Anon said:
That statue is kind of funny. They're allowed to show tits, but not snatch. Weird.
eolake said...
'twas always thus. Funny.
There's a level below that where you can show a naked girl fully from behind, but nothing from the front.
And a level below that where you can show a naked girl, but you have to hide pudenda, tits, and bum.
And the next level down of course is no nudity at all. But very small bikinis are OK, funny enough.
And so on, down to women in full burkahs and shown in the distance only. :-)
The really funny thing is that in each area each limitation seems very solid and important and serious, until one day it's broken.
18 comments:
I remain completely amazed how much Americans are concerned about nudity per se. I understand the concern over nudity in countries that are still in the 12th century, but in the 21st century modern world, I can only say I remain amazed. (The same goes for our hang-ups with the personal lives of the rich and famous and the politicians.)
I do think beautiful women in the last bit of clothing before complete nudity remain the most seductive.
Covering up breasts is a comparatively recent thing in most cultures. Before formula, breast pumps, bottles, etc. if you saw a woman in public with a child, it was only a matter of time before she'd need to breastfeed!
Whereas covering genitalia even in very primitive tribes who live in warm countries is standard - for hygiene reasons, I suppose.....
"Not snatch"??!? Man, are you BLIND? This babe has the hugest pubes I've EVER seen, and I'm a Medical Doctor... in Lebanon!
Bruce,
You can thank the proselyte religious bigots for these "advances". Very successfully employing the ancient and tried technique of over-prudishness, to stimulate the fondness of their "good customers" for finding guilt everywhere in the Universe, the ensuing abject angst motivating them to grovel to God and its, um, "legal representatives".
Speaking of over-prudishness in religious propaganda, there's a very recent ongoing debate in France, about whether a law should be made to prohibit the growing tendancy of wearing a burqa in public... in the wake of the new law against masking one's face in demonstrations and football games!
Advocates of the ghost disguise pleade religious freedom and civic freedoms.
Opponents remind that there's absolutely no Koranic mention of the burqa (strictly a wahhabite/Taliban invention), and that the veil itself is only a modesty PRESCRIPTION, an advice not a command. Same opponents argument that you cannot defend an emblem and tool of women's alienation in the name of freedom. Not even if SOME of them are brainwashed into believing they're consenting.
Countries like the UK are being observed for comparison and perspective. The French note that, while nobody bothers to mind the frequently seen niqabs and burqas there, it's because there's no integration effort whatsoever there, either. Muslims are left to do whatever they please in Great Britain, because most of the time, it's in their own ethnic ghettos.
Do not under-estimate the cardinally important role of France in worldwide culture. It's a fascinatingly interesting country, and a unique social experimentation field, both for "morality" issues and for multicultural co-existence.
(Plus, its First Lady is HOT! How many President's wives have their legally taken nude photos all over the net?)
A competent leader as she may be, Angela Merkel doesn't really turn me on. ;-)
"(The same goes for our hang-ups with the personal lives of the rich and famous and the politicians.)"
Yeah, what's up with THAT?
I mean, I understand the scandals about Silvio Berlusconi, because he's posing as a Knight-In-Shining-Armor of "national and catholic values" supported by the Vatican, so the issue is that he's unforgivably hypocrite. Same for, say, Newt Gingrich.
But Clinton getting his piccolo played privately? Not an issue. *HE* never meddled in the private intimate lives of his fellow citizens, so I return the basic politeness and let him face the wrath of his spouse. (Which is more than sufficient punishment, when you know Hillary! "These scratches on my face? Oh, I... I was playing with the cat, Socks. Eh-eh-eh! Ahem.")
The main "interest" I myself find in the mis-life-styles of the Rich & Famous, is the valuable reminder that wealth, celebrity and power do not ensure happiness. I'm absolutely not interested in gossiply judging them, only in judging the myth around the lure of wanting to become like them.
I mind much more a politician that's corrupt than one who's a womanizer. As long as the womanizing isn't part of their corruption, when they pose as saints as part of their political work.
You appoint your own self with the right/duty to dictate me my "morality", in fact my sexuality (hands off me privates, oi!), while doing far worse than I do? Then I'll be relentless in getting you to fuck off and go home in shame and unemployment!
Hell, it's already VERY shaky ground when a TRUE chast saint wants to advise others in that which (s)he is proud to have absolutely no life experience about!
At least, with the Orthodox (to which I belong), priests have the right to be married. That's why we consider ourselves far manlier than those Catho castrates! We also ring bells better, but that's completely off-topic. (Or is it??)
"I do think beautiful women in the last bit of clothing before complete nudity remain the most seductive."
Then dump Domai, take your duly prescribed heart medication, and hurry to Bikini-Dare.com!
"Whereas covering genitalia even in very primitive tribes who live in warm countries is standard"
And yet not universal.
Just saw yesterday a truly great documentary -on French TV, where else?- about a native tribe in New Guinea (part of Indonesia). Apart from all adults wearing a belt of strings, the men just "wear" a small rolled leaf around their penis. Conceals practically nothing at all, but without it, for instance if it falls, they feel terribly shy and take a dive face down to hide it. Literally, for real.
The genital organs bear a very high symbolic value, and were quite probably the first focus of magic rituals, as assessed by the extreme sexualization of the oldest prehistoric idols/charms/statuettes ever discovered. Rituals which later became religions. I think this is probably an even more significant element of their eventual covering up.
