate me, I hope they do so on the grounds of my better, more personal qualities.

Lokasenna... perhaps judging a person based upon the appearance of their body is not the same as judging them as a whole person... but it certainly remains a form of judgment based upon appearances... which a good many here... in response to Alexander's "Fashion" thread portrayed as being horribly shallow and something they were above. I will point out that there were comments made in this thread that suggest assumptions being made based upon appearances. Between this thread and that on fashion there have been assumptions made as to the appearances of those who are overweight suggesting laziness etc... when as we all know obesity can be linked to diabetes and other diseases, heredity, even poverty... or the sort of poverty of the wealthiest nations. Many of the children I teach in the poor urban neighborhoods of the US are obese for the simple reason that healthier diets that include more fresh vegetables and fruit are more expensive than the pre-packaged foods, cheaper meats and dairy products. Physical Education (like art and music) is often one of the first thing slashed when the budget needs to be trimmed, and many of the parents lack the education to recognize that it isn't the greatest thing for a child to sit in front of the computer or the TV all day. Off course, in many cases it isn't safe for them to go outside either. I spent hours everyday as a child wandering through the forest behind our home, picking blackberries, hunting for snakes and tadpoles... I played ball with other kids in the neighborhood nearly everyday... but there was never the fear of gangs, drive-by shootings, prostitutes, drug dealers, crack-heads, and the all the rest of that which confronts the kids in urban America.

Again... I was playing something of the devil's advocate in my comment because I fully realize that we all make judgments and assumptions based upon appearances... it is the very name of the game for me as an artist. We should even admit that while personality, intelligence, and other abilities and personal traits may ultimately be more important when it comes to our overall opinion of another individual we are not likely to become attracted sexually to a person that we find unattractive or ugly.

[stlukesguild]

I had the fortune of Seeing the David live, and it blew my mind. For when it comes to the male body I look upon it undhindered by lust, and in it I find something far more delicate and beautiful than that of the female body. I don't know why, but I do.

Alex... you are seriously in need of therapy.:biggrin5:

Seriously... the issue of public nudity is quite relevant when it comes to the visual arts. Vonny spoke of "the disgusting "art" that appears on the forum" and while I agree that some art can be challenging... disturbing... even "disgusting" the question always comes down to who is making these judgments. What is "beautiful" to one person can be "disgusting" to another... especially, it seems, when it comes to nudity in art... at least in the US.

There is a well-known essay by Mark Twain concerning Titian's famous Venus d'Urbino:

You enter [the Uffizi] and proceed to that most-visited little gallery that exists in the world --the Tribune-- and there, against the wall, without obstructing rap or leaf, you may look your fill upon the foulest, the vilest, the obscenest picture the world possesses -- Titian's Venus. It isn't that she is naked and stretched out on a bed --no, it is the attitude of one of her arms and hand. If I ventured to describe that attitude there would be a fine howl --but there the Venus lies for anybody to gloat over that wants to --and there she has a right to lie, for she is a work of art, and art has its privileges. I saw a young girl stealing furtive glances at her; I saw young men gazing long and absorbedly at her, I saw aged infirm men hang upon her charms with a pathetic interest. How I should like to describe her --just to see what a holy indignation I could stir up in the world...yet the world is willing to let its sons and its daughters and itself look at Titian's beast, but won't stand a description of it in words....There are pictures of nude women which suggest no impure thought -- I am well aware of that. I am not railing at such. What I am trying to emphasize is the fact that Titian's Venus is very far from being one of that sort. Without any question it was painted for a bagnio and it was probably refused because it was a trifle too strong. In truth, it is a trifle too strong for any place but a public art gallery.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6194/6109572740_485ec27e9b_b.jpg

It would seem that such Puritanism still remains a part of American culture... in spite of the growth of pornography. Indeed... considering figures such as Jerry Falwell, it seems that this Puritanism is something of a bizarre for of hypocrisy in which certain "holier-than-thou" individuals would dictate sexual morals to others which they feel free to dispense with themselves. The Attorney General, John Ashcroft, famously covered the figure of Justice (how sybolic:patriot:) with blue curtains rather than allow himself to be photographed before a Neo-Classical figure with a bared breast. As Varene stated earlier, extreme violence in films is afforded less censorship that nudity. Someone noted a while back that you can blow up a breast in the movies with impunity, but don't even think about showing someone caressing a breast without facing that possible NC-17 rating. Around the time of Ashcroft's great breast cover-up there were discussions about the possibility of Michelangelo's David traveling to the US for exhibition at the National Gallery. The discussions never amounted to anything... no doubt in part owing to Ashcroft's public statement that if the David did enter the US it would need to be appropriately fitted with a fig leaf or loin cloth.

[ftil]

I had the opportunity to swim nude in a warm pool at night with my girl friend, and it was really great. We did it secretively. It's a memory I like to relive. Swimming nude feels very good! We didn't do it to be exhibitionists, and no one was around to see. I couldn't imagine walking around nude in front of people, other than my friend. But there's nothing in the world like swimming nude, skinny dipping, in warm water, especially at night.

Swimming naked feels very good! No…...it feels fantastic! I love swimming naked. I have a group of female friends who love hiking and swimming naked. After a quite intense hiking and sweating what a joy is to take clothing off and dive into a warm lake naked. All of us love it. I haven’t done it for a couple of years and I miss it.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vonny View Post

I had the opportunity to swim nude in a warm pool at night with my girl friend, and it was really great. We did it secretively. It's a memory I like to relive. Swimming nude feels very good! We didn't do it to be exhibitionists, and no one was around to see. I couldn't imagine walking around nude in front of people, other than my friend. But there's nothing in the world like swimming nude, skinny dipping, in warm water, especially at night.


Swimming naked feels very good! No…...it feels fantastic! I love swimming naked. I have a group of female friends who love hiking and swimming naked. After a quite intense hiking and sweating what a joy is to take clothing off and dive into a warm lake naked. All of us love it. I haven’t done it for a couple of years and I miss it.

Another naked swimmer! I've never swam naked, well as I've not really had the opportunity, but it does sound pretty good. I'm missing out on something here.

A teacher friend of mine once told me that he had took a group of boys mountain biking during the summer, as he regularly does, and that he also sometimes takes them skinny dipping in a lake.

"Jesus" I told him "you can't do that, you'll get arrested".

"Oh, we're not hurting anything" he says, "all these silly PC rules..."

:lol::lol: Quality.

[JuniperWoolf]

We're talking as though there's a universal standard of beauty. Is there seriously no one here who would find themselves attracted to a round, buxom woman or a grizzled and "experienced" male?

Maybe it's just my admiration clouding my senses, but I would be his concubine:
http://www.justpressplay.net/images/stories/alan-moore.jpg

And look! Look!:

http://www.mimifroufrou.com/scentedsalamander/images/queen-latifah-chicago.jpg

[irinmisfit92]

Lol I realised most of the ones who comment here are guys XD In Asia I don't see a lot of public nudity. I'm sure guys would want to have a lot more of them but honestly my friend who moved to Cambridge says that she can see girls with half of their asses exposed so I really feel that you guys who live in Western countries already have a lot of share of public nudity, seriously :P How much more nude do you want? XD

Sometimes as a female I dress very skimpily and some people do that here too but I've never really seen people who dress that nudely around here. People could see my cleavage yesterday but I'm sure how I dressed is not even close to how some people dress.

Since people are mostly still conservative, I think people here should be less repressed and dress more sexily and openly :P but then I'd get a lot of rivals xP I suppose in here public nudity is not enough but it's totally alright for the girls :P Let's leave the guys to their own imaginations XD

[irinmisfit92]

We're talking as though there's a universal standard of beauty. Is there seriously no one here who would find themselves attracted to a round, buxom woman or a grizzled and "experienced" male?

Maybe it's just my admiration clouding my senses, but I would be his concubine:
http://www.justpressplay.net/images/stories/alan-moore.jpg

And look! Look!:

http://www.mimifroufrou.com/scentedsalamander/images/queen-latifah-chicago.jpg

LOL haha I totally won't be attracted to a grizzled and experienced male. Even though he's experienced, I'd prefer being with a young guy who's not very experienced. Charm is what matters to me (so the guy doesn't have to be so hot) and that grizzled man doesn't have that charm :P

[Delta40]

I am not attracted to young himbos. So I would be totally attracted to a been there done that so what can I discover next kind of guy.

[Vonny]

Seriously... the issue of public nudity is quite relevant when it comes to the visual arts. Vonny spoke of "the disgusting "art" that appears on the forum" and while I agree that some art can be challenging... disturbing... even "disgusting" the question always comes down to who is making these judgments. What is "beautiful" to one person can be "disgusting" to another... especially, it seems, when it comes to nudity in art... at least in the US.

The "art" that I call disgusting would be considered disgusting by any normal person. Even you are aware when you put up something that is really offensive to many people, and even to yourself.

I don't understand why many people get a charge out of being offensive to other people. So much of what people do, the way they dress and so forth, is simply for the purpose of being offensive. This is something I don't understand.

I don't mind looking at Titian's Venus. My problem that I have, which may be my own personal problem, is that often there is so much at once that it overwhelms my circuits somehow.



It would seem that such Puritanism still remains a part of American culture... in spite of the growth of pornography. Indeed... considering figures such as Jerry Falwell, it seems that this Puritanism is something of a bizarre for of hypocrisy in which certain "holier-than-thou" individuals would dictate sexual morals to others which they feel free to dispense with themselves. The Attorney General, John Ashcroft, famously covered the figure of Justice (how sybolic:patriot:) with blue curtains rather than allow himself to be photographed before a Neo-Classical figure with a bared breast. As Varene stated earlier, extreme violence in films is afforded less censorship that nudity. Someone noted a while back that you can blow up a breast in the movies with impunity, but don't even think about showing someone caressing a breast without facing that possible NC-17 rating. Around the time of Ashcroft's great breast cover-up there were discussions about the possibility of Michelangelo's David traveling to the US for exhibition at the National Gallery. The discussions never amounted to anything... no doubt in part owing to Ashcroft's public statement that if the David did enter the US it would need to be appropriately fitted with a fig leaf or loin cloth.

I bolded that top sentence. Why is it that "Puritans" aren't supposed to be in America? Why are we supposed to have all porn and no Puritans? To me the politics (which are totally disgusting to me) is a separate issue. But why are the Mennonites, Hutterites and Amish to be eliminated?

I HATE porn. Do I have a right to hate porn? It's fine with me if you LOVE porn. I don't care at all what you do in your bedroom. In fact, I have no wish to change anything you do on the forum. I want you to do what you want and I want to do what I want. I do learn a lot from you. In fact, all of this debate has been educational. But in my daily life there is no porn. I don't know why I hate porn so much, but it goes against the fiber of my being. I'm very grateful that where I live there are no strip clubs or prostitutes or anything like that.

I don't have a problem with nudity or sex in movies, as long as it is nice and isn't deviant. Violence, abuse, and degradation goes against the fiber of my being.

I'm also disgusted by all forms of self-mutilation - tattoos, piercings. I don't want to stop people from doing it, but it disturbs me and I don't like to see it if I can avoid it. If I come here and see this trash, I have my favorite pictures on a blog on another tab and I just click there to wipe it out of my mind.

But I feel that I have as much a right to hate this stuff as you do to love it.



Another naked swimmer! I've never swam naked, well as I've not really had the opportunity, but it does sound pretty good. I'm missing out on something here.

A teacher friend of mine once told me that he had took a group of boys mountain biking during the summer, as he regularly does, and that he also sometimes takes them skinny dipping in a lake.

"Jesus" I told him "you can't do that, you'll get arrested".

"Oh, we're not hurting anything" he says, "all these silly PC rules..."

:lol::lol: Quality.


Neely, you are missing out! I can't believe you've never done this. Until I tried it I would have thought that it wasn't much different than swimming the usual way, but it really is different and wonderful, and very free.

Taking those kids to skinny dip is great! Kids shouldn't be taught to be ashamed of their bodies and not be allowed to have fun.

Actually, I've done it a few times. When my boss goes out of town (sure hope no one who knows me is reading this) I "house sit" for him, and he has an indoor pool that is very nice. The water doesn't need to be warm like a bathtub, but just not cold. Now that I'm thinking of it, these kind of sensory experiences, as memories, are great meditations during times of stress. When I'm stressed in life, I just switch my attention to one of these memories and it is just like I'm there. Being in water is absolutely one of my favorite things.

It's funny though that cold water is the worst form of torture for me.


Edit: As I look that over, what I wrote above - that sounds like one heck of a rant - and I didn't intend it to come out that way! I'm not upset :)

[osho]

The end of beauty is nudity and we cannot satisfy ourselves until we can see somebody unclothed. This is somewhere entrenched strongly at the back of our nature though we have volumes of arguments to negate this fact. If you are in your maturity and youthfulness and in good health you may like instinctively to see somebody in their nudity. That is why most youths or teens are after pornographic literature. I want to put forth my objective ideas here and want to keep from being judgmental.

Even a child loves to see a nude posture and I am not supporting the Freudian notion of it. All I simply want to say is it is our natural state, the primal human disposition, un-masqueraded. We shamed into defining, confining within theological theorems and go beyond the what others will say paradigm you will love to expose yourself. This is a fact we choose to keep to ourselves.

[Emil Miller]

Edit: As I look that over, what I wrote above - that sounds like one heck of a rant - and I didn't intend it to come out that way! I'm not upset :)

Vonny, I could write a book about the themes that you have touched on here but all I will say now is that you have more common sense in your little finger than many of the contributors to these forums.The western world has become vindictive and nihilistic by using the excesses of the past to justify its own excess. This is why, as Varenne said, there is an aura of guarded hostility about people nowadays. The libertines may be up in arms at what you and have written but don't let them upset you; common sense always survives a warped view.

[Alexander III]

But the thing about Vonny's argument, is no one has ever forced people to live lives of pleasure. But people have always been prohibited to live lives of pleasure.

No one is saying dress like this, and smoke and drink and have wild parties with Donkeys and Nazi attired participants with whips and cages.

But what right have others to prohibit someone from drinking and smoking and living for pleasure.

Let us not forget that the West which in Brian's view is chaotically whimpering in its final susurrations as we all play our fiddle and indulge in every excess - that same west is still very repressive upon individual rights. Gay men and women still can't marry in many places, and declaring ones homosexuality bars one from ever having a successful career in a large amount of professions.

Not only that, but in most western countries prostitution is illegal, but what does this lead too - it mean the majority of prostitutes are slaves imported from eastern europe and africa, who live lives as slaves. If prostitution were legalized the "slave" trade would end, prostitutes would have rights and be guaranteed safety, and the STD spread would be much reduced due to government regulation. Also prostitutes can be taxed.

Certainly it is more just to allow prostitution to end the slave trade, but it is not "moral" so we do not do it. Doing what is just and doing what is perceived as puritanically "moral" is very different, and puritan morals have been major obstacles in the path of justice, freedom and equality all over the west.

[cl154576]

The end of beauty is nudity and we cannot satisfy ourselves until we can see somebody unclothed. This is somewhere entrenched strongly at the back of our nature though we have volumes of arguments to negate this fact. If you are in your maturity and youthfulness and in good health you may like instinctively to see somebody in their nudity. That is why most youths or teens are after pornographic literature. I want to put forth my objective ideas here and want to keep from being judgmental.

Even a child loves to see a nude posture and I am not supporting the Freudian notion of it. All I simply want to say is it is our natural state, the primal human disposition, un-masqueraded. We shamed into defining, confining within theological theorems and go beyond the what others will say paradigm you will love to expose yourself. This is a fact we choose to keep to ourselves.

osho, do you mind if I ask how old you are?

I am thirteen. Reading this, I find myself thinking that you have either totally forgotten your childhood, or you grew up in a very perverted place.

[Varenne Rodin]

This is silly. For me it is not a matter of fat or thin, it's a health issue. Being a certain level of obese just looks very unhealthy. Likewise, being too thin can look unhealthy. There are people with obvious skin health issues and body flaws that I don't want to see naked. It's not a judgment of them other than to say I don't want to feel pity for them. I would rather interact clothed. Clothing protects our bodies from the elements. Nakedness, therefore, can be vulnerability in various environments. It can be vulnerability for people who may be prey to predators.

If everyone went around naked, and some cancer patients and people with skin and body trauma remained covered, wouldn't it then call more attention to the matter of them hiding their bodies? This thread has gone off the rails a bit. Perhaps someone should start a thread defining beauty. This one was just about preferences regarding public nudity, if I'm not mistaken.

[Admin]

Having been to quite a few nude beaches you'd be amazed at how nonsexual it can be. You often forget you're nude, after about 5 minutes it all wears off. People are also much more friendly. We normally hide behind clothes and social status as if they're armor.

If you meet someone in real life you can make a judgement about them based on how they're dressed, we do it every day. When everyone is naked, that is so much harder to do. I like to tell this story of an asian woman we met, asians of course age well in general but this woman was spry and fit and giggly and laughing all the time. She had the attitude of a 20 something. We all thought she was maybe 25. Truthfully she was a 41 year old corporate lawyer.

As for kids. I recall sitting at a topless beach in Italy. My wife was topless, there was perhaps an 11 year old boy walking by. I watched him because I thought for sure he'd sneak a peek, he didn't even glance down, he didn't care. And why should he, he had be coming to this beach probably his whole life and topless women were there every day. It was normal to him, not anything sexual or special.

As for body image as well, you'll see all types, all types. The saying goes, the people at the nude beach are the same people at your grocery store. It really does not become a big deal, very few of us probably think ourselves in possession of a perfect body, and as our flaws are accepted, we accept those of others. I've seen more than one amputee, more than one masectomy, all sorts of surgery scars, and scads of "interesting" piercings and tattoos.

The only person who stands out on a nude beach, is the person who is clothed.

[Varenne Rodin]

Also, those of you expressing your deep adoration and desire to view children naked are just sick. Why would you love looking at naked children? If you have a mature sex drive, you should direct it at mature individuals, rather than innocent youths who never courted your attentions and wouldn't understand the ramifications of doing so.

[cl154576]

Also, those of you expressing your deep adoration and desire to view children naked are just sick. Why would you love looking at naked children? If you have a mature sex drive, you should direct it at mature individuals, rather than innocent youths who never courted your attentions and wouldn't understand the ramifications of doing so.

Maybe I missed something but I don't see anyone who did. The closest was osho, who was suggesting that children love seeing nude postures and crave pornographic literature.

[Alexander III]

Also, those of you expressing your deep adoration and desire to view children naked are just sick. Why would you love looking at naked children?

You are overreacting. No one expressed a desire to look at nude kids.

A naked kid, is rather neutral, I don't see the whole american fuss about having to cover up kids while they are at the beach or pool. A naked child, unlike a naked adult can never be revolting. They are just undeveloped little people frolicking about.

Assuming everyone is a pedophile or rapist or murderer, might be more safe, but it really kills social contact and any sense of warmth and understanding in a community.

[cl154576]

You are overreacting. No one expressed a desire to look at nude kids.

A naked kid, is rather neutral, I don't see the whole american fuss about having to cover up kids while they are at the beach or pool. A naked child, unlike a naked adult can never be revolting. They are just undeveloped little people frolicking about.

Assuming everyone is a pedophile or rapist or murderer, might be more safe, but it really kills social contact and any sense of warmth and understanding in a community.

The parents are quite embarrassed, however, when children express curiosity about genitalia, which they naturally will if exposed to them.

[OrphanPip]

The parents are quite embarrassed, however, when children express curiosity about genitalia, which they naturally will if exposed to them.

It would require a fairly dim child not to notice his or her own eventually.

[Varenne Rodin]

Maybe I missed something but I don't see anyone who did. The closest was osho, who was suggesting that children love seeing nude postures and crave pornographic literature.

That's mainly what I was referring to. There were other comments that specifically mentioned children and the nudity of children being beautiful. To me, it's just odd to point that out.

Alexander, I'm not viewing everyone as pedophiles. That's why I directed the comment to those who brought up the subject. I also never said anything about overly bundling kids up at swimming pools, or any such nonsense.

IF there were any posters actually seeking to look at children naked, I personally would find that very gross. I grew up on beaches. I never took a moment to stop and stare in awe at someone's naked child. That's just not my thing. There's nothing wrong with me saying so. I'm sorry if I have offended the people who didn't get the impression I did from certain comments, but I think it's an overreaction for non-pedophiles to be offended by what I said.

[Varenne Rodin]

As to the American obsession with hiding kids, I'll thank you not to lump me in with zealots. My community is warm and easy going and I've never said or done anything to rain on its sunshine. I'm anti-censorship. You have me all wrong, Alexander. I'm withdrawing from the conversation. Peace be with you.

[OrphanPip]

Osho actually said that teenagers seek out pornographic material, which seems quite obvious to anyone who has ever been male and a teenager.

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm not the first person to bring this up, but apologies to all.

[Alexander III]

Osho actually said that teenagers seek out pornographic material, which seems quite obvious to anyone who has ever been male and a teenager.

In my experience quite a lot of girls watch porn and self-cater themselves too. Though amongst girls it is more taboo to talk of such things, especially when guys can hear.

For guys there is hardly any taboo in discussing porn or masturbation, it is as common as discussing sports.

Though porn really needs to step up its game. The plot lines are affected and the characterization is shallow and confusing. And the dialogue is never witty, and never interesting, it just is there like an ugly vase at the center of the livign room.

New characters are never introduced properly, and the characters never seem to have motives for their actions - why is samantha upset with her husband, and replacing him with the pizza boy steve - what is the conflict between the spouses, why does steve not consider the moral implications of his actions, is he a believer in libertinism and the pursuit of pleasure being the chief aim of life, or is there some more mysterious implication to his acts, could he be a religious zealot who wants to procreate for the sake of baring as many children as possible? These things are all unexplored in these movies, and they really ought to expand upon such things. It would make for a far more aesthetically captivating work of art.

There are so many questions which permeate our minds and yet our only answers are loud and unintelligible moans in the wind...

[stlukesguild]

SLG (quoted)-Seriously... the issue of public nudity is quite relevant when it comes to the visual arts. Vonny spoke of "the disgusting "art" that appears on the forum" and while I agree that some art can be challenging... disturbing... even "disgusting" the question always comes down to who is making these judgments. What is "beautiful" to one person can be "disgusting" to another... especially, it seems, when it comes to nudity in art... at least in the US.

The "art" that I call disgusting would be considered disgusting by any normal person. Even you are aware when you put up something that is really offensive to many people, and even to yourself.

Vonny... I think you assume too much when it comes to a universal concept of what is "disgusting" in art. Take, for example, this painting by Lucian Freud:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6075/6112387845_39aa0a8b37_b.jpg

Until his death barely one month ago, Freud was quite probably the greatest living figurative painter... if not the greatest living painter, period. His paintings demanded a price tag of some $5 million right off the easel, and this particular painting of Sue Tilley ("Big Sue") entitled Benefits Supervisor Sleeping achieved the highest ever price for a painting by a living artist $33 million US+. This would seem to suggest a certain demand for his work in spite of the imagery that is unquestionably unsettling. The painting is clearly, in one sense, a parody of the traditional theme of the sexually attractive nude on the couch or the "odalisque".

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6075/6112957472_4bfe18b2a8_b.jpg
Francois Boucher- Mademoiselle O'Murphy

Unlike an artist like Boucher, Freud is an absolute realist. He refuses to romanticize what he sees. He follows in the tradition of Rembrandt, who envisioned Bathsheba not as some young seductress, but rather as a middle-aged woman whose body clearly show the effects of the passage of time and the "ravages" of childbirth:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6079/6112929918_159689f026_b.jpg
Rembrandt van Rijn- Bathsheba

Rembrandt, however, unlike Freud, is a deeply spiritual individual. His Bathsheba glows with an inner light... combined with the artist's mastery at capturing a profound sense of character or personality. We can sense her deep and saddened thoughts as she contemplates the missive from King David and all it entails.

Freud, however, is an artist of the 20th century... coming upon painting following the Second World War. He is an existentialist... a cynic if not a nihilist. To Freud, all there is to humanity is what we have in this life... what he sees. The human being is no different from the animal... or meat, that is slowly dying... rotting away.

Such are not pretty ideas. But since when has art been about only pretty ideas. Death and warfare and tragedy and human frailty and mortality have long been among the central themes of art, music, and literature. The challenge for the artist is to present these in an aesthetic manner that suggests a transformation of the facts of everyday reality and even tragedy and ugliness into something new... something aesthetically "beautiful". And certainly there is a disturbing beauty in Freud's painting... as there is in Hamlet's death or the Passion of Christ as imagined by Rembrandt or J.S. Bach.

I don't understand why many people get a charge out of being offensive to other people. So much of what people do, the way they dress and so forth, is simply for the purpose of being offensive. This is something I don't understand.

As I already admitted, there is art that is disturbing, offensive, even ugly. Some of it is still great art. I think immediately of Goya's images of the horrors of the Napoleonic Wars as they raged through his native Spain. A great deal of "disturbing" or "offensive" art, however, is the result of little more than a sophomoric attempt to shock by immature artists who imagine that such is an essential element of great art. These artists are not far removed from the "naughty boy" acting out in an inappropriate manner... using "dirty" words etc... because it gains him the attention he so desires. And unfortunately, such is the effect in the art world. The artist makes paintings with elephant sh** and glitter and gives the resulting paintings blasphemous titles like Sh** Madonna and certain critics and collectors take notice. After all... the artist has succeeded in shocking and from what they remember (which admittedly is very little) of art history, they remember how much of the great art of the past initially shocked.

