Jump to content

Is the chaste nude an oxymoron?


Recommended Posts

<p>Is the chaste nude an oxymoron?<br /><br /><br />We all know that an oxymoron is a contradiction in terms, and that “chaste” and “chastity” are spiritual and/or religious concepts referring to some kind of ethical or spiritual purity. <br /><br />(Please notice in any case that I did not ask whether <em>nudity</em> in the presence of others can be chaste. I am assuming that nudity in real life can be chaste in at least some situations, most obviously in certain medical situations, as well as in at least some sexual relations. The limits and varieties of those situations and relations are <em>not</em> my concern here.)<br /><br />My concern here is solely about art: Is the chaste nude in <em>art </em>an oxymoron? (I am assuming some kind of distinction between “art” and “real life” here.) I could have phrased the question in a negative way: Is the nude in art in some way a defilement or desecration of the human form, a profanation of sorts? I have argued that the nude in art need not be such, although I do not doubt that much that is offered in art is indeed quite profane--and decidedly "unchaste." That the viewing of the human form, clothed or unclothed in art or life, can be "unchaste" I do not doubt. <br /><br />Why do I ask the question? I ask it because the sub-text of previous discussions in threads dealing with nudity in art seems almost always to be about the very rightness of <em>viewing</em> the nude as an art form. The ethics of nude art was not my intention in framing either of my own two previous posts leading to such discussions. Nonetheless, that (the ethical issue) is what one comes away with if one reads the very long threads that followed from those posts; that is, persons have finally become quite judgmental about the nude itself and about other persons’ motives for viewing the nude. Yes, we have talked psychology and a bit of history and sociology, but the ethical sub-text started speaking louder to my conscious mind.<br>

