Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Ifat Glassman

Meaning of Nakedness

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I guess a lot of where the discussion was going earlier was already answered, so I'll leave it at that for now.

But I agree that there are also a lot of practical benefits to clothing. In addition to being a symbol of civilization as opposed to bohemianism (frickin hippies) or savagery. One additional benefit is that it draws a clear line where perverts can be identified. Imagine living it a society, as a woman, where men can do all sorts of lewd things publicly because nudity is perfectly allowed. At least with clothing, if a man waves his genitalia at a woman, she can call the police and have him hauled off for assault.

Also, remember that civilization is a process of adding more and more to the private; making less and less public. To be possessive of one's body, and want it to be private, is no vice.

And Lathanar, there is a difference between shame at having done something improper and shame about one's body. The former is often a good thing and the latter is bad.

And Ifat, don't make the mistake of thinking I have a problem with nudity in the privacy of my own home. There is a difference between wanting something to be private and being ashamed of it. That is precisely the distinction I want to make, and I think critics of clothing often fail to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One additional benefit is that it draws a clear line where perverts can be identified. Imagine living it a society, as a woman, where men can do all sorts of lewd things publicly because nudity is perfectly allowed. At least with clothing, if a man waves his genitalia at a woman, she can call the police and have him hauled off for assault.

But this is behavior that goes beyond simply being nude in public. This is similar to saying that decriminalizing drugs is also an endorsement to allowing people to rob and assault other people. Robed or disrobed, a society can still have laws against people harrassing, threatening or assaulting other people. An endorsement for one form of behavior is not necessarily an endorsement for another form of behavior.

And let's not forget that this is a problem that largely stems from having government owned "public property" to begin with. If all property were privately owned, the property owners would be allowed to set the dress code.

Edited by RationalBiker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robed or disrobed, a society can still have laws against people harrassing, threatening or assaulting other people.

Indeed, I didn't mean to say such laws are impossible with nudity; only that is is far easier to draw legal distinctions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An endorsement for one form of behavior is not necessarily an endorsement for another form of behavior.

In light of a past conversation (on an unrelated topic), it occurred to me that I should clarify something about this statement. The mere fact that something is not illegal should not be construed as and endorsement of that act. More accurately I should have said, "Decriminalizing one form of behavior is does not necessarily mean other forms of behavior should be decriminalized".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanna let y'all know that I am leaving the forum and my academic life and going to join a nudist group.

I guess a lot of where the discussion was going earlier was already answered, so I'll leave it at that for now.

Actually, I feel more confused now than how I felt before I started this thread.

The conclusions I've reached so far from all of the responses is that there is no true meaning for nakedness at all. Nudity has whatever meaning anyone wishes to attach to it, and that meaning is chosen according to one's lifestyle, society's conventions or in some arbitrary manner.

Since I don't agree that the meaning of nudity for me be dictated by society, I am left with no guidelines on how to form my meaning of my own nakedness.

I understand that I should interpret nakedness of other people according to their ideas of it, but how should I determine my own ideas about my own nakedness?

Obviously there is a necessity to choose such a meaning, otherwise one does not know how to act on situations that involve nudity.

And Ifat, don't make the mistake of thinking I have a problem with nudity in the privacy of my own home. There is a difference between wanting something to be private and being ashamed of it. That is precisely the distinction I want to make, and I think critics of clothing often fail to make.

:confused: Inspector, honestly, I was not thinking of what you do in the privacy of your own home. But thanks for the warning, I will make sure not to make that mistake :lol:

Emotions are a matter of habit, which is why, if you want your emotions to be determined by your consciously held ideas, you have to act on them until they become a habit.

How can emotions become a habit? I just don't understand what you mean by that. I have never experienced my emotions to be a result of a habit. They were always a result of my judgement of a certain situation in present time, and the result of the ideas I held. I don't think that if I start acting as if I love something, then eventually, with time, I will love it.