Of course the goal of the great artists of the past was never to shock. Manet, Monet, Degas, Picasso, etc... never set out to shock. The shock was simply the result of an unfamiliarity with a new formal language that has been developed by the artists in order to best express their perceptions of life as they experienced it. Renoir is today seen as a painter of some of the most "beautiful" paintings... paintings that often verge dangerously close to "pretty". He was quite likely one of the least audacious of the Impressionists... and yet a painting such as this caused outrage:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6066/6113402676_da86d75232_z.jpg

When Renoir exhibited this painting, critics mocked the nude as having the appearance of gangrenous meat hung up to age for a week. This criticism was piled upon the criticism of his loose "unfinished" impressionistic brushwork. Of course Renoir had no intention of shocking. As with all the Impressionists, he intended to capture something of the rapidly changing play of light and color... he sought to suggest the dappled effect of light and shadow upon the naked flesh of his model... and in this he was quite effective. Today we don't think twice about the notion of blue and red shadows thanks to the Impressionists.

I don't mind looking at Titian's Venus. My problem that I have, which may be my own personal problem, is that often there is so much at once that it overwhelms my circuits somehow.

Certainly, we all have our own tolerance level when it comes to visual or aural stimuli. On my first trip to New York I spent the first four days wandering through the Metropolitan Museum of Art... (a virtual city in itself with a population quite likely larger than that of your home town on any given day) for nearly 8 hours each day. By Friday I was so overwhelmed I could not look at anymore art... in spite of the fact that as an artist I am obsessed with art. We spent the last few days wandering about the city... sitting in Central Park... watching street performers near the Fulton Fish Market... walking to the Brooklyn Bridge, etc...

SLG Quoted- It would seem that such Puritanism still remains a part of American culture... in spite of the growth of pornography. Indeed... considering figures such as Jerry Falwell, it seems that this Puritanism is something of a bizarre for of hypocrisy in which certain "holier-than-thou" individuals would dictate sexual morals to others which they feel free to dispense with themselves. The Attorney General, John Ashcroft, famously covered the figure of Justice (how sybolic) with blue curtains rather than allow himself to be photographed before a Neo-Classical figure with a bared breast. As Varene stated earlier, extreme violence in films is afforded less censorship that nudity. Someone noted a while back that you can blow up a breast in the movies with impunity, but don't even think about showing someone caressing a breast without facing that possible NC-17 rating. Around the time of Ashcroft's great breast cover-up there were discussions about the possibility of Michelangelo's David traveling to the US for exhibition at the National Gallery. The discussions never amounted to anything... no doubt in part owing to Ashcroft's public statement that if the David did enter the US it would need to be appropriately fitted with a fig leaf or loin cloth.

I bolded that top sentence. Why is it that "Puritans" aren't supposed to be in America? Why are we supposed to have all porn and no Puritans? To me the politics (which are totally disgusting to me) is a separate issue. But why are the Mennonites, Hutterites and Amish to be eliminated?

Of course I used the term "Puritans" to denote those who would attempt to impose their morality upon others... rather as the original Puritans did in England which resulted in their virtual expulsion. How much do you know of the history of the Puritans beyond that which was presented in rather idealized light as part of grade-school American history? The noble Pilgrims were not exactly the most noble beings. take a look at the Salem Witch Trials, Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter or their role in English Reformation including the banning of the theater, the banning of music in religious ceremony (which led to the destruction of many church organs), the elimination of erotic or love poetry with the exception of the Biblical Song of Solomon, the unquestioned bowing to authority... including to the church leaders... the wife to her husband, and the child to his or her parents. Individual will and desire were to be destroyed.

I HATE porn. Do I have a right to hate porn? It's fine with me if you LOVE porn. I don't care at all what you do in your bedroom. In fact, I have no wish to change anything you do on the forum.

What you have just written, of course, is vastly removed from the Puritanical strain of which I speak that would impose restrictions upon what others do in their bedrooms based upon their own beliefs (and as in the example of Jerry Falwell, these beliefs are quite often rather hypocritical. "Pornography" of course is as much in the eye of the beholder as "beauty"... or "disgust". Some would define Titian's nude Venus as "disgusting pornography to this day. Some would define any sexual activity beyond that intended for procreation as "disgusting". This would include many heterosexual activities as well homosexuality, in all certainty.

Again, you read me wrong if you assume I am arguing for an open proliferation of pornography. Rather, I am questioning the presumed right of some to not only judge but impose laws against the rights of others to engage in whatever sexual activities they wish within the privacy of their own homes... as long as it is between consenting adults and hurts no one. I am also questioning the hypocrisy of nation in which pornography is a major industry to such a degree that even mainstream companies such as Disney are involved (under the name of subsidiary companies of course)... while at the same time attempting to censor art works... such as Michelangelo's David (as discussed above). I also question the priorities of a nation in which images and narratives and video-games of extreme violence are fully accepted, and yet images or narratives involving a breast or a penis or the mere suggestion of physical love are to be deemed "pornographic" and "obscene".

I want you to do what you want and I want to do what I want. I do learn a lot from you. In fact, all of this debate has been educational. But in my daily life there is no porn. I don't know why I hate porn so much, but it goes against the fiber of my being. I'm very grateful that where I live there are no strip clubs or prostitutes or anything like that.

There are plenty such venues near me... and you just might be surprised when it comes to prostitution just where it might be found... even in your neck of the woods. I even have a stripper in the family.:frown2: personally, I think the last time I visited a strip club was on the occasion of the bachelor party of a friend a good number of years back. I can't say I find the experience goes against every fiber of my being. Actually, as an artist I was quite taken by the almost surreal nature of the experience... naked bodies glowing under black lights and red neon beer signs. Indeed, I remember an almost comic aspect as a great number of the men in the club all but ignored the girls as they watched the ball game on the TV set as the Indians were vying for the playoffs.:confused5::goof::lol:

I'm also disgusted by all forms of self-mutilation - tattoos, piercings. I don't want to stop people from doing it, but it disturbs me and I don't like to see it if I can avoid it. If I come here and see this trash...

You may hate such things... personally I have no tattoos or piercings myself... they hadn't yet become fashionable when I was a teen. I don't make assumption, however, about the individual who do choose to express themselves in this manner... nor would I refer to them as "trash".

Taking those kids to skinny dip is great! Kids shouldn't be taught to be ashamed of their bodies and not be allowed to have fun.

Bingo! Vonny! This is what I am speaking of in my diatribe against Puritanism. I am not calling out for a free-for-all public orgy or pornography on demand on the public airwaves. I am suggesting, however, that there is something wrong when we promote the notion that the human body and sexuality is something "filthy", "dirty" or taboo that needs to be hidden away and never referred to.

New characters are never introduced properly, and the characters never seem to have motives for their actions - why is samantha upset with her husband, and replacing him with the pizza boy steve - what is the conflict between the spouses, why does steve not consider the moral implications of his actions, is he a believer in libertinism and the pursuit of pleasure being the chief aim of life, or is there some more mysterious implication to his acts, could he be a religious zealot who wants to procreate for the sake of baring as many children as possible? These things are all unexplored in these movies, and they really ought to expand upon such things. It would make for a far more aesthetically captivating work of art.

There are so many questions which permeate our minds and yet our only answers are loud and unintelligible moans in the wind...

I agree with a number of critics... including a number of feminist art critics, who refuse to define ART and PORNOGRAPHY as separate entities. PORNOGRAPHY... like LANDSCAPE or STILL LIFE is a genre... a subdivision of ART. Unfortunately, the vast majority of PORNOGRAPHIC ART is simply BAD or worse than bad... and this is owed largely to the fact that the subject is so taboo. The Japanese Ukiyo-e print artists thought nothing of making pornographic images... Shunga... illustrating "pillow books" or sex manuals for newlyweds. Many of these are absolutely spectacular works of art. The same can be said of the Hindu sculpture at the Kandariya Mahadeva temple as well as many Greek and Roman examples of erotica. There are any number of big name "art stars" today involved in painting pornographic images... but in most instances these come off as sophomoric... sad attempts by immature artists to garner attention through the transgression of the taboo... not a heart-flet expression of an embrace of sexuality.

[Emil Miller]

For anybody in support of public nudity:

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/3114/scan0002hh.jpg

[stlukesguild]

Brian/Emil is always a master at dragging the conversation to its lowest common denominator with a well-placed image.:frown2:

[Alexander III]

I find the latest picture strangely erotic...

[osho]

SLG (quoted)-Seriously... the issue of public nudity is quite relevant when it comes to the visual arts. Vonny spoke of "the disgusting "art" that appears on the forum" and while I agree that some art can be challenging... disturbing... even "disgusting" the question always comes down to who is making these judgments. What is "beautiful" to one person can be "disgusting" to another... especially, it seems, when it comes to nudity in art... at least in the US.

The "art" that I call disgusting would be considered disgusting by any normal person. Even you are aware when you put up something that is really offensive to many people, and even to yourself.

Vonny... I think you assume too much when it comes to a universal concept of what is "disgusting" in art. Take, for example, this painting by Lucian Freud:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6075/6112387845_39aa0a8b37_b.jpg

Until his death barely one month ago, Freud was quite probably the greatest living figurative painter... if not the greatest living painter, period. His paintings demanded a price tag of some $5 million right off the easel, and this particular painting of Sue Tilley ("Big Sue") entitled Benefits Supervisor Sleeping achieved the highest ever price for a painting by a living artist $33 million US+. This would seem to suggest a certain demand for his work in spite of the imagery that is unquestionably unsettling. The painting is clearly, in one sense, a parody of the traditional theme of the sexually attractive nude on the couch or the "odalisque".

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6075/6112957472_4bfe18b2a8_b.jpg
Francois Boucher- Mademoiselle O'Murphy

Unlike an artist like Boucher, Freud is an absolute realist. He refuses to romanticize what he sees. He follows in the tradition of Rembrandt, who envisioned Bathsheba not as some young seductress, but rather as a middle-aged woman whose body clearly show the effects of the passage of time and the "ravages" of childbirth:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6079/6112929918_159689f026_b.jpg
Rembrandt van Rijn- Bathsheba

Rembrandt, however, unlike Freud, is a deeply spiritual individual. His Bathsheba glows with an inner light... combined with the artist's mastery at capturing a profound sense of character or personality. We can sense her deep and saddened thoughts as she contemplates the missive from King David and all it entails.

Freud, however, is an artist of the 20th century... coming upon painting following the Second World War. He is an existentialist... a cynic if not a nihilist. To Freud, all there is to humanity is what we have in this life... what he sees. The human being is no different from the animal... or meat, that is slowly dying... rotting away.

Such are not pretty ideas. But since when has art been about only pretty ideas. Death and warfare and tragedy and human frailty and mortality have long been among the central themes of art, music, and literature. The challenge for the artist is to present these in an aesthetic manner that suggests a transformation of the facts of everyday reality and even tragedy and ugliness into something new... something aesthetically "beautiful". And certainly there is a disturbing beauty in Freud's painting... as there is in Hamlet's death or the Passion of Christ as imagined by Rembrandt or J.S. Bach.

I don't understand why many people get a charge out of being offensive to other people. So much of what people do, the way they dress and so forth, is simply for the purpose of being offensive. This is something I don't understand.

As I already admitted, there is art that is disturbing, offensive, even ugly. Some of it is still great art. I think immediately of Goya's images of the horrors of the Napoleonic Wars as they raged through his native Spain. A great deal of "disturbing" or "offensive" art, however, is the result of little more than a sophomoric attempt to shock by immature artists who imagine that such is an essential element of great art. These artists are not far removed from the "naughty boy" acting out in an inappropriate manner... using "dirty" words etc... because it gains him the attention he so desires. And unfortunately, such is the effect in the art world. The artist makes paintings with elephant sh** and glitter and gives the resulting paintings blasphemous titles like Sh** Madonna and certain critics and collectors take notice. After all... the artist has succeeded in shocking and from what they remember (which admittedly is very little) of art history, they remember how much of the great art of the past initially shocked.

Of course the goal of the great artists of the past was never to shock. Manet, Monet, Degas, Picasso, etc... never set out to shock. The shock was simply the result of an unfamiliarity with a new formal language that has been developed by the artists in order to best express their perceptions of life as they experienced it. Renoir is today seen as a painter of some of the most "beautiful" paintings... paintings that often verge dangerously close to "pretty". He was quite likely one of the least audacious of the Impressionists... and yet a painting such as this caused outrage:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6066/6113402676_da86d75232_z.jpg

When Renoir exhibited this painting, critics mocked the nude as having the appearance of gangrenous meat hung up to age for a week. This criticism was piled upon the criticism of his loose "unfinished" impressionistic brushwork. Of course Renoir had no intention of shocking. As with all the Impressionists, he intended to capture something of the rapidly changing play of light and color... he sought to suggest the dappled effect of light and shadow upon the naked flesh of his model... and in this he was quite effective. Today we don't think twice about the notion of blue and red shadows thanks to the Impressionists.

I don't mind looking at Titian's Venus. My problem that I have, which may be my own personal problem, is that often there is so much at once that it overwhelms my circuits somehow.

Certainly, we all have our own tolerance level when it comes to visual or aural stimuli. On my first trip to New York I spent the first four days wandering through the Metropolitan Museum of Art... (a virtual city in itself with a population quite likely larger than that of your home town on any given day) for nearly 8 hours each day. By Friday I was so overwhelmed I could not look at anymore art... in spite of the fact that as an artist I am obsessed with art. We spent the last few days wandering about the city... sitting in Central Park... watching street performers near the Fulton Fish Market... walking to the Brooklyn Bridge, etc...

SLG Quoted- It would seem that such Puritanism still remains a part of American culture... in spite of the growth of pornography. Indeed... considering figures such as Jerry Falwell, it seems that this Puritanism is something of a bizarre for of hypocrisy in which certain "holier-than-thou" individuals would dictate sexual morals to others which they feel free to dispense with themselves. The Attorney General, John Ashcroft, famously covered the figure of Justice (how sybolic) with blue curtains rather than allow himself to be photographed before a Neo-Classical figure with a bared breast. As Varene stated earlier, extreme violence in films is afforded less censorship that nudity. Someone noted a while back that you can blow up a breast in the movies with impunity, but don't even think about showing someone caressing a breast without facing that possible NC-17 rating. Around the time of Ashcroft's great breast cover-up there were discussions about the possibility of Michelangelo's David traveling to the US for exhibition at the National Gallery. The discussions never amounted to anything... no doubt in part owing to Ashcroft's public statement that if the David did enter the US it would need to be appropriately fitted with a fig leaf or loin cloth.

I bolded that top sentence. Why is it that "Puritans" aren't supposed to be in America? Why are we supposed to have all porn and no Puritans? To me the politics (which are totally disgusting to me) is a separate issue. But why are the Mennonites, Hutterites and Amish to be eliminated?

Of course I used the term "Puritans" to denote those who would attempt to impose their morality upon others... rather as the original Puritans did in England which resulted in their virtual expulsion. How much do you know of the history of the Puritans beyond that which was presented in rather idealized light as part of grade-school American history? The noble Pilgrims were not exactly the most noble beings. take a look at the Salem Witch Trials, Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter or their role in English Reformation including the banning of the theater, the banning of music in religious ceremony (which led to the destruction of many church organs), the elimination of erotic or love poetry with the exception of the Biblical Song of Solomon, the unquestioned bowing to authority... including to the church leaders... the wife to her husband, and the child to his or her parents. Individual will and desire were to be destroyed.

I HATE porn. Do I have a right to hate porn? It's fine with me if you LOVE porn. I don't care at all what you do in your bedroom. In fact, I have no wish to change anything you do on the forum.

What you have just written, of course, is vastly removed from the Puritanical strain of which I speak that would impose restrictions upon what others do in their bedrooms based upon their own beliefs (and as in the example of Jerry Falwell, these beliefs are quite often rather hypocritical. "Pornography" of course is as much in the eye of the beholder as "beauty"... or "disgust". Some would define Titian's nude Venus as "disgusting pornography to this day. Some would define any sexual activity beyond that intended for procreation as "disgusting". This would include many heterosexual activities as well homosexuality, in all certainty.

Again, you read me wrong if you assume I am arguing for an open proliferation of pornography. Rather, I am questioning the presumed right of some to not only judge but impose laws against the rights of others to engage in whatever sexual activities they wish within the privacy of their own homes... as long as it is between consenting adults and hurts no one. I am also questioning the hypocrisy of nation in which pornography is a major industry to such a degree that even mainstream companies such as Disney are involved (under the name of subsidiary companies of course)... while at the same time attempting to censor art works... such as Michelangelo's David (as discussed above). I also question the priorities of a nation in which images and narratives and video-games of extreme violence are fully accepted, and yet images or narratives involving a breast or a penis or the mere suggestion of physical love are to be deemed "pornographic" and "obscene".

I want you to do what you want and I want to do what I want. I do learn a lot from you. In fact, all of this debate has been educational. But in my daily life there is no porn. I don't know why I hate porn so much, but it goes against the fiber of my being. I'm very grateful that where I live there are no strip clubs or prostitutes or anything like that.

There are plenty such venues near me... and you just might be surprised when it comes to prostitution just where it might be found... even in your neck of the woods. I even have a stripper in the family.:frown2: personally, I think the last time I visited a strip club was on the occasion of the bachelor party of a friend a good number of years back. I can't say I find the experience goes against every fiber of my being. Actually, as an artist I was quite taken by the almost surreal nature of the experience... naked bodies glowing under black lights and red neon beer signs. Indeed, I remember an almost comic aspect as a great number of the men in the club all but ignored the girls as they watched the ball game on the TV set as the Indians were vying for the playoffs.:confused5::goof::lol:

I'm also disgusted by all forms of self-mutilation - tattoos, piercings. I don't want to stop people from doing it, but it disturbs me and I don't like to see it if I can avoid it. If I come here and see this trash...

You may hate such things... personally I have no tattoos or piercings myself... they hadn't yet become fashionable when I was a teen. I don't make assumption, however, about the individual who do choose to express themselves in this manner... nor would I refer to them as "trash".

Taking those kids to skinny dip is great! Kids shouldn't be taught to be ashamed of their bodies and not be allowed to have fun.

Bingo! Vonny! This is what I am speaking of in my diatribe against Puritanism. I am not calling out for a free-for-all public orgy or pornography on demand on the public airwaves. I am suggesting, however, that there is something wrong when we promote the notion that the human body and sexuality is something "filthy", "dirty" or taboo that needs to be hidden away and never referred to.

New characters are never introduced properly, and the characters never seem to have motives for their actions - why is samantha upset with her husband, and replacing him with the pizza boy steve - what is the conflict between the spouses, why does steve not consider the moral implications of his actions, is he a believer in libertinism and the pursuit of pleasure being the chief aim of life, or is there some more mysterious implication to his acts, could he be a religious zealot who wants to procreate for the sake of baring as many children as possible? These things are all unexplored in these movies, and they really ought to expand upon such things. It would make for a far more aesthetically captivating work of art.

There are so many questions which permeate our minds and yet our only answers are loud and unintelligible moans in the wind...

I agree with a number of critics... including a number of feminist art critics, who refuse to define ART and PORNOGRAPHY as separate entities. PORNOGRAPHY... like LANDSCAPE or STILL LIFE is a genre... a subdivision of ART. Unfortunately, the vast majority of PORNOGRAPHIC ART is simply BAD or worse than bad... and this is owed largely to the fact that the subject is so taboo. The Japanese Ukiyo-e print artists thought nothing of making pornographic images... Shunga... illustrating "pillow books" or sex manuals for newlyweds. Many of these are absolutely spectacular works of art. The same can be said of the Hindu sculpture at the Kandariya Mahadeva temple as well as many Greek and Roman examples of erotica. There are any number of big name "art stars" today involved in painting pornographic images... but in most instances these come off as sophomoric... sad attempts by immature artists to garner attention through the transgression of the taboo... not a heart-flet expression of an embrace of sexuality.

Marvelous paintings. I like them and speaking honestly I enjoy such paintings whether you call pornographic or erotic, it has a beauty par excellence. Everybody unconsciously wants to see the secret inside us though outwardly we become pretentious since we are censured by society.

Should I hide my feelings for fear of being called promiscuous? I am an adult, not a baby. Even babies love nude posters and they secretly love watching pornographic movies..

Things that are hidden always breed more curiosity. Every child may have the natural curiosity to see something that lies inside our garments.

[ftil]

I totally agree that children need to be thought not to be ashamed of their bodies. How they can love and respect themselves if they are ashamed of their bodies. :confused5:

Let’s look at the definition of pornography.

Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography
Does naked a female or a male body means pornography. I would argue that. A female can be painted totally dressed but still may evoke sexual feelings.
However, when I look at contemporary art, women are portrayed with the emphasis on female sensuality. I have a problem with the fragmentation of women. Women are much more than being sensual as it is one of the aspects of being a human.

Let's look at contemporary art.

Andrew Atroshenko

http://www.terigalleries.com/images/andrew/enlighten_lg.jpg




Taras Loboda

http://www.alexanderandvictor.com/images/Artists/artworklarge2913LOBOD-0081-48X36.jpg



http://i071.radikal.ru/0910/72/8d34b5ec704e.jpg





Jean-Jacques CAZIN

http://i014.radikal.ru/0909/b2/385ea8d3fe5c.jpg









Sergey Marshennikov

http://bertc.com/subfive/g142/images/marshennikov.jpg



Vidan
http://www.naturesscene.com/artimages/big/Vidan_respite.jpg





Victor Ostrovsky

http://www.ostenart.com/Metaphors/Large%20Images/house.jpg



http://www.ostenart.com/Metaphors/Large%20Images/Victor%20Ostrovsky%20Moment-of-Truth.jpg




Talantbek Chekirov

http://www.cuded.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Talantbek-Chekirov10.jpg



Zhuzhu
http://www.thefunnyweb.com/185/6.jpg



ELAINE MURPHY
http://www.paragonfineart.com/images/murphy/Calm.jpg





Douglas Hofmann

http://www.nonprints.com/UploadPic/Douglas%20Hoffman/big/Model.jpg


Steve Hanks
http://img1.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/c/2//70/498/70498399_1297363420_70779.jpg





Pedro Alvarez
http://www.nonprints.com/UploadPic/Pedro%20Alvarez/big/Tango%20Argentino%20I.jpg





Fabian Perez

http://www.paragonfineart.com/images/perez/tango.jpg


Colette Falardeau

http://bertc.com/subsix/g133/images/falardeau.jpg

[stlukesguild]

Egad! Regardless of the content, the majority of those paintings are mediocre at best. :frown2:

[OrphanPip]

I was up in Ottawa Thursday to see the Caravaggio exhibit at the National Art Gallery, but on the topic of Lucian Freud, there was the tiny little etching of the dog at the gallery that I think is beautiful in the sort of unflinching detailing of the "ugly" flesh.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQu65uinFYxiUs7YQgbrxGoKmUV92yP6 iX-f8IAruV9qi724Js7Tg

Is flesh always necessarily erotic or sexual, because I wouldn't call the dog either of those, perhaps sensual.

[stlukesguild]

Does naked a female or a male body means pornography. I would argue that. A female can be painted totally dressed but still may evoke sexual feelings.
However, when I look at contemporary art, women are portrayed with the emphasis on female sensuality. I have a problem with the fragmentation of women. Women are much more than being sensual as it is one of the aspects of being a human.

Artists throughout history have stressed the sensuality and sexual attractiveness of women... but this does not mean that these artists assume that women are nothing more than sexual beings to be judged according to their sexual attractiveness. Are we to assume that Monet was oblivious to the growth of the modern city and urban Paris because of his focus upon the landscape, or that Bonnard was unaware of the ravages of war that were tearing through France at the time he was painting bucolic scenes such as this?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6114303967_f2673b6501_b.jpg

Artists paint what obsesses them. They paint what they love... or what they hate. They paint what they CAN. I, for one, love Monet, Bonnard, Turner, Friederich, and Constable... but I have never been much of a landscape painter. I need solid sculptural forms to grasp... and thus I have always been far better in painting figures and still life. I spend far more time painting the human figure than I do still-life for the simple reason that I cannot find much that enthralls me in looking at a table strewn with apples and oranges... yet I can fully appreciate the work of painters such as Van Gogh, Cezanne, and Mondrian who can see so much in so little.

Looking at the portrayal of women in art today, I find that artists perceive far more than merely sexual beings:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6198/6114357649_3ea374f8b9.jpg
-Anne Gale

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6192/6114357671_7fa32e47a5.jpg
-Robert Bauer

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6090/6114357683_ae26c56efd.jpg
-Chuck Close

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6208/6114903102_1b2012bfbe.jpg
-Alex Katz

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6188/6114357765_81e507cd82.jpg
-Iain faulkner

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6114357789_bb3c88a7e4.jpg
-Gregory Calibey

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6193/6114903182_a85c036c3c_z.jpg
-Harry Holland

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6063/6114903214_a660e64db0_z.jpg
-Jeremy Lipking

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6199/6114903298_80fef469bc_b.jpg
-Avigdor Arikha

One might even argue that a painting of the nude may convey much more than merely an attempt at sexual arousal. In the instance of Sean Beaver's portrait of his wife (I thought of Vonny with this loving image of the artist's tattooed wife) there is surely more than mere sexual desire being conveyed.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6185/6114903328_a435fdd545.jpg

Of course, when one considers the centrality of Eros to human existence and the wealth of music and literature that explores the theme, it is no wonder that the visual artists have spent so much time equally examining the subject... especially as one considers the visual element in sexual attraction and seduction.