<br /> In other words, I have some doubts now about my own arguments in prior posts dealing with the artistic nude. The question is thus real and personal. I really want others' honest opinions, regardless of whether or not they think that the views that they express will be popular or well-received.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>After the last exhausting thread dealing with nude photography, why do I dare post again? Part of the answer is that the question(s) for me remain(s) unanswered. I tried to settle the question by rather grandiloquently concluding in my final comment on a prior post about the nude in art, “AT SOME POINT ESTHETICS MUST GIVE WAY TO ETHICS.” (Yes, I even used capital letters.) It was my way of saying, “Enough! I am out of here.” It was an ambiguous final note, one that no one wanted to challenge or explore. People were tired of the thread. I was tired of the thread. It had started in April and had gone for several weeks.<br /><br />Yet, yet, the thread was not even in peaceful repose before I made some photos of a friend in a pantsuit. (She will remain nameless and of course there will be no photos or other clues as to her identity.) She looked quite professional and proper in every sense, showing a very modest amount of cleavage but otherwise absolutely covered from neck to toe. The jacket was not truly becoming in all shots, however, falling straight down in some poses as if to give her a barrel-chested effect. I noted this to her (using other words which I forget) and asked her if she thought that it would be better to remove the jacket. She agreed about the overall effect and took off the jacket. She revealed absolutely no more cleavage than before, but what minimal cleavage had been visible was now placed in the very different context of her bare shoulders and arms. (She was wearing a camisole of the sort that is now commonly worn in public.) The informal, off-the-cuff shoot (of about ten minutes duration) went well. I was pleased with the images. She had been relaxed and comfortable throughout, as had I. <br /><br />I sent the photos to her via e-mail. I was shocked at her immediate reaction: “Please destroy these photos [the ones without the jacket].” At first her stated reason was that the ones with the jacket were not flattering to her, but in subsequent e-mails the real truth came out: she was uncomfortable in having the images in existence, for me or for anyone else to view, and the reasons went beyond esthetic considerations. Many factors no doubt entered into her decision, but the overarching theme that came through was that she felt torn between traditional and modern values regarding the display of the body, etc. Her discomfort was ultimately about her religious values and beliefs about the display of the body. I immediately complied with her request, disappointed–keeping only the ones that she was comfortable with, with the jacket on. I liked the pictures. They were not vulgar. I thought that they were flattering and quite modest by contemporary standards. The camisole is, after all, now widely considered to be an outer garment, but it was sufficiently revealing in her eyes that she recoiled at the sight of her own image, embarrassed. It was not a reaction on her part that I expected. The images were not to me all that revealing, but in her mind some line had been crossed. In her own mind she must have looked a bit too naked. (There is that word again that caused such disagreement on a prior thread. . . .)<br /><br />Thus was set in motion some true introspection on my part as to whether I had been correct in my assertions in previous threads. Perhaps Julie Heyward and other women were on to something about the “male gaze” that we men were not. Perhaps we really did not, do not, know our own motives.<br /><br />Perhaps there were ethical and even spiritual issues about the viewing of the nude that I had not wanted to admit. Perhaps I had been rationalizing. Had not the nude form been a part of art for thousands of years? I found myself asking this and other questions over and over again by way of self-justification for viewing nudes upon occasion. I stopped myself. I was repeating arguments from prior threads. I was sick of reading my own comments about nude photography, and from hearing their echo in my mind. Now the woman’s doubts had become my doubts--and she was in no sense nude! I had a real-life philosophical dilemma–in this case ethical--on my hands, one that did indeed go to the core of ethical and religious and other spiritual considerations. My immediate dilemma was easily resolved: I deleted the images as requested. Even so, the issues kept coming back to me, now with more force because of this lovely woman’s reactions to images that would not make anyone bat an eye on Photo.net or just about anywhere else in this country during the summer months, when tank tops and other even more revealing garments are on abundant display–and it is already summer here in the Carolinas. My easy comments about factoring out esthetics and ethics were no consolation to me. My own final remark from “The Thread” came back to haunt me: “At some point esthetics must give way to ethics.” Well, then, was this to be the end of my foray into figure studies: bare shoulders and a bit (not that much) of cleavage? Or was this simply another subset of the issue previously raised? That is, what makes the nude seem more naked? Here was a situation in which a woman was clothed in what had initially struck me as a very conservative outfit. She was a very, very long way from looking nude, even by Taliban standards. Even so, the shots made her feel uncomfortable. Why? Did she have a better sense of what is really at stake than I did?<br /><br />I thought about these issues over and over–and finally I posted the question that starts this thread.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Is the chaste human being an oxymoron? If there ever was one, I'm pretty sure it went extinct.</p>

<p>Lannie, for the ten thousandth time: sex/sexual feelings does/do not = "defilement." Sex is actually quite nice. As stated in the previous thread, it's the violence that shadows sex that I find problematic. I suspect that your friend was uneasy about her pictures because there needs to be an explanation for *why* a woman will take off her clothes for a particular man to a degree that is unusual for that particular woman. It's not the flesh <em>per se</em>, it's the act of removal for ... what? Who? Why? Why, why, <em>why</em>?</p>

<p>If you *did* find a chaste nude, why would you want a picture of it? It seems to me that a chaste nude would be like a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich without the peanut-butter and jelly.<br>

[<em>Assuming that by using the word "chaste" we are talking about those who *could* be unchaste, i.e. not young children</em>.]</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to me that a chaste nude would be like a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich without the peanut-butter and jelly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you saying that the nude is inherently unchaste, Julie? I cannot believe that you are, but, if you are not, then why do you phrase the above as you have?</p>

<p>In any case, thank you for yet another food metaphor. The last time it was about chickens in bathing suits (which you said made you think about swimming) v. plucked chickens (which you said made you think of dinner). You seem to be specializing in food nudes: the nude as prey, I suppose. You seem fixated on that theme. Is the nude on display in a gallery "prey" simply by virtue of being "plucked"? Yes, the nude is thereby vulnerable. Is the viewer thereby threatening simply by virtue of viewing? Does one pose with the expectation that no one will ever look or see?</p>

