Frank, If you want me to read this without giggling you have to get rid of the sig.
And, to be serious, you can objectify people without having them remove their clothes. I find the objectification of non-nude people (starving hordes, minorities, fat, thin, old, etc.) to be much more offensive than the potential for the same from pictures of an informedly consenting naked person showing us what they look like. As a biologist and member of the species, I am constantly enthralled at the multitudinous forms the human corpus can take. You say that being photographed nude "shows them as primarily sexual persons" - well, they are. And so are you and everyone else on the planet. It's our primal urge and there's nothing we can do about it. Artistically, if it sexualises the model then it also sexualises the viewer - you can't have one without the other. Having said all that; you are right that there is a disparity, although I think it is lessening. So a question. If the disparity disappears but there are still nudes of both sexes being viewed by both sexes, has the "problem" gone away? On 25/11/2013, knarf <knarftheria...@gmail.com> wrote: > The catalyst for this little missive, I must admit, is Bruce's recent series > of NSFW semi-nudes. That being said, it's not directed specifically to or at > Bruce. It's more a comment on the whole female nude thing. Others have > posted similar photos in the past and likely will do so again. > > My problem, of course, is the objectification of women. And it's not because > they're sexualized by showing "dirty parts". It's because there's such a > huge disparity between male nudes and female nudes. > > As in: there has never been a male nude shown here (that I've seen in some > thirteen years). I don't believe I've ever seen a penis here. > > A couple of years ago someone posted a few photos that appeared to have been > semi-erotic (but not nude) gay pin-ups. The only comment I recall was > something to the effect that, "all I see here is gay soft-core porn". > > No comments about the technical aspects of the shots, the nice light, > nothing. I stand accused and guilty myself. > > I only mention that because there seems to be a double standard here: it's > okay to show female sexuality but not male. And I wonder why? > > I understand that an individual photographer will say, "But I don't want to > photograph male nudes. As a straight male I just don't appreciate male > nudity, erotic or otherwise. It's my right to choose to photograph only > female nudes." > > Fair enough. > > And yes, the female nudes shown here have been tasteful and relatively > discreet. Nothing gratuitous. > > But here's the rub: showing genitalia and breasts is sexual. It sexualizes > the women. Even if they consent to it they are being portrayed in such a way > that shows them as primarily sexual persons which takes away from other > aspects of their being. > > I know that sexuality is a part of our adult lives. > > However until there is some balance between portrayal of the genders I can't > support female nudes. Because until that happens females will be sexualized > and males won't be. And I just don't think that's right. > > I'm not trying to stop anyone from posting female nudes. But I won't > encourage it by commenting (except in the rarest of circumstances). > > In closing, I'm no prude. And I'm sure I'll be accused of spouting the > politically correct lefty party line. So be it. > > What I'm really doing is expressing my personal opinion. Thanks for you > indulgence. > > Cheers, > frank > > > “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