Freud's prints are surely special.

Is flesh always necessarily erotic or sexual...

Of course not.

I find the latest picture strangely erotic...

Alex... you are one sick puppy.:out::hand::lol:

[OrphanPip]

There is a feeder fetish after all, someone out there finds that very erotic.

[Delta40]

I love Freud's work and had big sue as my avatar for a while. A realist indeed.

[OrphanPip]

Also, speaking of surprisingly pornographic art, I took this picture of a 10th century statue of Krishna, but I didn't notice what was going on in his lap until I went over my pictures the day after.

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z241/i_feel_tiredsleepy/Indian10thcentury.jpg

[ftil]

stlukesguild wrote:

Artists throughout history have stressed the sensuality and sexual attractiveness of women... but this does not mean that these artists assume that women are nothing more than sexual beings to be judged according to their sexual attractiveness. Are we to assume that Monet was oblivious to the growth of the modern city and urban Paris because of his focus upon the landscape, or that Bonnard was unaware of the ravages of war that were tearing through France at the time he was painting bucolic scenes such as this?




Well, they did. But we have to admit that women are portrayed in a different ways today than in the past. The paintings you posted don’t constitute the majority of contemporary art that depicts women. You may not see it as you are a male. However, I didn’t see it either until a male friend asked me why I posted erotic paintings. I was shocked but when I looked again at those paintings I had to admit that he was right. If artists emphasize eroticism and sensuality, they fragment women to being a sexual object. Artists are not free from programming. Jean Kilbourne beautifully expressed what has been done to women through media and advertisement. Artists do the same consciously or unconsciously. :wink5:

Killing Us Softly 3 Advertising's Image of Women
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1993368502337678412

[JuniperWoolf]

In my experience quite a lot of girls watch porn and self-cater themselves too. Though amongst girls it is more taboo to talk of such things, especially when guys can hear.

*verifies* There's some amazingly well-done porn out there, and contrary to popular belief, women do have a sex drive. They just hush it up.


Though porn really needs to step up its game. The plot lines are affected and the characterization is shallow and confusing. And the dialogue is never witty, and never interesting, it just is there like an ugly vase at the center of the livign room.

Yeah, and mainstream porn also never shows the male's face. It's annoying and off-putting, like watching a random girl having sex with someone's amputated, floating pelvis.


Is flesh always necessarily erotic or sexual?

Well no, especially because that's an animal. Not many people are turned on by this:
http://www.littlefieldranch.com/assets/images/steak_mid/steak1.jpg


For anybody in support of public nudity:

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/3114/scan0002hh.jpg

It reminds me of that H. P. Lovecraft story, The Rats in the Walls. This secret society raised herds of humans in order to ritualistically eat them. They made them crawl around on all fours because they were "animals" and they brought them out to graze in order to make them fat. They were described as excessively pink, and lumpy like this picture, partly because the human-cattle were inbred.

Great contribution to the thread, Emil/Brian. :rolleyes5:

[Vonny]

Thanks for your reply Luke.

I didn’t mean to call a person trash back there – I was just speaking of the tattoos, but I shouldn’t have used that word.

I have contradictions in my thinking that I don’t understand. For instance, my ears are pierced. I’m not sure why I’m not bothered by pierced ears, but I'm grossed out by other piercings.

My thinking has probably been colored from hearing my brothers talk all of my life. My gay brother and his partner like women a lot, but they have issues with "trashy" women. My brother’s partner is in a supervisory position, and he constantly has to enforce a dress code on young women. He had hired a woman from Washington and he had to say to her, "You can’t floss here." (For people who don’t know what that is, I won’t say. I didn’t know, he had to explain it to me.) Maybe I shouldn’t tell this, but he is a comedian, and he goes on and on making fun of these "trashy" women. And they like lesbian women who are ordinary women, but not any kind of "butch" woman or "dyke."

On the subject of porn: A few years ago, I saw a man counselor for a while. He was more than twice my age. There was a "miscommunication" between us. I scratched his face, from the top of his forehead to his chin. He walked around for quite a few days with red "ribbons" down his face that he had a lot of trouble explaining. Anyway, when I scratched him, I was surprised when he didn't get angry. Instead, he completely backed down. He began to confess things to me about his "activities" over many years of his life. He was a Christian, he claimed, and he felt guilty. He had gone to strip clubs and different kinds of places where women danced. He told me that when he looked into those women’s eyes they usually looked as though their eyes were dead, and their souls were dead. This guy had been a counselor for many years and so he understood women very well. I can’t in a few sentences reproduce what he explained to me, but most women working in this "industry" are very damaged and vulnerable women. So to me, I see abuse in this entertainment.

As a teenager I sought out porn, I guess. Some girls would bring their father’s magazines and books to school and we would stand around in the hallways with 3 or 4 of us looking at this, or all of us reading a book. What I noticed is that porn is not about sex and arousal, as the definition that someone put up implies. There was one story where a woman’s home was invaded by a man and she was raped – and she enjoyed it! Now, something is crazy in that. In the porn that I’ve seen, it is about abuse and degradation of another person. I just realized that it is the sadistic/masochistic thing that I can’t stomach.

Then, I don’t see sex as for procreation, but for me it’s not simply a recreation. For me, my soul is somehow entwined in it. I know that if I was forced to work as a prostitute or a stripper, it would kill my soul.

And porn – especially visual porn – does nothing for me. Looking at strangers in pornographic poses does nothing for me – and it strikes me as purely dirty.

For me it only works if it is purely imaginary. I need to imagine it, I have to write my own script and visualize it in my own way. And it has to involve someone who has some substance, not just a body.

Luke: Of course I used the term "Puritans" to denote those who would attempt to impose their morality upon others... rather as the original Puritans did in England which resulted in their virtual expulsion. How much do you know of the history of the Puritans beyond that which was presented in rather idealized light as part of grade-school American history? The noble Pilgrims were not exactly the most noble beings. take a look at the Salem Witch Trials, Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter or their role in English Reformation including the banning of the theater, the banning of music in religious ceremony (which led to the destruction of many church organs), the elimination of erotic or love poetry with the exception of the Biblical Song of Solomon, the unquestioned bowing to authority... including to the church leaders... the wife to her husband, and the child to his or her parents. Individual will and desire were to be destroyed.

What we have now is the kids are the authority, and then the wife after that. What a mess.

The Mennonite people that I see aren't responsible for any of that history. And I'd rather see them in my town than prostitutes. I was looking online for a Mennonites picture and I couldn't find one that looks like ours, but I like seeing these women. They are almost always thin, and often are tall and blonde, and they look like artwork, really.

[stlukesguild]

ftil-...we have to admit that women are portrayed in a different ways today than in the past.

Do we? I'm not convinced. Few writers in the whole of history have produced characters of either sex who are incredibly well-rounded and fleshed out. Most literary characters are rather one-sided... because that is the aspect of the character that the author wishes or needs for the narrative at hand. By the same token, most paintings of women or men present but a single side of the individual. This is is necessitated in a way by the very nature of painting. A character in literature exists over a period of time, and so the author can explore the different sides of the individual... as well as develop their personality. Certainly, we have someone like Rembrandt who is a master of character who is capable of painting a human being that never seems one-dimensional.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6198/6116207917_5e9305cfbf.jpg

Rubens also displayed this ability... when painting someone to whom he was specially close, as in the case of his beloved first wife, Isabella...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6189/6116207953_fa8e14782d_z.jpg

or the sister of his wife-to-be, Susanna... with whom it has been suggested he may have had a love affair...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6184/6116751660_650bfd9967_z.jpg

But this is not as true of his royal portraits or his mythologies. His Bathsheba, for example, is far more simply a seductive sexual being, than is Rembrandt's far more contemplative version...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6063/6116208113_a9712ed98a_b.jpg

Just as in literature it is true that character development is not always a central issue, so it is equally true in the visual arts. Many paintings of women (or men for that matter) may be categorized as falling into a certain type or role:

Woman as Goddess... appreciated for her physical beauty...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6182/6116208303_4b3e4a7a14_b.jpg
-Giorgione

The woman as femme fatale... the dangerous woman... the woman whose beauty has the ability to unhinge male reason and emasculate him...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6081/6116208403_1a5a1c0c8f_b.jpg
-Lucas Cranach

The woman as Virgin and doting mother. This ideal was the basis for the cult of Notre Dame and all the great French cathedrals. Ironically, Raphael, the master of the genre, was a notorious Casanova (who died quite likely of syphilis) who was known for his liaisons with his beautiful young models who posed for the endless Holy Virgins. One almost imagines a Renaissance variation of the Hollywood "casting couch": "Hey, honey, you wanna be in pictures?"

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6193/6116751888_39c3cc627e_z.jpg
-Raphael Sanzio d'Urbino

Having said all that... I will agree that to a certain degree you have a point with regard to how women have been represented in the arts and media over the course of the last century of so. I would suggest you check out the book, Venus in Exile by the feminist art historian/critic,Wendy Steiner. Steiner explores the bias against "beauty," women and femininity, domesticity, and the bourgeois in Modernism and posits a theory that this owed much to the misogynistic and anti-social attitudes of leading artists/theorists beginning with Kant.

Femininity, color, sensuality, pattern, ornament, domesticity, family, the care of children... and "beauty" all bespoke of an art linked with the bourgeois or middle-class and women. If you delve into the late 19th and early 20th centuries you will find a great many intellectuals and artists expressing attitudes about women that verge upon the misogynistic. There was also a certain disgust with the middle-class that had begun to abandon the artists as their work became more experimental. The middle-class or bourgeois was also obsessed with class and appearances and represented a direct opposition to the rebellious, anarchistic artists.

At this time we begin to see the great dichotomy put forth suggesting Male=Intellect and Art/Culture while Female= Emotions and Nature. This was also an era in which science had begun to unveil the links between diseases such as syphilis and sex, reinforcing the notion that women/sex was dangerous. Women were also beginning to assert their rights politically and socially, which scared many men... and we had the spread of the revolutionary ideas of Freud concerning sexuality. The male fear of losing control... the fear of the seductiveness of women/sex... of ability of emotions to overwhelm or unhinge intellect... shows up as early as the Romantic era is the guise of novels such as Frankenstein and Dracula and art works such as Goya's well-known print, The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6082/6116538695_d47732c4e2_z.jpg

It is quite telling how many images of the femme fatale can be found in the art of the era... especially in the hotbed of Vienna where Freud's ideas were spreading like wildfire at the same time as the old Austrian Empire was becoming unhinged and women were a convenient scapegoat (as the Jews would later be)...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6185/6116538961_66460b8fe8.jpg
-Alfred Kubin

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/6116538749_db71074ae3_b.jpg
-Gustav Klimt

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6116539163_25c5520816_b.jpg
-Egon Schiele

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6073/6116539093_6063615812.jpg
-Oskar Kokoschka

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6085/6117082956_837cc7be25_z.jpg
-Edvard Munch

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6209/6116538921_c415946308_z.jpg
-Franz von Stuck

The musical creation par excellence of the era was undoubtedly Richard Strauss' shocking opera Salome:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI02Rj5xhFM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJiFHv70WPo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op1VoQXXARs&feature=related

continued...

[stlukesguild]

Modernism theorized a future of "better living through technology"... science... reason... and intellect. Anything that spoke of emotions and passions challenged this because it was recognized that emotions and passions might easily undermine reason. The architect/theorist, Adolf Loos spoke of ornament... which surely only interested women... as "crime" in his open attack upon the sensual, woman-based art of the leading Viennese painter, Gustav Klimt. Even Matisse... whose formal innovations couldn't be denied, was taken to task by critics for being too much of the sensualist... a hedonist... and not enough like Picasso.

World War One only further reinforced these feelings among the artists. After all, it was the old bourgeois society that had led to the horrors of the war... the same bourgeois whose lives revolved around marriage, raising children, and social climbing. With the war, an entire generation of men had been wiped out. Thousands of women were reduced to prostitution as their sole means of income.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6066/6117161416_57d5d3241a.jpg
E.L. Kirchner

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6082/6117161490_819b51d49d_z.jpg
-George Grosz

These women roamed the streets of big cities such as Berlin dressed all in black as vampires. Vampires, indeed, once again became a central image in art and film (Nosferatu). An entire fetish for women dressed as "war widows" developed resulting in the erotic costume known as the "merry widow":

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6201/6117179386_6274856728_z.jpg

Stories of "sex murders" and "serial killings" and the murder of children began to make the news and show up in the paintings of the German Expressionists (Otto Dix, George Grosz, Max Beckmann), in films such as M, and in plays such as Frank Wedekind's "Lulu" plays based loosely upon the Jack the Ripper murders.

Then, of course, we have the central figure of Modernism in the visual arts: Pablo Picasso. Picasso's art is highly autobiographical and his themes frequently vacillate between sex and violence. Freud would loved to have had Picasso as a case study. As a adolescent, Picasso was traumatized by the death from diphtheria of his beloved sister, Conchita... seen celebrating her first communion in this painting made by the 15-year-old Picasso...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6208/6117275436_bed4c986de_b.jpg

This trauma was repeated in a true Freudian manner when the artist's closest friend, Carles Casagemas, committed suicide in response to being rejected by his lover... whom Picasso quite likely was also involved with. The ultimate result of this was Picasso's masterpiece, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, the most iconic painting of Modernism...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/6117235082_cfb5528e2d.jpg

The Boulevard d'Avignon in Paris was an infamous street where the prostitutes plied their trade. Picasso viciously parodies them as monsters and vampires in African masks and Egyptian poses. Each time one of the artist's love affairs ended, he repeated this pattern of painting women as horrific monsters... great insects, like the Praying Mantis who devours her mate...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6077/6116731245_7d5d0f269e_z.jpg

The artist's distrust of women and hatred of bourgeois values was further exasperated by the failure of his marriage to the beautiful ballerina, Olga...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6084/6116731309_4afa66962e_b.jpg

It soon became clear that Olga, the daughter of a family of minor Russian aristocrats now in decline looked to Picasso, the hot young "art star" as a means of social climbing. She had little interest in his art, but greatly enjoyed traveling in the high circles of society of his collectors.

As the United States took the lead in art, the misogyny of Modernism was merged with a certain American Puritanism. To this we might also add the effect of the great shift in artistic education and training away from the art schools and ateliers... which stressed hands-on process of making art and the embrace of the sensuality of materials and images... toward university art departments which stressed words... philosophies... theories... and concepts over all. Once again, reason and logic and rationale (stereotyped as Male attributes) were stressed over feelings and emotions and sensuality (stereotyped as female attributes). The open hostility aimed toward the Pop Artists who once again began to embrace sensuality as well as glitz and glamour, is quite telling.

In spite of this, it should be recognized that there remained a great wealth of representations among Modernism of beauty, sensuality, love, and sensitivity toward women. We shouldn't forget that the single most reproduced painting not only in the whole of Modernism... but in the whole of art history is Gustav Klimt's affectionate and loving The Kiss...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6064/6116791275_55064ff6f1.jpg

Klimt also holds the record for the highest price paid for a painting for his Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer... presented as a Byzantine saint... or goddess... in spite of her less than seductive looks...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6066/6117348728_a98519246f_b.jpg

Bonnard was also admired for his loving portrayals of his wife, Marthe, over the course of his entire career. Here she stands bathed in the light like a modern Danae, seen by her doting husband as a glorious goddess... even in her late 40s...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6078/6117354312_2591c55ec0_z.jpg

The paintings you posted don’t constitute the majority of contemporary art that depicts women.

Well... the "majority" of art would not be the best art anyway... the majority of all art being mediocre at best. But I suspect you are suggesting that the majority of the images by the leading figures in art present women solely in a sexist manner.

Let's take a look at that suggestion. Here I have chosen an entire array of typical works by a number of leading artists... artists who have successfully shown and sold for years as well as current hot "art stars". So what do we find?

Well... we have the traditional representation of the classical nude...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6189/6117380088_06e55d6211_z.jpg
1*

The artist clearly enamored of the beauty of the young female form...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6205/6117380448_cdd01a167f_b.jpg
2*

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6087/6116835431_7b0998d859_b.jpg
3*

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6117380410_c44f1fa9fc_b.jpg
4*

Here we have a wealth of Rubenesque female flesh as landscape...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6182/6116835199_cfe9612fe7_z.jpg

continued...

[stlukesguild]

We also have intimate narratives in the manner of Bonnard...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6197/6116834283_3b45d0a1c9_z.jpg
5*

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6069/6117378814_fe8e9c6254.jpg
6*

We have the traditional femme fatale...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6074/6116835865_47239cd9f5_z.jpg
7*

We have images of the less-than-ideal or even older woman who still exudes sexuality...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6181/6117379988_f07fc6be96.jpg
8*

In this instance it is the black woman and the bald and tattooed woman who assert their sexual attractiveness...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6188/6117380020_efb1eeed9c_b.jpg
9*

And we have the image of lovers engaged in the act abstracted in the manner of William DeKooning...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6085/6117378638_1b19e2944f_b.jpg
10*

And we have strippers...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6204/6116833539_68ed4ebc6f.jpg
11*

And parodies of the traditional stereotypes of the past: Snow White... or Sleeping Beauty...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6198/6116833931_b4fda7f564.jpg
12*

And the Baroque and Rococo Goddesses of fecundity, fertility, and abundance...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6086/6117379170_1e43b5dc58_z.jpg
13*

We even get parodies of the stereotypical pornographic/pin-up image...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6200/6117379788_35f1d30eda_z.jpg
14*

Of course these example are all drawn from the world of "high art" When we delve into the world of "low brow" art we still find images of women as helpless doe-eyed damsels with long flowing hair...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6187/6116834543_a491f3b781_z.jpg
15*

Femme Fatales...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6184/6117379872_aced40f0f5_z.jpg
16*

and the usual pin-ups...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6062/6116834765_d5e3b78cf2.jpg

The only problem with this is that each and every one of these paintings was painted by a woman. Female artists for some time have been far more forward... at least within the context of "high art"... about openly expressing their sexuality than many of their male counterparts who have been scared off by continued harassment from militant feminist critics. The reality is that the concept expressed in this quoted line: "If artists emphasize eroticism and sensuality, they fragment women to being a sexual object," is a sadly outdated mode of Puritanical Feminism that would censor sexual expression. There is more to men and women than their sexual beings... but to suggest that any art which celebrates the sexual... the beauty of the human body... fragments and objectifies the individual is nonsense.

(Artists: 1. Alyssa Monks, 2. Francine van Hove, 3. Martha Erlebacher, 4. Patricia Watwood, 5. Kyle Staver, 6. Do Fournier, 7. Colette Calascione, 8. Anne Harris, 9. Margaret Bowland, 10. Ceciley Brown, 11. Marlene Dumas (currently holds the record for highest price paid for a work by a living female artist), 12. Judith Schaechter, 13. Julie Heffernann, 14. Lisa Yuskavage, 15. Kelly Vivanco, 16. Tara McPherson, 17. Olivia De Beradinis)

Jean Kilbourne beautifully expressed what has been done to women through media and advertisement. Artists do the same consciously or unconsciously.

Does she? And would you have us believe that women are so easily swayed and weak-minded that the media has had such a profound effect upon them... and yet not equally upon men? It would seem to me that men and women are equally influenced by the images put forth in the media... while at the same time, the media is quite often a mirror of society... and the roles assumed by men and women.

[Vonny]

After I wrote last night and came back today, and you weren't on this thread Luke, and I was worried about you!

Luke: Does she? And would you have us believe that women are so easily swayed and weak-minded that the media has had such a profound effect upon them... and yet not equally upon men? It would seem to me that men and women are equally influenced by the images put forth in the media... while at the same time, the media is quite often a mirror of society... and the roles assumed by men and women.

In general I think that women are a little more susceptible to the media than men are. Marketers know it.

I think today the media drives the society more than mirrors it. The media may pick up some small trend in society but then it magnifies and distorts it, and figures out how to sell it.

Luke: Thousands of women were reduced to prostitution as their sole means of income.

This is basically what my mother did after my father left, although she got married. But it was okay, it did pay off for us. It still pays off to this day for me - I have some income I wouldn't have otherwise.

[Emil Miller]

I think today the media drives the society more than mirrors it. The media may pick up some small trend in society but then it magnifies and distorts it, and figures out how to sell it.

That's exactly what happens. Nobody understands the herd instinct a well as the media, unless it be politicians.

[Delta40]

Thanks Luke I was going to post Yuskavage as an example and I agree about the outdated mode of thinking especially when the female body is depicted in all conditions through art.

http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h411/delta40/lisa1.png

[ftil]

ftil-...we have to admit that women are portrayed in a different ways today than in the past.

Do we? I'm not convinced. Few writers in the whole of history have produced characters of either sex who are incredibly well-rounded and fleshed out. Most literary characters are rather one-sided... because that is the aspect of the character that the author wishes or needs for the narrative at hand. By the same token, most paintings of women or men present but a single side of the individual. This is is necessitated in a way by the very nature of painting. A character in literature exists over a period of time, and so the author can explore the different sides of the individual... as well as develop their personality. Certainly, we have someone like Rembrandt who is a master of character who is capable of painting a human being that never seems one-dimensional.


Having said all that... I will agree that to a certain degree you have a point with regard to how women have been represented in the arts and media over the course of the last century of so. I would suggest you check out the book, Venus in Exile by the feminist art historian/critic,Wendy Steiner. Steiner explores the bias against "beauty," women and femininity, domesticity, and the bourgeois in Modernism and posits a theory that this owed much to the misogynistic and anti-social attitudes of leading artists/theorists beginning with Kant.

Femininity, color, sensuality, pattern, ornament, domesticity, family, the care of children... and "beauty" all bespoke of an art linked with the bourgeois or middle-class and women. If you delve into the late 19th and early 20th centuries you will find a great many intellectuals and artists expressing attitudes about women that verge upon the misogynistic. There was also a certain disgust with the middle-class that had begun to abandon the artists as their work became more experimental. The middle-class or bourgeois was also obsessed with class and appearances and represented a direct opposition to the rebellious, anarchistic artists.

At this time we begin to see the great dichotomy put forth suggesting Male=Intellect and Art/Culture while Female= Emotions and Nature. This was also an era in which science had begun to unveil the links between diseases such as syphilis and sex, reinforcing the notion that women/sex was dangerous. Women were also beginning to assert their rights politically and socially, which scared many men... and we had the spread of the revolutionary ideas of Freud concerning sexuality. The male fear of losing control... the fear of the seductiveness of women/sex... of ability of emotions to overwhelm or unhinge intellect... shows up as early as the Romantic era is the guise of novels such as Frankenstein and Dracula and art works such as Goya's well-known print, The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters...




I am not interested in feminist view. I have study feminist literature as well as feminist psychology, and for a while, I called myself a feminist. LOL Not any more after meeting a number a feminists who took the feminist theory to the extreme, not being able to use critical thinking. However, I still appreciate liberal feminists approach to therapy that focuses on building deep and fulfilling relationships and understands the imbalance resulting from stereotyped roles of women. Sadly, not many men are strong enough to change the dynamic in relationships. If you dig into women study, you will see that dichotomy existed for many centuries and religions played an important part in it.

Secondly, you are talking about past and I am talking about today. We can’t avoid heavy programming that is done through media and advertisement. I can agree with Steven Jacobson, the author of Mind Control in USA who worked in Hollywood editing movies, that Americans are mind controlled as it has never happed before. His book was really mind opening what is going on. Advertisement adds more fuel to it as we are bombarded with images whenever we turn our heads. As I said before, artists are not free from programming.
I don’t know if you have seen Jean Kilbourne’s video I have posted. Perhaps not, otherwise our discussion would be different. :wink5:

[Revolte]

Well no, especially because that's an animal. Not many people are turned on by this:
http://www.littlefieldranch.com/assets/images/steak_mid/steak1.jpg



As disgusting as dead animal looks to me. Those french fries are pretty sexy. :wave: <-- I'm waving at the fries.

[ftil]

stlukesguild wrote:

Does she? And would you have us believe that women are so easily swayed and weak-minded that the media has had such a profound effect upon them... and yet not equally upon men? It would seem to me that men and women are equally influenced by the images put forth in the media... while at the same time, the media is quite often a mirror of society... and the roles assumed by men and women.

Well, how do you explain the growing number of young girls and women who suffer from anorexia nervosa or bulimia? How do you explain the results of a pull done by one of the magazines where women were asked if they had a choice to be slim or to have a successful career, if I remember correctly, it was 93% of women who chose being slim than having a successful career. They had also another choice: to be slim, to have fulfilling relationships, or successful career. If my memory is correct, it was 51% of women who chose being slim than having successful career, or fulfilling relationships. I was shocked reading the results. Media knows how to manipulate us. Men are not manipulated through media to the same extent as women.

Secondly, your response rejects the vast research of women study. You can’t reject the power of stereotypes that dictate how we view women and men. Stereotypes are cognitive constructs that are difficult to change. We have a lot on our plates we have to deal with.