I expect that Darius has never seen anything wrong with nudity qua nudity, but he was aware that it's considered inappropriate in some social situations. Embarrassment is not an emotion you feel when you've done something you consider immoral, but when you've committed an unintentional social gaffe. Having internalized that nudity was not appropriate even in locker rooms, Darius would naturally be embarrassed when confronted with something that, to him, constituted a social gaffe of enormous proportions. In that situation, there's nothing to do but practice until you've internalized the new social paradigm.

If someone is able to understand all the facts, there is no reason why his subconscious would react to facts of a situation that occurred a year ago.

Moreover, Why would I feel embraced by performing a social gaffe? I usually find those things amusing. Well unless somebody farts in public, then it is also embarrassing. But I think it's because in that case, it does disturb the people around in a physical manner.

P.S. just kidding about the nudist group thing :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The conclusions I've reached so far from all of the responses is that there is no true meaning for nakedness at all. Nudity has whatever meaning anyone wishes to attach to it, and that meaning is chosen according to one's lifestyle, society's conventions or in some arbitrary manner.

Well, I did say that a certain level of nudity does have a meaning: the exposure of the sexual organs. You could make the argument that, before clothing was invented, that there is nothing sexual about being completely naked... but post-invention-of-clothing, that does not hold water. I think your confusion may be that you're not looking to include context in your definition. If you're looking for a universal, a-contextual answer then I think you will find only confusion.

:confused: Inspector, honestly, I was not thinking of what you do in the privacy of your own home. But thanks for the warning, I will make sure not to make that mistake :lol:

Er... I was just responding to this, LOL:

I can only amuse myself with the thought of what happens when two people who hold the opinions of your house-mate and of Inspector's, have a romantic relationship: One takes off their clothes, preparing to give the other a wonderful gift, and the other looks at them and says "put on some clothes you slob". laugh.gif

Of course you could be kidding me even now...

Either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine living it a society, as a woman, where men can do all sorts of lewd things publicly because nudity is perfectly allowed. At least with clothing, if a man waves his genitalia at a woman, she can call the police and have him hauled off for assault.

That enters a whole other subject. Nudity is not lewdness.

And Lathanar, there is a difference between shame at having done something improper and shame about one's body. The former is often a good thing and the latter is bad.

What have they done improper by being nude? I don't think anyone would argue that the majority of our decency laws in this country are built upon christian moral principles, or that the social conventions around nudity are based on the same. One of the corner stones is the original sin from eating the forbidden fruit. What was the first thing Adam and Eve did after eating the fruit? Why did they do it? Answer that and you'll see why I think the not quite so arbitrary conventions on nudity in our society are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What have they done improper by being nude?

I've already answered this. I don't care to repeat myself and I don't think there is too much to add beyond what I already said. If I see this thread go into unexplored territory, then I'll chime in but otherwise my answers so far will suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should ask the opposite question: What is the purpose and meaning of clothing (specifically, when then the weather is not a threat). One, it may be (for any one person) that clothing helps to keep one's senses de-sensitized, making it easier to concentrate one's mind on difficult mental tasks. (This is true for me, since my skin is very sensitive, even to very slight currents of air). Two, clothing might prepare one for action. (As for me, I feel much more competent when I've got shoes on. I would never sit and write poetry in my bare feet.) When I am dressed I want to totally ignore my body and focus on the wide-awake things of the world that interest me...

So, what has more meaning? (If that's a fair question?) Nudity or being clothed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what has more meaning? (If that's a fair question?) Nudity or being clothed?

The meaning of being clothed depends largely on what kinds of clothes you wear. Wearing, say, a Hawaiian shirt, has a very different meaning from wearing a policeman's uniform, which again has a very different meaning from wearing a wedding gown.

Nudity means that you're alone--just you, or what is almost the same: you and your loved one. (Unless it's a temporary nudity, like in a locker room.)

