Is the chaste nude an oxymoron?

<p>Simple answer. No.</p>

<p><strong>Robert </strong>wrote, (in part)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>........and go in circles will lead you nowhere!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is that not the idea of philosophy of photography forum discussion,or sometimes, dissertation. A journey with no end, leading, <em>ad infinitum,</em> to a fresh thread. If there be a circumscribed discussion, then what .... One might then seek to inquire as to what lies behind the closed doors of ambiguity. A lion or a naked lady?...<br>

bye. gerald</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even I, an old toothless tiger now, kind of mind leaped when I saw nudity in the title under active discussions forums. happy trails. But so long and winding,phew.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The fact is, Gerry, that my motives for writing are two-fold: first, I really am puzzled intellectually over many issues (not just sexuality) that invoke the old nature v. nurture dilemma; second, talking about sex has been going on for a long time, and it is a very puzzling and interesting (not to say titillating) thing to talk about. Anyone who does not feel the mystery is missing a lot, in my opinion. We are carrying on a conversation that surely predates all known historical records. The ancients couldn't figure out the full implications of sexuality, and neither can we--but we keep trying.</p>

<p>I really would like to understand the more mysterious things about sexuality and sexual ethics--nude photography is simply one of many possible entry points into that larger realm of inquiry. There is something mystical and not merely appetitive about sex and things related to sexuality. Many of the most meaningful experiences and memories in our lives are about love and sex. Our literature and music, and not just the visual arts, are permeated with more or less constant sexual allusions. The nude form, stylized in art, intrigues us and fascinates us. It does much, much more than merely excite us or titillate us. It has a power over us that defies explanation. </p>

<p>Obviously, some wonderful things are at stake here. This is on one level simply interesting to talk about. On another level it goes beyond interesting and fun to being an inquiry into the ultimate questions. If there is a divine component to sexuality, and I think that there is, then we have about as much chance of figuring out these ultimate questions as we have of understanding the fullness of the divine.</p>

<p> There is a reason that persons are drawn to these threads: something very important is at stake here. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Landrum, one would think, if judging by nothing more than the sheer volume of your own posts, that you might have managed to answer your own question by now. If not, I fear none of us will be able to take you any further down the road toward finding that illusive answer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You never know, Jeff. It is an ongoing quest into what for me are the truly ultimate existential questions, and one never knows from whom the next insight is going to come.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Simple answer. No.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, Bruce. Very concise and to the point. Yes, nudes can be chaste--and why not? Is there something inherently impure in them? The very idea is preposterous to me.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To sum this up more clearly, you're asking if there is such a thing as an ideal, and then giving an example of a very tangible, real, and identifiable person. This is a logical flaw, so to really truly answer your question you need a different example.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no logical flaw because there is no claimed logical link, John. She was the inspiration for the thread, nothing more. Is she the ideal.? Are you talking about her physical form? Well, first of all, I have never seen her nude or anywhere close to nude, and so I cannot say. I can say that she has one of the most beautiful faces I have ever seen, especially her eyes, and she is a very spiritual person. Every thought and every feeling that she has seems to instantly flash across her face, and she smiles spontaneously and often. There is nothing false about her, rather a childlike innocence. She has a certain kind of mystical beauty that seems to go to the heart of her being. She seems like a very spiritual being, but without a lot of the baggage of conventional religion. So, though we are not involved at all in any kind of relationship besides being good friends, she is rather like the ideal woman to me--and I do not have to see her naked to know that. It comes through in her very personhood. She is a truly unique person, unlike anyone I have ever met. She is also, because of the difference in our ages (almost twenty-five years, and I am sixty-five), a paragon of the unattainable. To that extent it becomes easy to idealize her, but none of this was mentioned at the outset. I simply mentioned that she raised all of the old simmering questions anew before they had completely quieted down on a previous thread--and it was her modesty that raised the question for this thread, none of the attributes that I have just described.</p>

<p>So. . . she is simply the muse for this thread, nothing more--but that is enough. We will never be lovers, but even her friendship is like a divine gift, and I revere it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You're asking if there is an a priori, perfect, image of a naked human, that is devoid of any sexuality - at least, to a majority of people.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, John, I never defined "chaste" as any of that. You are obviously arguing with yourself, not me. Have at it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On another level it goes beyond interesting and fun to being an inquiry into the ultimate questions.<br>

There is nothing false about her, rather a childlike innocence. She has a certain kind of mystical beauty that seems to go to the heart of her being.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it does seem this is another aspect of men's perception of femininity, a certain purity that is mysterious, intriguing and hard to describe, but certainly transcends sexuality in some way that seems essential to us, if we are lucky enough to be so confronted by something so utterly 'other'. It is spiritually nutritive. I think she does have many of the qualities you describe and yet I do think that the mystical beauty comes from the heart of your own being.</p>

