Showing posts with label nudity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nudity. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

WHAT IS PORN?

This is a response to an essay in Aeon called Pornocopia,” written by Maria Konnikova.

This is an art doll made by Nita Collins

What IS porn? Most folks would assume a very limited stereotype: a male slob watching a pretty teen he would have to pay to get access to. We define it in terms of physical objects or specific language rather than dynamics, which are too hard to render into legal exhibits. Porn is psychological, different for each person. What turns on one person is indifferent to another.

This post will try to broaden that. As the limits of what can be known about are pushed back, like water going out of a bathtub, in recent years a lot of stuff has become publicly exposed. Some of it is hard to sort.

All human behavior is just a big messy mass that we then try to define into categories so we can separate and name them. But categories as dynamic as sex cannot really be captured. We might do better to concentrate on the nucleus of each “named” thing and ignore the boundaries. Maybe sexual displacement is a good example: if the episode is close to the cultural stereotype — say, “Playboy” — that’s one thing. If the circumstances are bizarre, unprecedented, like a particularly ingenious bit of sci-fi, that’s different. I’ve never forgotten a riff on Medusa, pictured as an interplanetary sex worker. Instead of snakes, her “hair” was worms that wrapped up her customer in monster K-Y jelly to enable electrochemical stimulation, putting him into ecstasy, but then turning up the stimulation until it killed him.

by Kathryn Weese

First category division: That which is only imaginary, like writing, photos, art work Vs. that which is physical, like lap dances, or performances behind glass, or a proscenium onstage. Plus, acts that only EMT’s and cops know about. Testimony I’ve heard from them include penises getting stuck in vacuum cleaner hoses or bathtub faucets, or objects getting stuck in orifices. Or relating to animals as though they were humans. One guy was obsessed by giving fellatio to a small horse. This is not porn, but sense-displacement, paraphilia like sexual stimulation from a glove or shoe.

The physical kind of displacement from routinely acceptable kinds of sex is generally not considered porn, but rather some other category like masturbation or sodomy or addiction. Even shopping, if we’re being real. The most troublesome displacement is that which does damage of some kind. Bodies must stay within the limits of homeostasis. Using physical risks that could burst a gut or break an eardrum, or adding chemical danger like drugs or psychological danger is quite possible when operating at extremes. Esp. when children are the object. But we’re talking about porn watching, not doing, using the mirror capacities of the brain. 


So the next division is merely watching erotic behavior. The consideration here is what it does to the larger culture, like maybe encouraging child abuse. I would include both the latency child who may not understand what’s happening and the adolescent who has confused sex with love, so is sexting. 

Now we’re talking CSI porn, which substitutes righteous rage for sexual stimulation. Our culture WANTS this confusion because it is so commodifiable. In a sense, porn is advertising and advertising is porn. If we eliminated porn, industries would go broke. Not just explicit films, writing, sex work, but also the economy of political favors, privilege markers, blackmail, and people having to face some pretty ugly internal dynamics. I’m not saying that these dynamics come from porn but that they can often lead to porn as well as bad behavior.

It’s fashionable to speak of high luxury that most people have no access to as “porn.” “Food porn,” “automobile porn,” and my fav: “house porn.” This is acknowledgment of the status of the porn as “high end.” But status doesn’t have to be a marker for eroticism.



Eleanor Ambos is a person more like me than most of the people turning out torrents of print about their trivial lives struggling with jobs, fashion trends, friendship issues, and the consequences of sleeping around. She doesn’t write. She is a sensualist who works with space and furnishings and she is appreciated by photographers looking for evocative settings. Ambos is not a writer or artist herself in the sense of creating something — she is directly connected to her objects. That the young (male) observers consider her crazy is labeling her as though she were a pornographer, because she’s not like their own sub-cultures. Crazy is always relative.

To me, this is also a useful distinction when dealing with the observation of things the culture wants fenced and obscured because people want to watch it too much. I think of a man who bred horses too near a highway, which caused many accidents because people wanted to see what was happening. (Horse sexual behavior is like a dance.) The law made him build a high modesty fence.



Nudity — just plain exposure — is suppressed by law, which keeps us from seeing the variousness of human bodies. Many resort to National Geographic, but the fact of only seeing black people with no clothes creates strange conviction patterns. Sex among the most primitive peoples can be pretty matter of fact. “Black is sexy” plays into the forbiddenness, the guilt, and therefore the porniness of white Euro culture. The link with slavery remains, so the highest value on physical characteristics still accrues for a blonde, beautiful, self-possessed person: male, female, or child. Ask a Nazi.