There are, of course, people who consider "all mankind" their "loved" ones, and it's no wonder they do not see the point in wearing clothes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps we should ask the opposite question: What is the purpose and meaning of clothing (specifically, when then the weather is not a threat). One, it may be (for any one person) that clothing helps to keep one's senses de-sensitized, making it easier to concentrate one's mind on difficult mental tasks. (This is true for me, since my skin is very sensitive, even to very slight currents of air). Two, clothing might prepare one for action. (As for me, I feel much more competent when I've got shoes on. I would never sit and write poetry in my bare feet.) When I am dressed I want to totally ignore my body and focus on the wide-awake things of the world that interest me...

So, what has more meaning? (If that's a fair question?) Nudity or being clothed?

Good reasons for putting on clothes. I would like to add more: It is a way to make one look more pretty. Now I don't know if this is a feministic thing, but I get tremendous pleasure from picking something to wear, trying different variations, looking at myself in the mirror... Good clothes have the ability to emphasize one's appealing features.

Clothes are for me, a way to celebrate life. On a happy day I would invest more in my appearance (usually dresses). On an important event I would pick something fancy to express how I feel about that event. If I have a romantic relationship I would enjoy wearing something pretty when hanging out with my boyfriend to celebrate our relationship.

Nudity has a context-dependent meaning. If I am in the shower, it has the mere meaning of convenience. If I need to take off my clothes in front of strangers (locker-room) then it is also something of convenience. But if I take off my clothes in front of someone I care about, it does have a deeper meaning of exposing more of "myself" to them. It becomes a declaration of intimacy.

A person's naked body also has the potential of revealing their character, by the way they stand and hold themselves.

However, my own naked body (as I view it by myself) has an additional meaning, that I have not yet identified. It is important to me that it will look to my satisfaction, that's one thing.

However, there is still a need to explain where these ideas are coming from.

So there. This sums up my conclusions for now.

Edited by ifatart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good reasons for putting on clothes. I would like to add more: It is a way to make one look more pretty. Now I don't know if this is a feministic thing, but I get tremendous pleasure from picking something to wear, trying different variations, looking at myself in the mirror... Good clothes have the ability to emphasize one's appealing features.

I assume you mean feminine rather than feministic? Generally feminists do not put this much value in their appearance :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The beauty of selfishness

Perhaps the main reason images of beautiful women are frowned upon is because in our society, self-sacrifice is held up as the greatest virtue, and there is nothing self-sacrificing about putting yourself on display. Posing for a photo is a proudly selfish act, and believing that you are beautiful enough for a glamor photo is supremely 'self'ish. Especially if you do it nude! Then there is nothing in the photo except you, no clothes, nothing to hide behind, just you.

And if your nude photo is admired, then your selfishness is being admired and rewarded too.

This infuriates altruists and those who preach or practice self-sacrifice. Watch for it. See if you notice anyone condemning nude photos of beautiful women who isn't also someone who believes self-sacrifice is a virtue.

(bold emphasis mine)

Came across this little pearl of wisdom in Body and mind. (link contains pictures of naked women)

How is posing for a nude photo a "proudly selfish act"?

Isn't it also like saying: "your most private thoughts are beautiful, therefore it would be selfish to share them with everyone"?

Moreover, would the trade, for a woman posing, actually be money in exchange for providing people the opportunity to enjoy her beauty in an aesthetic manner? Or would it be money in exchange for their opportunity to masturbate to her photo? (gross!)

Now there are two questions that come to my mind here:

1) Is there something wrong with masturbating to a picture of a beautiful woman one knows nothing about? (it's hard for me to answer this question because I myself do not find something very sexual about men's body as such: unless it comes with a mind, the body by itself produces nothing more than an aesthetic pleasure. I don't think this is the case for men, though).

2) Should the actual value gained by the one buying the magazine be of interest to the woman who is considering the deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is posing for a nude photo a "proudly selfish act"?

Isn't it also like saying: "your most private thoughts are beautiful, therefore it would be selfish to share them with everyone"?

That doesn't quite make sense, does it? Interesting, though, how your position on this seems to have reversed. May I ask what convinced you?

