The Power and the Glory, Part II (see last May for Part I)

<p>I find this distinction a bit silly, "male/man photographs" vs "female/woman photographs", to describe the photographer instead of the photographs subject - which is the thing through which the photographer may or may not be described - and which obviously is very different in context if the image is either a well considered nude or the cheap kinda porn-erotica stuff.</p>

<p><strong>Zoe - "</strong>a nude on the other hand has no timestamp. it is timeless. photographs by anne brigman or say man ray are even appreciated in today's time because they are nude and the theme of the photograph is relatable even in our technological driven age."</p>

<p> Zoe, to the discerning eye, they <em>are </em>dated, because of the way they were photographed, the optical signature of the materials/equipment used at the time, etc. If I look at Brigman's pictorialist-era work, it's fairly well fixed in time. Man Ray's surrealist nudes, too.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>@Luis - that's if you think that all photographs are made digitally in our times, which a lot are not. there are many photographers still using the same techniques today that anne brigman and man ray used. while not as popular it doesn't mean it's a dead medium. i still do platinum printing and quite a few of my friends still do wet plates. the date stamp is the emergence of digital photography and 35mm photography. i suppose every technique can have a date stamp, but only if you know absolutely the timeline of the images. i could make a 4x5 film image and print it in platinum and the only way you'd know if it was made in 2010 and not 1880 would be if you took it to a lab and studied the chemicals and paper stock.</p>

<p>@Fred - of course a genre isn't the sole cause of objectification. that's not what i was saying at all. only a person can objectify another person. and i said SOME women when speaking about sexualizing nudes. the majority of women who view nude photography don't like it because it IS objectifying. like the wife finding the playboy hidden in your secret spot and giving you the look. that happens all the time because the magazine is based on sex and the wife probably wants to be seen as something more than that. when the wife sees the magazine she feels that's what her husband thinks a woman should be, so she's offended. (OMG Venus & Mars) So, it definitely is the perspective of the majority of women, photographers or not. while some women photograph to please a man's eye, and there are many, there are also women who ignore it.</p>

<p>@phylo - women and men do photograph differently. just like they dress differently and think differently. so to think that a woman's response to nude photography would be the same as a man's response is naive. some women find it liberating, some women find it degrading, some women are embarrassed that they don't look as good as the models in the images so they find distaste in the pictures. there are many emotions women go through when they see nudes. most emotions are not sexual. and i've only touched a couple of emotions ... women are capable of millions of emotions in a millisecond. that's why we cry more than men do, if you've failed to notice.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Zoe,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i was trying to get all of you men to think about it for a minute from a woman's perspective.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Earlier I was afraid you were trying to push us into that direction, I refrained from commenting on it since it would have sounded hostile. But, anyway, Fred is very right, you're asking us to see it from your perspective, not a generic woman's perspective.<br>

Apart from the <strong>assumption</strong> that we didn't consider this (which I think is wrong, this forum can be held in a somewhat higher regard than that), it's also assuming a female unified stance on how they want to be seen, an a generic male reaction to that. Which is a very wrong assumption.<br>

Apart from cultural differences (countries where women are held in higher regards than men, or totally equal), there also are plenty women who are fine with and enjoy using their sensuality and sexuality. There are plenty women volunteering to be pictured nude, by men. Don't forget that this bodily play of sexuality is no more than a mating ritual and a normal biological process.<br>

And on the other hand, there are men that are not at all that pleased with seeing nudes, for a wide variety of reasons. Not all of us start to drool like maniac monkeys.<br>

The playboy example you give in response to Fred... because the man has a sex magazine, he sees his wife as a lust object and no more and the majority of women think this. Really? Sure, because all men are like that and all women are like that. Don't you find it a bit too simple yourself?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> some women find it liberating, some women find it degrading, some women are embarrassed that they don't look as good as the models in the images so they find distaste in the pictures. there are many emotions women go through when they see nudes. most emotions are not sexual.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And you think it is any different for men seeing male nudes? There is nothing specific female about this at all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>that's why we cry more than men do, if you've failed to notice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, that is a deep embedded cultural response where women are held to be the emotional ones, and males the rational ones. These are just role models, and depending on your country of origin more than your chromosomes. You're constantly pushing the differences between male and female, but yet want to be treated the same?<br>

Probably you will find my response male aggressive, and you'll have a point. But the point is: assume a bit less, and see the shades of grey, rather than black and white (or Mars and Venus if you insist).<br>