BTW, you love art as much as I do…but I love different kind of art. I don’t care about the price of the painting. :brow:

Let’s look at a few the most expensive paintings. I would love to have them……to sell as soon as possible. :biggrin5:

Jackson Pollock - $156.8 million

http://amolife.com/image/images/stories/Art/most_expensive_paintings.jpg


Willem de Kooning - $ 154.0 million

http://amolife.com/image/images/stories/Art/most_expensive_paintings%20(2).jpg




Gustav Klimt - $ 150.2 million

http://amolife.com/image/images/stories/Art/most_expensive_paintings%20(3).jpg



Pablo Picasso - $ 124.3 million

http://amolife.com/image/images/stories/Art/most_expensive_paintings%20(6).jpg




Jasper Johns - $ 89.5 million

http://amolife.com/image/images/stories/Art/most_expensive_paintings%20(15).jpg

[osho]

I am amazed at the beauty of nudity. It fulfils some of my entrenched urges notwithstanding my conceited arguments against it, speaking very honestly. I am thankful to all here who so intrepidly have written wonderful posts and they are full of life, vigor and something vital that can heal this sick world. There is no shred of promiscuity and most come up with great aesthetic truths that remained sealed for want of the audacious intellectuals who choose not to withdraw their say nor lower their tone fearing criticism. I always want to write like them but it demands the capacity for convincing people.
Nudity is divinity and thru nudes we see divine forms. That is why in India many temples have nude idols of gods entangled in raptures. It is not eroticism; it is humanism in their great manifestations

[ftil]

I am amazed at the beauty of nudity. It fulfils some of my entrenched urges notwithstanding my conceited arguments against it, speaking very honestly. I am thankful to all here who so intrepidly have written wonderful posts and they are full of life, vigor and something vital that can heal this sick world. There is no shred of promiscuity and most come up with great aesthetic truths that remained sealed for want of the audacious intellectuals who choose not to withdraw their say nor lower their tone fearing criticism. I always want to write like them but it demands the capacity for convincing people.


I agree that human body is the most beautiful creation of all. However, it was taken to the levels that are very degrading. Sad, indeed.




Nudity is divinity and thru nudes we see divine forms. That is why in India many temples have nude idols of gods entangled in raptures. It is not eroticism; it is humanism in their great manifestations.

LOL! I wish I could post an image of Hindu goddess Kali. Trust me, it has nothing to do with humanism. :biggrin5: But I may post an image of goddess Kali that I will not run into trouble.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EKP11mOJRWA/SRiAR6QBnNI/AAAAAAAAAGY/hjv1qDMjBmA/s400/kali.jpe



http://www.exoticindiaart.com/artimages/ba11.jpg

[osho]

I agree that human body is the most beautiful creation of all. However, it was taken to the levels that are very degrading. Sad, indeed.





LOL! I wish I could post an image of Hindu goddess Kali. Trust me, it has nothing to do with humanism. :biggrin5: But I may post an image of goddess Kali that I will not run into trouble.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EKP11mOJRWA/SRiAR6QBnNI/AAAAAAAAAGY/hjv1qDMjBmA/s400/kali.jpe



http://www.exoticindiaart.com/artimages/ba11.jpg


The posters of Kali are a different issue my friend; it has a different allusion. I am talking about nude, erotic idols in some Indian temples. Our religious pundits have since time immemorial been suppressing human instincts. We are clothed to cover up our organs. These bodily parts do not harm us if we have a clear conscience and do not fuse with our conceptions, prejudices. When you see a naked baby you do not disgrace yourself. The same baby grows and her physical parts mature you keep from them. This is your sheer conditionality bred from social and ethical interpretations of values. Why I call nudity humanity is thru nudity we are exposing ourselves fully untarnished. Look at a nude portrayal of man or woman or animal it is all beauty. The most interesting revelation when I visit Indian temples is erotic idols in which males and females wrapped up in their physical entanglements, in their true and natural manifestations far from all of our understanding smeared by religious or social bigotries.

[ftil]

The posters of Kali are a different issue my friend; it has a different allusion. I am talking about nude, erotic idols in some Indian temples. Our religious pundits have since time immemorial been suppressing human instincts. We are clothed to cover up our organs. These bodily parts do not harm us if we have a clear conscience and do not fuse with our conceptions, prejudices. When you see a naked baby you do not disgrace yourself. The same baby grows and her physical parts mature you keep from them. This is your sheer conditionality bred from social and ethical interpretations of values. Why I call nudity humanity is thru nudity we are exposing ourselves fully untarnished. Look at a nude portrayal of man or woman or animal it is all beauty. The most interesting revelation when I visit Indian temples is erotic idols in which males and females wrapped up in their physical entanglements, in their true and natural manifestations far from all of our understanding smeared by religious or social bigotries.

I don’t think that it is a different issue. I am afraid I have a different idea what eroticism means and I definitely wouldn’t want eroticism of blood thirsty Kali. LOL! ........... But if you like pornography and orgy……than you would like the images I have mentioned earlier. :biggrin5:

[osho]

I don’t think that it is a different issue. I am afraid I have a different idea what eroticism means and I definitely wouldn’t want eroticism of blood thirsty Kali. LOL! ........... But if you like pornography and orgy……than you would like the images I have mentioned earlier. :biggrin5:

It is not pornography and orgy that moves me or goading to write the comments I have been putting forth here. I do not loathe pornography and orgy and am not against them at all or never like to campaign against them socially and individually as long as they do not damage human situation. I have no intense interest in these facets of life, though they have enough substance to stimulate me. My aspect is pure aesthetic, the way we watch copulating animals, our dogs, cats etc. There is no vulgarity. Vulgarity is in our eyes, in our ways of dealing with it and making analogy. Or else I see beauty manifest in nudity. Humanity married with nudity with an unsullied sense of aesthetics impresses me, not the nudity of a brute sabotaging the innocent. If I from this standpoint look at a nude picture or a nude woman or man it only electrifies my sense of beauty not my inner brutal urges that lead to gratify the suppressed wantonness in human beings

[ftil]

It is not pornography and orgy that moves me or goading to write the comments I have been putting forth here. I do not loathe pornography and orgy and am not against them at all or never like to campaign against them socially and individually as long as they do not damage human situation. I have no intense interest in these facets of life, though they have enough substance to stimulate me. My aspect is pure aesthetic, the way we watch copulating animals, our dogs, cats etc. There is no vulgarity. Vulgarity is in our eyes, in our ways of dealing with it and making analogy. Or else I see beauty manifest in nudity. Humanity married with nudity with an unsullied sense of aesthetics impresses me, not the nudity of a brute sabotaging the innocent. If I from this standpoint look at a nude picture or a nude woman or man it only electrifies my sense of beauty not my inner brutal urges that lead to gratify the suppressed wantonness in human beings

Hm…..but you wrote with enthusiasm about eroticism in Hindu temples. I was also talking about the images from the temples. Therefore, I said that we have a different idea about eroticism. We agree about the beauty of a human body but disagree about manifestation of our humanness. You are not saying that it would be good to have public sex…like animals. :biggrin5:

Secondly, whether we want or not paintings and images evoke feelings. If women are depicted with the emphasis on their sexuality, those paintings evoke feelings. As my male friend said, we are bombarded 24/7 with images that evoke sexual feelings. The beauty of eroticism and human body is gone as there is not that much space left for mystery and deep feelings but second charka emotionalty. :p

[osho]

Hm…..but you wrote with enthusiasm about eroticism in Hindu temples. I was also talking about the images from the temples. Therefore, I said that we have a different idea about eroticism. We agree about the beauty of a human body but disagree about manifestation of our humanness. You are not saying that it would be good to have public sex…like animals. :biggrin5:

Secondly, whether we want or not paintings and images evoke feelings. If women are depicted with the emphasis on their sexuality, those paintings evoke feelings. As my male friend said, we are bombarded 24/7 with images that evoke sexual feelings. The beauty of eroticism and human body is gone as there is not that much space left for mystery and deep feelings but second charka emotionalty. :p


All I want to say is I love honesty above all else. I recall once in my childhood I saw a naked woman. She was young and full of vigor. She was taking a bath from a fountain. In fact the lady came from a tribal community. I had not seen a stripped woman and very honestly speaking I always wanted to see the thing women and men were hiding. I had seen nude children but never nude adults. This curiosity grew and grew and there was no scrap of vulgarity. I wanted to see that the way I wanted to see a rose. When I saw the tribal woman completely exposed something, some quiver passed inside me. I sneakily watched the scene. I was not matured enough to observe it thru an erotic lens or it did not breed sexual feelings inside me. I still distinctly carry the thing she had exposed.

Now I look at it from different lenses and I mingle the feeling with aesthetics. I still have the urge to see an unclothed lady. I do not want to rationalize the feelings that can arouse in me. This is beyond philosophical thought. This is purity and humanity, not something obscene, something as sweet and elegant as a rose.

When I see deities in temples I think the ancient carvers or artists had those aesthetic images in their minds while sculpting such erotically aesthetic idols. Kali has that horrific image too as you have mentioned, but Kali or Shakti and Shiva when entangled in cosmic postures, though it seems to us erotic will fall into a fit of raptures become unified creators.

[stlukesguild]

SLG Quoted-Does she? And would you have us believe that women are so easily swayed and weak-minded that the media has had such a profound effect upon them... and yet not equally upon men? It would seem to me that men and women are equally influenced by the images put forth in the media... while at the same time, the media is quite often a mirror of society... and the roles assumed by men and women.

Well, how do you explain the growing number of young girls and women who suffer from anorexia nervosa or bulimia? How do you explain the results of a pull done by one of the magazines where women were asked if they had a choice to be slim or to have a successful career, if I remember correctly, it was 93% of women who chose being slim than having a successful career. They had also another choice: to be slim, to have fulfilling relationships, or successful career. If my memory is correct, it was 51% of women who chose being slim than having successful career, or fulfilling relationships. I was shocked reading the results. Media knows how to manipulate us. Men are not manipulated through media to the same extent as women.

Being honest, I can't say I'm overly sympathetic toward anyone stupid enough to allow the media to so sway them. There is an off switch on the TV, the radio, and the computer. Personally, I almost never watch TV or listen to the radio. I agree that the media has long been a rather malevolent force... although again I'm not overly concerned about weak-thinking adults who allow the media to do their thinking for them when it comes to establishing ideals of how they should look. I am more concerned about the media impact upon children who lack the ability to critically think about what message is trying to be sold as well as upon political discourse in the nation as morons like Rush fuel the fires of extremism. Of course, all our freedoms... including freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press come at a cost, and one aspect of this cost is that these freedoms demand a certain vigilance... and an employment of critical thought, which seems to be beyond the abilities of many.

Blaming the media for your self-image or lack of self esteem... or simply lack of self respect is far too easy. What solution do you propose? An enforced Puritanism in order to safeguard the weak-minded and the weak-willed? Perhaps a form of Islamic iconoclasm eliminating all representations of the human being... after all, it is next to impossible to establish any clearly agreed upon divide between ART and Pornography and Eroticism. Do we eliminate all representations of women (or men for that matter) who might be construed in any way as being sexually attractive for fear of the unattainable ideal such establishes in the minds of some?

While we are on this topic, a question comes to mind. How is it that it is men who are seemingly so influenced... even aroused by appearances... to the extent that the vast wealth of images of sexually attractive men... as well as women... have been historically both the creation of males artists directed at a male audience... and yet it is women, if we are to accept your argument, who are the most influenced by such imagery... to the point of allowing it to overwhelm or circumvent their ability to think critically? It seems telling that women's magazines are laden with images of women, while men's magazines are laden with images of... women. Hmmm? Men... at least heterosexual men... are looking admiringly at the opposite sex (Should we expect otherwise? Do we imagine that this can or should be changed?), while women are looking at other women with an eye to comparison and establishing an ideal self-image. Of course, once again, the individuals have the power not to buy the magazines if they feel that they are offering something they dislike. I'm assuming most heterosexual men would immediately cancel their subscriptions to Sports Illustrated if the "swimsuit" issue was suddenly filled with images of buff men in Speedos.

But I'm also left to wonder whether the media has not simply capitalized upon the behaviors of the sexes. How many men (beyond our resident dandy Alexander) arrive at a party and begin to compare clothes with other men or make comments about how other men are dressed or their appearances in general... one way or the other. "Oh Jim... what a lovely tie! You must tell me where you got it!" "Bob, Bob... you simply must tell me who does your hair!" "My God! can you believe the trousers Dan is wearing? I mean really! They don't do a thing for him. What was he thinking." I can't believe Brian actually wore that here... I mean he's such a slut!"

BTW, you love art as much as I do…but I love different kind of art. I don’t care about the price of the painting.

The price of art has nothing to do with its aesthetic merits either for or against. It does, however, hint at what is in demand... and hence valued. I mentioned the price of Klimt's Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer and the popularity of his The Kiss as one form of proof that traditional ideals of "beauty" are not completely undervalued in the Modern era. Personally, I think the Pollock and the DeKooning are mediocre examples of their work and certainly grossly overpriced. But then the best paintings by both artists are already in museums. The Picasso and the Klimt are real gems... but surely any painting at such a price is overvalued... until you compare the price with the salaries of certain pop stars and athletes and CEOs of failed banks.

ftil- I agree that human body is the most beautiful creation of all. However, it was taken to the levels that are very degrading.

Where? Who decides what is "degrading"?

osho- The posters of Kali are a different issue my friend... Look at a nude portrayal of man or woman or animal it is all beauty. The most interesting revelation when I visit Indian temples is erotic idols in which males and females wrapped up in their physical entanglements, in their true and natural manifestations far from all of our understanding smeared by religious or social bigotries.

I don’t think that it is a different issue. I am afraid I have a different idea what eroticism means and I definitely wouldn’t want eroticism of blood thirsty Kali. LOL! ........... But if you like pornography and orgy……than you would like the images I have mentioned earlier.

It seems to me that you misread... intentionally?... any comments that challenge your own thoughts. I suspect that member osho is referring to the sculptural imagery of the temples such as those on the famous Kandariyâ Mahâdeva Temple:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandariya_Mahadeva_Temple

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=&q=kandarihio+temple&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1280&bih=856

The erotic sculpture on this temple is surely unsettling by Western standards in that it presents a celebration of physical love in the most open... even epic of manners. Such art has nothing to do with Kali, violence, sadomasochism, etc... Terming them "pornographic" says more about you than it does about the art.

...whether we want or not paintings and images evoke feelings. If women are depicted with the emphasis on their sexuality, those paintings evoke feelings.

Do you suppose that artists have not also explored the physical and sexual attraction of the male body... that a physical ideal of the male appearance is somehow missing from the arts and media?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6183/6122563863_c4dca86015_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/6122563943_66f9e23402_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6076/6122564129_d09634dcc7.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6067/6123106740_7470068278_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6063/6123106816_649850bc1b_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6186/6122564257_26945172c7_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6074/6123106934_52535400ae_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6064/6123106968_950e12ce74_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6066/6123106992_c2ebc4bf08_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6188/6123107010_c84515f2d5_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6188/6122564423_4757e7ab00_z.jpg

continued...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6183/6122564453_d51cd02e3e_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6205/6123107132_154944edee_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6069/6122564507_89d0754bd0_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6075/6122564519_fcce9b9a14_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6079/6123107216_6100fca639_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6061/6123107252_90164c2a2d_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6184/6122564593_a54bddd587_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6210/6122593493_aec1e9741c.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6122593517_c63861e5c4.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6206/6122593477_e3622be8c7_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/6123136530_b066329567_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6067/6122564707_d86a150e9e_z.jpg

**********

[OrphanPip]

Reminds me of Alison Bechdel's slightly tongue in cheek break down of female representation in comics.

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z241/i_feel_tiredsleepy/Bechdel.png

Applying the famous Bechdel Test to movies is kind of revealing too.

[ftil]

:p
stlukesguild wrote:

It seems to me that you misread... intentionally?... any comments that challenge your own thoughts. I suspect that member osho is referring to the sculptural imagery of the temples such as those on the famous Kandariyâ Mahâdeva Temple:

I didn’t but you have missed or misread my discussion with Osho. :biggrin5: I was talking about images from Hindu temples that I decided not to post on this forum.

You are very quick to make judgments without knowing a person. I am not afraid of challenging my beliefs. On the contrary, I examine my beliefs that I hold as the truth. I am delighted when people who thoroughly research a subject can show me what I didn’t know. I am afraid that you are caught up in your projections. :brow:


Where? Who decides what is "degrading"?

I wouldn’t want to go there any more. I have written about it but you didn’t address it and I am not going to repeat myself. :p As I said earlier, if you have seen see Jean Kilbourne’s video, our discussion would be different


The erotic sculpture on this temple is surely unsettling by Western standards in that it presents a celebration of physical love in the most open... even epic of manners. Such art has nothing to do with Kali, violence, sadomasochism, etc... Terming them "pornographic" says more about you than it does about the art.

Well, I didn’t based my opinion purely on images. Last year, I have done an intense research about Hindu religion and its impact on emotional and mental well being.
Again you are quick to make judgment. I expressed earlier why I didn’t want to have anything with Kali eroticism. Perhaps, I should elaborate more but it is not a topic of this tread. I may do it on mythology and religion tread, though.



Do you suppose that artists have not also explored the physical and sexual attraction of the male body... that a physical ideal of the male appearance is somehow missing from the arts and media?

Hm….where did I say that. LOL!



The price of art has nothing to do with its aesthetic merits either for or against. It does, however, hint at what is in demand... and hence valued.

Well, I said that I didn’t care about price as you emphasized the price of the Lucian Freud’s paintings. I personally don’t like his art, not matter how much does it cost. :biggrin5:

De gustibus non est disputandum. :wink5:

[irinmisfit92]

The images are really beautiful <3

[Vonny]

Posted by Luke:
Being honest, I can't say I'm overly sympathetic toward anyone stupid enough to allow the media to so sway them. There is an off switch on the TV, the radio, and the computer. Personally, I almost never watch TV or listen to the radio. I agree that the media has long been a rather malevolent force... although again I'm not overly concerned about weak-thinking adults who allow the media to do their thinking for them when it comes to establishing ideals of how they should look. I am more concerned about the media impact upon children who lack the ability to critically think about what message is trying to be sold as well as upon political discourse in the nation as morons like Rush fuel the fires of extremism. Of course, all our freedoms... including freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press come at a cost, and one aspect of this cost is that these freedoms demand a certain vigilance... and an employment of critical thought, which seems to be beyond the abilities of many.

I agree. The concern is for children. Marketers know to target them. The mind learns to accept all sorts of mixed messages, such as that a person can drink Coke and have great teeth. Then people can be sold religious and political ideas that are full of complete contradictions. [My personal belief is that the Rush people who profess to oppose messages that corrupt women and families are the ones behind the scenes promoting it. The so-called "family values" people are the "porn" people. If they can weaken people to where they can't think and want to spend their lives drinking soda and watching trash TV and porn, they will also buy into churches that feature rock and roll bands and the politicians that go with them. These two factions being separate is an illusion. It creates confusion and results in individuals (such as you, Luke, and I) seeming, at times, to be on opposite sides when we both abhor Rush.]

I didn't grow up watching television and I can tell that in certain areas my thinking is divergent from the women around me. I view my weight from a health standpoint. This concept is foreign to most women. (I was once diagnosed with anorexia, a mild case, but the diagnosis was lifted because my problem has been lifelong and is caused from nervousness affecting my appetite, and had nothing to do with trying to be thin.) I feel okay about myself. I have no desire to look like some kind of fakey pin-up.

If a person has not been molded by advertising from childhood, she can't be sold anything - not soda, not teeth whiteners, not breast implants. And I adore my Sonicare and my computer for the right reasons.

[Paulclem]

I don't think it's just children that are affected by advertising - but all of us are. we all change our buying - not immediately because these things aren't immediate - but gradually. Do you buy the same things you bought 2 or three years ago? Probably not, and probably not just because your habits were directed by yourself.

What the advertisers are trying to do is to impinge just a bit upon your consciousness for that fraction of a second when your mind is distracted or on auto pilot or what you usually buy is not there, or what you want is more expensive. They're not interested in debate and rationale. They are going for the time when the only product on the shelf you recognise is what they want to sell you. It might take a bit of a push - an offer - two for one - a cheaper price - but the recognition that comes from repetition, or an advertising campaign, or distate for the presenter, or annoyance with the tune.

It's fascinating how t works. here are two examples where you think - how do they sell anything?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8CTscW3dpI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0-2n8JHc1M&NR=1

I feel like punching the window bloke - and the newer ones are worse.

[Emil Miller]

I agree that the guy is extremely irritating but not all adverts are as bad.

http://youtu.be/rVhto-jt438

Or are they?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I have always said that all advertising is evil, truly evil.:mad5:

Ultimate manipulation.

Avoid it at all costs (though good luck with that...).

[Emil Miller]

I have always said that all advertising is evil, truly evil.:mad5:

Ultimate manipulation.

Avoid it at all costs (though good luck with that...).

True but some of it is enjoyable.


http://youtu.be/ZRwBBI1TGHM

[MystyrMystyry]

I recall an advertisement a few years ago brought to us by - advertisers! - in which they contrasted the difference between western advertising with all its mixed hopes (fast and shiny cars, new and improved colour televisions and programs, wonderful holidays, fresh food in supermarkets, the spring clothing range, etc etc) and then switched to scenes of Russian sausage queues, a clunky tram system, residential buildings - all grey and drab and horrible.

The closer: 'Advertising... you'd notice it more if it wasn't there'

I was sold. If it's a necessary evil, bring it on!

[LitNetIsGreat]

True but some of it is enjoyable.


http://youtu.be/ZRwBBI1TGHM

Maybe fun and classic, but stealing Bach for tobacco and cancer! Can't be a good game...


I recall an advertisement a few years ago brought to us by - advertisers! - in which they contrasted the difference between western advertising with all its mixed hopes (fast and shiny cars, new and improved colour televisions and programs, wonderful holidays, fresh food in supermarkets, the spring clothing range, etc etc) and then switched to scenes of Russian sausage queues, a clunky tram system, residential buildings - all grey and drab and horrible.

The closer: 'Advertising... you'd notice it more if it wasn't there'

I was sold. If it's a necessary evil, bring it on!

You wouldn't say that if you peered into the void as much as I have with advertising. For me it is one of the worst evils around today. Harvard psychologists and so, f**king kids brains with shi*e in order to sell more plastic etc, etc. Screw that!

On top of that I am so sensitive to jingle crap that there is not much of a day goes by that it totally invades my brain - that and ice cream vans. Awful.

I have to mute every single advert on the TV before my head explodes - "because your worth it!" etc, etc, vile, evil trash!!

I would rather have long queues of near starvation every day that to have to listen to one single advert.

What a manipulative machine of pure evil - more evil than you could ever imagine.

Avoid at all costs*.

* However you cannot.

[JuniperWoolf]

I have always said that all advertising is evil, truly evil.:mad5:

Ultimate manipulation.

Avoid it at all costs (though good luck with that...).

I agree. It's insulting how stupid they seem to think we are.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I agree. It's insulting how stupid they seem to think we are.

Miss Woolf is so correct!!

Also, advertisting is so much more evil than even that.

I have a thing about advertising...:yesnod:

[Vonny]

Sometimes commercials are cute, like that Pimms one, (but I don't see many.) One reason they can't sell me anything is that I also avoid all the advertising I can.

I don't understand why there are TVs so many places I go, such as the hospital emergency room lobby. We have to search to find a place where we're not watching TV. It's so weird - like this week, the TV on the wall is replaying the 9/11 disaster. It's the same thing at the lab I go to - many people are ill, there to have blood drawn, and the TV is showing murders.

I rarely ever pick up women's magazines either, but in the hospital I did pick up one recently, the June Ladies' Home Journal, and I ripped out this article about the singer Sheryl Crow. The article raised the topic of tattoos.

Sheryl says that after surviving breast cancer, she has redefined what matters most in life. She used to always put others before herself, but now puts herself first.

She says, "this is one of the reasons I've kept the tattoos around my breasts," On her chest are the marks from her radiation therapy: she could have had them removed but chose not to. The cancer, she says was her wake-up call to take care of herself. "Sometimes I find myself slipping back into the position of being everyone's caretaker. Then I'll get out of the shower and see the marks. They remind me that I have to be the most important person in my life."

So I was comparing these tattoos and their meaning to the others that I see (along with all of the cutting and burning that I suppose people are emulating from something they saw on the Oprah show) which are done for the thrill of hurting oneself, as was mentioned on the bloggers thread. Interesting contrast.

[Alexander III]

To paraphrase the great Don Draper - If you have moral qualms with advertising, don't buy buy stuff.

[Vonny]

To paraphrase the great Don Draper - If you have moral qualms with advertising, don't buy buy stuff.

I refuse to buy stuff partly as a protest, as an act of rebellion.

I did buy a Kindle, but I have mixed feelings about it. Sometimes I almost feel suspicious of it.

[LitNetIsGreat]

To paraphrase the great Don Draper - If you have moral qualms with advertising, don't buy buy stuff.

That's like saying don't let the subconsious propaganda, that's around you, all the time in every single media form, effect the way you live your life - just ignore it!!

It is not just about saying "here is a product buy me". It does that on one level, but on another it zombifies the entire world, fills it with artificial desire and causes all manner of chaos and unhappiness.