I think what the quote is referring to, however, is that a woman must have self-esteem to recognize that her body is a value, although apparently not enough self-esteem to want to keep this value exclusive, and instead give it up for petty cash.

Moreover, would the trade, for a woman posing, actually be money in exchange for providing people the opportunity to enjoy her beauty in an aesthetic manner? Or would it be money in exchange for their opportunity to masturbate to her photo? (gross!)
I think it would be naive to assume the former.

1) Is there something wrong with masturbating to a picture of a beautiful woman one knows nothing about?

Not as such, I think, but there are many ways and contexts that this could be improper. Sexual fantasy is an essential part of masturbation and having a mental image of a beautiful woman in one's fantasies is an essential part of the act, for a man. If the man is single, and is keeping the sexual fantasy in its proper place, then this is normal and healthy. Knowing nothing about the woman is actually a plus in this sort of endeavor, since it is about fantasy and is not the same thing as seeking a relationship. Dr. Peikoff actually addresses this point directly in his lecture Love, Sex, and Romance. His insight into the matter is quite good and matches exactly the conclusions I have reached on the subject.

(it's hard for me to answer this question because I myself do not find something very sexual about men's body as such: unless it comes with a mind, the body by itself produces nothing more than an aesthetic pleasure. I don't think this is the case for men, though).

This matches what I have heard from other women. I hypothesize that this is the case for women in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't quite make sense, does it? Interesting, though, how your position on this seems to have reversed. May I ask what convinced you?

My position has not been reversed, it was just never soundly formed. This is why I started this thread.

In post #1 I said that I don't mind if people see me naked: people include: women (who get no sexual pleasure out of it), the man in the example I gave (he is standing in the kitchen where I happen to pass), and I said that I *don't think* I would mind if other men see me naked as well. But I was thinking about situations like the one in the example I gave... This is not the same if the guy has a naked picture of me which he uses to pleasure himself (oh, gross!).

In this case they are getting something unearned, and worse - it's unearned based on self-deception (or a fantasy).

Moreover, I never said it, but I was sympathizing with your arguments for keeping one's body concealed to be able to share it with a lover. I was just giving you a hard time about them because I wanted to see them become well-based (which did not happen yet the way I see it, BTW).

I think what the quote is referring to, however, is that a woman must have self-esteem to recognize that her body is a value, although apparently not enough self-esteem to want to keep this value exclusive, and instead give it up for petty cash.

:lol: ! "but apparently not enough" - funny! So then how will your answer change if she was fully dressed? I suppose in this case you would say that she exchanges money for aesthetic pleasure, while in the first case she is exchanging sexual pleasure with money. So why is money<-->aesthetic pleasure worthy exchange but money<-->sexual pleasure not?

And how is this tied to her self-esteem?

And I have another problem here: Why should a woman even care what other people are doing with her picture, or what they are thinking? Wouldn't she be a second hander if she based her decisions on what others, which she does not know, will gain?

Not as such, I think, but there are many ways and contexts that this could be improper. Sexual fantasy is an essential part of masturbation and having a mental image of a beautiful woman in one's fantasies is an essential part of the act, for a man.

Like what context (for it to be improper)?

Also: you're saying that the less a person knows about this woman the better, but I see it entirely opposite: the more he knows the better. Why is it better the more he doesn't know anything about her, except for her looks?

This matches what I have heard from other women. I hypothesize that this is the case for women in general.

So for men physical beauty is automatically enough of a turn on, but for women only a mind? (raising an eyebrow) - Doesn't it kinda imply something bad about men (that their sexuality is more "animalistic" or mindless)?

If there was ever a guy who would want me primarily because of my looks, I would look down at him for it, and he would only last that short time in which I will analyze what is wrong with him, and why does he suck so much, for personal curiosity.

I mean, suppose Dagny had a crooked nose and a wider figure (but she would still be thin) - would it be rational for the men in her life (in the novel) to reject her sexually? What kind of a distorted human being would do that?