I get the more than faint idea you find nudes to be degrading. Your posts do suggest a value opinion of a genre, without realising a lot of subtleties and nuances. Yes, it's good for us males to consider female opinions on this, in a considerate and thoughtful way. But please do return the favour.</p>

<p>yes... tell the woman about women... sure. @wouter really? <br>

women are more emotional than men. that's not to say that men are more rational because you've demonstrated that is a false statement by trying to explain women to a woman. </p>

<p>"You're constantly pushing the differences between male and female, but yet want to be treated the same?" (wouter) <br>

there's no way in hell a man would ever treat me the same way he would treat another man, clearly or you wouldn't be speaking this way towards me in a condescending tone. <br>

one man here agreed with my point of view out of how many men commenting here? @Arthur was the only one. that ought to tell you something. all the rest of you are telling me i'm wrong. i'm not. i'm explaining how some women photograph and how some women react to nude photography. and they all do so differently than most men do. <br>

should we go further down the psychological path towards why women get severely irritated by irrational responses men give them or the irrational photographs men take of women? (i'm being an asshole now, clearly)</p>

<p>I knew the venture into the boys club here would end in stupidity. Have fun boys... it's your genre and only your genre after all.<br>

*eyeroll*</p>

<p>Like I said, I knew my reaction would come across hostile. I apologised upfront for that, and I do it again. But you're reading my posting wanting to hear specific things, and that was the exact point of the post. Yes, it ends in stupidity, but for other reasons than this being a boy's club.</p>

<p>@wouter - what i described is a generic woman's perspective. ask around to women who are not photographers. have a gander at a feminist website. this is a good one: http://www.jezebel.com It's witty and humorous without being unsexy. You might start to understand women, maybe. But, like you've misinterpreted my explanation, I would assume you'd misinterpret everything on that website also. but it's how most women feel, whether or not we vocalize those feelings is another matter. especially inside this semi-masoginistic realm of male dominated photography. i don't enjoy someone dissecting something i spent some time on to try and clearly come across to people only to have it misconstrued and restructured in order to mean something totally different than what I meant. I don't enjoy having someone tell me that what I said wasn't what I meant. I didn't ask anyone to look at anything from MY OWN perspective. if you thought it was hostile, then why did you bother typing all that out to begin with?<br>

being a model for over 30 years then taking up photography, i think i understand a thing or two about different perspectives and photography, modeling, and everything that goes along with it. it's been my entire life. and since i don't see any photographs of models in your portfolio, how the hell could you possibly tell me how it is? that's completely illogical.<br>

And your apology might sound honest and sincere if it wasn't so backhanded in it's delivery. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>women are capable of millions of emotions in a millisecond. that's why we cry more than men do, if you've failed to notice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Talk about generalisation! And stereotyping! Men are also capable of 'millions of emotions in a millisecond' (unless you can point me to any evidence to the contrary) - the difference is how that is conveyed. And a lot of that is driven by upbringing. You talk about men 'stereotyping' society's image of women then do the same thing yourself.<br>

There are oftern more differences between individuals of the same sex than there are between the sexes.</p>

<p>@Mike - I'm quite over this conversation. truly. So, all of you boys can go focus on other things now. I tried to contribute an honest feeling about the genre and all you've managed to do is talk down at me for it.<br>

have a beautiful day everyone!<br>

so long and thanks for all the fish!</p>

<blockquote>

<p> have a gander at a feminist website.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Referring to a feminist website to support a view of the reaction 'women' have to nudity/nakedness is a strange one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>especially inside this semi-masoginistic realm of male dominated photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this says more about your own view (as mondel and photogrpaher) than it does about men.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>being a model for over 30 years then taking up photography, i think i understand a thing or two about different perspectives and photography, modeling, and everything that goes along with it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree completely. But at the end of the day it is your view. I am sure the Pirelli Calendar girls and the topless tabloid girls have quite different views and motivations, as do Lord Litchfield and the makers of pornographic shots.<br>

If I may be so bold, you come onto a (male comindated, as you see it) forum and try to tell experienced photographers that their conceptions of how women (and men!) view nudes. So to be honest I am not surprised some took offence.</p>

 

<p>Arguments from all sides of this can be found here:<br>

<a href="http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/13/does-female-nudity-always-objectify-women/">http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/13/does-female-nudity-always-objectify-women/</a><br>

<a href="http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/10/what-does-lust-look-like/">http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/10/what-does-lust-look-like/</a><br>