<p >Sexual union could be described as an exchange whereby two individuals make a mutual gift of themselves to each other. It becomes impure, or unchaste, when one is treated as an object of satisfaction to be consumed for self gratification. <br>

This tendency of debasing the other as an object of self-gratification is manifest everywhere in all cultures, in all societies, in all time periods. It is not anything taught or culturally conditioned: it is a fact of life: an inherent weakness of human nature, just like greed, theft, dishonesty, injustice, and any other vice. People kid themselves if they think that they can cast off their religion or cultural upbringing and be free of their selfish weaknesses. It takes some muscle to grow up and mature. The irony is that those who think that they are free of all inhibitions tend to be the most frustrated individuals.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>People kid themselves if they think that they can cast off their religion or cultural upbringing and be free of their selfish weaknesses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, that is a very profound statement, and I shall have to think about the fuller implications of it.</p>

<p>Charles, others have commented on the person who is the muse of this thread. Many of them say the same things that I have said. Her physical beauty could be seen in a photo, but the spiritual beauty that I have described surely comes only from within her, or else only I could see it. It is pretty obvious to most or all who interact with her on a day-to-day basis.</p>

<p>Photography does have its limitations. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Yes, but then the women who interact with her daily may well see something of what you see in her and yet still be less engaged. I suppose we will have to take your word on the limitations of photography with respect to the pictures where her jacket is on? :)</p>

<p>Yes, Charles. There will be absolutely no photos on this site--or any site. Many persons whom I interact with on a regular basis have their photos taken by me and allow me to post on Photo.net. Others request not to be on the web, and I have to respect their requests. I'm sorry.<br />The pictures are quite chaste, and she is quite beautifu<br>

l, but there is beauty and then there is beauty. The camera can capture the outer beauty. I do not believe that it can capture the inner beauty. We err greatly if we presume that, because someone is externally beautiful, they are spiritually beautiful. I have never seen any correlation between inner beauty and outer beauty. Those who have both types of beauty are beautiful indeed. She is one of those people.<br /><br />--Lannie</p>

<p>The underlying "moralistic" quandary of this thread is certainly an example of the neurotic character of modern western society, and of course the mid-eastern religions that gave rise to such nonsense. "Modesty" in this case has little to do with actually being modest. If a woman has very small breasts and goes nude from the waist up, is she being "immodest"? What does she have special that she is showing off and bragging about? It is not about modesty, but is about the freedom of being nude, and the beautious variety of the human form.</p>

<p>Sex just for the pleasure of it is seen as somehow immoral. Nonsense. We are born as sexual beings, and like other animal species, have visual and other sensual attractions to other people. Every time an attractive female or male gets eyed by others, he or she is the "object" of their (sexual) attention. This is natural, and will go on being so. It is not evil, and does not obviate or detract from the deeper relationships that sometimes develop with sexual expression as part of that. Sexuality is multi-faceted, not one dimensional.</p>

<p>The nude human form in art, including photography, always seen relative to human sexual attraction is not being in touch with reality. Anyone having experienced a day nude at a nude beach knows better. There is a modern trend, especially in the US, to view mere, simple nudity as lewd. Hell, many young people these days won't even take a shower in a public shower room! Beyond ridiculous. When I grew up, we boys swam nude in the public schools and the YMCA pools, as well as in the military service. Thought nothing of it. Everyone showered. It had nothing to do with "immodesty" or "chastity". We were trained in cleanliness from an early age, and I believe this gave us a healthier lack of self-consciousness regarding our bodies, compared to today's co-ed programmed athletic curriculum.</p>

<p>Of course, a female or male with a great body can elicit sexual feelings. That is not "wrong" or to be avoided, but to be embraced. To me, it is natural and good, not evil. Since they have worked to achieve a splendid body, they can be proud of it and be "immodest" enough to show off their achievement and inspire others.</p>

<p>As to children, naked children playing have been an art subject forever. It has no sexual connotation. But the simple beauty of the child's body can still be admired. Nowdays if a parent takes a photo of their kids nude, it is considered "porn"!! Kids are dehumanized too. We are born as sexual beings. The idea that they have no sexuality at all is untrue. They do not normally have sexual appeal for adults, as they are immature. Adult people who are sexually aroused by viewing small kid's bodies have a mental problem, but that does not mean the beauty of children should be hidden. </p>

