The above is a beautiful photo. As readers of this blog know, I enjoy posting nude and erotic photos of women. For many of the more religious bent, or Fox News brainwashed “conservatives”, these photos are considered “porn” or even “filth”. However, I do not consider the photos I post here porn, at least in the modern sense of the world. For some people though, “porn” constitutes any depiction of the human body which is in any way nude. For these people, “porn” is any kind of depiction of human sexuality, whether verbal or visual, which somehow violates traditional Christian notions of biblical sexuality. I am sure I could say the same thing for Muslims or Mormons or Orthodox Jews or any other hard core religious group. Anything which may lead the mind to wander, to fantasize or lust after something sexual, is forbidden to most religious conservatives. Being pure, especially sexually, is a clarion call for many in these communities. Many even describe their approach to such sexual issues in militant terms, using such phrases as “the battle for purity”, etc. And for those committed to this war, what a never ending battle it is. Those naturally occurring phenomena of our human sexuality, such as the erect penis and the wet vagina, are usually quite the pesky and disobedient foes of religious purity.
I enjoy erotic photos of women. I love the female body and find it quite beautiful, just as I love women and find them to be quite beautiful. However, I do not enjoy merely any and all erotic photos. For me, an erotic photo needs to have certain qualities, and certain standards. Otherwise, I will find no pleasure in the photo (or painting, drawing, etc.). Too many, perhaps most, of the nude photos and images out there are simply too crude for my tastes, and hence too crude to make the cut for this blog. I want the photos posted here to possess at least some degree of beauty. Without beauty, an erotic photo quickly degenerates into something vile and base, something which appeals purely the lower instincts of our nature. Obviously there is a fine line between the two–what is cruder types of porn and what is good erotic art–and no definitive definition can ever really be created. Subjectivity is the essence of artistic appreciation. Still, at least for myself and this blog, there are certain qualities and standards that I try to adhere to when posting nude photos. Here are some of overall conditions and random thoughts on the matter:
1) My overall goal is a celebration of feminine beauty.
2) The photo must have a certain degree of beauty. What this is means is good lighting, a good background, and an overall harmonious balance and symmetry in the image. Above all I want the photo to express the beauty of the female form. A good nude photo should be a celebration of loveliness.
3) I do not like, nor do I post, close up shots of vaginas or women spread eagle. You can find that sort of thing in most sex blogs, or in older magazines, such as Hustler. I never liked such shots. To me the fascination with gynecological close ups of female genitalia is a little weird. I image fat truck drivers jerking off to such photos in their spare time at truck stops. A good erotic photo should depict and reflect the entire person and not simply body parts.
4) Although I will occasionally post explicit erotica, for the most part, I am interested solely in nudes. When I do post a more explicit piece, again, I strive for a depiction of beauty rather than a simple and straightforward sex act. Again, I am striving to find works that artistically depict the beauty of human sexuality.
5) As I have repeatedly stated on this blog, I find most porn to be crude, at least 90% of the stuff out there. I am hoping on this blog to post some of the 10% which might be good, even uplifting, and which might have some value beyond merely male masturbation material. Since human sexuality and eroticism is a part of our lives, and a powerful part indeed, I think erotic art has a legitimate place in the world as an expression and reflection of our all pervasive sexuality. So I hope this blog at least reflects something of that.
But again, most of all, this blog is a celebration of female beauty, the loveliness of women, and the joys and pleasures of human sexuality in all its various forms. I hope the photos posted here somehow capture at least something of that.
John Doe said:
Nice article but it could have done without your butt-hurt jab at “Fox News brainwashed ‘conservatives.'” R iiiight, so you are one of the twelve people on earth who think that MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, The New York Slimes, the Washington compost, and PBS are paragons of virtue, spewing only the truth and nothing but the truth… pssst. I got a bridge to sell you!
Yeah, the Fox News jab was lame. To paraphrase C. Hitchens, it has become the kind of joke stupid people laugh at. And I suspect for the most part all these big bad conservative Christians are just a strawman that exists only in your mind. or at most a few ranting weirdos may have written you (on the Internet of all places!). I’m far right and a Fox News watcher and have no prob with the photos or even porn (esp. online).