<a href="http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/22/a-summary-visual-of-womens-objectification/">http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/22/a-summary-visual-of-womens-objectification/</a><br>

<a href="http://contexts.org/socimages/2010/03/18/naked-women-as-props-in-details/">http://contexts.org/socimages/2010/03/18/naked-women-as-props-in-details/</a><br>

And if you want more, here are the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Acontexts.org%2Fsocimages+nude&btnG=Google+Search">Google site search results</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, all of you boys can go focus on other things now. I tried to contribute an honest feeling about the genre and all you've managed to do is talk down at me for it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh c'mon, man-up a little !, I thought all women were, uhm, flexible... just like all men are made out of rubber, can't feel pain, and don't have any emotions at all to process, besides thinking each ten seconds about sex.<br>

<br /> I think there's a mix-up here between the portrayal of women in and through media and advertisements ( which I don't view as photography, not in the sense of "photographers photography / history of " ) and that of the more well considered female nude seen through the eyes of a <em>photographer </em>firstly / equally, and which isn't necesarily about the objectification of women just because the photographer is a man.<br /> <br /><br /> And, there's only ONE man who never ever cries and that's Chuck Norris, too bad really, because his tears can cure cancer.</p>

<p>The operative possible stereotype here maybe that women aren't driven as much by vision in their sexuality, but the other question might be why don't lesbians write more women/women graphic stories, make more women/women vids (there are some out there, but not so much nakedness/nudity). I'm nervous about stereotypes that sound good but can backfire: women are cooperative, women work with people better. I think guys do that cooperation thing just fine and women don't always cooperate with other women -- and the variance within either gender is greater than the average difference between genders. </p>

<p>It's fairly obvious that men like to think that women who write the male/male stuff are heterosexual, but I don't know any women slash writers who are straight (one friend who's more in that world than I am says she doesn't know any either, but surely they might exist).</p>

<p>But I didn't think I was the only woman who saw eroticizing of a forum as making the place about guy's erotic fantasies rather than sharing anything we might have in common. And at least some gay guys got upset over women's slash fiction, probably in part that it objectified them (and yes it can, and that's part of the fun).</p>

<p>If I were to venture a stereotype here, it would be that women's eroticism, straight or gay, is more focused on faces.</p>

<p>I was an art model for a while and how people read my being naked in front of them varied quite a lot. For me, it was not particularly erotic, and working for a painter who didn't take it as such was much less a hassle than modeling for an art class where at least one of the guys made it clear that he did.</p>

<p>One guy said something on another forum here about wishing all women would wear mini skirts and high heels to please an old man. I was quite angry -- high heels are not as bad as foot binding but they're considerably worse physiologically for their wearers than a head scarf. Second, he obliterated all women who were old, not really attractive in mini-skirts. He wasn't thinking about old women in mini-skirts and high heels. Mildly crippling women so he could see tense twitchy calf muscles -- okay, let's stop talking about how horrible other cultures are to their women -- at least they don't make high heels part of an office dress code.</p>

<p>Chinese art doesn't have a nude tradition (perhaps outside complete pornography). Nakedness was a sign of poverty. Other cultures (thinking now of a Masai who studied at Harvard who thought ugly people should cover it up and the young should be the ones showing their bodies) see more bare flesh on a daily bases, so the kinda weird thing we do with banning showing women's breasts on beaches, allowing men to go topless, and making the art photographs of bare women is because we don't actually see that much women's flesh on a daily bases to de-eroticize it? Perhaps we don't do that many male nudes because male torsos bare are common in daily life?</p>

<p>Only our Western Eurasian and transplanted culture derived from Western Eurasia makes nudes as art on a regular basis. American art traditions have some cultures where women do rather funny graphic pottery (Andean culture, but not Incas) but in general, there's not the equivalent that I'm aware of in pre-Columbian art of the European nude. Classical Greek nudes may be in another category all together, but some cultures where both genders exercised nude didn't do figurative art at all as far as I know (Sparta). Classical Islamic cultures didn't do any openly figurative work even of clothed people -- and there's a minority opinion today that photography is <i>haram</i> because it is a making of a representation of a living thing. Classical Islamic cultures certainly had written pornography, though. Maybe it's if you don't see it enough, you can fantasize about it better. Guys tend to run around closer to nude in this set of cultures than women, though that's changing in some European countries.</p>

 