<p>All depictions of nudity are certainly not connected to sexual attraction, and so what if some depictions are? </p>

<p>I define chaste as what is appropriate for a given situation. In photography (and less so in painting and sculpture) there is clearly a dichotomy (some would say a range) comprising sexual invitation and portrayal of the body as a pure abstract design statement. The former, in a public medium available to children and adolescents, is rightly to be frowned upon, whereas the body as a beautiful form (with a modest erotic element) is surely to be praised.<br>

As for this site, there are, alas, too many pictures that are overtly erotic and of minimum aesthetic value, and few accomplished expression of lighting and composition that define the body, male or female, as a design masterpiece.</p>

 

<p>http://www.ldssdf.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1011</p>

<p><strong>Lannie</strong>,</p>

<p>to me you seem a little bit obsessed by this nude issue.</p>

<p>Whether a nude is socially acceptable or not depends on the general culture, the morals and the individual sensitivity. Chaste has a very clear meaning: in the end it seems that it is related to purity.</p>

<p>As I posted before, chastity does not mean asexual. In Roman Catholicism sexual intercourse between married couple is considered chaste and it is absolutely encouraged. Actually it is human cooperation in a divine act.</p>

<p>As to nude pictures, it depends.</p>

<p>There are some "art" works which are more like a gynaecological depiction.<br>

Some are thrilled by these, and it's a free world, you know.</p>

<p>I personally don't like these. I believe that nudes are more "aesthetic" when they are not too explicit or blatant. A bit of mystery is a positive feature in my view. Gynaecological shots which leave nothing to be imagined are to me visually less attractive.</p>

<p>In general, here on photo.net nudes lack originality. Many of them are done very, very well.<br>

But they tend to look all alike (with some exception, such as J.P., where a study process can be recognised looking at the entire body of work.</p>

<p>In the end I would restate what I posted in the "power and glory".<br>

The visual effect intended by the author very much depends on the viewer: what's chaste for a New Yorker could be considered indecent by somebody living in the inner parts of the US.</p>

<p><em>It depends.</em></p>

<p>A scientific philosophical approach would require to establish a relationship to certain groups or clusters of authors and/or viewers, rather than an undifferentiated consideration of the matter.</p>

<p>L.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The underlying "moralistic" quandary of this thread is certainly an example of the neurotic character of modern western society, and of course the mid-eastern religions that gave rise to such nonsense.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, I have deliberately cast the issue as an ethical issue this time. If that is what you mean by "moralistic," so be it. I do get tired of those who say that there are no ethical issues at stake. There are ethical issues at stake, from those who are quite liberal to those who are very conservative. The thread itself is open to all opinions.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I define chaste as what is appropriate for a given situation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Tom, if we define it that way we are defining it in a more or less ethically neutral way. There are, of course, those who look at it other ways, including the woman who inspired the thread. I believe that such persons' views deserve to be taken seriously, and I am not entirely sure that they are wrong. There might well be something sacred at stake here, something that transcends matters of social convention, as such persons suggest or sometimes explicitly say. At the very least, it is not a point of view that I casually dismiss out of hand. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

 

 

<p>Can a nude be chaste? By "chaste," I assume you mean, not sexy, not erotic and certainly not pornographic.<br>

*</p>

<p><strong>"Chaste"?</strong><br>

I think chaste might be the wrong adjective. As Luca Remotti already noted, the Roman Catholic church does not equate chastity and asexuality. But "chastity," in the understanding of the Church, is about behavior, about the things you <em>do—</em>including, I suppose I should add, the things you do with your mind. It's not about intrinsic qualities. After Eve ate the apple and Adam did, too, they realized they were naked. Nothing had changed objectively. They had been naked before. But now their nakedness caused them to be aware of themselves, aware of their bodies. Photography before the Fall would have been easy: Adam and Eve were comfortable and at ease. After the Fall, not so much. The camera would have no doubt made Eve blush. Adam would have felt the need to stick out his chin, perhaps.</p>

<p>So I'd prefer not to ask if a photo of a nude woman can be chaste. The woman can be chaste; the photo of her, well, chastity, in my own view, simply isn't a property of things or photos. So I'd prefer to ask, is it possible for a photo of a woman to be asexual? unsexy? unerotic? not pornographic? </p>

<p>NOTE: I'm going to skip a whole range of other appetitive and/or emotional and/or spiritual responses to the appearance of other human beings, like "beauty" or "attractiveness" or the nebulous yet powerful appeal of a vibrant human personality. I do think sexy, erotic and pornographic are qualities that either never are found in pure forms, or if they are ever found in pure form, they're found only in people who are strangers to us. Men don't go to strip clubs to make friends.<br>