Also, anyone who works in selling insurance or advertises insurance, especially car insurance, should be shot on sight without trial, along with this bastard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_-9QFvhQWo

[Emil Miller]

As is often the case, this is a long way from Public Nudity which is the title of this thread, but while we are on the subject, I think Neely is taking a rather extreme view of advertising. While we know that it exists solely to entice the gullible to part with their money, there is no compulsion for them to do so.
For example, I don't watch TV these days but, even when I did, I virtually ignored ITV not just because of the adverts but because the programmes were usually aimed at people whose critical faculties were, to say the least, not very high: hence the advertising. The BBC, which admittedly has its hidden political agenda, was free from adverts and therefore, in my view, a better deal from a programming perspective.
I have the same reaction to pop music which, like advertising, is very pervasive and is also designed to entice the gullible to part with their money but, as with advertising, I simply ignore it. I have never bought anything because it was advertised and I have never willingly listened to pop music; hearing it piped into shopping areas or in the hairdresser's etc., tells me all I need to know about it and I react accordingly. If others are more easily persuaded to part with their money via these mediums that's up to them.

[stlukesguild]

I don't understand why there are TVs so many places I go, such as the hospital emergency room lobby. We have to search to find a place where we're not watching TV. It's so weird - like this week, the TV on the wall is replaying the 9/11 disaster. It's the same thing at the lab I go to - many people are ill, there to have blood drawn, and the TV is showing murders.

We are bombarded with TVs for the same reason we are bombarded with loud music in bars and restaurants, and for the same reason that people go about with i-pods wired to their heads or engaged on the cell phone at all times: Laziness. People demand constant stimuli because they are unable to think for themselves... they are almost afraid of silence which would demand you think... daydream... muse... reflect. When I was a child, the doctor's offices were quiet. There was no TV or radio blaring. One sat and daydreamed... or read a book or magazine. Reading, however, demands an effort upon the part of the reader. Watching the TV or listening to Lady Gaga for the 1000th time is far easier. Personally, I am disgusted with TVs in restaurants and waiting rooms. If I must wait an half hour to see the doctor or for my prescription to be filled I don't want to be bombarded with Oprah or some moronic sportscaster.

[stlukesguild]

So I was comparing these tattoos and their meaning to the others that I see ...which are done for the thrill of hurting oneself...

Remember your own pierced ears, Vonny. Did you have this done as a means of self mutilation or a desire to hurt yourself? I doubt it. I would presume that the majority of those who get tattoos or piercings get them for the same reasons anyone might have their ears pierced. They find them beautiful and see them as a form of artistic self-expression. Human beings have been engaged in attempts to alter their appearances forever.

The most obvious means is through fashion... which we have discussed... as well as the cutting and styling of our hair. But there are the temporary henna bridal designs employed by Indian women:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6182/6132502567_cc55ac8c05.jpg

The typical biker-bar tattoos:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6195/6133049814_391b52769c.jpg

Or something far more elaborate:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6063/6132502557_e2ee386b78.jpg

Piercings:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6088/6132502655_106a56eb84.jpg

Or other alterations:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6073/6132502693_d3408f70ce.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6187/6132514749_9889ab2ee9.jpg

Western civilization, thanks to the Judaic foundation, long engaged in the circumcision of males... and it is only here that I have problems with such body alterations (and I might note I have no such piercings or tattoos myself) is when they are imposed upon children or other by force... especially as a means of control as with male and female circumcision, foot-binding, etc...

[LitNetIsGreat]

As is often the case, this is a long way from Public Nudity which is the title of this thread, but while we are on the subject, I think Neely is taking a rather extreme view of advertising. While we know that it exists solely to entice the gullible to part with their money, there is no compulsion for them to do so.
For example, I don't watch TV these days but, even when I did, I virtually ignored ITV not just because of the adverts but because the programmes were usually aimed at people whose critical faculties were, to say the least, not very high: hence the advertising. The BBC, which admittedly has its hidden political agenda, was free from adverts and therefore, in my view, a better deal from a programming perspective.
I have the same reaction to pop music which, like advertising, is very pervasive and is also designed to entice the gullible to part with their money but, as with advertising, I simply ignore it. I have never bought anything because it was advertised and I have never willingly listened to pop music; hearing it piped into shopping areas or in the hairdresser's etc., tells me all I need to know about it and I react accordingly. If others are more easily persuaded to part with their money via these mediums that's up to them.

Yes what a joy watching The Killing on BBC4 has been without the constant annoying interruptions, you would have got on any other non-BBC channel. I also don’t watch much TV because most of it is a pile of rubbish but The Killing has been outstanding viewing, almost faultless programming and better than anything that has been screened for a while.

Anyway, you can limit the amount of TV you watch, and so reduce the poison of TV adverts, but you can’t escape advertising in some form or other for a single day of your life, unless you went and lived in a cave (and I bet you would still get fast food fliers). You can’t escape it for a second. By all means you can try to ignore it but it is still there like a plague spreading its propaganda.

Of course if people are foolish enough to part with their money because a fat man screams at them, or something just as annoying, then that’s their problem (one of the most successful adverts of last year). Fools parting with money. One thing I object to though is how advertising normalises middle/high end products. So that a new car is only £9,999 on road, or that holiday abroad is a bargain at £999 per person or this and that that everybody has one. Such language is internalised so that if you can’t afford these products, that everybody has, at only £9999 at a drop of a hat, then you are poor, a failure of no good – at least this is the implied signification from such language and people digest and internalise it and are made to feel bad when they can’t live up to these artificial standards set by the propagandaists.

I also don’t like the subtle tricky of some advertising which masks real desires and human drives with a product that cannot meet that desire (or even make it worse). Obviously sex is used all the time with no subtlety. Put a half naked woman on a packet of cat litter and people will buy more of it! Advertisers are quick to latch on to the other more subtle needs like friendship or freedom though. So that people are told to “drink Magners with friends” or we are shown a car being driven down an open road, signifying freedom, so that basic human desires are being masked with a product which can’t possibly meet that need. Another misery creator.

I also strongly object to the use child psychologists to learn how best to manipulate the minds of children through advertising – of which millions are spent annually by companies. Instead of filling the minds of children with something useful, or allowing them to grow naturally, we allow dictators to fill their minds with nonsense, so that half of them can’t exist without purple dinosaurs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZZivl5iKCo) or the latest piece of plastic or alcopop drink. Of course on top of that, there’re simply just so damn annoying.

I also can’t stand insurance of all types and think essential insurances should be covered by non-profit, council run organisations.

Other annoying things are police helicopters and ice cream vans.:D

We are bombarded with TVs for the same reason we are bombarded with loud music in bars and restaurants, and for the same reason that people go about with i-pods wired to their heads or engaged on the cell phone at all times: Laziness. People demand constant stimuli because they are unable to think for themselves... they are almost afraid of silence which would demand you think... daydream... muse... reflect. When I was a child, the doctor's offices were quiet. There was no TV or radio blaring. One sat and daydreamed... or read a book or magazine. Reading, however, demands an effort upon the part of the reader. Watching the TV or listening to Lady Gaga for the 1000th time is far easier. Personally, I am disgusted with TVs in restaurants and waiting rooms. If I must wait an half hour to see the doctor or for my prescription to be filled I don't want to be bombarded with Oprah or some moronic sportscaster.

Yes the constant demand for electrical stimuli is overbearing and certainly adversely affecting children and young people. A healthy balance is fine, but there's not much of that about it seems.

[stlukesguild]

Yes the constant demand for electrical stimuli is overbearing and certainly adversely affecting children and young people.

It's a large part of the problem behind kids behavior and learning issues in school. The little urchins are used to continual stimuli and continual entertainment and even education "leaders" fall for this crap pushing teachers to make the lessons "engaging"... ie. "entertaining". It starts with lazy and/or ignorant parents employing the TV, DVDs, and video games as a cheap baby sitter. No need to spend time with the kids when you can just plop them in front of the TV. Now I'll not suggest I never watched my share of TV. As a kid I'd watch the morning kid's shows before the school bus came and when I got home I might watch an hour of cartoons... or more if the weather was bad... but I spent far more time outside... playing sports, exploring the forest behind my home, riding bikes, inventing various role-playing games, etc... Ultimately, the constant presence of the media is a major source of the obesity in children in the wealthier nations.

[Lokasenna]

Neely, my already high respect for you just went up a few notches.

In a similar vein, I really hate branded designer clothing. People pay daft sums of money to a big company to advertise their brand. It's crackers.

I had an argument with someone in the pub the other night, who laughed at my rather ancient and horrible mobile phone. He was lording it up with his expensive iThing, so I felt the need to make the point. That cost him hundreds of pounds, not to mention the monthly service charge, which in reality means that he is only renting his phone. Mine, as I pointed out, cost £15. When it runs out of money, I put some more on. End of. Well, says he, it can't access the internet or be used as a GPS, can it? No, but I own a cheap GPS (£30) and if I want to check the internet, I go to my computer. What my £15 phone can do is call people, which is what I wanted it for.

He didn't have much of an answer for that. So many of the things we are encouraged to buy are just useless status symbols.

I'll give public nudity one thing: it's hard to brand, and there are no pockets to carry around designer junk. That said, if public nudity became the standard, I bet there would be a lot of people queing up to get 'Nike' or 'Reebok' tattooed on their chests...

[osho]

Nudity in part has always been a subject of entertainment. We publicly denounce full nudity, though personally write poems in praise of them. Nudity is something most want to see and praise thru their poetry, paintings and music. Books with some air of vulgarity or sex have always been acclaimed things and that attracted human attentions. D H Lawrence has sex in abundance in his novels and his books have been classical. Does it not speak volumes of the beauty of nudity?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes the constant demand for electrical stimuli is overbearing and certainly adversely affecting children and young people.

It's a large part of the problem behind kids behavior and learning issues in school. The little urchins are used to continual stimuli and continual entertainment and even education "leaders" fall for this crap pushing teachers to make the lessons "engaging"... ie. "entertaining". It starts with lazy and/or ignorant parents employing the TV, DVDs, and video games as a cheap baby sitter. No need to spend time with the kids when you can just plop them in front of the TV. Now I'll not suggest I never watched my share of TV. As a kid I'd watch the morning kid's shows before the school bus came and when I got home I might watch an hour of cartoons... or more if the weather was bad... but I spent far more time outside... playing sports, exploring the forest behind my home, riding bikes, inventing various role-playing games, etc... Ultimately, the constant presence of the media is a major source of the obesity in children in the wealthier nations.

Yes I agree completely with that. I think that in trying to stimulate kids in school with constant pressure for DVD/interactive and IT we are in danger of doing more harm than good. Of course by all means use these things moderately, it would be foolish not to do so, but by over-using them we are not helping students.


Neely, my already high respect for you just went up a few notches.

In a similar vein, I really hate branded designer clothing. People pay daft sums of money to a big company to advertise their brand. It's crackers.

I had an argument with someone in the pub the other night, who laughed at my rather ancient and horrible mobile phone. He was lording it up with his expensive iThing, so I felt the need to make the point. That cost him hundreds of pounds, not to mention the monthly service charge, which in reality means that he is only renting his phone. Mine, as I pointed out, cost £15. When it runs out of money, I put some more on. End of. Well, says he, it can't access the internet or be used as a GPS, can it? No, but I own a cheap GPS (£30) and if I want to check the internet, I go to my computer. What my £15 phone can do is call people, which is what I wanted it for.

He didn't have much of an answer for that. So many of the things we are encouraged to buy are just useless status symbols.

I'll give public nudity one thing: it's hard to brand, and there are no pockets to carry around designer junk. That said, if public nudity became the standard, I bet there would be a lot of people queing up to get 'Nike' or 'Reebok' tattooed on their chests...

Ha, ha thanks. Good point about branded clothing, what a stroke of genius in getting paid for people advertising your product!

I've also got a very, very basic phone and £10 lasts me about 2 months.

Trainers? What is it with the trainer fad with youngsters? Hundreds of pounds for trainers, that's crazy. I remember a school lad laughing at my old trainers which lasted two years, decathlon ones, again genius marketing and advertising and brain washed status symbols trainers.

[MystyrMystyry]

Loki and Neely you are both correct, and another point may have been to direct them to the miserable battery life between recharge (ridiculous!), and almost junks the idea of 'mobility' in the phones.

But actually the idea of cramming features into them isn't new. A high def still/video camera, radio, gameboy, note taker, media player (with enough memory to hold entire symphonies and movies), word processor, net enabled computer wonder device is now about eight years old. The phone makers each had prototypes; trouble was - the battery.

Who, they reasoned, could possibly want a phone that needed to be recharged daily?

No one.

Obviously.

But if you only want a phone, that's fine too.

(Mine has a really cool feature in text to speech and speech to text - loving it very much, and the 3D screen is something that has to be seen to be believed) (Oh, and Nova 2 is a lot of fun between games of Pinball Deluxe and Battleships :) )

[Emil Miller]

I don't have a mobile phone and have no intention of getting one, despite frequent requests from companies trying to sell me one. My standard reply is that, having quit work where I was constantly being pestered by the phone, I need a mobile like a hole in the head.
I don't deny that they have their uses but I will do without one, as I have plenty of other things to do other than waste time in pointless conversation for the benefit of telephone companies. Even now, when the telephone rings I curse it, so why would I want to inflict further annoyance on myself.
As for designer clothing, that's the biggest laugh since I don't know when. How can sticking on a silly name like Tommy Hilfiger or even a common one like Ted Baker, make any difference to the clothes you are wearing? Someone sent me a polo shirt from New York a couple of weeks ago as a present and it has a Ralph Lauren logo on it. When I checked the price of it that was displayed on the customs declaration form attached to the parcel, I was amazed that anyone would pay so much for a shirt that was probably made in a sweat shop in Hong Kong.
It's really depressing shopping for clothes when stores have lots of so-called designer items that are usually very poor quality and look like they have been knocked up by a ten-year-old. I can quite see why some people might prefer public nudity.

[stlukesguild]

I actually have a so-called "smart phone" with internet, GPS, etc... The price is not too bad considering it covers three phones in the family for unlimited usage. The majority of my use is as a phone, camera, and texting... but it has come in helpful to pop up the internet when I'm out somewhere to find directions or a place to eat. Personally I don't have any problem with the battery charge. I can usually go three days between charges unless I'm on the phone for hours, and I can charge it using the USB port off the front of my computer while I'm typing away... or I can charge it in the car. In spite of this, I rarely use the phone in the car unless necessary (and certainly never text there), and I'm not on the phone when I'm spending time with family or out at a restaurant. I remember a comic scene not long ago when four people came in at a local Chinese restaurant, sat down, and all proceeded to call someone on the phone. 4 people sitting face to face where they might engage in conversation... and they are on the phone with someone else... unless they were all talking to each other??:eek6:

[MystyrMystyry]

You describe it as comic, but it actually makes complete sense: why not talk to the people you have something in common with rather than your family whom you didn't choose?

It just occurred to me that of the five calls I've made with mine so far two were both to wrong numbers, and I'm not in the habit of giving my number away willy on the nilly.

But it's that net access that's really the thing - a Hitchhikers Guide and media pod. And spare batteries are cheap enough for intense use (hint: if you go hiking, make sure you have a few fully charged spares in case you get particularly lost so you can contact someone on your walkie-talkie, and they can triangulate your exact position - and you can listen to music and read a book until they arrive. Though of course a hard case should also be considered in the off chance you fall down a precipice into a ravine*.)

Also just for driving - accidents happen and there are plenty of places where you can spin-off the road and not be seen by the passing cars. Or even just crossing the park and suddenly feel lightheaded - a potential stroke or heart attack? Snakebite? Anything - these are the lifesavers of the future.

Taking pictures and videos of crimes as they happen - could be useful to getting someone justice. Actually there are tons of possible uses beyond selfish accessory. Lyrics, guitar tabs, scientific calculator, world university - you name it.


*The bloke who cut his hand off, and more recently the one who cut his toes off - should have had their phones with them...

[keilj]

Also just for driving - accidents happen and there are plenty of places where you can spin-off the road and not be seen by the passing cars. Or even just crossing the park and suddenly feel lightheaded - a potential stroke or heart attack? Snakebite? Anything - these are the lifesavers of the future.



Sounds like yet another vehicle by which the gene pool will continue to be diluted

[osho]

A few days ago I saw a couple flimsily dressed and one can visualize their insides in a park and it was a park for youngsters and you cannot come across elderly people out there. Now to relate that scene I want to say that this scene in which some people were awfully in some sort of nudity, if not full and of course their bare limbs, fronts, tummies were glowing and I liked those parts speaking aesthetically in point of fact. They were appealing and if there was anything ugly, they are my fixations only.
Nude objects whether they are people or anything are per se not ugly things and we all secretly admire.

Now coming to the point to expose them publicly I think that if the public in view constitutes the ones I saw in the park there is no harm and if the ones come from a highly conservative social tier the problem will crop up then

[muhsin]

Nudity in both sexes is very much discouraged in Islam, my religion. And, coincidently enough; the same applies to my culture--Hausa. We're the predominant tribe in the northern Nigeria. You can hardly see a full-fledged Hausa person, especially a woman, dresses indecently--yah, incidence in whatever rectitude. I really like it that way.

[stlukesguild]

Nudity in both sexes is very much discouraged in Islam, my religion. And, coincidently enough; the same applies to my culture--Hausa.

I fully respect your beliefs... however, I question whether Islam... or any other religion... should have the right to impose their beliefs upon others.

[Vonny]

Yes the constant demand for electrical stimuli is overbearing and certainly adversely affecting children and young people.

It's a large part of the problem behind kids behavior and learning issues in school. The little urchins are used to continual stimuli and continual entertainment and even education "leaders" fall for this crap pushing teachers to make the lessons "engaging"... ie. "entertaining". It starts with lazy and/or ignorant parents employing the TV, DVDs, and video games as a cheap baby sitter. No need to spend time with the kids when you can just plop them in front of the TV. Now I'll not suggest I never watched my share of TV. As a kid I'd watch the morning kid's shows before the school bus came and when I got home I might watch an hour of cartoons... or more if the weather was bad... but I spent far more time outside... playing sports, exploring the forest behind my home, riding bikes, inventing various role-playing games, etc... Ultimately, the constant presence of the media is a major source of the obesity in children in the wealthier nations.

I think this post got me thinking.

Also, it may be in this thread, I don't have time now to search... but how kids in large cities don't have a place outside to play, and often it's dangerous for them to play outside, so they have no choice but to be stuck indoors.

But anyway, if parents believe that electrical stimuli are superior methods of educating, then they will employ them more. And it's convenient too, in serving as a babysitter.

[JuniperWoolf]

Question: they don't just plop them in front of the tv and then go out or go to work or something, do they? Kids still get into stuff and hurt themselves when they're watching tv. Also, is it illegal to leave a kid alone in the house?

[osho]

Nudity in both sexes is very much discouraged in Islam, my religion. And, coincidently enough; the same applies to my culture--Hausa.

I fully respect your beliefs... however, I question whether Islam... or any other religion... should have the right to impose their beliefs upon others.

This is a very wise question.Not only religions even people, society, parents, seniors cannot impose their faiths on others.

When I have in public at least on this forum that ensures the freedom of express to some extent articulated my passion for nudity. Some people can jeer at me and I argued dauntlessly putting my convection forward. My beliefs and ideas however have nothing to do with my practice. These are not the same zones of thought. We are free to think the way we like but when speak or write our thoughts there is some censure. I am bolder here since I have faked ( derogative?) my real name here and if I speak the same thing in the same tone and force in society I get a lot of reproaches.

Everybody censors something that pops up in his mind prior to putting forth them into words in society. I always like a nude person and I do not see the figure as something ugly; nothing of her or him is ugly. If anything is ugly it is our conditioned, occupied mind. I unload all my preoccupation, fixations, affectations and stand before the nude figure the way the rest of wild animals do, some in apathy and others in awe and still others in attractiveness and love. I may sound like a renegade or somebody who is in defiance of some cultural riches. I do it without malice but with total aestheticism.

[PoeticPassions]

All I want to say is, I'm all for nudity.

[ftil]

This is a very wise question.Not only religions even people, society, parents, seniors cannot impose their faiths on others.

When I have in public at least on this forum that ensures the freedom of express to some extent articulated my passion for nudity. Some people can jeer at me and I argued dauntlessly putting my convection forward. My beliefs and ideas however have nothing to do with my practice. These are not the same zones of thought. We are free to think the way we like but when speak or write our thoughts there is some censure. I am bolder here since I have faked ( derogative?) my real name here and if I speak the same thing in the same tone and force in society I get a lot of reproaches.

Everybody censors something that pops up in his mind prior to putting forth them into words in society. I always like a nude person and I do not see the figure as something ugly; nothing of her or him is ugly. If anything is ugly it is our conditioned, occupied mind. I unload all my preoccupation, fixations, affectations and stand before the nude figure the way the rest of wild animals do, some in apathy and others in awe and still others in attractiveness and love. I may sound like a renegade or somebody who is in defiance of some cultural riches. I do it without malice but with total aestheticism.

Hm…..When we are passionate about something, we don’t talk about it but we just do it. :wink5: Passion involves feelings that energize our actions.

I don’t think that it is a problem with nudity. Some people may love it and other don’t. But we can’t expect that others will accept our choices and we have to be prepared to be judged or criticized. The problem is when we want to impose our likes or dislikes upon others, expecting them to accept or even behave the same way. We are talking about control then. :ihih:

BTW…… I would have a big problem with nudity……. if I was living in Alaska. :biggrin5:

[osho]

Hm…..When we are passionate about something, we don’t talk about it but we just do it. :wink5: Passion involves feelings that energize our actions.

I don’t think that it is a problem with nudity. Some people may love it and other don’t. But we can’t expect that others will accept our choices and we have to be prepared to be judged or criticized. The problem is when we want to impose our likes or dislikes upon others, expecting them to accept or even behave the same way. We are talking about control then. :ihih:

BTW…… I would have a big problem with nudity……. if I was living in Alaska. :biggrin5:

You are true. Here on this forum all we do is express and do not impose. We must be prepared to hear criticism or else how can we understand our flaws. I stick with what I said nonetheless.

[ftil]

You are true. Here on this forum all we do is express and do not impose. We must be prepared to hear criticism or else how can we understand our flaws. I stick with what I said nonetheless.

Hm…... I would argue that by hearing criticism we can understand our flaws. Yes, constructive criticism helps us to look deeper at our issues. But people may criticize and judge us because they can’t accept differences and may have a rigid belief system. I wouldn’t take seriously that kind of criticism. :ihih:

[osho]

Hm…... I would argue that by hearing criticism we can understand our flaws. Yes, constructive criticism helps us to look deeper at our issues. But people may criticize and judge us because they can’t accept differences and may have a rigid belief system. I wouldn’t take seriously that kind of criticism. :ihih:

Had I taken their criticism and even their inflexibility seriously I never would have proceeded further. I would have shrunk back. I love criticisms of all sort and the tablets are indeed bitter for a while but the aftereffects of them is like antidotes.

I have bluntly said I like nudity, stark nudes and it sounds rather horrid and offensive to some sensitive and cultured people. I respect their sentiments. I am regardless of what I sound totally aesthetic. This is somewhat unpalatable but the lens I look from was designed in a different world from others.

[ftil]

Had I taken their criticism and even their inflexibility seriously I never would have proceeded further. I would have shrunk back. I love criticisms of all sort and the tablets are indeed bitter for a while but the aftereffects of them is like antidotes.

I have bluntly said I like nudity, stark nudes and it sounds rather horrid and offensive to some sensitive and cultured people. I respect their sentiments. I am regardless of what I sound totally aesthetic. This is somewhat unpalatable but the lens I look from was designed in a different world from others.

I love only constructive criticism as it doesn’t involve negative energy. World would be better place to live if people become tolerant. There are people who get hurt by insensitive criticism or judgment. Sadly, many of those who criticize others judge themselves without mercy.

I agree that by facing criticism again and again we strengthen our immunity to intolerance and can laugh freely. :smile5:

[stlukesguild]

Not only religions even people, society, parents, seniors cannot impose their faiths on others.

When I have in public at least on this forum that ensures the freedom of express to some extent articulated my passion for nudity. Some people can jeer at me and I argued dauntlessly putting my convection forward. My beliefs and ideas however have nothing to do with my practice. These are not the same zones of thought. We are free to think the way we like but when speak or write our thoughts there is some censure. I am bolder here since I have faked ( derogative?) my real name here and if I speak the same thing in the same tone and force in society I get a lot of reproaches.

Everybody censors something that pops up in his mind prior to putting forth them into words in society. I always like a nude person and I do not see the figure as something ugly; nothing of her or him is ugly. If anything is ugly it is our conditioned, occupied mind. I unload all my preoccupation, fixations, affectations and stand before the nude figure the way the rest of wild animals do, some in apathy and others in awe and still others in attractiveness and love. I may sound like a renegade or somebody who is in defiance of some cultural riches. I do it without malice but with total aestheticism.

No... William Blake was a renegade. Today it is perhaps impossible to fathom just how outrageous and revolutionary some of his ideas were considering the time and place:

From The Marriage of Heaven and Hell:

All Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following Errors:

1. That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul.
2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.


Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained; and the restrainer or reason usurps its place & governs the unwilling. And being restrain'd it by degrees becomes passive till it is only the shadow of desire.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.

Prudence is a rich ugly old maid courted by Incapacity.

He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence.

The nakedness of woman is the work of God.

The cistern contains: the fountain overflows.

You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough.

Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires.

I'll return to a classic quote from Sir Kenneth Clark's iconic art history text, the Nude in which he confronted the question of the representation of nudity in art:

"The human body is rich in associations, and when it is turned into art these associations are not entirely lost... It is ourselves and arouses memories of all the things we wish to do with ourselves; and first of all we wish to perpetuate ourselves.