<p>If we accept your premise that "it's the violence that shadows sex that I find problematic," then what? What I am having trouble with is how you seem to equate "looking" with "violence." This seems like hyperbole of the worst kind. Is the "male gaze" that threatening? Is it <em>ipso facto</em> threatening? More to the point, is it threatening in the context of esthetic appreciation of the nude, such as, say, in an art gallery, including our own on-line art gallery, Photo.net? A stalking stare is one thing. A look of admiration and appreciation is quite another. What does the "male gaze" imply to you? I am really interested in questions of right and wrong here as they relate to sexuality, not violence. Violence is not the issue as I see it.</p>

<p>I am thus not talking about stalking here, in any case. Are you? Yes, stalking is threatening, but that seems to carry us way off on a tangent. Neither the woman in question nor I were thinking in terms of anything out of the ordinary while the very brief and informal "shoot" was going on. In any case, as I have emphasized, she was a long, long way from being nude, and I had no particular sense of any significant degree of undress until I saw the images on the screen many hours later. Bare shoulders are pretty low on my list of turn-ons.</p>

<p>Thanks for reminding us that sex can be quite wonderful--not to mention wholesome. Has anyone here ever argued to the contrary? You seem to be trying to defeat a straw man.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nudity has been and can be used to represent the "ideal". The David comes to mind, Mary breast feeding the infant Jesus, Eve in the garden pre fall, much greek sculpture, etc. Are you saying that such representations automatically make the person depicted unchaste? That's a pretty hard sell, especially when it comes to the Virgin Mary. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>From where I sit chastity does not mean asexual.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nor from my perspective either, Luca. As I said, "I am assuming that nudity in real life can be chaste in at least some situations, most obviously in certain medical situations, as well as in at least some sexual relations." Those are in real life, not art, of course.</p>

<p>The question might better be restated as a question of the <em>limits</em> of chastity in nude art.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The David comes to mind, Mary breast feeding the infant Jesus, Eve in the garden pre fall, much greek sculpture, etc. Are you saying that such representations automatically make the person depicted unchaste? That's a pretty hard sell, especially when it comes to the Virgin Mary.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those come nowhere near my limits, Allen; i.e., they certainly do not offend my artistic <em>or </em>moral sensibilities. I am not, in any case, saying that nude representations "automatically make the person depicted unchaste." One problem, of course, is that paintings and sculpture are typically nowhere nearly as lifelike as photography, and so in photography one finds oneself searching about for representations that are unambiguously chaste. What comes off as chaste in a painting, that is, will not necessarily come off the same way in photography.</p>

<p>I am not in fact asserting anything at this point, Allen, simply asking for others' opinions. I almost do not have an opinion at this moment. Art often conveys a message, and that message can imply chastity (purity) or not. The message might even be unintended, or be ambiguous. In the case of Mary with Jesus, the idea being conveyed unambiguously is, I presume, motherly love and motherly nurture. Surely nothing is thought to be more pure than motherly love. Mary nude with Joseph. . . ? Obviously, the message will have changed, and will have become a culturally garbled message, even if the presumption is that they are married and "within their rights." Mary in her bath? The message likewise will have changed. The idea behind both these examples is difficult to conceive of, given what "Mary" usually is thought to signify. Mary as loving wife or as a woman in her bath is not the Mary of faith or legend.</p>

<p>I am having trouble coming up with generalizations here. Surely context is everything--or almost everything--and yet, even in context, the most innocent nudity in art does trouble some persons, whereas for others nudity is simply nudity and conveys no obvious message.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Can persons link to paintings, for example, that do or do not convey chastity or something like it? For me, Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" comes to mind:</p>