I am curious - is there anyone (male) reading these lines who is incapable of getting turned on by a picture of a naked woman without knowing anything about her mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was sympathizing with your arguments for keeping one's body concealed to be able to share it with a lover. I was just giving you a hard time about them because I wanted to see them become well-based (which did not happen yet the way I see it, BTW).

Playing devil's advocate, I see. Okay.

But I was thinking about situations like the one in the example I gave... This is not the same if the guy has a naked picture of me which he uses to pleasure himself (oh, gross!).
Oh? And how do you know that he didn't take a mental snapshot for precisely that purpose?

In this case they are getting something unearned, and worse - it's unearned based on self-deception (or a fantasy).

I think in all cases of someone seeing you naked casually and without your specific intention of showing them, they are getting something unearned, whatever they think of what they see, or however they choose to use it. But that comes back to making it exclusive.

So then how will your answer change if she was fully dressed? I suppose in this case you would say that she exchanges money for aesthetic pleasure, while in the first case she is exchanging sexual pleasure with money.
Right.

So why is money<-->aesthetic pleasure worthy exchange but money<-->sexual pleasure not?

In the second case, one is exchanging something which is much more precious and private. Something that one would properly want to reserve for romance and one's romantic partner instead of selling promiscuously to all comers. I can't personally think of a reason why it would be a greater value to give up that exclusivity for cash.

And how is this tied to her self-esteem?
It is an act of self-esteem to esteem one's sexuality as worth keeping private.

And I have another problem here: Why should a woman even care what other people are doing with her picture, or what they are thinking?

It's not so much a question of that. If someone takes a fully clothed picture of the model and uses it for prurient purposes, that shouldn't be her concern. It's a question of selling oneself specifically in a sexual manner; with the intent of having people do that with the pictures. Of selling off something which one would properly hope to reserve for a special person that one loves. So it's not so much the intent of the buyer, but the intent of the seller.

Wouldn't she be a second hander if she based her decisions on what others, which she does not know, will gain?
Are you a second hander if you are concerned about people walking off with your money because you leave it out on your lawn?

Like what context (for it to be improper)?

Oh, say, if the guy is married. Or if the woman in the picture is ugly, LOL. Or if the porn is degrading to women (this is the vast majority of porn, from what I've heard).

Also: you're saying that the less a person knows about this woman the better, but I see it entirely opposite: the more he knows the better. Why is it better the more he doesn't know anything about her, except for her looks?
Because it is only fuel for a fantasy and must be nothing more. He hasn't earned the woman in the picture. Fantasies shouldn't get "too real."

So for men physical beauty is automatically enough of a turn on, but for women only a mind? (raising an eyebrow)

Well..... that's kind of complicated. There have been studies where they flash pictures in front of people so fast that they can't even consciously process them, but they record electrical responses from their genitals (this is for both men and women). In the case of men, this response is sometimes enough to get "turned on," because our mechanisms work so much more quickly then y'all. If the guy is 16 or has been "abstaining" for a bit, then this can be like a hair-trigger. But there are plenty of other things that can block this reaction.

Oh, and I heard on the science channel that the male arousal system is capable of working from physical stimulation alone; completely independent of the brain. So there's that. But whether these initial impulses develop into full-on arousal is another matter, unless the initial movement causes chafing in the pants and thus works on its own. (sorry if that's TMI there)

Doesn't it kinda imply something bad about men (that their sexuality is more "animalistic" or mindless)?
Hah, you're not the first woman I've heard ask that question. But I'd say no. It doesn't change the mind/body nature of man's sexual identity. It just makes that fact a little less self-evident to guys. So I'd counter that it is a greater achievement for a man to understand this connection properly and thus enlightened men deserve more praise, if anything.

If there was ever a guy who would want me primarily because of my looks, I would look down at him for it, and he would only last that short time in which I will analyze what is wrong with him, and why does he suck so much, for personal curiosity.

Rightly so, but that doesn't mean that looks can't be a deal-breaker.