*</p>

<p><strong>Asexual?</strong><br>

Asexual? Probably not. Sexuality is part of human nature. I recently heard a description of a psychologist (somebody from Harvard, I think) who was noting that sex is one of the few things we always remember about a person. We're troubled when we get email from somebody whose unfamiliar name doesn't reveal their sex. A nun in a habit is a woman and therefore sexual. A photo of a naked, dead old lady is sexual. A photo of a naked little girl or boy is sexual.</p>

<p>So sexuality, in the most basic sense of an awareness of sex, strikes me as a sort of absolute. But sexy, erotic, arousing, pornographic—these seem to me points on a kind of continuum. And the location of the points changes not just from era to era ("In olden days, a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking...") but from place to place (say, Mecca vs Los Angeles) and ultimately from person to person. <br>

*</p>

<p><strong>Unsexy?</strong><br>

Now, photos of the dead and photos of little children, while sexual, certainly need not be sexy or erotic and thus a fortiori aren't pornographic; indeed, photos of the naked dead or of naked little children are almost never perceived as sexy or erotic except by people with, shall we say, unusual proclivities. Nude bodies need not be sexy.</p>

<p>By the same token, the converse seems to be true: sexy bodies need not be nude. It's pretty clear that sexiness isn't a matter simply of dress or undress. I taught college for almost twenty years and attended more than a few graduations. I don't think I'm saying anything improper if I note that some young (and not so young) women can be very sexy, even wearing a full-length graduation robe and a mortar board. </p>

<p>In fact, clothing as cover can be very sexy. Think of the cliché of the woman wrapped in an ankle-length fur—wearing nothing but a bra and stockings underneath. And clothing, as a form of behavior, also has a meaning, that signals an openness to sexual activity and that turns even unattractive bodies into bodies with sex appeal. </p>

<p>And aside from clothing as cover, there is also clothing as, well, costume. I'm not thinking of the nurse fantasy, the secretary fantasy, or (yikes!) the nun fantasy (which I have never understood, probably because I've actually known too many nuns). I'm just thinking of the disco girl, I'm-sexy-for-you-honey, dress-like-a-starlet costume, now almost universal in its appeal. Nowadays, a certain kind of clothing—high heels, etc.—seems for many men to be an important, if not essential aspect of sexiness. Christie Brinkley (to take an example from the past) could be very sexy in jeans, tee shirt and tennis shoes. But she was even sexier in high heels and a short skirt.<br>

*</p>

<p><strong>Where's the line?</strong><br>

If a naked body can be unsexy, it follows that it can be unerotic and not pornographic, so I don't think I need to go any further along the continuum. The interesting question now is, if we put, say, dead bodies of unattractive old women on this side of the scale, and some nude hottie from the pages of Playboy on the other, what's in the middle? Is there a line somewhere that marks the boundary between sexy and not? </p>

<p>I suspect that's not the right question to be asking. </p>

<p>For starters, dead people aren't absolutely unsexy. There's a taboo against seeing dead people as sexy and it's pretty strong, like the taboo against seeing children (or your sister) as sexy. But taboos are taboos for a reason. There's no need to have a taboo against thinking of your refrigerator as a sex object! Anyway, there certainly are sexy dead people—nude or not. I was about to say that I can imagine..., but I don't think I have to imagine, because I am pretty sure I have actually SEEN a photo of a naked women, in a movie or somewhere else, a naked stripper or movie starlet, who was dead. (Doesn't have to be a photo of a real person.) Sexy is edgy, death is even edgier: sexy and dead is dynamite.</p>

<p>I might add that, sadly, pre-pubescent children aren't absolutely unsexy, either. I don't mean in reality, I mean in photos, in the way their presented. Who was it, Calvin Klein? who proved that recently (and stirred up some controversy in so doing).</p>

<p>So you can start way over on the left side of the scale, with a dead body or a young child, and I think fairly easy achieve "sexiness". NO doubt some bodies are pretty unpromising: the morbidly obese or the shockingly malnourished, and a baby in a bra and stockings wouldn't even strike one as grotesque (the way Jean-Benet Ramsey struck most sane people), it would, I think, seem either very sick or (maybe) simply funny.<br>

*</p>

<p><strong>Back to the question</strong><br>

So as I said, I think "where's the line?" may be the wrong question. What is the right question? I rephrased Lannie's question as, Can a nude be unsexy or at least unerotic or at least unpornographic? Is that the right question? </p>

