Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nude Calendars

Rate this topic


Mimpy

Recommended Posts

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/25/nude.cale...s.ap/index.html

These women are posing almost completely naked for charity. They are doing it of their own volition, because they want to raise money for the lesser fortunate. Is volition all that matters in this case? I could not stand naked and let people take pictures of me...no matter how dear the reward would be. Seeing all of me would be a privilege...I take pride in who I am...I wouldn't let some irrational pervert buy a calendar and look at me for all of October, under the ostensible reason of charity. Would an Objectivist even purchase such a product?? How could women honestly want to reveal their bodies to complete strangers? If I did this, my own values would be desecrated.

Please discuss! And happy holidays. :whistle:

P.S. I just thought of TF and how Dominique posed for the statue in the temple. I don't remember fully, but it was never known to more than just a few people that it was indeed Dominique Francon who that statue was modeled after....right?? Could you tell just by looking at the statue the identity of the person it intended to depict?

Edited by Mimpy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most people's concern with others seeing them naked is this attitude toward the minds of others. It's a remnant of the social form of subjectivism, that if someone sees you as a sexual plaything, that will somehow make you so, or "desecrate" you, the real you. Don't live in other people's eyes, they don't matter.

Being naked is beautiful especially if you are in the sun or in the breeze, to be able to feel existence on every inch of your skin is exhilirating.

That being said, portraying something like on the calender would depend on the context of the shoot and the thing being protrayed. Posing for a nude shoot that involved depicting an immoral act would be immoral, but depicting yourself as a beautiful object to be appreciated for that fact, or even as an object of sexual appreciation is not necessarily bad as sex is not necessarily bad, nor is beauty, nor is the body. Just because some people might treat that dipiction as against what the intention of the shoot was is irrelevant, just as someone reading "The Fountainhead" sees it as Neitschean doesnt make it so. Other people's eyes don't matter, you don't exist in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I suspect that the true motive of these women is to pretend that they are on par with the models who appear on for-profit calendars. But, at least judging from the picture accompanying the article, anyone who buys these calendars is likely to buy it out of pity rather than lust. Or perhaps out of a sanctimonious desire to "support a good cause."

How could women honestly want to reveal their bodies to complete strangers? If I did this, my own values would be desecrated.

I completely agree with you. (Be prepared to be called a "prude" and a "Puritan" by some posters, though.)

P.S. I just thought of TF and how Dominique posed for the statue in the temple. I don't remember fully, but it was never known to more than just a few people that it was indeed Dominique Francon who that statue was modeled after....right?? Could you tell just by looking at the statue the identity of the person it intended to depict?

A statue is quite different from a photograph. It is a work of art: a selective recreation of reality, highlighting only the features that the artist finds important. A photograph could be considered a work of art in some ways, but a statue is much more selective. And the statue Dominique modeled for was made to cater neither to lust nor to pity, but something entirely different!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true. I didn't think of it that way.

I still wouldn't want to show off my body to random people...they wouldn't deserve to see it.

I would agree with you, to a point. One should not be concerned primarily with being visible to others, and trying to figure out whether or not they deserve to see you. Taken to its logical extreme, this view prescribes that one should wear a burka and only let their husbands see them because only their husbands "deserve" to see them. One should be concerned with one's own existence regardless of what other's opinions or experiences of you are (unless you violate their rights). One should not curb their non-rights-violating behaviour because some people don't deserve to witness virtue, to do so would be a betrayal of that virtue, and a betrayal of the people who actually do deserve to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. I just thought of TF and how Dominique posed for the statue in the temple. I don't remember fully, but it was never known to more than just a few people that it was indeed Dominique Francon who that statue was modeled after....right?? Could you tell just by looking at the statue the identity of the person it intended to depict?
In The Fountainhead, Dominique Francon was fairly well known in her city, even at that early stage of the novel, being the daughter of the famous architect Guy Francon, and the author of a popular newspaper article in The Banner. Since we can be confident that the sculptor was a realist, and since, as I recall, it was a full body sculpture, I think it's safe to conclude that anyone who saw it, and knew who Dominique was, would be able to identify that it was a statue of her.

Here is an excerpt from an interesting conversation between Dominique and her father over the statue:

Guy Francon tried to object when he heard of it.

"Listen, Dominique," he said angrily, "there is a limit. There really is a limit—even for you. Why are you doing it? Why—for a building of Roark's of all things? After everything you've said and done against him—do you wonder people are talking? Nobody'd care or notice if it were anyone else. But you—and Roark! I can't go anywhere without having somebody ask me about it. What am I to do?"

"Order yourself a reproduction of the statue, Father. It's going to be beautiful."

Skimming through, I couldn't find a reference that explicitly states that it was a full bodied statue, but this description of the making of the statue gives me the impression that it was:

Then he saw what he had been straggling to see all day. He saw her body standing before him, straight and tense, her head thrown back, her arms at her sides, palms out, as she stood for many days; but now her body was alive, so still that it seemed to tremble, saying what he had wanted to hear: a proud, reverent, enraptured surrender to a vision of her own, the right moment, the moment before the figure would sway and break, the moment touched by the reflection of what she saw.
Also, there is this statement from the description of Scarret's crusade against the temple:
He ran photographs of religious sculpture through the ages—the Sphinx, gargoyles, totem poles—and gave great prominence to pictures of Dominique's statue, with proper captions of indignation, but omitting the model's name.
The statement that the model's name was "omitted" suggests that it was no secret who the model was.