This is an aspect of the (nude) that is so obvious that I barely need to dwell on it; and yet some wise men have tried to close their eyes to it. "If the nude," says Professor Alexander, "is so treated that it raises in the spectator ideas or desires appropriate to the material subject, it is false art and bad morals." This high-minded theory is contrary to experience. In the mixture of memories and sensations aroused by Ruben's Andromeda...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5097/5388454343_34df6a3a7f_b.jpg

(or his St. Sebastian for that matter:)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5055/5389065490_661dfd3ef1_b.jpg

or Renoir's Bathers...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5095/5388453035_ede2e49edd_z.jpg

... are many that are "appropriate to the material subject". And since these words of a famous philosopher are often quoted, it is necessary to labor the obvious and say that no nude, however abstract, should fail to arouse, in the spectator, some vestige of erotic feeling, even though it be only the faintest shadow- and if it does not do so, it is bad art and false morals. The desire to grasp and be united with another human body is so fundamental a part of our nature that our judgment of what is known as "pure form" is inevitably influenced by it... The amount of erotic content a work of art can hold... is very high. The temple sculptures of tenth-century India are an undisguised exaltation of physical desire; yet they are great works of art.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5171/5388470737_90dedd3fb7_b.jpg

I don't think that we can come up with a clear line of demarcation... a line defining "Art" on this side and 'Pornography" on the other. What is or is not "pornographic" seems dependent upon the audience and not the subject matter... and one might even argue that pornography and art are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

As Sir Kenneth Clark suggests, sexuality is such a fundamental aspect of human existence and so powerfully linked with some of our most intense physical and emotional experiences that to ignore or even banish the portrayal of sex seems itself almost obscene.

Some suggest that the intent between pornography and erotic art is inherently different... but I question this as well. As Kenneth Clark notes, the Indian temple sculptures include unabashed and undisguised exaltation of sex. The same is true of any number of Japanese Ukiyo-e prints... especially of a sub-genre known as the Shunga. The Ukiyo-e prints are virtually a case-study of shifting perspectives... and how it impacts our definition of "art" or "pornography":

The Japanese Ukiyo-e prints were considered at the time of their production a low-class art form in comparison to the high-minded screen paintings. The Ukiyo-e prints focused upon famous scenes around and in Tokyo, images of actors and actresses, images of pretty girls, courtesans, geisha, illustrations of popular fiction, and images of sexual activities. In many ways, the Ukiyo-e prints were an equivalent of the time for our travel postcards, celebrity posters and magazines, pin-ups and centerfolds, comic books, and pornography. None of these genre are immediately thought of by us as being with "high art"... but with the passage of time, as a result of the brilliant originality... the dynamic compositions, the play of pattern and elegant line, the subtle use of colors and layering of inks... the Ukiyo-e print artists have been recognized as some of the greatest masters of Japanese art... to the extent that the names of Hokusai, Hiroshige, Utamaro, etc... are far more recognized than the names of most the "fine art" painters. Among the finest examples of these works are a good many "Shunga" prints.

The sexually explicit imagery of the Shunga were intended for people who because of their limited means could not afford to frequent the "pleasure quarters" where the illicit sex trade of a flourishing, rapidly growing, and increasingly liberal Tokyo was centered. Such prints also illustrated racy popular fiction such as one particular satire of a high-ranking government official that resulted in one of the most famous Ukiyo-e artist, Utamaro's imprisonment. Arguably, the Shunga have little in terms of intention that differentiates them from today's pin-up or pornography... except aesthetic merit... and here I think of William Gass' suggestion that eroticism... "true sexuality in literature... sex as a positive aesthetic quality... lies not in any scene or subject, nor in the mere appearance of a 'vulgar' word, but in the
consequences on the page of love well made---made to the medium which is the writer's own."

Utamaro brought as exquisite a sensibility to his Shunga work as he did to the rest of his oeuvre. He employed surprising points of view, made dramatic compositional uses of flat areas of color and black, added metallic pigments to the inks creating unique effects, intentionally allowed colors to fade out suggesting atmospheric effects, and drew upon the most sophisticated sense of color, pattern, and elegant line. He also brought a keen eye to his subject matter, capturing subtle gestures and facial expressions. He picked up upon the manner in which a woman clutched her lover, the way her toes curled up during lovemaking, the hints at vanity as a woman looks at herself in the mirror while making love, and the swirls and play of fabrics that at once conceal and reveal the naked bodies.

Any number of these elements can be seen here in a pair of less explicit Shunga prints by Utamaro:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5172/5388526861_cc22bea0e2_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5052/5388526947_e968377815_b.jpg

Utamaro's intentions were clear not at all different from that of the pin-up artist or the Playboy photographer. On the other hand, his works were the result of a high level of artistry and can be appreciated for formal elements of design, line, point of view, etc... But are we then to assume than no pin-up or Playboy (or other nude photograph intended to arouse) ever achieves high level of artistry?

It would seem to me that ultimately whether something is art is always defined by the audience. The medieval monk laboring away on an illuminated manuscript never thought of himself as an "artist" or what he did as "art". He was merely a dutiful servant attempting to praise God by beautifying a sacred text. The resulting works, however, are "art" because those whose opinions matter... art critics, art historians, museum curators, art collectors, artists, and art lovers... have deemed the work art. Utamaro's Shunga prints, are "art" because for the same reason. It would seem then that the same logic must be applied to pin-ups, nude photography intended to arouse... even porno films. Are not classic pin-ups from the 40s and 50s by "artists" such as Alberto Vargas, Bill Ward, and Gil Elvgren coveted and collected... by museums as well as private collectors? Isn't the same true of pin-up photographs of Betty Grable, Betty Page... and even Dita von Teese? How good or bad such art is may be open to debate no less than how good of bad R.Crumb or Damien Hirst is... but it would seem to me there can be no debate that such imagery is indeed ART.

The Feminist critic, Wendy Steiner, suggested that the notion of the dichotomy between ART ... even erotic ART on one hand, and pornography on the other may be all wrong. Pornography is but a genre... like landscape or still life. There is no debate that a painting can be a landscape or a still life and also good or great ART. Steiner suggests that pornography is the same. There is no divide between pornography and art. All pornography is ART just as all landscapes are ART. Of course the majority of landscape paintings are bad... cliche... hackneyed. The same is true of most pornography.

Here I return to Kenneth Clark's claim, "the human body is rich in associations, and when it is turned into art these associations are not entirely lost... It is ourselves and arouses memories of all the things we wish to do with ourselves; and first of all we wish to perpetuate ourselves." Surely this suggests a certain hypocrisy... or Puritanism... or self-denial involved in the abhorrence of the naked body. Our appreciation of the naked body... even those "dirty bits" is an essential part of our sexual experiences... and sexuality is certainly a central aspect of our humanity to the point that Yeats was only slightly exaggerating when he proclaimed that "Sex and Death are the only topics worthy of contemplation by the serious mind".

Obviously I don't think that Yeats intended to suggest that only copulation and the act of dying were worthy subjects for art. But is does seem clear that he is simply reiterating the old twins: Eros et Mort. How is it that we can accept artists exploring all the aspects of Mort/Death (war, mortality, disease, destruction, collapse, fragility, killing, death itself... as well as questions of what exists beyond death... spirituality) while those physical aspects of Eros that we so embrace in our real life... in our sexual experiences... can be dismissed as "ugly", "pornographic", "dirty", etc... when contemplated in art?

[ftil]

Originally posted by stlukesguild:
As Sir Kenneth Clark suggests, sexuality is such a fundamental aspect of human existence and so powerfully linked with some of our most intense physical and emotional experiences that to ignore or even banish the portrayal of sex seems itself almost obscene.

I had good laughter reading his quote. Well, if he spoke on his behalf, I wouldn’t have a problem. Everybody is unique with own desires and needs…..that are fulfilled or not. But if he attempted to speak on behalf all of us, I have a big problem. :ihih:

I will quote Alexander Lowen, the founder of Bioenergetics, as I couldn’t say it better.


Joy is an extraordinary feeling for adults whose lives revolve around ordinary activities and ordinary things. The main reason for the lack of joy in ordinary activates is that we are ego-directed and controlled. When one’s body is more alive, a person is more sensitive to others and to their feelings. Of course, when one is more alive one is more capable of love and of joy.

Passion denotes an intensity of feeling which move an individual to transcend the boundaries of the self. When it happens in a sexual orgasm which embraces the whole body, it is the experience of transcendence par excellence. It doesn’t happen much in our culture because sex and sexuality have been removed from the realm of the sacred to that of the ordinary and secular. Sex is something one does to relax or to relieve a tension, not an expression of passion.

Spirituality is not a way of acting or thinking; it is the life of the spirit which is expressed in the spontaneous and involuntary movements of the body in actions which are not ego directed or controlled. It is a spirit in us that moves us to love, to tears, to dance, to sing. It is a spirit in man that cries out for justice, fights for freedom and rejoice in the beauty of all nature. The strengths of a person’s spirit is reflected in the intensity of his feelings.

Reducing life, love, and sex to physiological process ignores the emotional side of the body- activities which make them expressions of the body’s spirit.

I love art but life is much more than art. Art feeds our souls with its beauty as well as evokes our feelings. Love , beauty, truth, freedom, and dignity with activities of the spirit give rise to strong feelings or passions. Putting the emphasis on sexual experience rather than on feeling of passion, joy, and spirit takes away all what life is worth living for. But to feel passion and joy we need to have vibrant bodies full of feelings that change from one minute to another. And when we feel, we don’t need to intellectualize about it. :biggrin5: It is a pure delight to be around passionate people. :smile5:

[osho]

In fact the nudity in us or the beauty of it we secretly approve of is explicit through art and sculptors and when we look at them in an aesthetic perspective it is beauty and when we observe them in an everyday humdrum it is ugly, repulsive. Imagine when a young man sees a young girl bathing in a river, her nudity raises a plethora of thought and it convulses his mind and body. We can observe this phenomenon totally aesthetically or we as an artist can give the ugly side of it. I as an artist choose the former. Our covers are our conceits and we become superfluous covering up our real selves. When we unmask our real nude selves we become fully manifest in our real natures. Our civilization has deadened our natural instincts.

[ftil]

In fact the nudity in us or the beauty of it we secretly approve of is explicit through art and sculptors and when we look at them in an aesthetic perspective it is beauty and when we observe them in an everyday humdrum it is ugly, repulsive. Imagine when a young man sees a young girl bathing in a river, her nudity raises a plethora of thought and it convulses his mind and body. We can observe this phenomenon totally aesthetically or we as an artist can give the ugly side of it. I as an artist choose the former. Our covers are our conceits and we become superfluous covering up our real selves. When we unmask our real nude selves we become fully manifest in our real natures. Our civilization has deadened our natural instincts.


Why did you say that we secretly approve the beauty of our bodies? I don’t secretly appreciate the beauty of human body. But it doesn’t mean that we have to walk naked. It would be jumping from one extreme to another and any extreme behavior is not healthy. It is very different to enjoy the freedom of swimming naked and go to the office naked. Show me a boss who would be happy seeing his employees being busy thinking about sex rather than solving company’s problem. :biggrinjester:

I would argue that our cover conceal our real selves. We are humans who have body and mind. It would be very sad to limit humans to the body that is run by instincts. I would mean no place for feelings, passions, creativity, and individuality. It would mean having empty mind. No thanks no. :D

[Paulclem]

People who want public nudity are exhibitionist voyeurs who want to voy (?) other nice looking people forgetting the fact that many/ most are unsightly flabbers who really don't wish to be voyed at all. Nor do the beautiful ones ether - not when they can make a career of not engaging in public nudity, but merely suggesting it for good rewards from the advertising industry.

Anyway there are many phones now. Who wants to end up on youtube flapping and wobbling around. (Sorry - i've been on the smarties again).

[OrphanPip]

In fact the nudity in us or the beauty of it we secretly approve of is explicit through art and sculptors and when we look at them in an aesthetic perspective it is beauty and when we observe them in an everyday humdrum it is ugly, repulsive. Imagine when a young man sees a young girl bathing in a river, her nudity raises a plethora of thought and it convulses his mind and body.

I don't normally react with convulsions when I see a nude person. Also, there are a number of people I've seen nude that were far from ugly and repulsive. What a way to view human sexuality :shocked:.

[Vonny]

I don't normally react with convulsions when I see a nude person. Also, there are a number of people I've seen nude that were far from ugly and repulsive. What a way to view human sexuality :shocked:.


But maybe a person who grew up in a different part of the world has a different view.



My parents never censored anything for me or my brother when we were children. I remember my mother once fighting with cinema staff for not letting me into a 16 and over movie when I was 12. Then again, I read a lot of violent, filthy stuff as a kid that I probably shouldn't have, ha. (I'm also from Quebec and grew up with soft core porn on standard cable after 10 pm.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleu_Nuit

A person who's seen it all :shocked: :wink5: his entire life has been conditioned differently.


Why did you say that we secretly approve the beauty of our bodies? I don’t secretly appreciate the beauty of human body. But it doesn’t mean that we have to walk naked. It would be jumping from one extreme to another and any extreme behavior is not healthy. It is very different to enjoy the freedom of swimming naked and go to the office naked. Show me a boss who would be happy seeing his employees being busy thinking about sex rather than solving company’s problem. :biggrinjester:

I would argue that our cover conceal our real selves. We are humans who have body and mind. It would be very sad to limit humans to the body that is run by instincts. I would mean no place for feelings, passions, creativity, and individuality. It would mean having empty mind. No thanks no. :D

I agree :)

[osho]

But maybe a person who grew up in a different part of the world has a different view.




A person who's seen it all :shocked: :wink5: his entire life has been conditioned differently.



I agree :)

Vonny, you come up with answers full of wisdom. I agree that it is always conditioning, programming and we are in fact hard wired to sets of ideals, patterns of thoughts and value systems and assertions. It is along with that a little bit of the kind education we have got and the thoughts and philosophy born of it.Today we have accesses to different schools of thoughts and we receive certain ideas and reject others and assimilate dome some of them.

In my case I grew up in a very strict social setup wherein even looking at a beautiful lady was tabooed though I secretly liked to look at and admire a thing of beauty whether it is a rose, a water-body, a growing girl. I always like to behold, touch and feel when I see anything beauty. My society wanted me to be aloof and my elders insisted that one should live an austere life. I became a keen observer and latter on discovered that some so called pundits, gurus, monks have promiscuous lives behind closed doors or behind the curtains of society. They are indeed good people, and live with a lot of sacrifice and renunciation. The only thing that may subject them to their fall is sex. They desperately want it.I have once seen a monk reading a book with nude figures though he was in his saintly garbs.

Then I thought sex, nudity and romance are some of the most vitals in life and I have since then a positive view on nude figures and I smile when I come across such things whether in person or in pictures.


I don't normally react with convulsions when I see a nude person. Also, there are a number of people I've seen nude that were far from ugly and repulsive. What a way to view human sexuality :shocked:.

This is wide-heartedness of you and I rather than reacting with convulsion I do with admiration and wonder and it rejuvenates the youth inside me and I become cheered up and may write beautiful in praise of the thing I have seen. This is not ugly and repulsive. It is divine and sacred.

[86.5parker]

Well public nudity is bad thing for minor but for us it is a good thing haha

[osho]

Well public nudity is bad thing for minor but for us it is a good thing haha

Nudity is bad for minors because he was told to hate a nude person and was forced to cover his body. Though a naked body is much more beautiful thing looked at from an aesthetic eye we are old to refrain from doing so. I as a child have seen a stark naked figure when a couple were taking bath in a fountain and their sparkling bodies were very striking and yet the preoccupation had power over me and I ran away from the spot. Today I am a bit more educated and I use my education to unlearn some of the preoccupations and prejudices born of my social codes.

[ftil]

Hm….I have never heard from anybody that he or she was taught to hate a nude person. :biggrin5: My parents thought me what behavior was appropriate or not. I wasn’t raised to hate people. My mom loved to get a suntan being naked. In my town, we have had a place designed for women who enjoyed a full suntan. That place was always full when it was a sunny day.lol The bottom line is the fact that not everywhere nakedness is appropriate. It is as simple as that. It has nothing with hate or condemnation. Yes, some people maybe shamed but they have to resolve this issue by themselves. We can’t assume that everybody caries the same unresolved issues.

But the discussion here moved from nudity to sexuality. So, it is not about nudity. :biggrinjester:
But if we want to connect nudity with sexuality, let me express my point of view as a female. It is not uncommon that women have been raped. The offenders justify their actions saying that women provoked them. Well, if women would walk naked, the rates of raped would rise. We are only human, aren’t we? But what rapists would say? They couldn’t justify their action in an old way. They would have to say that women were naked and they wanted to be raped. The oppression of women would be complete. Have you ever thought about the pain and trauma that victims of abuse suffered? It doesn’t agree with love and compassion, doesn’t it?

Do we want to create that kind of world? We already have so many unresolved problems that affect us. Do we want to create more problems? I don’t! Let put this tread at a well deserved rest. :beatdeadhorse5:

Finally, I have heard here about romance, sexuality, celebration of life but I haven’t heard about love, deep emotional intimacy, deep and fulfilling relationships. Sad, indeed.

Alan Watts said it all.
“Insecure society are the most intolerant….So unsure of the validity of their game rules. Everybody must play the rule. We become more conformist………..Everybody is equally inferior”.

Everybody must be naked????? :devil:

Alan Watts on Hermits and Outcasts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK5RaHpI4M8

[Whifflingpin]

"People who want public nudity are exhibitionist voyeurs...."

Silly, silly, silly.

My (fairly extensive) experience is that general nudity, as on a nudist beach or campsite, has the effect of making bodies much less "voyeurable."
Clothes can be worn to attract the eye and inflame the senses. Deep cleavages, certain arrangements of socks & short skirts, mmmm.
But nakedness of, say, breasts or genitals, when it is general, is no more, or less, interesting than nakedness of faces or hands, when they too are general.
Hiding body parts, whatever part, makes them exciting. It's not so long ago that a writer could speak of the thrill of seeing a lady's well turned ankle as she stepped off the pavement at Picadilly, and as for seeing a grown woman with her hair loose - well! shock and ecstasy! No doubt, such a level of desire and shock still prevails in places where dress tends to be all-enveloping.

Has anyone yet pointed out the absurdity that stlukesguild is publishing fully revealing and, in many cases, erotic pictures in this thread, with no word of protest from any quarter, but if a member published a similar self-portrait as a photograph in the Lit Network Photoalbum, he would probably be banned, and she would probably be reviled? The word 'hypocrisy' springs to mind, but it would be wrong. Simply, there is no logic in our attitudes and reactions.

[Whifflingpin]

"Well, if women would walk naked, the rates of raped would rise. "
There is no reason to suppose that rape rates would rise.
More certainly, if nudity were commonplace then "flashing" would become extinct, and "flashing" has been reckoned as a stage in the development of a rapist.

Possibly, if nudity were commonplace, then rape might be harder, since the woman wcould not be intimidated by the nakedness involved, and would then be better able to deal with the assault, which is surely the essential part of a rape.

"Everybody must be naked????? "
Absolutely not - anybody should be free to wear, or not wear, whatever he feels appropriate, except that which is deliberately intended to cause offence.

[ftil]

"Well, if women would walk naked, the rates of raped would rise. "
There is no reason to suppose that rape rates would rise.
More certainly, if nudity were commonplace then "flashing" would become extinct, and "flashing" has been reckoned as a stage in the development of a rapist.

Hm......it sounds that you are not are familiar with sex offender research.


Possibly, if nudity were commonplace, then rape might be harder, since the woman wcould not be intimidated by the nakedness involved, and would then be better able to deal with the assault, which is surely the essential part of a rape.

Are you a woman? Or you speak on behalf of women. :confused5:



"Everybody must be naked????? "
Absolutely not - anybody should be free to wear, or not wear, whatever he feels appropriate, except that which is deliberately intended to cause offence.


I agree. It is freedom, isn't it?

[osho]

The issue is not of Voyeurism. It is about totally appreciating something we like deeply. I do not mean everybody likes his nude posture and I did not say we must start a move to expose our nudity in public. Not at all. I simply mean to say nudity is beauty and to see a nude woman and man is not a crime. If somebody wants to show his or naked body on a beach or in a park we should not look down on them. It is his interest or right, to show or see. In some culture girls have to hide their breasts before giving birth. Once she gives birth to a baby and even if she exposes her breast when milking her baby publicly it is not a shame. Most girls hide their breasts once they have their menstruations but prior to that they expose. I have seen a community in which girls married or unmarried wear only underwear and do not hide their breasts while taking bath.

This is our thinking or point of view not the thing at the end of the day

[ftil]

Osho, I am curious, Are you a female?

[osho]

Does it make a difference whether I am male or female? Is there a borderline that makes an expression feminine or masculine? It is only on surface we are male or female. Gender differences are veneers and inside we are not different in terms of our feelings, likes or dislikes and capacities. Every female has maleness in their corpus and psyche or else how could she give birth to a male child. I never talk differently whether it is my boyfriend or girlfriend and even my subject won't change. I do not want subscribe to a traditional ideas of gender and I look at both from the same corner of my eye, my friend.

In fact this gender difference or bias is a manmade concept, very synthetic and just by looking at some physical distinctions we have made a broad class and this has created a big divide

[ftil]

Well, you didn’t answer my question. It make a big difference if you are a male or a female. I remember that you wrote having a dream about a beautiful woman so I assume that you are a male. If you are a male, why don’t you let women speak for themselves.

I heard so many time women complying that their husbands, partners, or male friends can’t understand them. Well, many man make assumptions and speak on behalf of women…….believing that their assumptions are true. :smilielol5: If men could invest their energy to listen to and to understand what women feel, think, needs, and wants, we would eliminate many conflicts.

You last post made me uncomfortable. I listen when you speak for yourself and I respect it.
Let us make own decision what we want to do with breastfeeding or mens.
There are boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed. At this point, everybody who has read this tread knows that you love nudity. :beatdeadhorse5:

[osho]

Well, you didn’t answer my question. It make a big difference if you are a male or a female. I remember that you wrote having a dream about a beautiful woman so I assume that you are a male. If you are a male, why don’t you let women speak for themselves.

I heard so many time women complying that their husbands, partners, or male friends can’t understand them. Well, many man make assumptions and speak on behalf of women…….believing that their assumptions are true. :smilielol5: If men could invest their energy to listen to and to understand what women feel, think, needs, and wants, we would eliminate many conflicts.

You last post made me uncomfortable. I listen when you speak for yourself and I respect it.
Let us make own decision what we want to do with breastfeeding or mens.
There are boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed. At this point, everybody who has read this tread knows that you love nudity. :beatdeadhorse5:
I am male. You are right on several fronts and wrong on one front. You said I love nudity. Wrong. I do not personally love nude. I am not straying and do not want to do something foully. When I speak of nudity I always stressed that I like its beauty, the beauty of nudity, the way I like to see a dog, an ox in their sheer nudity and I appreciate the beauty of it the way I admire a rose. I do not want to damage a rose and I want it as it is and I am a beholder the beauty of it and I have too many roses in my garden and I never pick at them. The same thing with things of beauty, women or men and If I see them in their stark nudity my aesthetic self leaps up to hug it.

Did I stop women to speak for themselves? Who am I to do and in what capacity? This is a free forum and I want to maintain a certain degree of decency and respect every poster and though I become an arguer and yet I personally do not want to hurt anybody.

You are true that many males are inconsiderate and women complain about them and their failures to understand. I do not belong there. I want to set them free and request them to set myself free.

[Paulclem]

I am male. You are right on several fronts and wrong on one front. You said I love nudity. Wrong. I do not personally love nude. I am not straying and do not want to do something foully. When I speak of nudity I always stressed that I like its beauty, the beauty of nudity, the way I like to see a dog, an ox in their sheer nudity and I appreciate the beauty of it the way I admire a rose. I do not want to damage a rose and I want it as it is and I am a beholder the beauty of it and I have too many roses in my garden and I never pick at them. The same thing with things of beauty, women or men and If I see them in their stark nudity my aesthetic self leaps up to hug it.

Did I stop women to speak for themselves? Who am I to do and in what capacity? This is a free forum and I want to maintain a certain degree of decency and respect every poster and though I become an arguer and yet I personally do not want to hurt anybody.

You are true that many males are inconsiderate and women complain about them and their failures to understand. I do not belong there. I want to set them free and request them to set myself free.

It was clear that you are male and have a male's attitude. It's all very well for someone to say Im not looking at you in a voyeuristic way - just appreciating your beauty, but I don't see much difference at all. Even if it were true of some males, how can anyone tell?

[osho]

It was clear that you are male and have a male's attitude. It's all very well for someone to say Im not looking at you in a voyeuristic way - just appreciating your beauty, but I don't see much difference at all. Even if it were true of some males, how can anyone tell?

Every individual is different and to put them into one mold is wrong. You cannot define my attitude and my inclination based on what you read of me and such generalization or judgment becomes flawed. Your point of view is born of one social or religious milieu or of the kind of education you got or the kind of books you have read and contemplated over certain facts.

[Paulclem]

Every individual is different and to put them into one mold is wrong. You cannot define my attitude and my inclination based on what you read of me and such generalization or judgment becomes flawed. Your point of view is born of one social or religious milieu or of the kind of education you got or the kind of books you have read and contemplated over certain facts.