<p>http://artchive.com/artchive/B/botticelli/venus.jpg.html</p>

<p>There is surely a chasteness in the representation of the nude form in this painting. Even so, the artist has helped us along a bit with gestures of modesty. She is defending and protecting her modesty with both hands. The message is thus more about modesty than about bodily display. We also have an idealized form in the Botticelli, and we also have once again a mythical character: Venus never existed. Eve never existed, either, or even Mary, for all we know on scientific grounds. The problem seems to come more to the fore as we think about artistic depictions of real women in real (or realistic) situations. The issue becomes even more problematic as we transition from painting to photography, as well as from legendary figures to real women in realistic or familiar contemporary situations.</p>

<p>Still, back to Allens's comment, the idea of idealization in both artistic genres, painting and photography. does resonate with me to some extent as one of the things that one finds in the "chaste nude." The problem is that even idealizing a figure does not insulate it from the charge of being something besides pure. (At the very least the motives of the artist might be cast into doubt.) If one gives as an example a painting or a photo that is intended to signify merely idealized female beauty, for example, what does one say to those who see in the same nude portrayal a profanation of the body? Does one really have to portray her nude to convey her beauty? That is a question that they might ask. It is a question that we, too, can ask.</p>

<p>Clearly I am searching about to try to conceptualize a defensible set of guidelines for what one might call "chaste nude photography." Do they exist? Are they totally dependent on cultural norms?</p>

<p>I am at sea on this one, clearly in over my head.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I found this online:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nudity is always disquieting, instigating and surprising. So the artist, both in painting and in sculpture, in dancing or in photography, discovers in the nude a profound link with the pureness of being. Sensuality stimulates creativity in every sense. Sensuality also evokes love, passion and the creation of man. This is why nudity moves us so profoundly. <br /> (<em>Ariano Cavalcanti de Paula</em>) <br /> <br /><br /> "Art is never pure, we should keep it far away from the innocent ignorant. We should never let people approach. Yes, art is dangerous. If it is pure it is not art."<br /> (<em>Pablo Picasso</em>)</p>

<p>http://www.ocaiw.com/galleria_niah/index.php</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So here we seem to have two very different views on purity, but something is missing, even though the contributor on that web page deliberately juxtaposed two quotes ostensibly dealing with "purity." Here is the core sentence from each of the two perspectives:</p>

<p>"[T]he artist, both in painting and in sculpture, in dancing or in photography, discovers in the nude a profound link with the <em>pureness</em> of being." --<em>Cavalcanti de Paula</em> (Emphasis supplied.)</p>

<p>"If it is pure it is not art." --Picasso</p>

<p>Cavalcanti de Paula's point of view is actually quite interesting, if paradoxical. The nude is "disguieting" even though the artist finds in the nude a link to the very purity ("pureness") of being.</p>

<p>As I missing something here? Let us look at his statement again: "Nudity is always disquieting, instigating and surprising. So the artist, both in painting and in sculpture, in dancing or in photography, discovers in the nude a profound link with the pureness of being." The "so" seems to function like "thus" or "therefore" in a logical argument. I am having trouble myself finding the logical link between something being "pure" or chaste even as it is "disquieting." He goes on to say, perhaps by way of explanation: "Sensuality stimulates creativity in every sense. Sensuality also evokes love, passion and the creation of man. This is why nudity moves us so profoundly."</p>

<p>Very well, but in what sense is all this about the very <em>purity</em> or "pureness" of being? I get the sense that "pureness" is not for him really about chastity, but about creativity.</p>

<p>"Purity" or "chastity," that is, is a moral concept, while sensuality and creativity are esthetic concepts. I get the sense that Cavalcanti de Paula's point would be a little less obscure if he simply replaced "pureness" with "essence" or, even better, with "pure essence": "Nudity is always disquieting, instigating and surprising. So the artist, both in painting and in sculpture, in dancing or in photography, discovers in the nude a profound link with the <strong>pure essence</strong> of being." (The words in boldface are mine.)</p>

<p>So, he is not saying anything at all really about "purity" <em>per se</em>, at least in any ethical sense. His concern is purely esthetic: sensuality is the pure essence of Being. (Now we are moving from ethics to esthetics and on into ontology. Who says that this forum is not really about philosophy?)</p>