<p>The problem with the question is, it seems to use "the nude" in a loaded way. When I think of "the nude," I don't have a definite idea in mind, and the words "the nude" connote something arty, so I don't think of, I dunno, Playboy centerfolds. Actually I think of Rubens first, for some reason. What I never think of is, say, Grandma Moses or Golda Meir. No offense meant to two great women. I'm just pointing out that, when we ask if "the nude can be unsexy (or unerotic)," as Lannie acknowledged, well, if instead of spending too much time trying to define sexy or erotic or chaste, we instead think about "the nude," the question almost answers itself: Not really, not completely. If the nude is completely without sex appeal, well, it's boring. OK, maybe it's possible. But nobody attempts it. If a completely non-sexy nude exists out there (and I'll stipulate that one or more do exist), they're accidents, artistic failures.<br>

*</p>

<p><strong>Really? </strong><br>

Can that really be right? I mean, nudes by Rubens hang in the Vatican museum. Am I saying that the lonely cardinals are slipping into the museum to arouse their imaginations? No, I'm not saying that.</p>

<p>What makes the classic nude work is the way that the sexiness is, um, <em>contained,</em> controlled, disciplined, kept in check. And here I think Lannie's use of the term oxymoron is <em>right on the money.</em> The classic nude is irrepressibly sexual, but repressibly sexy—or almost repressibly sexy. The lighting, the disciplined and dignified treatment, etc., the <em>artfulness</em> of the picture, trap the sexiness and put it behind bars, as it were. You <em>don't</em> fantasize about having sex with a Rubens nude, not because she's fat, but because if you did, it would kill you. You <em>do </em>fantasize about having sex with a Playboy centerfold, and it doesn't kill you, because a month later—or a few minutes later—you can fantasize about another woman. </p>

<p>In short, the subtext of the pornographic (which slops down a little to the erotic, which slops down a wee bit to the merely sexy) is <em>let's have lots of sex!</em> But the subtext of the classic nude is, <em>this is not attainable, not now, not ever. </em>The great great, classic nude inspires a very low-level yearning that can never find release. That's why we can look at those pictures over and over again. And the nature of pornography, like the nature of pop music, explains why you need an endless supply of it. It must be consumed, not contemplated.<br>

*</p>

<p><strong>The Jane Austen analogy</strong><br>

Compare the old BBC/Grenada 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice, starring the wonderful Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennett, with the more recent 2005 abomination starring the much more beautiful Keira Knightly in the same role. You can't cast Keira Knightly in the role of Elizabeth Bennett without ruining everything about the novel that made it worthwhile. Keira Knightly is simply too sexy. Well, maybe you could, but they didn't want to and certainly didn't try. The power of those novels arises from all that sexual energy, that ocean of sexuality that expresses itself obliquely as matrimonial longing, being held in check. In the 1995 movie, as in the novel itself, when Mr D'Arcy has the courage to propose to Elizabeth that one last time, fearing that she will refuse him but feeling too overpowered by passion not to give it a try, and <em>she </em>responds by, well, she almost explodes in return. I mean, the only thing that keeps them from copulating in the road is, well, a couple decades of civilizing education.</p>

<p>Now that ending isn't sexy, quite, not for the reader or viewer. For one thing, there's so much more than sexual yearning here. It's clear that here we are in the company of those emotions that I banished from my discussion at the start—love, passion, attractiveness, beauty, devotion, caring. But sexiness is just under the surface. Remember D'Arcy's repeated comments on Elizabeth Bennett's extraordinary beauty. And of course, D'Arcy and Miss Bennett marry, and do conjugate, and they are fruitful. We just don't see it and it's a darn good thing for us that we don't. That's not the interesting part of the story for a spectator.</p>

<p>Anyway, the classic nude is, if I can put it this way, a picture of Elizabeth Bennett <em>just before the end of the novel.</em> It's all there, that sexiness, that ripeness, and it's <em>ready</em> to burst, but <em>it's not bursting yet.</em> <br>

*</p>

<p><strong>The classic nude as something dangerous</strong><br>

Some form of the classic nude is found in nearly all cultures, but not all. It is, I think, generally, a civilizing genre. If you don't know what I mean here when I say "civilizing," in the interest of brevity, just let me say, read Freud (starting with Civilization and its Discontents). This was where Freud was on pretty solid ground.</p>

<p>But even in sophisticated societies, the nude is inevitably, almost necessarily semi-scandalous. There are degrees, of course. A view of a bather from behind, as she towels herself off, with little fauns and bunnies running around her, is a good deal less provocative—and less powerful—than Ingres' Odalisque. </p>