Speaking of which, this link is a very disturbing case that is not porn except that it arouses very strong feelings. It is a real life case, extreme “playing doctor.” http://www.buzzfeed.com/danvergano/this-doctor-wtf#.ivBYExYLD   If he hadn’t been messing around with genitals, he might not have been recognized as an outlier.

The point of playing doctor is intimate, unsupervised access to bodies for the purpose of healing. In order to keep people trustingly going to doctors, they must be portrayed as benign, ethically balanced, conservative people. Like any group, many of them are not. No more than ministers or lawyers or congressmen. Or mothers. Perhaps I’ll wrote a sci-fi story in which the high status and privileged access people are then obliged to provide sexual access to themselves for all their clients. In a masochistic culture like ours, it might become real pretty easily: consider four-inch pointy-toe shoes that are so painful and dangerous that women only pretend to wear them, keeping slippers under their desks. They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t signal power, which is why female cops on TV wear high heels to crime scenes.

Violence entwined with sex takes us to the psychological and neurological set-ups of the individual. The Great Rule of neurology is “what fires together wires together.” Every experience changes the brain by adding, deleting or conjoining neurons. This means that if porn is based on adrenaline, risk and mirrored suffering, it will appeal to a differently experienced consumer. If porn is based on the oxytocin loop, nurturing and kissing, it will attract quite a different sort. People who have grown up in a depriving, punishing, confining sort of emotional atmosphere will be vulnerable to the same things expressed metaphorically in art or sex.

Our technical capacities have deep consequences and I’m not just talking about robot dolls that can gyrate and talk dirty. The fad for vanity plastic surgery is a measure of just how pornographic our ordinary assumptions can be, esp. in relatively young girls trying to be attractive. Consider the pull of websites featuring facial plastic surgery gone wrong, esp. people we know, like celebrities. They are grotesque, compelling and shuddery in a mirror kind of way.


Maybe the case of the doctor is most disturbing because he was imposing helplessness, unconsciousness, and inability to respond — that is, his arousal was based on the impossibility of theirs, like a date-drug rapist. Much less could they consent, not just because of being knocked out, but because they were down the prestige ladder where social powerlessness prevented them from ratting out the doc. Anyway, as Bob Scriver used to say, “If what you do is outrageous enough, no one will stop you because they won’t believe it.” And, “People will do anything they can until someone stops them.” Ask a Nazi.

The best way to avoid destructive porn is to develop full humanity in people, but that’s the first thing that gets cut in our education systems, the last thing to be funded by the government. It’s interesting that the most prudish politicians are so often in trouble over sexual matters. “You know nothing, John Snow.” Our pornographic yearning is for power and specialness — never admitted or even necessarily conscious, but suppressed and displaced.

Friday, March 06, 2015

GOOGLE GIGGLING

EXIBIT A:  IS THIS PORN?

 From Twitter  posted by the Economist just now:   
One reproductive biologist suggests that curvy bums and boobs ensure the future of humankind
    Is this porn?  Will my re-post of it cause my blog to be suppressed?  (I do like the image quite a lot, though not necessarily the message since it endorses fertility when our future may be better served by non-reproduction.)  It appears that a lot of people like it, but for what reasons?  Are they POLITICALLY CORRECT REASONS?
    Well, it's a painting, so that's aesthetic and gives it an art pass, but I assume Bridgeman is the artist so it's advertising, too.  The story it illustrates is science, though the message is old as the Venus of Willendorf but she's archeology or something, so that's science, too.

    Of course Google knew very well it would back off from its sudden burst of prudery and so did the others that realize (as Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam discovered when researching "A Billion Wicked Thoughts") that the real money-maker of the internet has been porn -- whatever that is.  I’d be willing to bet real money that it’s not porn but the SEARCH for porn that makes money.  "Googling" porn.  Hoping to feel something.

    And what most people think of as obscene or “adult” -- depends on whether it’s icky or nice, or something else unscientific and changing like that.  It wanders around all the time, so once it was Deborah Kerr and Burt Lancaster rolling around in the surf with only their lips engaged, but now on “Game of Thrones” there are naked Barbies wandering around all over the place, stopping to imitate noisy coitus on cushions.  Google “nudity on ‘Game of Thrones’” and see what you get.  But be warned, you may end up laughing yourself onto the floor.  When seen back-to-back (so to speak) without any story line or teases, it’s mostly just squirming.