<p>Is he ultimately arguing that the key to creativity is not merely <em>sensuality</em> but also <em>sexuality?</em> The two terms, though related, are yet distinct. Nonetheless, is he at least suggesting that <em>sexuality</em> Is the source of inspiration in the nude? If my insertion of "pure essence" is a justified correction, then it can be seen that he is not, in any case, speaking of "purity" at all as a moral concept, even though Picasso is (while still repudiating it).</p>

<p>What does all of this imply for the possibility of the "chaste nude"? Might we as well go off in search of unicorns?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A non nude will be placed in the context of the clothing. The fashion can be placed in time, place, class etc. The nude is one if not the only way to liberate a representation of a person from such classification, which takes us closer to the ideal. </p>

<p>Frankly, there are a lot of people who will never be able to look at a nude as anything other than sexual. I view that as their failing, not mine. I prefer not to argue with them as they will never be persuaded otherwise. They will never get it, defensible guidelines or not. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie Heyward's comment comes back to me: "If you *did* find a chaste nude, why would you want a picture of it? It seems to me that a chaste nude would be like a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich without the peanut-butter and jelly."</p>

<p>I would put Julie on Picasso's side regarding purity or chasteness or spiritual chastity, but she can speak for herself. It sounds as if she is saying that the "chaste nude" would not be very interesting (at least not to someone: Julie does not say whether she is speaking for herself or others). Presumably, that is, the whole point of looking at the nude is not to find purity. What makes it interesting (the peanut butter and jelly) would be gone if it were chaste, pure. Therefore (one may surmise) it must be a bit impure or unchaste to be worth viewing as a nude. (Am I reading you correctly, Julie?)</p>

<p>Food (ahem) for thought, in any case, Julie. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>[T]here are a lot of people who will never be able to look at a nude as anything other than sexual. I view that as their failing, not mine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you for your opinion, Allen, as well as for preventing this entire thread from becoming a near monologue.</p>

<p>To really respond to you I would have to go into the various ways that we interpret the term "sexual." It is certainly true that many nudes that I value have no sexual implications for me. Male nudes come most obviously to mind, such as this excellent work by Fred Goldsmith: http://www.photo.net/photo/11030193</p>

<p>I love the light and composition of Fred's shot, along with the juxtaposition of human flesh and harsh light, harsh angles, harsh concrete, etc. I get no sexual sense from it, but others will.</p>

<p>In like manner, if I were to view a painting of the Virgin Mary, with or without the full display of the breast, the result would the same: the Virgin Mary conveys anything but sexuality to me.</p>

<p>Even so, if the nude in question is a woman, all things being equal, I do get a sense of sexual implications--not overt physical turn-on, but some kind of psychological turn-on or alertness that was not there before. This I attribute to sexuality, although I have to confess that female nudes seem at times to put me to sleep--and it is not because of my age. I have yet to explain that phenomenon. When I say "sleep," I mean that I often do fall asleep in front of the screen when I happen upon a female nude. I wonder what on earth of a psychological nature is going on at such times. Is the image comforting? Does it at times relax me rather than stimulate me? Is God stepping in to protect me from myself? I will leave the question open, while wondering if others have had a similar experience in viewing the nude.</p>

<p>Perhaps Fred was hinting at all this near the end of the last thread on the nude, in which he raised the issue of lust, since lust is unambiguously and unavoidably a sexual concept. Fred has a way, that is, of forcing us to come to grips with the core issues, as well as with ourselves.</p>

<p>In any case, Allen, thank you again for keeping this feeble thread alive. As I said, I asked an honest question at the outset, and I really do want some good responses from a lot of very bright people, only three of whom have shown up so far.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I can't say I have fallen asleep in front of the screen when I happen upon a female nude. At some point I do get bored with female nudes on the screen. Photographs of nude adult females are either interesting or not, where the first reaction I have is "would I"? It is a question asked and answered quickly, and the answer is yes, no, or maybe, regardless of whether it is Mary or Lot's daughters. I wonder for an instant. Then the fantasy ends. I can't observe anything else until that judgement occurs. After that there is room for abstraction.</p>