That being said, I doubt this calender is anything resembling a work of art.

But, at least judging from the picture accompanying the article, anyone who buys these calendars is likely to buy it out of pity rather than lust.
Daaaaamn. :whistle::santa: That's cold.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I suspect that the true motive of these women is to pretend that they are on par with the models who appear on for-profit calendars. But, at least judging from the picture accompanying the article, anyone who buys these calendars is likely to buy it out of pity rather than lust. Or perhaps out of a sanctimonious desire to "support a good cause."
Cold but true. After all, if someone wanted to buy a nude calendar why would he choose this one with older women who could not have been models even when they were younger? It just doesn't make sense as far as nude calendars go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cold but true. After all, if someone wanted to buy a nude calendar why would he choose this one with older women who could not have been models even when they were younger? It just doesn't make sense as far as nude calendars go.

I would agree that 99% of straight men would do as you suggest. But there are such things as fetishes, and some involve mature women. And that's obviously a specialty market.

Concerning charity, I'd buy a calendar I wanted if I thought the price were fair, regardelss of whether it is for charity or not; except possibly if the charity involved were too immoral.

I would not buy something I didn't want or need just to benefit a charity, though. If it were for a charity I supported, I'd give them a donation instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cold but true. After all, if someone wanted to buy a nude calendar why would he choose this one with older women who could not have been models even when they were younger? It just doesn't make sense as far as nude calendars go.

Well, besides mature fetishes, which are an established market for that sort of thing, not everyone likes the type of women who are selected for modeling anyway. Personally, young models (with interest in philosophy and literature and who have moral integrity) are just fine for me, though.. If you meet any you can send them my way. But if you want to buy me a calender, I'd rather one with skyscrapers, cats, Vermeers, or renaissance sculptures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could women honestly want to reveal their bodies to complete strangers? If I did this, my own values would be desecrated.

Because their values are honestly different from yours and their view of the significance of nudity is honestly different. (Be prepared that these women may be referred to as whores or as being immoral by some posters :lol: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because their values are honestly different from yours and their view of the significance of nudity is honestly different. (Be prepared that these women may be referred to as whores or as being immoral by some posters :lol: )

If a woman is, let's say, an Objectivist, the only way that she would not mind to let others see her naked is if she reaches the conclusion that no matter what anyone thinks, their thoughts cannot touch her: if they have a rotten philosophy that in any way degrades the meaning of her naked body (in their minds), she realizes that their thoughts are their exclusive property and cannot touch or affect her in any way.

Now, to put myself in the shoes of someone considering being photographed naked for some magazine:

What would matter to me are two things: First is that even though the thoughts those people would have about my naked body exist in their minds and cannot touch me, their thoughts will also have an external expression. And seeing someone I find disgusting as a person looking at me with lust will be unbelievably disgusting. So one good reason why not to pose naked is that it will save me the need to deal with highly unpleasant aesthetic contents.

Another reason is that men that I might find worthy will also see me naked. Now my reaction will be annoyance, because, even though their reaction is not un-aesthetic this time, they still got something unearned, for the price I set and the meaning I have for my nakedness. This would be the same feeling as if some thief had stolen my property and would share it with unsuspecting, good people. The mere sight of them enjoying property is not disgusting, but damn it! it is mine!

But I guess a woman can:

1) Have a different opinion of the meaning of nakedness. She might not see it as something so personal, that represents her self so much. She might, for example, think that reading her writings represents her self in a much more intimate way than her body. So she wouldn't mind if anyone sees her naked, but would only reveal her writings to those she finds worthy.

2) Have an opinion that her naked body is indeed a representation of her self, and thus personal, but simply not care about any pleasure of disgusting thought anyone might have about it, and realize that the only way they can affect her is by rape, or other actions resulting from seeing her naked. If she doesn't think that it might be risky, there would be nothing to stop her.

3) Needs the money very much, so it becomes a higher value than worrying about those who receive something unearned from the deal (assuming she thinks that for some the deal is earned. If she thinks that this deal can never be just, or earned on their end, she should not go through with it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no reason to doubt that the reasons you listed are perfectly acceptable reasons for you not to pose nude in magazines. You'll get no argument from me.

You're getting predictable, there, RB. :D

But I suppose I must resemble that remark...

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First is that even though the thoughts those people would have about my naked body exist in their minds and cannot touch me, their thoughts will also have an external expression. And seeing someone I find disgusting as a person looking at me with lust will be unbelievably disgusting. So one good reason why not to pose naked is that it will save me the need to deal with highly unpleasant aesthetic contents.

You said you werent concerned with other peoples consciousness though. How is someone looking at you with lust different than someone calling you names?