    Still, some people hang onto the idea that it’s porn if the people aren’t wearing any clothes, unless it’s a classical painting or scientific.  Here’s one  that’s both.  It’s supposed to be illustrating women with big bottoms who are presumably more fertile.  But we’ve known that big butts mean lots of babies since the Venus de Willendorf, so how much scientific value is there really in this story?

    There was a story today about men with small testicles being better at baby care.  But there was no picture of testicles -- just a guy holding an infant.   Just the same, maybe all these young women whose worthless boyfriends end up killing their babies ought to get out the tape measure next Saturday night and see what’s what.  Will someone publish a guide in an appropriate magazine?  It’s info with practical value.


    One of my fav twitter feeds is http://www.gocomics.com/that-is-priceless.  The idea is to recaption paintings from the past with contemporary interpretations.  It’s amazing how many paintings from the past are of naked people doing strange things, not just standing there.

    Last night I watched “Renoir” (streams from Netflix) which was, of course, full of naked females, which were biographically accurate since that’s what Renoir painted.  It’s from the period in his life when he was barely able to hold a brush and there is barely enough plot to be an excuse for one beautiful image after another.  That qualifies under aesthetic, right?

    There’s hardly a movie that can be shown on Google if the rules are strictly enforced.  Even the official censors can’t get a grip on “Game of Thrones.”  It’s just too profitable.  And now we’re getting used to men’s bare bottoms.  No fronts yet.
    Julian Freud's portrait of one of his favorite models

    Of course, Google would wipe out the entire oeuvre of Julian Freud, but some people would say good riddance, on grounds that all fat people are obscene whether or not they are bare.  Then it became apparent in the grieving over the death of Leonard Nimoy, that many people cherished his book called “The Full Body Project: Photographs by Leonard Nimoy”.  (Actually, I’m reliably told (by Ogas and Gaddam, for instance) that fat women are a big porn category.) 
    Photo by Leonard Nimoy

    Since I have a mirror, I provide my own images, but I don’t find them seductive.  Nimoy, who sort of swallowed Mr. Spock, found it “fascinating” to think about what people consider sexy.  Who are we to contradict Mr. Spock?

    I knew a guy who said what really turned him on was the image of Maggie from “Maggie and Jiggs,” that old comic strip in which Maggie was always in an old chenille housecoat with her hair in pincurls, always in a bad mood and waving a rolling pin.  I suppose she could be classified as a dominatrix, but I suspect it was just his mother.  Some people think their mothers are sexy and some people don’t.  Oedipus did, Hamlet did not.

    But what if you want to be really covered up?
    Plushies are a big porn category.

    Then there’s the little problem of people thinking that one thing turns them on, because they believe others respond that way or because it fits their image of themselves.  Or maybe they deny to themselves that they are turned on at all.  Only a plethysmograph could really prove who was responding to which porn.  Some might be surprised by themselves.  Should we market plethysmographs in the Big Box Pharmacies next to the glucose strips, the blood pressure cuff, and the fancy electronic bracelets that tell you how you’re doing when you go jogging?  It might be pretty interesting for many women who don’t know themselves very well.

    I was talking to someone in the presence of a old guy in town and mentioned that I subscribe to a number of sites about sex.  I could see by the guy’s face that what he thought I was subscribing to was porn, not academic research.  He didn’t know there was such a thing as objective reflection about sex.  He did know about the criminalizing of sex.  We know the orientation, price range, and level of competence of one person in town because he was caught in an FBI sting that showed up in the newspaper.  He was identified.  A few years ago that would have been unthinkable.

    How and where could someone in a small town with few feminists get educated without revealing publicly  what s/he’s thinking about it?  Well, s/he could Google, couldn’t s/he?  The internet can provide a little sophistication for those smart enough to look for it.  It would do cultural damage to shut it down.

    Tuesday, October 23, 2012

    POOR BARE FORKED CREATURE



    These observations are in reaction to the exhibit of nude male portraits at the Leopold Museum in Vienna.   Bold comments are mine.  The others are quotes.
    There was enough public objection to the posters that red tape was needed to restore decorum.


    It’s okay to be naked if you’re dead.
    It’s okay to be naked if you’re Adam.
    It’s okay to be naked if you have wings.

    “The endless flood of images intrinsic to today’s life-style has given unprecedented prominence to the depiction of male nudes.”

    Because of the fitness movement we all go to the gym and therefore the shower and the locker room. 
    Because of male-based television like “Oz”, we’ve already seen naked men, albeit big, strong, intimidating ones -- possibly black.
    It’s okay to be naked if you’re a  body-builder.
    It’s okay to be naked if you’re really sexy and in a perfume ad. 