<p>Wow, your excellent description of this woman in pantsuit is compelling! </p>

<p>I do believe that the things about ourselves that we don't acknowledge are the most troublesome to us, tolerably troublesome when acknowledged.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>[Geez...I was hoping Lannie would wait at least a year before the sequel....]</p>

<p> There are plenty of "pseudo-chaste" nudes. However, the chaste nude often amps up its opposite, what Julie referred to as non-chaste feelings. The pictures of the Virgin M. offering her breast, maternally pure as they may be, still have very sensuous connotations.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lannie: I have not ventured into nude photography and, in all likelihood, never will do so. (I hardly even shoot portraits!) Yet, I was quite taken by your assertion that, "At some point esthetics must give way to ethics."</p>

<p>I have glanced at a few entries in the nude photography forum before posting these comments to gain some perspective. It appears to me that there are ways of photographing the human body without treating the person as nothing but an object, sexual or otherwise. Clearly, we would abhor the use of a child model. We probably would rail at a close-up of a woman's vagina as it is penetrated. On the other hand, photographs involving "the juxtaposition of human flesh and harsh light, harsh angles, harsh concrete, etc." are likely to prompt the viewer to view the human form as form. </p>

<p>It therefore appears to me that the ethical issue you have raised is from the perspective of the photographer rather than the subject. Yet, there is an additional element in this analysis - the viewer. Although most people would think that it is perverse for a person to become sexually aroused while looking at a painting of Mary, that has nothing to do with the artist or the subject. The artist - the photographer - has no control over a viewer's response.</p>

<p>I am vehemently opposed to censorship. It sickens me when I hear of protests to the display of certain pieces of art (including photographs) and corresponding demands that such items be removed from public display. Ultimately, this concerns viewers' reactions, and there is no necessary connection between those reactions and the artist's, i.e., photographer's, creation of their work. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>[Geez...I was hoping Lannie would wait at least a year before the sequel....]</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, Luis. The questions remained. . . .</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the chaste nude often amps up its opposite, what Julie referred to as non-chaste feelings.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is so true, Luis, but if women all wore long dresses that buttoned all the way up to the neck and then went all the way down to cover the tops of the shoes, I fear that we would get crazy again over the inadvertent display of the ankle, as they did in the Victorian era.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Wow, your excellent description of this woman in pantsuit is compelling!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There you go again, Charles. I tried to describe the shoot in as matter-of-fact a way as possible, trying especially not to make it sound saucy either in the overall context or in my description of her, but there is perhaps something in the idea of a woman undraping to any degree in any context that has power over us--especially when the two are alone, as we were, and even when one knows that she is not disposed to getting involved, as I knew that she was not. (Nor was I.)</p>

<p>A beautiful woman is still a beautiful woman, and she was and is a beautiful woman.</p>

<p>I think I smell the toast burning. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I am vehemently opposed to censorship. It sickens me when I hear of protests to the display of certain pieces of art (including photographs) and corresponding demands that such items be removed from public display. Ultimately, this concerns viewers' reactions, and there is no necessary connection between those reactions and the artist's, i.e., photographer's, creation of their work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hear you, Michael. I am a near absolutist where freedom of expression is concerned, and thus I have cast this entire discussion as a matter of individual ethical choices, not matters of law or public policy.</p>

<p>In any case, you are surely right that we are not responsible for how others may interpret or respond to our works.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have not ventured into nude photography and, in all likelihood, never will do so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither have I, Michael, and I likely never will. I know my own limitations--and my own weaknesses. I do not wish to test my own limits in this area of my life.</p>