<p>Still, because not everybody understands the containing power of art, and because most people know intuitively that it's not safe for people to run around naked all the time, some people will always be scandalized by nakedness. </p>

<p>Sensible, sober women know this, I dare say, intuitively. Well, I don't mean to imply that a woman who does a boudoir session for her husband is not sensible or not sober. But these are generally not the kind of photos that the women will share with her parents, siblings and coworkers.</p>

<p>Will</p>

 

 

<p>Kelly, yes, there are Mormons as well as other Christians (among other religious groups) who have no problems with nudity in a variety of social contexts. There are also those who insist that something ethical is at stake, or even something sacred.</p>

<p>In any case, we shall not answer the underlying <em>ethical </em>issues by simply citing differing <em>social practices and belief systems</em>.</p>

<p>I begin by conceding that <em>cultural</em> relativism is a <em>fact</em>: persons <em>do</em> disagree across cultures and even within cultures. That can be verified empirically, as many sociologists and anthopologists have shown. I am among those who recognize a distinction between <em>cultural </em>relativism and <em>ethical</em> relativism, however, and I believe that it is vitally important not to conflate the two usages of the term "relative" and "relativism." I am not an ethical relativist on such issues. I think that there are issues of right and wrong at stake, and I do believe that there might be some over-arching truth about such matters that is independent of what persons <em>believe</em> to be true, and regardless of what prevailing practices might be deemed <em>acceptable</em> across cultures.</p>

<p>In any case, I personally am in seach of universal moral imperatives, at the same time that I am not particularly interested in cataloging varying cultural differences.</p>

<p>Whether there are any universal moral imperatives, as opposed to differing social practices, is not in any case within the province of the <em>empirical </em>social sciences, but is instead part of the field of <em>normative</em> inquiry typically done by ethicists, moral philosophers--of which group I am one. This is as much as to say that the philosophical and even theological issues will not be resolved by any amount of empirical evidence. The "is" does not prove anything about the "ought," in any case, as even the empiricist David Hume conceded.</p>

<p>This is complicated philosophical territory, in any case, and the underlying ethical issues involved will not go away simply because we find differing points of view and differing social practices, whether in our own culture or across cultures.</p>

<p>I will say it another way yet another time: the "is" does not settle questions of "ought." We will not resolve the ethical ("ought") questions, that is, by any amount of empirical data about what persons do in fact believe or practice.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[T]o me you seem a little bit obsessed by this nude issue.<br />Whether a nude is socially acceptable or not depends on the general culture, the morals and the individual sensitivity. Chaste has a very clear meaning: in the end it seems that it is related to purity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luca, you make two different assertions above. Let us examine them one by one:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[T]o me you seem a little bit obsessed by this nude issue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luca, you disappoint me on this one. This is not a philosophical argument on your part, or, if it is being advanced as a type of philosophical argument, then it is a fallacy based on an<em> ad hominem </em>claim<em>. </em>I have worked very hard on this forum in the past to try to encourage persons <em>not </em>to make <em>ad hominem </em>assertions. I have encouraged them, that is, to avoid the personal attacks and to stick to the arguments and issues as stated. I am really not interested in persons' assessments of me as a person, in any case. I am interested in philosophical argumentation, and the <em>ad hominem </em>is certanly not a valid form of philosophical argumentation.</p>

<p>I will say this about <em>ad hominem </em>remarks: they are destructive in at least three ways. First of all, they tend to damage persons or their reputations. Second, they take us far afield from the substantive philosophical issues at stake. They are thus distracting at best, and there is no place for them on a philosophical forum. Third, they tend to discourage serious philosophical argumentation, and many persons are simply going to retreat from the forum rather than to continue to be subjected to such. (I should add that I have no intention of retreating simply because I occasionally get the stray <em>ad hominem </em>remark.) If we are serious about having a philosophy of photography forum, then we ought to be sure that we establish a hospitable climate on that forum, a climate that is free of personal attacks or observations.</p>

<p>I will not in any case be deterred from posting on these issues simply because I am occasionally subject to <em>ad hominem</em> attacks of this nature. I am pretty thick-skinned after teaching in this area since the 1970s. I have had to put up with quite a bit to get my ideas voiced, and to get them published. <a href="http://www.philosophicalquestions.org">http://www.philosophicalquestions.org</a> (Yes, I am published both in print and on the web, and I do have a long-term publishing agenda on the topics in this and related threads.) I do have a certain intensity and single-mindedness which I bring to bear on issues in moral and political philosophy. Whether it borders on being obsessional or not is not even of interest to me. In any case, I worked on my book on pacifism for seven years before I finished it and got it published it in 1994. I have likewise been working on the issues on these various forum threads for some years. When I get "into" a topic I pursue it with a very focused intensity.</p>