Religion vs hygiene? Methinks the duel is soon concluded, don't you? ;-)
Covering your face in public has always been illegal in Belgium. There are some exceptions, such as carnivals, but there is no exception for religious symbols. Yet if you were to walk around covered in something that looks vaguely religious, people will just ignore you. If, on the other hand, you walk around in a balaclava, you'll be arrested before you have time to take it off. Funny that.
I honestly don't give a toss about what anyone else wears. My opinion doesn't go any further than "ugly", "indifferent" and "sexy". I'm not going to treat someone differently because they're naked or wearing a tent. Can't really imagine anyone else caring about this either...
Then dump Domai, take your duly prescribed heart medication, and hurry to Bikini-Dare.com!
Comparing Domai to this BS is like comparing Playboy to Hustler...
Comparing Domai to this BS is like comparing Playboy to Hustler...
The only real difference is that bikini-dare is upfront about it being porn. Domai is porn laughably trying to be art. It's like calling a comic book a "graphic novel." Doesn't change what it is.
(Domai.com silently sits in shame and weeps.)
Comparing Domai to Playboy is... Well, I don't know WHAT it is, but consider it a contest in metaphoric creativity! :-)
"Domai is porn laughably trying to be art."
It is? Gee, my standards for anatomically exhibitionist vulgarity sure have sank low then!
And to think all that time I believed Domai was just about pretty naked women smiling.
I blame my warped conception of what porn is on misleading sites such as this one:
http://www.richards-realm.com/series/JohnnyRebel/
Which I tend to expect to be NSFW, but hey, what do *I* know?
;-)
They are naked and posing in an obviously non-natural way. That's why it's porn and not art.
"They are naked and posing in an obviously non-natural way. That's why it's porn and not art."
what is a natural way of posing? cross legged with a cup of tea in hand?
"what is a natural way of posing? cross legged with a cup of tea in hand?"
It's a typical domai pose: You have a woman sitting in a field, her arms up behind her hand, thrusting her chest toward the camera... Yes, that's totally natural. You don't want to admit it's porn, so you pathetically attempt to justify it as art. Because you can't think, you fail.
Well, Anon, congratulations: now you've caught my interest.
So, please, would you care to explain in what manner the poses on Domai are non-natural, as compared to pin-ups or to the classics of nude art paintings?
You're welcome to add many links to Wikipedia images (or whichever you find easiest) to illustrate your point.
And, for the sake of level argumenting, I won't drag Courbet's Origin of the World into the discussion. Let's stay with full-body nudes.
Do tell us what differenciates a natural artistic nude from an artificial posed Domai picture. Please enlighten us, I feel there's room for learning something here.
Another interesting distinction would be: what in your opinion makes it porn rather than, say, erotica?
Shouldn't "porn" be reserved to penetration, clear fetishes, and ostentatio genitalis?
I can't recall a single Domai model spreading her labia, or inserting fingers somewhere, or pulling her tongue...
Incidentally, the term ostentatio genitalis, exhibition of the intimate parts, comes from a professional art article about icons and holy paintings, to describe the period where baby Jesus was represented with insistent display of his spread-legged maleness. Quite interesting, historically speaking.
"It's a typical domai pose: You have a woman sitting in a field, her arms up behind her hand, thrusting her chest toward the camera... Yes, that's totally natural. You don't want to admit it's porn, so you pathetically attempt to justify it as art. Because you can't think, you fail."
you are getting a little ahead of yourself there, I dont remember commenting on weather its porn or art, Im just asking how you decide if a pose is natural or not? and what is wrong with an unnatural pose if such a thing exists?
By definition, isn't a pose the opposite of natural?
I'm having a nightmare of a time taking candid photos of the kids the way I'd want to, because as soon as they see the camera, they pose, and lose the natural I seek after!
I'm still waiting to be put back in my place with those explanations, mister A.
For people who have the time, it seems to help pointing and shooting at the kids all the time, they soon lose interest.
You don't know THOSE kids. They can never get enough of Uncle Pascal and having his attention!
Every single photo I take, I'm forced to display it on the camera screen for them to see.
If only I had somebody ready with a second camera to shoot their ravished smiles at that precise moment...
Also, they're brought up in the typically lebanese use of everybody swooning at the children and going all "Aaw, how CUTE!" for hours. Center of the whole family/tribe's attention and all that. It would take them at least a couple decades to get bored with it.
Not that I'm suggesting Lebanese parents and families spoil their children rotten or anything... :-P
I'm not allowed to pretend shooting them until the time is right. By the time they might grow bored with the camera, my batteries are dead. These damn things are a pain in the ulcer with draining batteries!
It's not easy getting yourself a convenient reputation of "just ignore the Pasca-razzi".
Levels of oddity...
According to Wikipedia, "one person's pornography is another's erotica, and vice-versa." As with the age-old "is it art?" question there can be no definitive answer.
I would say that from what I've seen of the domai pictures, just from the newsletter since I'm not a member, it's erotica and not pornography. That doesn't mean the poses are always exactly natural.
I don't know about other people here, but to me a natural pose would be the kind you might snap of people at a nudist gathering, where they are just going about ordinary activities and just happen to be naked. If you're aware of the camera and posing specifically for it, it's going to be at least somewhat unnatural whether you've got clothes on or not.
Post a Comment