<p><strong><a href="mailto:Zoe@Luis">Zoe - </a>- that's if you think that all photographs are made digitally in our times, which a lot are not. there are many photographers still using the same techniques today that anne brigman and man ray used. while not as popular it doesn't mean it's a dead medium. "</strong>@Luis<br>

Zoe, it's the consciousness that timestamps it more than anythjing else. You cannot be Brigman or Man Ray, no matter how hard you try to imitate them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I see a chicken in a swimsuit, I think swimming. When I see a chicken all plucked, I think dinner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Strange to say, Julie, so do I--and I am not ashamed of it. Your parody of my words was very clever, in any case.</p>

<p>Zoe, thanks for trying. Goodness knows we have trouble enough getting women to contribute to some of these forums without bashing them for doing so.</p>

<p>I was hoping that women in particular could give us some new insight on this particular topic. We already know how men tend to respond on these issues, although there is (I hope) more to the original question than has been addressed so far by those of either sex. I was actually hoping for a serious analytical and even interdisciplinary approach to the various variables that affect human perception where the photographic nude is concerned. Any cultural anthropologists out there with anything to say? We dare not universalize our own cultural norms to some presumption that our personal responses are "human nature." Human nature there is, but it is not clear to me what cultural variables come into play in shaping our responses to such difficult questions--and they are difficult. We do well not to trivialize them, in my opinion, although a bit of levity is certainly not out of place. So far Julie wins the levity contest hands down.</p>

<p>Rebecca, I see that you are back and commenting very clearly and unambiguously. Things are looking up, guys, if we can get more serious female participation in these forums and on this site. The women know the answer, if anyone does.</p>

<p>Julie, thanks for the great links. That is the sort of thing that I was hoping for--conjoined with serious philosophical argumentation.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps we don't do that many male nudes because male torsos bare are common in daily life?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As good a use of Occam's razor as I have seen in a long time! A very interesting thought. <br>

But this does bring us back to the 'unknown as the exotic'. We have meditative tradition in Christianity but people tend to prefer to dive into Buddhism. We have superb Western cuisine but the trend is for Asian food (in the UK anyway). Women (tend to be) more covered up than men and the female form becomes more lauded as an object of art.<br>

To quote Nat King Cole: " in olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking'. But more than that, its rarity (and the fact it was on the female body) meant that the ankle itelf became an object of eroticism. We have the same thing in Islam where in areas where full-body coverage is the norm (for women), the eyes become incredibly communicative and teh subject of eroticism.<br>

And the spiral continues (I was going to say 'circle' but it comes back round with more layers).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lannie, you sound patronizing. Nobody was bashed for contributing. Like always, we called someone on assumptions, attitude, and false generalizations.</p>

<p>Zoe, you prejudged the outcome before you entered.</p>

<p>Nothing enlightening here.</p>

<p>Fred, there are indeed two things I found enlightening:</p>

<p>(1) the inability of the contributors, myself included, to come to terms with the questions <em>("</em><em>Why does the photographic nude vary so greatly in its impact on us? More specifically, why do some <em>nudes </em>appear more <em>naked</em>than others?")</em> in a very insightful philosophical way (most responses for me were too much "meat and potatoes" with little nuance of a complementary "sauce");</p>

<p>(2), and probably also due to some very fixed models of thought and unyielding paradigms, the continuation of the so-called "male European attitude towards women", something that was thought to have changed a little in North America and that has not differed significantly in most parts of the world. Having lived and worked in both milieuxs, the differences are there but maybe less so than before. The very few women who rise to top corporate or political jobs need often to have ten times the capabilities of their male competitors, and have often left their female preoccupations, identity and values somewhere on the roadside.</p>

<p>Whether the intent is sensual or simpy aesthetic, a woman photographing a woman or a man nude is often bringing different thoughts to the project than a man doing the same. But quick rewind to my first point here, we have not discovered here what I think Landrum wished, for either male or female photographers. In that sense, I agree that the discussion has not been very enlightening for this reader/contributor.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur</strong>, I suppose if I wanted to, I could bring up the heterocentrism and often unwitting homophobia of society at all levels which could influence my reaction to everything each <em>individual</em> says to me. It is sometimes obvious, like when <em>a few</em> straight guys who look at one of my male nudes begin their comments with a version of <em>"I'm not gay, but I like this because . . . "</em> Because, of course, for a guy to appreciate a male nude, it has to be qualified! But even in those instances, I more appreciate the genuineness of the comment than choosing to obsess about my own real and imagined or projected victimhood. Of course I see the world through my male, Jewish, gay, urban, tall person's eyes, but I try not to use those factors as bludgeons against others and I try not to let those factors blind those very same eyes. Maybe I give people in this forum more credit than you and Zoe in being able to be genuine and in approaching the subject knowing the limitations of their own inherited biases and the biases of the world and able to carry on a philosophical discussion nevertheless. Have you never felt pounced on in this forum? Did you blame it on some generic fact about what group of people you fit into or did you see it in another light?</p>