I mean, suppose Dagny had a crooked nose and a wider figure (but she would still be thin) - would it be rational for the men in her life (in the novel) to reject her sexually?
More perplexing dilemma: What if she were totally fugly? I actually wouldn't fault anyone for refusing her in that case. Both the mind and the body are involved in human sexuality. While the mind is the more important value, the body is still important, and can still be a deal-breaker.

I am curious - is there anyone (male) reading these lines who is incapable of getting turned on by a picture of a naked woman without knowing anything about her mind?

Depends on what you mean by "turned on." While a lot of the initial stages are automatic and require visual stimuli, this is still influenced, and can be completely suppressed by, the man's conceptual evaluation of what is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This matches what I have heard from other women. I hypothesize that this is the case for women in general.

It might be more common for women than men, but I've known women who could get aroused from visual stimulation, and who liked to masterbate to pornography.

I am curious - is there anyone (male) reading these lines who is incapable of getting turned on by a picture of a naked woman without knowing anything about her mind?

I think you can know things about a person's mind just from seeing her naked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playing devil's advocate, I see. Okay.

It's more than just playing devil's advocate - if I eventually don't find these arguments logical I would stop acting according to them (and perhaps go make some quick cash on that magazine :lol: ).

Oh? And how do you know that he didn't take a mental snapshot for precisely that purpose?
Gee, I feel so grateful for bringing this option to my mind.

I would think that someone who ignores you so fundamentally, cannot be an image one would want to masturbate to.

The ignoring person in this case would be me as I walk naked by the perv. I think that an essential part of a man's fantasy has to be that the woman gives in to him somehow, but with me walking past him as if he doesn't exist, I would think it is a sufficient turn off, that he would not want to consider taking a snapshot of my body.

And suppose I was talking to him while being naked (assuming this is someone that I don't appreciate), it should be even more of a turn off for him. Because there would be a constant eye contact, and it is not likely that he would be focusing on anything else (but my eyes). At least, that's the feeling I get when I have an eye contact with people: that they get focused in my eyes and stop looking anywhere else. I guess it is something in my eyes that tells them "I dare you to look away!".

So basically, I was relying on my intimidating nature for them to not find my body a turn on (unless they are the kind of individuals who do like the straight forward woman). <insert an intimidating roar>.

Here is something interesting... If I knew that people use my art as a sexual stimulation (with all the naked women it is possible) I would not even consider making it private again. The way I see it, if they are pervs, the loss is entirely theirs, and I should not concern myself with pervs. As long as there are people who can appreciate my art for what it is, I have a reason to keep it online.

So I'm thinking... what is the difference between my naked body and my art? Both have personal meaning to me, both can be degraded in other people's minds, but only one of them I bother to defend by changing my behavior. See, I just don't get myself :lol: .

In the second case, one is exchanging something which is much more precious and private.

One's face can be far more personal and precious than their naked body (without sight of the face attached to it). There is nothing more revealing of a person's character than their face. Yet the face is accessible to all. But also, a face, in order to be decoded must have someone who can decode it. The personal meaning of a face only becomes clear once the other person has the ability to understand the observed. To other people, the personal meaning of a face is entirely concealed, even though it is right there in front of their waking eyes.

A naked body is less personal than a person's face, if the meaning of the naked body is not associated with the character behind it. When someone has knowledge of my character - they have knowledge which is much more private than if they saw my breasts.

Yet nearly everyone can get sexual pleasure from my naked body, but only few from my face. So it follows that if I want to preserve something personal to be shared only with my lover, there is no need to conceal the face, only the parts of the body that trigger sexual pleasure in others.

However, my art (to go back to the previous example) is just like my naked body in the sense that people can enjoy it while degrading it (in their minds, not "in the universe"). But yet, I don't think you would advise me to keep my art in a dark closet only to be uncovered to those who I judge to deserve it, right? So why is it different than one's body?