<p>As for your second point:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Whether a nude is socially acceptable or not depends on the general culture, the morals and the individual sensitivity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luca, this is a very nearly tautological claim, in that you have said nothing in the predicate ("depends on the general culture, the morals and the individual sensitivity") that was not already implicit in the subject ("Whether a nude is socially acceptable or not ").</p>

<p>You conclude your thread by offering the following:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A scientific philosophical approach would require to establish a relationship to certain groups or clusters of authors and/or viewers, rather than an undifferentiated consideration of the matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I have just pointed out above in my response to Kelly Flanigan, my approach to an ethical quandary is not a scientifiic approach befitting sociology or anthroplogy. I am also not a logical positivist, and I thus do not agree with A.J. Ayer that "Values are nothing more than emotional preferences." We can documetn the varieties of emotional and cultural preferences scientifically. We cannot prove philosophical arguments by the introduction of new data, and I have cast the issue in this particular thread as an explicitly <em>ethical </em>issue, and my presumption throughout is that is right or wrong is independent of what persons <em>believe</em> to be right or wrong.</p>

<p>In other words, I assume some objective truth about such matters, and I am dedicated to trying to find that truth. Perhaps the ultimate standard of truth exists only in the mind of God. In any case, that issue takes us even deeper into philosophy, into the realm of ethical epistemology, and is almost bound to be misunderstood in a forum on a photography website.</p>

<p>You have given us your own esthetic preferences, and I tend to agree with you. Even so, our views as stated have been overwhelmingly about esthetics in the past. This time I thought that I would cast the thread in the language of morals, ethics.</p>

<p>It was good to hear from you again, Luca, and I appreciate your comments in spite of my own critical responses above.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyway, the classic nude is, if I can put it this way, a picture of Elizabeth Bennett <em>just before the end of the novel.</em> It's all there, that sexiness, that ripeness, and it's <em>ready</em> to burst, but <em>it's not bursting yet.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wiliam, what a wonderful statement! I have known, do know, one or two women like that. . . . </p>

<p>I regret that I cannot respond line by line to everything that you have said. It was well worth the read, although you, too, are doomed to being misunderstood. But you knew that. . . .</p>

<p>I can truly relate to one thing that you have said as much as to anything else you might have writen:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But even in sophisticated societies, the nude is inevitably, almost necessarily semi-scandalous.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and this is part of the problem. In the most repressive societies, one cannot even <em>speak</em> of such things. They are truly "unmentionable." Thank you for having the courage to speak your mind so freely.</p>

<p>Even in our culture, to speak of such things can mean to subject oneself to ridicule. That is all the more reason to applaud those who can and will say what is on their minds--regardless of whether we personally agree with them or not.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie,</p>

<p>I have missed your earlier discussions (forgive me) but from what you'd written earlier, I was pretty sure you'd understand what I was trying to say. I am grateful to you for asking this interesting question and prompting me to think about it.</p>

<p>One addendum to my comment that The Nude is always, must always be "semi-scandalous." This simply HAS to be the case, and God forbid it should ever cease to be. There is nothing <em>less </em>sexy than a nudist colony!!<br>

Will</p>

<p><strong>Lannie</strong>,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Luca, you disappoint me on this one. This is not a philosophical argument on your part, or, if it is being advanced as a type of philosophical argument, then it is a fallacy based on an<em> ad hominem </em>claim<em>.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are right and I apologise, I did not mean to attack you personally.<br>

But I have some feeling of frustration due to the difficulty I see to make statements which have a least some general validity.<br>

In my post I also try to give you my opinion (<em>btw, J.P. is NOT John Peri</em>) on certain nude depictions. But I see this as a limit, a very strong limit to any philosophical discussion, which - as I see it - needs at least some general validity.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In other words, I assume some objective truth about such matters, and I am dedicated to trying to find that truth. Perhaps the ultimate standard of truth exists only in the mind of God. In any case, that issue takes us even deeper into philosophy, into the realm of ethical epistemology, and is almost bound to be misunderstood in a forum on a photography website.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, because this gives me some point for argumentation.</p>

<p>If we consider the creation and the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were naked, but they initially were not aware of this. As a starting point, nudity is pure and chaste.<br>

They become aware of their nudity at the moment they are able to distinguish between the good and the evil. I think this is very valid consideration and - in this case - I would not consider any reasoning on mythology of the story.<br>

Adam and Eve are ashamed of their nudity at the moment when they obtain the knowledge on the dividing line between good and evil.<br>