<p>You've offered some of the same thoughts here as others about the supposed nude/naked dichotomy as well as your opinion of the photo linked to at the start of the thread. For me, meat and potatoes (though I'm a vegetarian!) are significant and it's the gravy that often overdresses the meal and adds unhealthy fat. What can you say that would be more enlightening on the subject and, perhaps, get the discussion on a track that you prefer.</p>

<p>This is perhaps by favorite nude image I have seen on PN:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10391730">http://www.photo.net/photo/10391730</a><br>

And, here is my favorite "naked" image I have seen on PN:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10399451">http://www.photo.net/photo/10399451</a><br>

There is an amazing power reflected in each image and inescapable beauty of extraordinary depth, but only one woman is really naked - and obviously, she is clothed.<br>

After reading Julie's insightful contributions, I visited her homepage and I found this on her blog from a few days ago:<br>

In the poetry contest in China by which the Sixth Patriarch of Zen Buddhism was chosen, there were two poems. One said: “The mind is like a mirror. It collects dust. The problem is to remove the dust.” The other and winning poem was actually a reply to the first. It said, “Where is the mirror and where is the dust?”<br>

So, in response to your initial question Lanny, I think the second poet offers the answer. In all of this there is incredible art ... if one is only willing to look. Thanks for the engaging topic.</p>

<p>"Have you never felt pounced on in this forum? Did you blame it on some generic fact about what group of people you fit into or did you see it in another light?"</p>

<p><strong>Fred</strong>, no, no and yes. Maybe I am thick-skinned about personal remarks made to me (although I have been bated at times but that is different than being pounced on), or just accepting of divergences of opinion, but I like to think that I am personally open to a variety of ideas and am sensitive to those of others and of groups whom I feel have been "classified" by segments and individuals of society. That's why I think Zoe, who has strong feelings about women in society, should be heard and seriously considered, rather than being pounced upon. This week, we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the vote given to women in our constituency. Yes it happened as early as 1916 in another (Manitoba) constituency of my country, but it does make one think about the incredible slowness of progress.</p>

<p>Perhaps we have evolved something of use in the thread, which is the thought that nakedness is not always nudity, and the thought that nudity is not necessarily nakedness.</p>

<p>Arthur,<br /> The fact that this discussion got rather derailed (for which I am certainly to blame), does not mean that nobody tried, or that we cannot get to terms with the raised questions. In my first post, I certainly tried to address some points which are in line with what the topic start was about. And I most certainly wasn't the only one.</p>

<p>To me, any discussion on why nudes would be different photographs requires first to stop generalising the genre. Second, I think it is key to realise that the "deal" about nudity is a cultural thing. For some a shame, for some lust inducing, for some improper, and so on. So, yes, it may be closer to the a taboo (for some), but that does not make it any different in term of photography than all the other types of photography. So, in my view, what we would be discussing is not nude photography, but cultural, religious and personal inhibitions regarding display of the human body, and potentially gender issues affecting that.</p>

<p>Second, the difference nude versus naked, I can only repeat what I said on that before. Yes, to me there is a difference, totally unrelated to clothing.</p>

<p>Partially aside,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The very few women who rise to top corporate or political jobs need often to have ten times the capabilities of their male competitors, and have often left their female preoccupations, identity and values somewhere on the roadside.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In university, I had a course in gender history (gender relations throughout the times), and this was indeed one of the things highlighted. However, it was similarly highlighted that the other way (at this moment, in European/American society) seems to be to fully embrace being female, and use that. Either way, it is adapting to a male society, but one loosing the female-ness, one using it. The second is less popular, because it is often referred to as making career with bedside manners... but as always, there is more nuance to it than that.</p>

<p>[edit]: We posted at the same time, I'm referring to one post earlier.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur</strong>, if Zoe was being pounced upon, it was for the ideas she expressed and her manner of expressing them. I don't see that anyone pounced on her because she is a woman. But I'm a guy, what do I know?! This struggle will never go away, nor will the gay/straight, black/white Jew/Arab. We are all so invested in these struggles. We say we want them to disappear and we do everything in our power to continue them as well . . . on all sides.</p>