Yes every individual is different. To label them all the same is incorrect. You are right: I cannot discern your attitude or inclination either, and I wouldn't be able to even if I met you. This agrees with my point that you can't tell the hidden impulses and reasonsoning of any person. Therefore nudity gets a no from me despite what someone might claim. No-one can tell whether another is a voyeur or sincerely interested in beauty. While that state remains, I think anyone, particularly women, should be suspicious of someone who claims that they are looking only with the highest of motives.

It reminds me of Michael Jackson claiming he was innocently sleeping with young children in that notorious documentary. I would no more believe that from him than I would from any bloke who lived down the road, and I would be much more suspicious of them for claiming it was so. I'd ask - "What's this guy's motives really?"

By the way - I'm not trying to question your motives - which is impossible - or smear you in some way. I'm trying to establish that such trust is untestable.

[Alexander III]

To be honest I find little beauty in the naked body compared to the clothed naked body. I would wager to say that 9 out of ten times, when I get a naked woman into my bed I find my self disappointed as she was more beautiful with clothes on. Clothes create an image, an illusion which (if done right) heightens ones sensuality and beauty - when naked there is little illusion and thus almost always less beauty.

For example I was at the Frieze art fair the other day in london, and it seemed to me that all the women in there were extraordinarily beautiful. However If I had removed their rich and well-thought out clothes and put on them the clothes of common people in east-london, they would have appeared quite ugly. Those women were beautiful to me because of the illusion of beauty their clothes created. Naked they would have been for the most part quite normal.

[Paulclem]

"People who want public nudity are exhibitionist voyeurs...."

Silly, silly, silly.

My (fairly extensive) experience is that general nudity, as on a nudist beach or campsite, has the effect of making bodies much less "voyeurable."
Clothes can be worn to attract the eye and inflame the senses. Deep cleavages, certain arrangements of socks & short skirts, mmmm.
But nakedness of, say, breasts or genitals, when it is general, is no more, or less, interesting than nakedness of faces or hands, when they too are general.
Hiding body parts, whatever part, makes them exciting. It's not so long ago that a writer could speak of the thrill of seeing a lady's well turned ankle as she stepped off the pavement at Picadilly, and as for seeing a grown woman with her hair loose - well! shock and ecstasy! No doubt, such a level of desire and shock still prevails in places where dress tends to be all-enveloping.

Has anyone yet pointed out the absurdity that stlukesguild is publishing fully revealing and, in many cases, erotic pictures in this thread, with no word of protest from any quarter, but if a member published a similar self-portrait as a photograph in the Lit Network Photoalbum, he would probably be banned, and she would probably be reviled? The word 'hypocrisy' springs to mind, but it would be wrong. Simply, there is no logic in our attitudes and reactions.

The simple fact that no-one complains about St. Luke's pics is that they are imaginative representations rather than real photos.

I still would question why anyone would want public nudity. The inner motivations of people are unknowable, and it raises questions as to why anyone would advocate it.

I take it you practice naturism. Fine. peple do what they want in private clubs etc, but I would wonder about anyone advocating nudity to my wife and daughter for example, or children.

[blazeofglory]

In fact I cannot look at nudity from the same lens as osho can. I am a Hindu and I have different value systems. While I cannot hate a nude person I cannot appreciate someone unclothed either. Maybe my up-growing is different, not western. Mine is a close society and even a woman walking half-exposed is condemnable.

I find osho's insight and knowledge base outreaching mine I on the other hand have a different voice when it comes to talking about nudity. Of course in Nepal and India we have many nude idols in our temples and shrines in their erotic postures but I never can go and visit them with my family members. I had not grown up in the west to do since in the east men and women cannot even kiss, though a few do, in the open how can one expose his or her nudity in public.

osho might have a western education and that is why he voices differently from the rest of us on such issues.
I do not think our society in Nepal can digest his ideas of nudity or seeing nudes in public places. It seems funnily untenable and inconceivable in all respects.

I cannot subscribe to your view on this particular issue though on so many other counts I like your iconoclastic thoughts. Yours is an ultramodern thought. Maybe we in Nepal need at least half a century to conceive such ideas.

[Scheherazade]

"People who want public nudity are exhibitionist voyeurs...."Maybe they are just environmentally conscientious and would like to save energy by wearing less clothes, which would mean doing less laundry... Hence, less water and electricity consumption.

[osho]

In fact I cannot look at nudity from the same lens as osho can. I am a Hindu and I have different value systems. While I cannot hate a nude person I cannot appreciate someone unclothed either. Maybe my up-growing is different, not western. Mine is a close society and even a woman walking half-exposed is condemnable.

I find osho's insight and knowledge base outreaching mine I on the other hand have a different voice when it comes to talking about nudity. Of course in Nepal and India we have many nude idols in our temples and shrines in their erotic postures but I never can go and visit them with my family members. I had not grown up in the west to do since in the east men and women cannot even kiss, though a few do, in the open how can one expose his or her nudity in public.

osho might have a western education and that is why he voices differently from the rest of us on such issues.
I do not think our society in Nepal can digest his ideas of nudity or seeing nudes in public places. It seems funnily untenable and inconceivable in all respects.

I cannot subscribe to your view on this particular issue though on so many other counts I like your iconoclastic thoughts. Yours is an ultramodern thought. Maybe we in Nepal need at least half a century to conceive such ideas.

Blaze, this is something you shallowly take and misconstrue the spirit of my post. I did not go against the decency of being clothed. I myself have never walked nakedly.

All I have argued for is human nature beneath our social norms, customs, etiquette, ethics and moral codes. I am a non-conventional thinker and I want to see underneath things beyond our conventional wisdom.

If there is no beauty and significance in nudity why many of temples and shrines have nude idols and carvings? Our ancient sages too understood the significance of nudity and they even consecrated it. Tantra necessitates nude figures and at times acts of sex too. But Tantra is a sacred and religious practice.

[Whifflingpin]

"The simple fact that no-one complains about St. Luke's pics is that they are imaginative representations rather than real photos."
A painted portrait, prior to the age of photography, was the most realistic representation possible and a photograph is merely an image, no more "real" than a painting. I suspect that most photographers would also claim that their works were "imaginative representations," just as much art as anything done with paint on canvas.

****

"I take it you practice naturism. Fine. peple do what they want in private clubs etc, but I would wonder about anyone advocating nudity to my wife and daughter for example, or children. "

I do not "practice naturism" at a private club. I do go to a nearby public beach where many people swim and sunbathe nude. The reason I frequent that beach rather than others is because I cannot see the sense in wearing clothes to go swimming or sunbathing. I do not have any kind of obsession with breasts or genitals, and therefore I can see no good reason for treating them, clothing wise, any differently from any other part of the body. There is no justification that I can see for covering up a nipple, rather than a nose, or hiding a testicle when the toes can go bare.

You may question why any one would want public nudity. To me, nakedness is the natural state of humans and needs no other justification. Putting on clothes, however, is an action that requires a reason, and I accept that there are many reasons for wearing clothes, some good & some bad.

Whether wives, daughters or grandchildren go nude or clothed is entirely their own business, and should be without pressure or censure. I do not think that anyone, of any age, is harmed by seeing other people unclothed. Nor is anyone harmed by being seen unclothed, whatever the thoughts of the spectator.

You seem very concerned about voyeurs. I guess I'd count as a voyeur in your terms, i.e. a bloke that looks at women sometimes from 'low' motives, whatever that means. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I repeat what I said earlier, that I am much more likely to be titillated by the half-hidden, hinted-at form than by outright nakedness. On the beach, I'll read my book or watch the boats - in the park, I might stare at the lass with the light shining through her skirt. A general acceptance of nudity might kill voyeurism stone dead. The greatest beneficiaries of clothing, apart from the people who sell it, are probably the pornographers.

[Paulclem]

"The simple fact that no-one complains about St. Luke's pics is that they are imaginative representations rather than real photos."
A painted portrait, prior to the age of photography, was the most realistic representation possible and a photograph is merely an image, no more "real" than a painting. I suspect that most photographers would also claim that their works were "imaginative representations," just as much art as anything done with paint on canvas.

****

"I take it you practice naturism. Fine. peple do what they want in private clubs etc, but I would wonder about anyone advocating nudity to my wife and daughter for example, or children. "

I do not "practice naturism" at a private club. I do go to a nearby public beach where many people swim and sunbathe nude. The reason I frequent that beach rather than others is because I cannot see the sense in wearing clothes to go swimming or sunbathing. I do not have any kind of obsession with breasts or genitals, and therefore I can see no good reason for treating them, clothing wise, any differently from any other part of the body. There is no justification that I can see for covering up a nipple, rather than a nose, or hiding a testicle when the toes can go bare.

You may question why any one would want public nudity. To me, nakedness is the natural state of humans and needs no other justification. Putting on clothes, however, is an action that requires a reason, and I accept that there are many reasons for wearing clothes, some good & some bad.

Whether wives, daughters or grandchildren go nude or clothed is entirely their own business, and should be without pressure or censure. I do not think that anyone, of any age, is harmed by seeing other people unclothed. Nor is anyone harmed by being seen unclothed, whatever the thoughts of the spectator.

You seem very concerned about voyeurs. I guess I'd count as a voyeur in your terms, i.e. a bloke that looks at women sometimes from 'low' motives, whatever that means. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I repeat what I said earlier, that I am much more likely to be titillated by the half-hidden, hinted-at form than by outright nakedness. On the beach, I'll read my book or watch the boats - in the park, I might stare at the lass with the light shining through her skirt. A general acceptance of nudity might kill voyeurism stone dead. The greatest beneficiaries of clothing, apart from the people who sell it, are probably the pornographers.

I would contend that photos are more real. There's less of a distance between the photo and a person, rather than a person and a painting. It's a matter of opinion though.

I can assure you I'm not very concerned about voyeurs - after all no-one will be looking at me except a policeman if I did go naked in public - round here anyway.

Looking back over the thread, it is mainly men, (only men), who would advocate public nudity, and you have to wonder why. (Except for Scher who go naked for environmental reasons. Creditable by the way).

I think your response is honest, but it comes down to a question of do people want others to be able to view them in a way that they would feel uncomfortable with without the protection/ barrier/ confidence that clothes provide even if clothes are more sexy? At least the sexy clothes aspect is under the control of the wearer rather than the viewer.

If no-one wore clothes, then no-one would mind nudity of course, and our view of it would be radically different. We don't though, and there are all sorts of mind sets due to this.

[Whifflingpin]

"If no-one wore clothes, then no-one would mind nudity of course, and our view of it would be radically different. We don't though, and there are all sorts of mind sets due to this."

This is, of course, true. To some extent the mind set drives the behaviour, and to some extent the behaviour drives the mindset. (Well - that was either porfound or gibberish)

It seems that - no, it is obvious that - in the West at least, nudity is becoming more and more practiced and hence more acceptable. A mere three generations ago, a couple might have had children without actually seeing each other naked. (As is still the case in some cultures, I think) Now, however, almost-minimal covering is so common as to go unremarked, and events like nude bike rides or calendars scarcely raise an eyebrow.

It is interesting that only men are advocating public nudity in this thread. On the beach there are certainly more nude men than women, but the difference diminishes as the weather improves - men are more hardy, it appears. Or would appear, except that, in general, women seem to expose more flesh than men whatever the weather - I think there is a doctoral thesis waiting there for someone.

You think a policeman might look at you if you go bare in Coventry (a place famed through the ages for a naked equestrian event!) If said constable did look at you, it would only, in his professional capacity, to ensure that you were able to go about your lawful business without let or hindrance. Nudity, when not intended to cause alarm or distress, is not a legal offence in public places in England.

[ftil]

In fact I cannot look at nudity from the same lens as osho can. I am a Hindu and I have different value systems. While I cannot hate a nude person I cannot appreciate someone unclothed either. Maybe my up-growing is different, not western. Mine is a close society and even a woman walking half-exposed is condemnable.

I find osho's insight and knowledge base outreaching mine I on the other hand have a different voice when it comes to talking about nudity. Of course in Nepal and India we have many nude idols in our temples and shrines in their erotic postures but I never can go and visit them with my family members. I had not grown up in the west to do since in the east men and women cannot even kiss, though a few do, in the open how can one expose his or her nudity in public.

osho might have a western education and that is why he voices differently from the rest of us on such issues.
I do not think our society in Nepal can digest his ideas of nudity or seeing nudes in public places. It seems funnily untenable and inconceivable in all respects.

I cannot subscribe to your view on this particular issue though on so many other counts I like your iconoclastic thoughts. Yours is an ultramodern thought. Maybe we in Nepal need at least half a century to conceive such ideas.

I am glad that your brought your perspective on that subject. It is interesting how some westerners may take Indian culture, particularly the art of the famous Kandariyâ Mahâdeva temple and make assumptions how your culture view sexuality and nudity. How it is misleading. :lol: Thanks again.





Orignially posted by Paulclem:
I still would question why anyone would want public nudity. The inner motivations of people are unknowable, and it raises questions as to why anyone would advocate it.

I take it you practice naturism. Fine. peple do what they want in private clubs etc, but I would wonder about anyone advocating nudity to my wife and daughter for example, or children.


:iagree: I don’t understand why anybody would want public nudity. We have place where people can practice naturism and those who like it are free to do so. But advocating it brings questions about their motivations. I am wondering if those motivations are conscious or unconscious. :confused5:




Originally posted by Osho:
I am male. You are right on several fronts and wrong on one front. You said I love nudity. Wrong. I do not personally love nude. I am not straying and do not want to do something foully. When I speak of nudity I always stressed that I like its beauty, the beauty of nudity, the way I like to see a dog, an ox in their sheer nudity and I appreciate the beauty of it the way I admire a rose. I do not want to damage a rose and I want it as it is and I am a beholder the beauty of it and I have too many roses in my garden and I never pick at them. The same thing with things of beauty, women or men and If I see them in their stark nudity my aesthetic self leaps up to hug it.

I didn’t get that from your posts. Particularly, from a post that made me uncomfortable.



Did I stop women to speak for themselves? Who am I to do and in what capacity? This is a free forum and I want to maintain a certain degree of decency and respect every poster and though I become an arguer and yet I personally do not want to hurt anybody.

You are true that many males are inconsiderate and women complain about them and their failures to understand. I do not belong there. I want to set them free and request them to set myself free

I guess, misunderstanding is an old problem between men and women. :brow: Well, you didn’t stop women to speak but you spoke on their behalf. If you truly want women to be free, listen to women what they feel or think. You may be quite surprised how wrong you were. :wink5:

[Paulclem]

"

You think a policeman might look at you if you go bare in Coventry (a place famed through the ages for a naked equestrian event!) If said constable did look at you, it would only, in his professional capacity, to ensure that you were able to go about your lawful business without let or hindrance. Nudity, when not intended to cause alarm or distress, is not a legal offence in public places in England.

:lol:

Yes, there she sits in al her glory.

In my case the charge might be malice inducing mass vomiting in the populace.

[stlukesguild]

Blaze of Glory- I find osho's insight and knowledge base outreaching mine I on the other hand have a different voice when it comes to talking about nudity. Of course in Nepal and India we have many nude idols in our temples and shrines in their erotic postures but I never can go and visit them with my family members. I had not grown up in the west to do since in the east men and women cannot even kiss, though a few do, in the open how can one expose his or her nudity in public.

osho might have a western education and that is why he voices differently from the rest of us on such issues.
I do not think our society in Nepal can digest his ideas of nudity or seeing nudes in public places. It seems funnily untenable and inconceivable in all respects.

I cannot subscribe to your view on this particular issue though on so many other counts I like your iconoclastic thoughts. Yours is an ultramodern thought. Maybe we in Nepal need at least half a century to conceive such ideas.

ftil- I am glad that your brought your perspective on that subject. It is interesting how some westerners may take Indian culture, particularly the art of the famous Kandariyâ Mahâdeva temple and make assumptions how your culture view sexuality and nudity. How it is misleading.

Nepal is not India and it most certainly isn't the whole of the "East". I wouldn't make presumptions of what the "East" is like based either upon art or upon one man's experiences from one corner of a continent. Obviously the open eroticism of the Kandariyâ Mahâdeva temple conveyed something of the culture of the era in which it was conceived. Let's face it, there is nothing like this in the whole of the "decadent" West. Eroticism in art exists... but blatant eroticism is largely hidden away... and still is. One can almost imagine the Victorian-era British colonels first coming upon this temple... their monocles popping out of their eyes as they exclaim, "Bloody 'ell!"

Has anyone yet pointed out the absurdity that stlukesguild is publishing fully revealing and, in many cases, erotic pictures in this thread, with no word of protest from any quarter, but if a member published a similar self-portrait as a photograph in the Lit Network Photoalbum, he would probably be banned, and she would probably be reviled?

This touches upon something of the hypocrisy I have spoken of. Once an image of style of representation has been absorbed into the artistic traditions it no longer has the ability to shock. The sophisticated late 19th century Parisian gentlemen could view this painting at the Louvre without the least discomfort:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6223/6252074889_af2eba6aa2.jpg

But this painting left him outraged!

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6237/6252074997_c28c4eb076.jpg

Naked women carousing in the park with fashionably dressed men?! What was the artist thinking?! But isn't that exactly what the first artist (Titian/Giorgione) has shown as well? But the Renaissance painting is acceptable because it has been perfumed with the passage of time and blessed with the sanctity of art.

But let's take a look at another pairing of paintings by the same two artists. Again, no sophisticated and educated Parisian gentleman would have been the least bit nonplussed at coming upon Venus d'Urbino in the Ufizzi:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6101/6252604494_7f106f8090_b.jpg

But again he was absolutely shocked and appalled at Manet's Olympia:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6120/6252604574_4a9a162b40_b.jpg

The absolute audacity of that man! To paint a prostitute... in all her nakedness... her hand touching her self THERE... and the shameless hussy staring back at us... lacking even the decorum to look away. And the cat at her feet... a rude sexual pun.

But how is this different from Titian's Venus? She also is a prostitute... albeit an upper-class courtesan. She is equally naked. Her hand is placed in an equally suggestive manner. She also boldly returns our gaze. At her feet, a lap dog... a symbol of fidelity... is surely an ironic pun upon fidelity itself. Manet has simply looked at Titian's Venus and pointed out just how shocking the painting really is... in spite of the perfume of art history. Intriguingly, it took an unsophisticated American, Mark Twain, to recognize the real shock and blatant sexuality of Titian's painting, as he ranted against it as the most obscene painting in the whole of Western art.

Steve Martin, himself a knowledgeable art collector and writer on art (as well as comedian) discussed Canova's famed Three Graces by pointing out that the sculpture has long been known as representing the "three finest asses in the history of art".

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6213/6252663708_1f72d6be11_b.jpg

Martin admits, however, that he would not expect to come across this fact in a scholarly tome on art history or Canova. The general art lover browsing the art historical tome doesn't want to be told that Giorgione painted this...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6035/6252677958_b2fe48a0b1_b.jpg

for the simple reason that he wanted to paint a naked woman...because he could think of nothing more beautiful... nothing more exciting. No, art history will tell us that the Renaissance artists approached the body through a complex philosophy of Neo-Platonism, and that Giorgione, as a Venetian, was drawn to the female figure as less sculptural and linear and more organic and atmospheric... like the landscape of Venice itself which was better suited to oil paint. The figure itself, obviously represented Venus... in spite of the fact that there are no attributes whatsoever to suggest that she is anything more than a hedonistic representation of a beautiful naked woman for her own sake... the first example of such in Western art since the classical age.

Every culture has its standards of what is or is not acceptable with regard to the representation of the human body and human sexuality. Even in our culture... which embraces sexually suggestive dress and behavior among celebrities, legalized pornography (in the privacy of one's own home), breast implants, and Viagra commercials on prime time TV, there are limitations of what is acceptable within the public dialog of art. The most graphic violence is allowed in films and even video games accessible to minors... but the image of someone caressing a breast... or the appearance of any genitalia will immediately earn a film a NC-17... or worse rating. Is it surprising that artists are continually pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable? The goal is not to shock. (At least not among the efforts of artists of real merit. There will always be artistic juveniles for whom shock is an easy path to gaining attention.) The goal is to draw attention to the hypocrisy between that which we embrace in our private lives and that which we stigmatize and hide away as "filthy" in our art. The goal is also to allow the artist the freedom to explore the whole of human experience without the notion that some aspects of human experience are unworthy... or taboo.

[ftil]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]

Nepal is not India and it most certainly isn't the whole of the "East". I wouldn't make presumptions of what the "East" is like based either upon art or upon one man's experiences from one corner of a continent. Obviously the open eroticism of the Kandariyâ Mahâdeva temple conveyed something of the culture of the era in which it was conceived. Let's face it, there is nothing like this in the whole of the "decadent" West. Eroticism in art exists... but blatant eroticism is largely hidden away... and still is. One can almost imagine the Victorian-era British colonels first coming upon this temple... their monocles popping out of their eyes as they exclaim, "Bloody 'ell!"

Well, I appreciate that Blazeofglory has brought her perspective. After all, she is more competent that any westerner who try to make own interpretation about the culture of India. I agree that eroticism of the Kandariyâ Mahâdeva temple conveyed something of the culture of that era. We may argue as we have done before if it is eroticism or pornography. I don’t know if you looked carefully at sculptures. There is a sculpture that depicts sex with an animal, for example. There are sculpture that depict orgy. We may not agree what eroticism means but we have to accept that others may not see it as celebration of life. :biggrinjester:

[osho]

n fact at Khajuraho we come across many gods and goddess in their erotic raptures and these nude idols carved out in the Middle Ages in India had some historical significance. Sexual exploitation in India was rampant by earlier kings and princes and Rajas and Maharajas had so many wives and most of the temples in India were built by them.

Blaze has yet to understand some subtle realities. But my topic is different and this is about taking nudity from a rational and aesthetic standpoint not from a stained or colored lens. My argument is we try to masquerade what we are and try to show what we are not. What we are is a nude human and what we do is try to give an illusion of what we are not

[blazeofglory]

n fact at Khajuraho we come across many gods and goddess in their erotic raptures and these nude idols carved out in the Middle Ages in India had some historical significance. Sexual exploitation in India was rampant by earlier kings and princes and Rajas and Maharajas had so many wives and most of the temples in India were built by them.

Blaze has yet to understand some subtle realities. But my topic is different and this is about taking nudity from a rational and aesthetic standpoint not from a stained or colored lens. My argument is we try to masquerade what we are and try to show what we are not. What we are is a nude human and what we do is try to give an illusion of what we are not

I understand the subtlety or meaning of those erotically carved walls at the Kandaria Mahadeva Temple and what shocks me is you failed to understand my point. Nudity got for some reason covered down our evolutionary history and today if we see public nudity most cannot understand your aesthetic philosophy and nudity will not approved in our society and we are not matured enough for that

[Whifflingpin]

"I don’t understand why anybody would want public nudity. We have place where people can practice naturism and those who like it are free to do so. But advocating it brings questions about their motivations. I am wondering if those motivations are conscious or unconscious. "

It is not a question of some people wanting public nudity. The weird thing is that any one would, in general, object to it. What anyone wears should be their own decision, and if someone wishes to be bare then it is absolutely not, in general, any one else's business. Likewise, if anyone wishes to wear clothes, of any other than deliberately offensive kinds, that too is entirely their decision.

I don't know where you live, but in England any public place is a place where people can practice naturism, provided that they have no deliberate intention to cause shock or distress.

I do not advocate nudity, I just happen to prefer it under certain conditions and am not afraid to say so. If I did advocate nudity, it would only be on the grounds that I think it is, within reason, healthy and good for people - exactly the same reasons for advocating a healthy diet. And if people object that they don't like eating greens, then that is their choice, on just the same level as people saying that they prefer to wear clothes.

[ftil]

"I don’t understand why anybody would want public nudity. We have place where people can practice naturism and those who like it are free to do so. But advocating it brings questions about their motivations. I am wondering if those motivations are conscious or unconscious. "

It is not a question of some people wanting public nudity. The weird thing is that any one would, in general, object to it. What anyone wears should be their own decision, and if someone wishes to be bare then it is absolutely not, in general, any one else's business. Likewise, if anyone wishes to wear clothes, of any other than deliberately offensive kinds, that too is entirely their decision.

I don't know where you live, but in England any public place is a place where people can practice naturism, provided that they have no deliberate intention to cause shock or distress.

I do not advocate nudity, I just happen to prefer it under certain conditions and am not afraid to say so. If I did advocate nudity, it would only be on the grounds that I think it is, within reason, healthy and good for people - exactly the same reasons for advocating a healthy diet. And if people object that they don't like eating greens, then that is their choice, on just the same level as people saying that they prefer to wear clothes.


Well, I ask a question why people want public nudity. We have already lots of freedom. People can practice naturism if they choose.
We have a nudist beach where I live. I am not against nudity. As I wrote I like swimming naked or have a full suntan and I can find place where I can do it without offending anybody or being offended. Appreciation of the beauty of human body doesn't mean that we have to walk naked. :biggrin5:
Blazeofglory beautifully said, “ we see public nudity most cannot understand your aesthetic philosophy and nudity will not approved in our society and we are not matured enough for that”

Western society is very far from being mature to understand it.

[Whifflingpin]

"Appreciation of the beauty of human body doesn't mean that we have to walk naked.
Blazeofglory beautifully said, “ we see public nudity most cannot understand your aesthetic philosophy and nudity will not approved in our society and we are not matured enough for that”

Western society is very far from being mature to understand it. "

I've not said anything about human beauty, and nudity has nothing to do, as far as I am concerned, with seeing or being seen. Putting clothes on and deciding what to wear are all about seeing and being seen, presenting a particular image of ourselves to others.