It's not so much a question of that. If someone takes a fully clothed picture of the model and uses it for prurient purposes, that shouldn't be her concern. It's a question of selling oneself specifically in a sexual manner; with the intent of having people do that with the pictures.

So I can pose for Mind&Beauty magazine with the intent to only allow people to enjoy my beauty in a purely aesthetic manner. After all, it is the intent that matters...

Are you a second hander if you are concerned about people walking off with your money because you leave it out on your lawn?

It's not the same as worrying about other people enjoying something private to me. In the money case, I loose money. In the case that someone used my art to pleasure themselves, what do I loose? Nothing! (Or do you have a suggestion?)

I'll answer the rest of the post some other time... there are interesting points you raised there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think that someone who ignores you so fundamentally, cannot be an image one would want to masturbate to.

You're completely and utterly wrong here, and blindingly naive of men, to boot! Remember that I said two things:

1) Men get turned on by women's bodies.

2) The use in masturbation is for a fantasy, so it doesn't matter what you do. I agree if you're flirty while naked, it will be giving him more fuel; but being cold won't stop him, or the fact that you've given something undeserved.

with me walking past him as if he doesn't exist, I would think it is a sufficient turn off, that he would not want to consider taking a snapshot of my body.
You're thinking like a woman here. You're not getting into his head as a man. You have to remember that his turn-on mechanism works differently from yours, and furthermore that, in this example, he's a perv!

At least, that's the feeling I get when I have an eye contact with people: that they get focused in my eyes and stop looking anywhere else. I guess it is something in my eyes that tells them "I dare you to look away!".

LOL, are you seriously suggesting that if any naked woman (who isn't totally ugly) walks down the street, that men will be making eye contact?!?

So I'm thinking... what is the difference between my naked body and my art?
Context! To take sexual pleasure from your clearly artistic drawings is a stretch; it's something that they are fundamentally responsible for doing. To take it from nudie pics for a porn web site is not a stretch; it would be something you are responsible for.

Yet nearly everyone can get sexual pleasure from my naked body, but only few from my face. So it follows that if I want to preserve something personal to be shared only with my lover, there is no need to conceal the face, only the parts of the body that trigger sexual pleasure in others.

You're on the right track here...

But yet, I don't think you would advise me to keep my art in a dark closet only to be uncovered to those who I judge to deserve it, right? So why is it different than one's body?
Well, actually that can sometimes be appropriate for art.

So I can pose for Mind&Beauty magazine with the intent to only allow people to enjoy my beauty in a purely aesthetic manner. After all, it is the intent that matters...

But you actions have to match your intent. Are the photos in that magazine purely aesthetic? It's not awful or degrading like much porn is, but it's still porn.

In the case that someone used my art to pleasure themselves, what do I loose? Nothing! (Or do you have a suggestion?)

I'm not suggesting you take down your art. I'm suggesting that it's essentially different from your naked body. Your art is something you intended to share with others, not something you intended to reserve exclusively for your lover. It also isn't tied inherantly to your sexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One's face can be far more personal and precious than their naked body (without sight of the face attached to it). There is nothing more revealing of a person's character than their face. Yet the face is accessible to all. But also, a face, in order to be decoded must have someone who can decode it. The personal meaning of a face only becomes clear once the other person has the ability to understand the observed. To other people, the personal meaning of a face is entirely concealed, even though it is right there in front of their waking eyes.

Reminds me of the old story from back in the days of all-female dorms. One woman had just gotten out of the shower and was walking back to her room with nothing but a small towel when the word came that there was a man on the floor. Her towel was just big enough to wrap around her chest or her waist but not both. So, she wrapped the towel around her most identifiable feature, her head, and proceeded to her room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reminds me of the old story from back in the days of all-female dorms. One woman had just gotten out of the shower and was walking back to her room with nothing but a small towel when the word came that there was a man on the floor. Her towel was just big enough to wrap around her chest or her waist but not both. So, she wrapped the towel around her most identifiable feature, her head, and proceeded to her room.
Gosh, this was really funny. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...