<p>Nudes are imbued with power. '<em>The</em><em> <strong >glory</strong> of something is its great beauty or impressive nature</em>'. I shoot a lot of nudes because of this power and glory. <br>

I didn't read part one.<br>

Often nudes are equated to sex, understandably if unfortunate sometimes.. partly because nudity is often viewed as a step toward sex it causes a strong reaction for some. naked, erotic, pornographic, sensual, offensive, poetic, nature, cultural, historical, tiresome....tiresome. But I don't underestimate gender or sexual preference of the photographer or viewer in the equation. When I go to shoot I often genuinely consider (sometimes before sometimes after) if I am more in touch with my masculine side or my feminine side. It's often legible to me. It's especially useful when shooting nudes (not exclusively). Of course I will never 'see' as a woman always a male but not a one trick pony.. My feminine side does see differently and has a voice that i admire.<br>

When I began shooting nudes with a serious intent I was taken back by the frequency of my friends (predominately male) asking who the model was. Women seemed much less interested in knowing the identity. I hadn't been taking portraits of nude women/men I was producing nudes, generic. The identity of the model was often secondary for me. Objectifying? Sure. I was objectifying the individual but I was most often studying a gender or even just a shape and play with light.. as others have said I don't find it wrong to see a nude model as an object. In response to the oft asked 'who is that' I began to exclude the face, or head of the model. still life?<br>

Furthermore I see a distinction in objectifying and degradation, an easy and sometimes murky line to cross. I have. Sometimes with good intent and results sometimes just trashy. I do it because it exists and interests me. I lust and I will share it, not deny it anymore than I would my romantic side. It has taught me much about who we are. who i am and improved me for it. From Bellmer, Drtikol, Brigman to Clark, Penn (dancer) and Sturges. There is still power and glory to explore in nudes.<br>

I read once that photography was a great equalizer for the sexes as an art medium. Suggesting that it was not as easy to recognize the differences between male and female artists. I find it so on the surface but i also relish the differences that have emerged. and that there is a more profound difference that it seems on the surface of most imagery. In mature nude photography the differences are not so great imo until the edges are pushed.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred, I'm a gun person, too, and while I don't normally out myself in mixed company or among people who are avidly anti-hangun, I want to bring up a story about stuff guys don't know about themselves. I don't currently own a handgun, but giving myself permission to use whatever force necessary to defend myself was a fairly transforming experience.</p>

<p>In almost every interaction women have with men, the men are likely to have the physical advantage. There's the saying, "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them." Well, I was with a bunch of guys talking trash about handguns and such and showing each other our concealed weapons permits, and handlng, among other things, an Uzi, a Glock, and a Calico (all unloaded) at a science fiction convention in Chattanooga, Tennessee. </p>

<p>Even though the guns weren't loaded, the whole traditional gender structure collapsed. An older woman friend noticed, too. If we're all armed, then the subliminal cues and dominance and submission games don't work. The guys started doing something that seemed like re-defining gender, talking about women still as sexual, but in a very different way, say, in having the keys to the handcuffs. It must have been for them like my meeting a black person who didn't defer made me realize how much and how subtly other blacks I'd known, even those I thought I was friends with, had deferred and how little I'd noticed.</p>

<p>Until the numbers reach something like 20%, minorities tend not to relax. Women also know that sometimes what we're facing is one queen bee and the guys, and we don't want to be stung to death, either. </p>

<p>I'm not sure guys understand the messages women get about how dangerous they can be. All of us have had strangers get angry because we wouldn't start talking to them.</p>

<p>Yes, it's not all males, but until a woman rule out that a strange new male isn't one of the bad guys, they're being prudent, not bigoted, to make sure the guy does see her as more than someone born to gratify his sexual pleasure. And not all nudes are females or males displaying themselves to the man. One of the things I like about your photographs is that they're portraits of people, not all of whom are young and lithe. They're human and vulnerable, real people behind the eyes.</p>

<p>Hum, a thought I hadn't had before. Some women use the sexual posing to distract from the vulnerability, perhaps. The de-individualization could be deliberate. They're not showing themselves as real (I commented on one woman looking almost masculine in an otherwise somewhat erotic pose, her face wasn't saying what her body was).</p>