Nakedness is neutral. As Osho has said, it is simply accepting ourselves for what we are. It is very sad that so many people find that difficult.

[ftil]

I've not said anything about human beauty, and nudity has nothing to do, as far as I am concerned, with seeing or being seen. Putting clothes on and deciding what to wear are all about seeing and being seen, presenting a particular image of ourselves to others.

Nakedness is neutral. As Osho has said, it is simply accepting ourselves for what we are. It is very sad that so many people find that difficult.

Well, I have heard many voice who emphasized and justified being naked as an appreciation of a human body. I agree that accepting ourselves is crucial for our emotional health. It is not healthy to carry shame about it. But it was not a subject of this tread. Otherwise, I wouldn’t say anything. People jumped from being naked to sexuality and being a body that is run by instincts. I have a very different idea what being a fully human means. :brow:

[stlukesguild]

I don't know if anyone here is advocating public nudity. Personally, I don't live in the sort of climate where such is even possible outside 2 or 3 months of the year. In the summer months I tend to wear little more than shorts while working in my studio and I prefer to sleep naked... but it is just me and my wife. It is quite probable that those who make the decision to live as nudists are quite an emotionally stable and healthy as anyone else... and quite likely more so when it comes to being comfortable with the human body and perhaps even sexuality.

My interest in the nude and in eroticism in art... in this discussion... is rooted in what I perceive to be a certain inconsistency or hypocrisy concerning sexuality and eroticism in art. It is a simple fact that the nude is one of the more difficult subjects to sell as an artist... in spite of its long tradition or history and the fact that in many ways it is recognized as the most respected and challenging subject for the artist. Indeed, it is not merely a difficult subject to sell... it is a difficult subject to get displayed in may venues. I have experience such prejudice myself. After having been selected by a university art department to exhibit in a group show, the dean of the same university overruled the faculty and removed all but one of my paintings from exhibition in spite of the fact that the work in question was far from the level of eroticism of Eric Fischl, Egon Schiele, the late prints of Picasso, the Japanese Shunga or the Kandaria Mahadeva Temple:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6096/6255207113_1d4e6481d5_z.jpg

The reality is, that there is still a great deal of Puritan attitudes concerning nudity (let alone sexuality) in art in the United States. We have the example of the US Attorney General, Edwin Meese with his obsessive "witch hunt" for pornography in the arts. We have Attorney General John Ashcroft ordering that the Neo-classical statue representing Justice be covered with curtains because of her bare breast, as well as his public statement during talks concerning the possibility of Michelangelos' David visiting the US to the effect that the Renaissance masterpiece would need to be affixed with a fig leaf of loin cloth before such a visit. And we have mayor Giuliani's attempt to shut down an exhibition in New York with the notorious Yo Mamma's Last Supper:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6238/6255239135_1fe873ab6d_b.jpg

If we delve deeper we find examples of the art teacher fired for the paintings he made on his own time in which he used various body parts as opposed to brushes... in spite of the fact that he kept his art career separate from his teaching career to the point of using a pseudonym:

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2007/10/05/teacher-fired-for-producing-paintings-with-buttocks/

Then there is the 28-year veteran teacher who was fired for taking her students on a school sanctioned field trip to the art museum where some of the students saw (gasp!) nudes, and one of the parents complained:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_stage_theat/2006/10/art_teacher_fir.html

Lest we miss the point that Puritanism is alive and well in America, we have this almost unbelievable instance:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2339673&page=1

Now no one is calling for the display of genitalia on billboards, nor irresponsibly exposing minors to images of nudity or sexuality in museums, galleries, or anywhere else, but there is a certain something warped in a culture that allows for the portrayal of graphic violence in films and in video games that are often accessible to minors, while treating the portrayal of the nude and human sexuality in art and film as something far worse... something shameful or "dirty" that needs to be hidden away. There is something wrong with championing the notion of liberty and free-speech... embracing the suggestiveness in pop videos and advertising, breast enlargements, Viagra commercials, and pornography (in the privacy of one's own home) while censoring that art which deals with the nude or the erotic... even labeling it "pornographic".

A question one might raise upon this board is how it is that the graphic sexual imagery found in Portnoy's Complaint (or many other novels by Philip Roth), the novels of Bukowski, Celine, Genet, certain poems of Baudelaire, Rimbaud etc... are recognized as ART while the Kandaria Mahadeva Temple, Japanese Shunga prints, Egon Schile paintings etc... can even begin to be defined as pornography?

[ftil]

stlukesguild wrote:
My interest in the nude and in eroticism in art... in this discussion... is rooted in what I perceive to be a certain inconsistency or hypocrisy concerning sexuality and eroticism in art.

Hm..but this tread is about public nudity not erotisism in art. :biggrinjester:

[stlukesguild]

this tread is about public nudity not erotisism in art.

Is it? Truly?

It seems to me this thread has touched on a great array of topics... very seldom the question of public nudity... largely because almost no one advocates walking about with it all hanging out. Most of us recognize that the reality of such would in no way live up to the fantasy.

[ftil]

this tread is about public nudity not erotisism in art.

Is it? Truly?

It seems to me this thread has touched on a great array of topics... very seldom the question of public nudity... largely because almost no one advocates walking about with it all hanging out. Most of us recognize that the reality of such would in no way live up to the fantasy.


Hm…… I know that you love art. I love art too but I may stop liking nudity in art. :biggrin5: When we overdose, it becomes boring. Sometimes, I couldn’t resist posting art on other treads. But when OP asked politely not to hijack a tread I realized how inappropriate it was. Firstly, not everybody likes art. Secondly, not everybody may like eroticism and nudity in art. Thirdly, when you post art depicting eroticism and quote Kenneth Clark, it may create unnecessary confusion what this tread is all about. Finally, I know that you have opened an art tread as you were inspired by discussion about nudity. I wouldn't say a word if you posted nude or erotic art on your tread. :biggrinjester:

[stlukesguild]

If you glance through this entire thread you will find that one person posted a song having nothing to do with the OP in the least. The thread has mutated into discussions of how an individual is "valued", questions of tattoos and body piercings, a debate upon obesity, a brief digression touching upon designer clothes and cell phones, and repeated explorations of the issue of nudity... in real life and in art. The great majority of threads go through such digressions if they last any period of time... like most discussing in real life. These digressions rarely become an issue of contention unless they touch upon politics or religion or some such topic likely to result in arguments having nothing whatsoever to do with the OP. You will notice that the original poster hasn't made any requests that any of us return to the original topic... which without digressions would quite likely have run it's course long ago.:seeya:

[Vonny]

Hm…… I know that you love art. I love art too but I may stop liking nudity in art. :biggrin5: When we overdose, it becomes boring. Sometimes, I couldn’t resist posting art on other treads. But when OP asked politely not to hijack a tread I realized how inappropriate it was. Firstly, not everybody likes art. Secondly, not everybody may like eroticism and nudity in art. Thirdly, when you post art depicting eroticism and quote Kenneth Clark, it may create unnecessary confusion what this tread is all about. Finally, I know that you have opened an art tread as you were inspired by discussion about nudity. I wouldn't say a word if you posted nude or erotic art on your tread. :biggrinjester:

I hear you ftil, but with this one you take the good with the bad, and it wouldn't be LitNet without him all over the place. He's one of the best contributors. He grows on you. :)

[ftil]

If you glance through this entire thread you will find that one person posted a song having nothing to do with the OP in the least. The thread has mutated into discussions of how an individual is "valued", questions of tattoos and body piercings, a debate upon obesity, a brief digression touching upon designer clothes and cell phones, and repeated explorations of the issue of nudity... in real life and in art. The great majority of threads go through such digressions if they last any period of time... like most discussing in real life. These digressions rarely become an issue of contention unless they touch upon politics or religion or some such topic likely to result in arguments having nothing whatsoever to do with the OP. You will notice that the original poster hasn't made any requests that any of us return to the original topic... which without digressions would quite likely have run it's course long ago.:seeya:

Well, I mentioned another thread where you and I posted art and OP asked ask politely not to hijack a tread. I have already expressed my feelings and thoughts and I am not going to repeat myself. :p The issues is boundary and respect. :shocked:

[stlukesguild]

The issues is boundary and respect.

Respect for who or what... your desire to dictate who posts and how? I don't see anyone else complaining that my postings were off topic. I t would seem that this little debate is far more off-topic than anything I posted concerning the issue of nudity in art.

[Vonny]

:p The issues is boundary and respect. :shocked:

Yeah ftil, I've been down this road, believe me. I used to be disgusted by a lot of the ugly art posted inappropriately, but then I realized that the posts aren't borderline, contentious, arrogant, morbid, sarcastic, passive/aggressive, and flippant - and they are instructive.

[ftil]

Yeah ftil, I've been down this road, believe me. I used to be disgusted by a lot of the ugly art posted inappropriately, but then I realized that the posts aren't borderline, contentious, arrogant, morbid, sarcastic, passive/aggressive, and flippant - and they are instructive.

Well, it is not that much about the content of art but how it has been used. When I have reflected upon words of previously mentioned OP, I have opened my art tread. I am glad that OP expressed his needs and it was done with such a delicacy. I don’t hijack others treads any more. LOL I respect that not everybody may like art or art I choose. It applies to any other activity. It also requires having what some psychologists call a six sense to intuit the subtlety of others feelings and needs. :wink5:

[Vonny]

Well, it is not that much about the content of art but how it has been used. When I have reflected upon words of previously mentioned OP, I have opened my art tread. I am glad that OP expressed his needs and it was done with such a delicacy. I don’t hijack others treads any more. LOL I respect that not everybody may like art or art I choose. It applies to any other activity. It also requires having what some psychologists call a six sense to intuit the subtlety of others feelings and needs. :wink5:

I guess in this world any person who isn't arrogant, sarcastic and flippant is endearing to me. It's too much to ask for them to sense my feelings and needs.

[osho]

Nudity is something that interests me artistically though physically and socially it is despicable and some gracious ladies born of a civil society and taught by some great scholastic parents, abbots and grown accustomed to living a certain lifestyle will feel chilled at this term itself and of course will be willing to retreat to their old, well defined conventional cover of society that renders a good degree of security and space.

I have read some forms of art, sculptures and a picturesque and mouthwatering depiction, the best and artistic way of presenting vulgarity clothing them in a fine art or whatsoever you choose to name it. I am shocked and could understand through these awe-inspiring presentations, their mythological connections and some truths that remain obscured down the straits of history fabulously presented. I like that form of nudity, and I like to see everything of humanity in its aesthetic presentation, and even conjugation in that art form is not obscene and we know many temples at which see erotically intertwined deities and deities in an orgy is something worthy of watching, of writing volumes of verse in praise of them, and when the same thing is deemed obscene. At times realities remain masqueraded and that becomes a piece of beauty and truth.

[ftil]

I guess in this world any person who isn't arrogant, sarcastic and flippant is endearing to me. It's too much to ask for them to sense my feelings and needs.

Well, some people are not capable of feeling and understandings what others feel. There is such an overwhelming emptiness and eloquent words can’t hide it. It is sad but we have a choice to be around them or not. I choose not! But there are others who feel and feel deeply and it is a delight to be around them. Hm…..how does it relate to being naked? They don’t need to take their clothing off to show the beauty of their souls. :hurray:

[Vonny]

Well, some people are not capable of feeling and understandings what others feel. There is such an overwhelming emptiness and eloquent words can’t hide it. It is sad but we have a choice to be around them or not. I choose not! But there are others who feel and feel deeply and it is a delight to be around them. Hm…..how does it relate to being naked? They don’t need to take their clothing off to show the beauty of their souls. :hurray:

This is beautifully stated ftil! What you describe applies to many people.

However, I tend to believe that this one really isn't empty. I wish you wouldn't leave the thread on account of a misunderstanding.

[ftil]

This is beautifully stated ftil! What you describe applies to many people.

However, I tend to believe that this one really isn't empty. I wish you wouldn't leave the thread on account of a misunderstanding.

Oh, I said it all what I think about nudity or eroticism. I strongly believe that eroticism or sexuality is what we enjoy doing and experiencing but not talking. :wink5:
It make me sad to see that humans are limited to naked body, sexuality, and instincts. There are much more beauty within us and around us that makes our souls uplifted and our spirits flying high. :hurray:

[Vonny]

Oh, I said it all what I think about nudity or eroticism. I strongly believe that eroticism or sexuality is what we enjoy doing and experiencing but not talking. :wink5:
It make me sad to see that humans are limited to naked body, sexuality, and instincts. There are much more beauty within us and around us that makes our souls uplifted and our spirits flying high. :hurray:

I'm with you 100%. I think you said it perfectly! :)

This must be a way that women are different.

[ftil]

I'm with you 100%. I think you said it perfectly! :)

This must be a way that women are different.

We are different, no doubt about it. :wink5: I think that the problem is the fact that many men can’t understand women at all. Sadly, they are convinced that they do. I see it as luck of emotional awareness or emotional literacy as well as lack of listening skills. But they can’t master listening skills if they are no fully in touch with feelings and can’t understand the subtlety of their own feelings. They don’t understand their reactions either and will never understand others.

But there are men who understand women. Claude Steiner, Transactional Analysts therapist, said that he had a very high IQ but he was an imbecile in terms of emotional awareness. He has reached such a high level of emotional literacy and he was one of my teachers. I am still laughing that it should be otherwise. :lol:

[Vonny]

We are different, no doubt about it. :wink5: I think that the problem is the fact that many men can’t understand women at all. Sadly, they are convinced that they do. I see it as luck of emotional awareness or emotional literacy as well as lack of listening skills. But they can’t master listening skills if they are no fully in touch with feelings and can’t understand the subtlety of their own feelings. They don’t understand their reactions either and will never understand others.

But there are men who understand women. Claude Steiner, Transactional Analysts therapist, said that he had a very high IQ but he was an imbecile in terms of emotional awareness. He has reached such a high level of emotional literacy and he was one of my teachers. I am still laughing that it should be otherwise. :lol:

But ftil, why is it that when I'm crossing the street in a crosswalk, women drivers usually won't stop for me but the men do?

[stlukesguild]

We are different, no doubt about it. I think that the problem is the fact that many men can’t understand women at all. Sadly, they are convinced that they do. I see it as luck of emotional awareness or emotional literacy as well as lack of listening skills. But they can’t master listening skills if they are no fully in touch with feelings and can’t understand the subtlety of their own feelings. They don’t understand their reactions either and will never understand others.

Yes. We are different, no doubt about it. I think that the problem is the fact that many women can't understand men at all. Sadly, they are convinced that they do. I see it as a lack of higher intellectual capabilities and grasp of logic. So many women are flighty, emotional creatures that will never be able to understand the greater complexities and subtitles of real thought that it is truly a shame that we even waste our time putting them through school.


Same stereotypical sexist BS. Different gender.:eek2::frown2:

[ftil]

But ftil, why is it that when I'm crossing the street in a crosswalk, women drivers usually won't stop for me but the men do?

I think that they stop to appreciate your beauty whereas female drivers are in hurry …. to have a conversation with a friend or a partner. :wink5:
Well, I don't want to say that they are in hurry from the office ....... to clean and cook .:biggrinjester:

[Vonny]

It also requires having what some psychologists call a six sense to intuit the subtlety of others feelings and needs. :wink5:

I often don't intuit others feelings and needs, myself. I mostly don't know what I feel or need, either. People ask me, "How are you?" I don't know how to answer.

I think the forum is a great place to work on developing the sixth sense.



I think that they stop to appreciate your beauty whereas female drivers are in hurry …. to have a conversation with a friend or a partner. :wink5:
Well, I don't want to say that they are in hurry from the office ....... to clean and cook .:biggrinjester:

ftil, I don't know how to answer, really. Why aren't the men in a big hurry to get to the strip club, because it certainly has more to offer than I do.

[ftil]

I often don't intuit others feelings and needs, myself. I mostly don't know what I feel or need, either. People ask me, "How are you?" I don't know how to answer.

I think the forum is a great place to work on developing the sixth sense.

Well, don’t feel alone. Many women can’t identify their needs and feelings. I see it as a result of female programming since women were trained to put others needs first. It takes time to achieve emotional literacy. I didn’t get it overnight but it took a considerable work even though I have always felt deeply. :wink5:



ftil, I don't know how to answer, really. Why aren't the men in a big hurry to get to the strip club, because it certainly has more to offer than I do.


Oh, I can only give a female perspective that may be not valid at all. :ihih: Men need to answer it. Some men would be running to the strip club whereas others would not waste their time to do so as they enjoy their relationship.

I have feelings that we hijack this tread. Why don't we let older boys enjoy conversation about nudity and sex. :brow: BTW, do we have a girls chat so that we can meet?

[Vonny]

I see it as a result of female programming since women were trained to put others needs first.

I have a different life experience than other people. My mother has an almost supernatural ability to intuit the subtleties of my feelings and needs. And then her understanding allows her an almost supernatural ability to inflict emotional pain on me, and to manipulate me. And because she's my mother, and I love her, I've been unable to get completely free of it.

About hijacking threads, I'm one of the worst for doing it. I don't intend it, but I'm often unable to intuit the subject and reply appropriately.

There's a few women here that I appreciate, and quality makes up for quantity, but generally speaking, nearly everything of substance and originality on this forum is provided by men.

[osho]

Vonny, you have always been positive and in many posts and some include mine too you saw something few did.
Some are too much obsessed with femininity or are feminists or activists in their voluble voices and they observe the shadow of what males are made up of and you said the flame that comes with the smoke too in males. While many activists talk brusquely about males as if they are machos only. In fact males are actively and engagingly interested in talking about love, romance, sex, nudity and the like and most women inertly support these ideas and there are others who with their negative mental frames or bends of thoughts see the dirty side of the males who candidly talk about such things. We talk about nudity more through art forms and we have books, and some are classics like D H Lawrence, Henry Miller, Nabokov and even Balzac talking about human vanity, social arrogance. Of course many persons have double standards though they privately enjoy talking about nudity and yet they want to the outside world prove they are austere, well-bred and gentlemanly or gentlewomanly. There are other societies that are matriarchal wherein women are more commanding and aggressive and they actively take the initiative to have an amorous relationship and matrimonial engagements.
People judge others by what they see around their environs and they suffer poor visibility or in fact are blinkered. They love to cocoon themselves in the shrouds of their narrow realties, educations or the experiences they have gathered from their elders or the values bequeathed down to them through their elders which they call culture.

[ftil]

I have a different life experience than other people. My mother has an almost supernatural ability to intuit the subtleties of my feelings and needs. And then her understanding allows her an almost supernatural ability to inflict emotional pain on me, and to manipulate me. And because she's my mother, and I love her, I've been unable to get completely free of it.

We do have some issues with our parents, don’t we? It is much harder to free ourselves from manipulation done by parents than manipulation done but other people due to a quite high emotional intensity. It takes time to do so.


There's a few women here that I appreciate, and quality makes up for quantity, but generally speaking, nearly everything of substance and originality on this forum is provided by men.

Well, I would never dismiss the contribution of men. In fact, I highly admire men who have brilliant minds. But brilliant mind is not enough if is not open. :ihih: Open-mind is closely associated with having a rich inner life and self awareness. E. Berne and Maslov have written about. According to Berne, most scientists are the most psychologically unbalanced people due to the dormant Free Child Ego state and Nurturing Parent Ego state. They have overdeveloped Adult Ego state and quite high Critical Parent (Brene called Pig Parent) and Adopted Child Ego state. Maslov wrote about compulsive and addictive traits that many scientists possess. I know a few scientists who possess both brilliant and open mind as well as high level of self awareness. :smile5:

We need a few laughs. :lol:

Tale of Two Brains

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxtUH_bHBxs


Men's Brain Women's Brain - Ram and Multi-tasking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fF9B0lukM4

[Scheherazade]

Here is something of substance by a woman on the Forum (though, since I say this quite often, it rather lacks originality, for which I apologize profusely):


R e m i n d e r

The topic of the thead:
For or against?

Is it a good thing? Or bad?

Is there enough of of it? Too much of it? Not enough of it?

Let's hear what the panel thinks...Those who would like to discuss their childhood or how unfaily they have been treated by men or, come to think of it, any other issues - apart from the ones stated in the OP-, should do so in separate threads.

You can also consider using the blogging facilities available, which would give you the desired flexibility while airing your thoughts and feelings.

Posts containing off-topic and/or personal comments will be removed without further notice.

[PoeticPassions]

There can never be enough nudity, I say. Unless it is old people... like really old people. I'm not too keen on that, but I would say that if you want to bare all, do it. As long as you are not some creepy flasher, walking around town in a trench coat, scaring children.

But seriously, I think the human body should be appreciated and not made into something taboo or dirty. I think that societies that are more open about nudity tend to have less sexual deviance (this is just a hunch, not based on statistics or facts), in the sense that children and adolescents are more prone to being open about it, discussing it, or just being comfortable with it (and not over-sexualizing everything).

Nudity is natural, my friends. But of course, it can be a bit shocking or offensive, if we are not used to it.

[cacian]

Nudity is one and public is another.
I see them as two separate things.
Nudity is something you do privately with other like minded people.
Public means people and that means some people would mind and some won't.
Public means everyone is different so one must not assume everyonbe will agree or disagree.
Therefore going nude publically can only be fine when the public whose one is exposing nudity to knows about it before hand.
For example if I was at a party and someone turned up nude or took their clothes I would find it offensive, not because of the nudity itself, but because that person who went nude assumed everyone enjoys it or is fine about it.
In other words don't expect everyone to go with the flowabout anything when in public places.

[affu933]

It is a bad thing, i am against of it....

[stlukesguild]

Why? Some reasons behind your line of thinking might be of use.

[Ecurb]

Why? Some reasons behind your line of thinking might be of use.

Public nudity is a bad idea in the winter, especially in Siberia and Alaska. Although I have not done any scientific research on the subject, popular wisdom has it that the public nudist who braves such climes might actually freeze some of his body parts "off". I'm not talking about fingernails or hair, either.

Let's take a stand, one way or the other! People should greet the public naked, or they should wear full burquas. The middle ground is wishy-washy!

Personally, I support public nudity, when the temperature is reasonable, but think private nudity is obscene, and could lead to the sin of Onanism. Also, we should prevent environmental deprivation by bathing and showering fully clothed. This would save water and energy by simultaneously cleansing both our bodies and our clothing. The government should install video cameras in all bathrooms to ensure compliance. Naked showering would be punishable by either stoning or being forced to listen to an out loud reading of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", whichever the defendant prefers.

[Pompey Bum]

Why? Some reasons behind your line of thinking might be of use.

Public nudity is bad and I'm against it. I don't mean to be crude, but suppose you had to blow your nose or wipe your face? Where would tissues come from in a world without pockets? And that's saying nothing of coupons, boarding passes, or library cards. And what about Swiss Army knives? Sure laugh, but this Brave Nude World is going to open a whole universe of painful and embarrassing splinters. I can hear it now: "Pardon me, Miss, you wouldn't happen to have a tiny pair of tweesers you could let me use for a moment?" "Why no sir, I'm nude." The horror.

[Ecurb]

Although I support public nudity, I don't think wearing shoes should disallowed. In some neighborhoods, broken glass is common, and we shouldn't persuade nudists to endanger their health, or limit their participation in pick-up basketball games. A nice, new pair of "Air Jordans" would add to (rather than detract from) a state of fashionable dishabille.

The shoes could have a small pouch attached to the outside, convenient for carrying the credit cards, boarding passes, and pocket knives with corkscrews for opening wine bottles, about which, evidently, Pompey is so concerned. Problem solved!!!!

[Ecurb]

My opinion of public nudity as stated on this very thread is not completely forthcoming. If we can believe Robert Graves (and who doesn't?), it is public "nakedness" for which I am advocating. According to Graves, the nude, "grin a mock-religious grin / Of scorn at those of naked skin." I scorn not nakedness, especially when it goes about well shod.

[Pompey Bum]

Although I support public nudity, I don't think wearing shoes should disallowed. In some neighborhoods, broken glass is common, and we shouldn't persuade nudists to endanger their health, or limit their participation in pick-up basketball games. A nice, new pair of "Air Jordans" would add to (rather than detract from) a state of fashionable dishabille.

The shoes could have a small pouch attached to the outside, convenient for carrying the credit cards, boarding passes, and pocket knives with corkscrews for opening wine bottles, about which, evidently, Pompey is so concerned. Problem solved!!!!

I don't want to wipe my face with something that's been in a basketball player's shoe.

[Buh4Bee]

I'm for public nudity, but I think the average person is not.

[cacian]

I'm for public nudity, but I think the average person is not.

why are you for public nudity?

[cacian]

For or against?

Is it a good thing? Or bad?

Is there enough of of it? Too much of it? Not enough of it?

Let's hear what the panel thinks...

not having clothes on is unattractive.

[Ecurb]

not having clothes on is unattractive.
Have you ever seen Michaelangelo's David?

[Buh4Bee]

I think it’s fine on certain beaches. I went to one in Spain and went topless until I was grossed out by a troll. But in particular designated areas, I think people have a right to walk around in the nude in public. I think most mature people just enjoy being free and it’s less of an erotic state. I do not believe children should be exposed. It should be for adults only.

[cacian]

Have you ever seen Michaelangelo's David?

no I have not.