    At the same time seemingly firmly established categories such as “masculinity,” “body” and “nakedness” are apparently being redefined on a broad social basis, resulting in a new interpretation of male gender roles.  



    It’s okay to be naked if you’re a Middle Eastern prisoner being tortured and you’re half the size and much darker than the guards.
    It’s okay to be naked if you’re a statue or painting, esp. if it’s really old.

    It’s okay to be naked if you’re very powerful.
    It’s okay to be naked if you’re as naked as women have always been depicted.
    It’s okay to be naked if it’s political comment.

    It’s okay to be naked if you’re depicted by a famous artist.
    Schiele began to make his own body the object of his paintings. 

    It’s okay to be naked if you’re depicted by yourself.
    Schiele’s male nudes can be seen as unconditional explorations of the self, as expressions of inner emotions and as body images situated between vulnerability and provocation.  

    It’s okay to be naked if you are making a statement of defiance and provocation.
    It’s okay to be naked if you are shown to be vulnerable.  (You probably are, esp. if you’re at the doctor’s office.)

    It’s okay to be naked if you are shown as an example of penetrating (not literally) psychological insight.
    Gersli followed the tradition of Christian iconography with the first of his two life-sized self-portraits, while he elevated the fragmentation of form to a principal in the second with his wild brushstrokes.
    Huh?

    Kolig was captivated by the depiction of naked young men all his life and dedicated his drawings almost exclusively to this motif.
    It’s okay to be naked if everyone is gay -- whatever the criteria for that is.  Young?  HOW young?

    Ever since the Renaissance, the naked male body was considered to be an important object of study and an indispensible part of the academies’ curriculum, which was one of the reasons that women were denied access to art academies for so long.
    It is now okay to be a naked model for a female artist.

    The presentation affords insights into the life drawing rooms of European art academies from the Baroque period onwards.
    It’s okay to be naked if you’re in upper class and luxury surroundings.

    “. . . all eyes were focused on the naked man, though he himself was the only one to remain naked.”
    It’s okay to be naked as long as everyone else is clothed and watching.

    “ . . . restrictions prompted the emergence of various artistic strategies that reintepreted ancient ideals under the guise of antiquity.  This is illustrated in the exhibition with examples from the period about 1800 up until the present.
    It’s okay to be naked if you’re an African, an American Indian, a Samoan, or some other primitive with a spear in your hand.

    Klimt believed that nakedness and truth coincided in the “Nuda Veritas,” 
    It’s okay to be naked if it’s truthful.  (I assume Bacon and Freud are both painting truthfully.)

    Expressionism brought with it a radical examination of the self, which saw the artists exposing themselves both physically and existentially and exploring the use of their own nudity as a sphere of political influence.
    It’s okay to be naked as a demonstration that you belong to yourself and are trying to figure out who you are in a confusing time.  (Maybe you can’t decide what to wear.)

    The battle of female desire and male denial is not often addressed in the visual arts, but it has its historical sources both in the biblical story of “Joseph and the wife of Potiphar” and in the ancient mythological traditions of “Narcissus” and “Adonis.”  [Joseph was sold to Potiphar’s wife to be her sex slave, but refused her.  Early human trafficking.]  
    It’s okay to be naked even if you’re a sex slave who is unwilling to comply.

    It’s okay to be naked while you admire yourself in the mirror.

    Nowadays, female artists also have access to male nude models and are free to interpret and depict the motif at their will, currently often with a view to deconstructing gender and gender asymmetries.
    It’s okay to be naked if you know your contemporary French philosophers.

    In the second half of the 19th century depictions of naked people in nature abounded.  These renderings had their origin in a reassessment of man’s position i nature.  Based on early depictions such as Durer’s “the Men’s Bath,” the exhibition features many eminent examples of such encounters and get-togethers of naked men, from Cezanne to Mapplethorpe.
    It’s okay to be naked if you’re out in the woods or at the beach or swimming or in the bath or pouring water on yourself or splashing someone.  (It’s sorta girly to just wade, though.)

    Note:
    Once I walked into an art gallery showing an intriguing collection of drawings made using sepia-red ink and a whittled tree twig for a dip pen.  They were nudes of a not-quite-young man with red hair, beautifully and gracefully drawn, quite realistic.  In fact, I recognized the model, which was a surprise since I didn’t know he ever posed at all, much less nude.
    It’s okay to be naked if you’re my brother and the artist is your best friend.