Knowing the difference between the good and the evil could therefore inform on the relationship between nudity and chastity.</p>

<p>In some way the whole media and communication system, at least in Italy (where I know it best) largely builds on the exposure of the (female) human body. You can see scantily clad women everywhere: until recently also news magazines used nudes on cover pages to sell.<br>

This has two opposite effects: first of all, immunity. All this exposed flesh creates indifference. But at the same time it raises the threshold of reaction. On the other hand it sends extremely strong messages to the more unstructured subjects, kids for example, causing uncontrolled behavioural reactions.<br>

There is a conscious play with sensual reactions, and the behaviour of developing kids shows that this strategy is extremely successful.<br>

Ethically, society should aim at protecting the weaker and less structured individuals.<br>

To this end, and looking around, this does not happen.</p>

<p>In this context I'm inclined to support that chaste nude is an oxymoron.</p>

<p>Thank you, Will and Luca. Although the answers are not clear, perhaps the questions are a bit more clear than when we started. Let us look at the original question one more time: "Is the chaste nude an oxymoron?"</p>

<p>That is, is the "chaste nude" a contradiction in terms? I think that we could say that the "chaste nude" would more likely be a <em>truism</em> than a contradiction in terms; i.e., "Nudes are chaste," although hardly universally true, is probably more true than to say that "Nudes are unchaste," if one had to choose between such stark (no pun intended) choices. The choice is not quite so stark, of course, and the issue cannot be resolved quite so easily. Even so, if one <em>had</em> to choose between such stark choices, I would certainly go with "Nudes are [categorically] chaste" over "Nudes are [categorically] unchaste."</p>

<p>Luca, I do not believe that the biblical story of Eden ever happened as a matter of historical fact, but it is nonetheless an interesting "allegory" (for lack of a better term) that reminds us of the paradoxes about nudity and sexuality. The point of that story is ultimately (for me) not about nudity but about reflexive rationality <em>qua </em>self-consciousness; i.e., awareness of good and evil (or, if you are a woman, awareness that someone has his eye on you, and it is not because of your well-developed quads and triceps).</p>

<p>In "Eden," that is, "nudity is chaste," as you say. <em>Perhaps it still is, </em>or can be<em>.</em> This is not to say that the nude form cannot be used or portrayed in an "unchaste" way. Given Will's remark about nudist camps ("There is nothing <em>less</em> sexy than a nudist colony!"), one may perhaps even argue that clothing is more easily used to provoke sexual attention and even lust than is nudity.</p>

<p>I am not saying that such is the case categorically, simply that clothing is typically (not always) more successfully used to provoke sexual attention and lust than is nudity, as Will seems to have suggested. Here are some "photographic essays" in support of that proposition:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-20490.128.html">http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-20490.128.html</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-207_162-10003534.html?tag=galleryBottomArea;galleryMostPop">http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-207_162-10003534.html?tag=galleryBottomArea;galleryMostPop</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20005718-10391698.html">http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20005718-10391698.html</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.strangecelebrities.com/content/category/100082_1.html">http://www.strangecelebrities.com/content/category/100082_1.html</a></p>

<p>This one in particular stays with me:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-207_162-10003534-4.html?tag=page">http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-207_162-10003534-4.html?tag=page</a></p>

<p>Well, I am more or less out of words after that "read." Perhaps I can simply say that I am "speechless," so that I may now leave. Responding to all these comments can get to be a full-time job. It has been an interesting fifty-four hours or so. Thanks to all who participated, and please feel free to carry on from here without me.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Dredging an old thread, I know...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let us say, you were walking in the forest, and happened upon a person (man or woman doesn't matter), who lived alone, had never had contact with another human being, and went about their daily rituals naked, and unaware that they were naked, further, not caring if they were or not.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would extend the analogy, and have this "pure" uneffected and unaffected (used in the psychological sense) person find another, and take pictures.</p>

<p>No prurient interest, no lascivious intent. (I would have to assume some prior exposure to the image-making process on the part of the taker.)</p>

<p>This gives us a different spectrum: from the most blatant of naked-dead-child-in-lingerie pornography to the nude-without-concept-of-sex. Where do most fall in reality? Almost all would be somewhere in the middle, edging to one side or the other, a few going further one way or the other, and almost none reaching the ends. Typical gaussian curve, but the elements defined are the intent, practice and scope of both the taker and subject.</p>

<p>Back to an earlier response--these are defined culturally as well. If you need examples they are easily found.</p>

<p>So, yes, of course a chaste nude is possible. Not common, but possible. And my chaste nude will probably not be everyone's...</p>