I’m not a political man, and as such did not particularly notice the FN comment nor am I feeling the least bit butthurt about it.
That said, my feelings on the matter echo your own. I share your distaste for the spread-eagle (let us photograph things in the least flattering way imaginable).
I have a print of Vincenzo Carducci’s Cupid and Psyche hanging above my bed, which is worth a look at if you can find a decent picture of it. I could not.
Southern Man said:
The eyes are the window to a beautiful soul. Exhibit A: the first pic.
True conservatives (that is, what we used to call “classical liberals”) want you to have the freedom to look at beautiful nude women. Modern liberals? I don’t think so.
Revo Luzione said:
“A good erotic photo should depict and reflect the entire person and not simply body parts.”
Well-stated. You can take “erotic” out of the sentence, and it would accurately depict figure and portrait photography, which is what good erotic photography is, minus clothing, and plus some sexy body language.
Lol at the FN Butthurt cadre of cooze. Buck up, buttercups, it’s not personal, everyone knows Fox blows. If you’re taking an insult to Fox News personally, you need to look in the mirror and have a real conversation about what you’re doing with your life. Southern Man’s comments are dead-on. Hayek and Von Mises were both “classic liberals.”
Racer X said:
John Doe & Bill,
Thanks for the comments. I used to watch Fox News but no longer do. Since the W years it was clearly becoming more and more an organ of official GOP power circles. At this point I have mostly contempt for the organization. The other “news” organizations you mentioned are not much better, each one has its own political and cultural agenda. Like the others, Fox news advertises itself as objective, which it clearly is not. As time passes it has become more entrenched in the reigning orthodoxies of modern conservative thought. The only person on Fox News who seems to be his own man, and openly advocates are more libertarian type of conservatism, is Shepherd Smith. The others seem to be mostly reactive spokesmen for the Big Business-Religious Conservatism-Old South coalition that rules the GOP at the moment. The Right is now going through what the Left went through back in the 70’s and 80’s: a hysterical, rigid ideology increasingly divorced from reality or public opinion. From what I can see, Fox News is part of that hysteria.
Sure, there are some people who might openly advocate porn on Fox, but I doubt they are many. You will find more who support suppressing porn in the name of religion or traditional values or whatever 1950’s fantasy land they live in. And I think a large part of the viewership of Fox is “brainwashed” in the sense that Fox is the only organ of information they visit (besides Rush or Glen Beck or certain blogs), so the “news” that they are getting is always going to be presented from a certain perspective, with certain important facts left out, in order to tell them what they want to hear. Fox does this to keep the viewer coming back to watch Fox and keep the ratings up. People will listen to what they want to hear, sort of like listening to good music. If you think Obama is an evil socialist, then Fox news will give you as much entertainment on that idea as possible, and thus Fox keeps its viewership and rating up. The same is true for the other news organizations as well. Most people are simply too lazy to try to find their own information from different sources. The problem of Carl Rove as a supposedly objective news commentator on a supposedly objective news network while he concurrently funds GOP organizations to the tune of hundreds of millions was amply demonstrated on election night. He, like Fox News, has an agenda, and that agenda is to win elections, obtain power, and mold public opinion in their favor in order to maintain the wealth and power that comes from winning elections.
Racer X said:
Thanks for that reference, I will try to find that painting!
Thanks. Yes, like you I would consider myself more a “classical liberal”, i.e., more libertarian than anything else.
Thanks for the comment. And I agree with your analysis of the hyper-sensitivity of the Fox New buttercup crowd. They don’t take criticism too well…
Southern Man said:
I’m going to jump back in and point out that every time the political affiliations of the employees of the mainstream news media are published, CNN and the major networks clock in at 90%+ Democrat and the rest “Independent” while Fox is more like 60/40. Yes, even Fox has more Ds working for it than Rs. They only seem extreme compared to the others, which are so hard up against the left-hand wall that they can’t even see straight. For that reason I trust Fox a LOT more than I trust any of the others. Which, I admit, is not much. Also note that a LOT of conservatives are more of the Tea Party variety and argue as much with the establishment GOP as with anyone else. But don’t worry, we’ll eventually bring them around. Or down. Or something.
Well said. I couldn’t agree with you more!—Sage