Another reason is that men that I might find worthy will also see me naked. Now my reaction will be annoyance, because, even though their reaction is not un-aesthetic this time, they still got something unearned, for the price I set and the meaning I have for my nakedness. This would be the same feeling as if some thief had stolen my property and would share it with unsuspecting, good people.

Why is being naked so personal for you?

The thief comparison you made is slightly flawed. When a thief steals material property of yours, you lose your property all together. But no matter who sees you naked, nothing of your property(your body) necessarily has to change or disappear. Also, it would only change you psychologically if you value strangers opinions of you.

The mere sight of them enjoying property is not disgusting, but damn it! it is mine(speaking of your body)!

Your actual body would still be yours. Just like if someone enjoys looking at your sweet car(pretending you have one), how does that change anything for you? I thought you said you werent concerned with others consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These conversations remind me of Dominique Francon and how she destroyed the things she valued because she did not want the rest of the world to see them because she knew they could not value those things in the same way she did. She destroyed a beautiful sculpture she once owned...and then she tried to destroy Howard Roark.

Edited by Mimpy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it not for you?

I view the human body in its natural sense, which is naked. I would walk around naked like any other animal if it werent for the necessity of clothes. Clothes are a means of warmth, art, being socially accepted, and various other reasons. But I thought Ifat may have certain spiritual reasons that explain her privacy of her body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view the human body in its natural sense, which is naked. I would walk around naked like any other animal if it werent for the necessity of clothes. Clothes are a means of warmth, art, being socially accepted, and various other reasons. But I thought Ifat may have certain spiritual reasons that explain her privacy of her body.

Let's say we wear clothes only to keep warm (for the sake of argument). So everyone I meet during the day sees me with a sweater and jeans. That is commonplace, the norm.

In my own home, however, with the provision of my heater, I can roam naked if I wish to do so. Being an Objectivist, the people I'd allow to see my nakedness would be people chosen by a rational and conscious decision. I wouldn't let just any beggar see it. The fact that our bodies are almost usually covered makes the concept of the people we eventually reveal it to of much more significance. If we all walked around naked, this wouldn't be such a big deal. But the fact that we don't...creates the importance of when one does show the naked body, he must show it to the people he values, to the people who, in his opinion, deserve to see it.

Edited by Mimpy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say we wear clothes only to keep warm (for the sake of argument). So everyone I meet during the day sees me with a sweater and jeans. That is commonplace, the norm.

In my own home, however, with the provision of my heater, I can roam naked if I wish to do so. Being an Objectivist, the people I'd allow to see my nakedness would be people chosen by a rational and conscious decision. I wouldn't let just any beggar see it. The fact that our bodies are almost usually covered makes the concept of the people we eventually reveal it to of much more significance. If we all walked around naked, this wouldn't be such a big deal. But the fact that we don't...creates the importance of when one does show the naked body, he must show it to the people he values, to the people who, in his opinion, deserve to see it.

I agree that you shouldnt show your naked body to someone for no reason, but I think its perfectly fine to let others see you naked indirectly if the main purpose of being naked in the first place is to benefit yourself.

Like with the posing naked in certain photos. Say you get paid for it, advances your career, and is artistic at the same time. You get all those benefits, so who cares what strangers see you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually was a nude model for about five years,and still do it from time to time, in my own art or in others, and my being nude was always something for myself. If I posed for an artist I wanted to see my body abstracted into a symbol for something else, and done well. Or I wanted to see the students benefitting from my posing. IF there was someone else in the room seeing me who was not drawing or appreciating my body, it did not matter, because the focus wasn't them, it was me and "my students." No one has to deserve to see anything, because I do not act for them, or by their permission, their desert is of no significance to me.

I think Mimpy brings up a good point bringing up Dominique. When Ayn Rand discusses it with a questioner in her "Faith and Force" lecture, she explains Dominiques flaw as the malevolent universe premise, and advises that [paraphrasing]"whenever you feel that you have something great, that won't be accepted by others, and you hide it, you are acting on Dominique's flaw."

I knew a girl once, the most beautiful girl I have ever personally known, who told me that her boyfriend wanted her to never wear makeup or do her hair because he didn't want other people to see her beauty, he wanted it all to himself. This was one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard. He wanted to chain beauty BECAUSE IT WAS BEAUTY! The same applies to your nude body.

Edited by IAmMetaphysical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IAmMetaphysical,

You seem to have a problem with anyone keeping anything private. You think monogamy is irrational. It would seem that you feel the same way about nudity; that anyone who has the slightest problem with showing their full, frontal nude body to strangers or people they hate is being irrational.

What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it?

- Anthem, Chapter 11 by Ayn Rand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing I would like to clear up is that I don't think that Monogamy is irrational and I have said as much. I don't know why you fail to understand this.

Monogamy is fine, as long as it doesn't involve sacrifice, or coercion. Monogamy is not necessarily sacrificial, neither is polygamy. An open relationship means freedom to choose, to enjoy, and to value. One can do this while remaining monogamous or while being polygamous from time to time. It is not an obligation to be polygamous, nor to be monogamous. It is the element of independance. The choice to be either one.
Link to comment
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...