<p>I am told that even Billy Graham made it a policy to always have someone else in the room with him when a woman was present. I will not quite go so far as to say "always" in my own case, but I do understand the necessity of staying inside one's comfort zone, which I will define here as that zone in which one feels firmly in command of oneself. If I am at work, however, I go further and think not merely about self-control but also about appearances. If a woman (colleague or student) comes into my office and wants to close the door to talk, I stand up and pull the door to where it almost latches--and I stop there. If it inadvertently (or otherwis) clicks closed, I turn the knob and push it open an inch or so. As a friend of mine from western North Carolina once said to me, "You don't get your honey where you get your money." One does not even want to raise an eyebrow in that realm.</p>

<p>It finally goes beyond income, livelihoods, and appearances, however. A sign in the clerical area of my doctor's office says it best: "Integrity is what you do when no one is looking." Even if I were never caught, and even if the woman were willing, I would have to live with myself.</p>

<p>Now we are momentarily discussing eventualities in the real world and not in the world of art, but there are implications for those who do bring women into the studio to shoot nudes. For those persons, the real world is the world of art. I do not live in that world, and so I have not had to think about contingency plans for those situations. I simply do not put myself in those situations. If I were in love with or married to the model, perhaps I would see it differently, but then what would I do with the prints?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I am told that even Billy Graham made it a policy to always have someone else in the room with him when a woman was present.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And here I thought that threesome's were the exception rather than the rule, that "someone else" could be a woman too you know. I guess I'm also a guy who loves women ( nope, not <em>all women</em> ), but seriously though, to have the need for a man to have someone with him when with a woman or to have the door leave open and stuff like that as a "safety-mechanism" well...that sounds just a little wee bit strange. In nude photography, the camera is the safety-mechanism, which would be normal.</p>

<p><br /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Let me introduce another dimension here. All of the thoughts posted before, fall into frame set by the dominant western theology around the abhrahamic religions. The dominant idea of that frame is to consider sex to be bad and something that needs to be done with ('lie back and think of england').<br>

However, in the ancient eastern lifestyle, sex and nudity were never taboo. In many indian temples, one sees nude/erotic sculptures. Most female deities are shown 'topless' or being scantily clothed. The interesting aspect there is, nobody there finds them offensive or questions the 'chastity' of the nudes. Phallus worship is common across the south/south-east asian cultures.<br>

Have we succumbed to the narrow framework of 'decency' and 'chastity' set by our religious notions, and have imbibed it deep within our psyche?<br>

regards<br>

Pierre</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"All of the thoughts posted before, fall into frame set by the dominant western theology around the abhrahamic religions. The dominant idea of that frame is to consider sex to be bad and something that needs to be done with."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not true. None of the abrahamic religions (and I'm fairly familiar with all three) regard sex as "bad and something that needs to be done with."</p>

<p>"Sex outside of loving and committed relationships" is condemned by these faiths; but "sex" as a whole is most certainly not.</p>

<p>The myth Pierre repeats is a common one among those who are not well-versed in those faiths. But many married persons of faith - including in the abrahamic religions - have sex more frequently than nonbelievers do, and they're certainly not doing it out of a sense of duty!<br /> <br />(Sorry about the diversion; now back to the main theme of the thread.)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lannie: Thanks for your response to my post. You put the realities of our society very well. I experienced those realities during my brief tenure teaching philosophy, when a beautiful young woman wearing a loosely fitting halter top visited my office, and bent very conspicuously and deliberately over my desk to ask for my help. My response was, "If you're here for help in philosophy, you came to the right place." I was proud of myself for that, and admittedly upset with myself that this didn't happen before I was married!</p>

<p>Phylo: I have worked in the public sector for most of my "adult" life. There is, and rightfully so, a concern about sexual harassment in the workplace, regarding which my agency has a zero-tolerance policy. While I regard this policy as poorly drafted and inappropriately administered, I understand the reasons for having such a policy. Unfortunately, I suspect the same applies to a photographer's studio. A model is just as likely as an employee to file a sexual harassment complaint or lawsuit.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...