But remember: Lent isn’t over quite yet. So remember your Lenten vows. You wrote them down somewhere, didn’t you? (And follow the links to Camp of the Saints, where the cropping is becoming more risque by the day.)
I’ve been asked how I justify winking at–and sometimes participating in–these excursions into “soft-core porn.” Well, let’s see: for one thing, I don’t really have a reputation as any kind of a real social conservative to defend. I’ll let the gentlemen who celebrate the human body–and the political pasture to my right–defend themselves on that account; I’m sure they’ll have a good answer. For another, there are erotic displays of both the female and the male body that don’t seem to degrade the viewer or the model, and I honestly don’t see a lot of harm in them.
I’m not saying that nothing worries me, because a lot of things worry me, and I never want these young ladies to think that most of what they have going for them is in these two-dimensional representations. (They may not still be sex goddesses in 25 years; after all–ahem!–I’m the exception that proves the rule.)
And I have a number of blog-allies who are ambivalent about the “human beauty patrol” often referred to as Rule 5. Yet at the same time to deny the loveliness of the human form, or even its erotic potential, seems to me to descend into what we call Puritanism these days–referring not to the actual Puritans, but to those who are more interested in copping judgements than coping with the reality of God’s judgements.
Of course, I’m doing nothing lately for my straight female and gay male readers, and I apologize for that. Here’s some Grant Bowler for you:
And if you go see Atlas Shrugged, Part I, you get the see that his back is just as well-muscled as his chest. But, you know: you might wait until after Easter, depending on the nature of those Lenten observances . . .
It’s the human body; how can we not celebrate it? “Rejoice, and be glad.”
UPDATE, Friday: Cassandra has some great thoughts in the comments that should be read. I’d just remark here that one of the primary criticisms one encounters regarding both cheesecake and beefcake (but particularly the former) is that one is exploiting the model, and that’s a big part of where my defense was focused. So, long story short, I wasn’t calling Cass a Puritan, but my prose was so garbled that it sounded like I was applying that label to anyone who wants family-friendly content.
The issue of how risqué an image can be before it becomes too disturbing because it’s arousing (without bringing into this the ugliness problem presented by most hard-core images) is a really interesting one. I think most of us have a few levels of arousal that can be triggered without effort, and I’m usually okay with a Level I turn-on; it’s only at Level II that I have trouble concentrating on my work. Fortunately, Level II is difficult to get to with a pinup (male or female).
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 1 trackback }
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Joy, I think the next time someone asks me how I can be a conservative and yet post “Kate Beckinsale is Hot” I’m going to copy and paste this post. Thanks for the cover. And the link.
I do seem to confound some people because I’m conservative, yet I had no issues with doing a Rule 5 myself and sharing my adventures with creating a water dress
Audience certainly appreciated it. 🙂
Oh… and I learned a lot and improved my skills. I’ll have to post more.
And when I get around to doing a whole shoot myself with a male model or two, I plan to share that as well.
I mean, my heart jumps an extra beat or two over at Theo Spark sometimes.
But it’s a /computer screen/, fer cryers. Maybe I’m of an age where I’m really not tempted, in that particular way, anymore.
WTF is Grant Bowler?
Oh, and it is Good Friday, so I have to abstain from the beefcake.
Win!
The human body, both sexes, has been the subject of artists for millennia; photography is little different.
We forget that ancient Greek statuary and carvings were, in fact, brightly colored, tending to make us reassess the whole “pure white marble is classical art” paradigm.
Great. Innocently scrolling through your blog has set me up for a few weeks of torture by my co-workers. 🙂
As one who has stopped visiting several well loved sites after being surprised by explicitly NSFW images I really didn’t need to see, I have to say that I can’t remember you ever posting anything that made me uncomfortable, Joy.
As for links, so long as I’m warned I can choose not to click (and I do!). No harm, no foul and your site, your rules. I don’t think there’s any conflict at all between conservatism and soft core porn – it’s so mainstream on conservative sites that you can’t avoid it even if you want to. In my mind there’s far more of a conflict between a lot of Scripture citing and posting scp. Don’t think I’ve seen too many churches where boobs and thong shots are incorporated into the worship services :p
FWIW, Mr. Bowler, while possessed of a certain je ne sais quois I can’t help but admire, is probably smack up against the line of what I’m comfortable with. To me, it’s a matter of not wanting to be confronted with sexually arousing images during the work day, and that’s a feeling that applies just as much (if not more) to images of scantily clad men as it does women.
I still remember the time I ran across a photo of a young man on a friend’s site. My husband had been deployed for some time and it was a while before I could get that out of my head. I felt rather sandbagged – here I was trying not to think about sex and suddenly it was all I could think about. Fortunately for me and my antiquated sensibilities, one sees scantily clad men so rarely that it’s never an issue :p
Yet at the same time to deny the loveliness of the human form, or even its erotic potential, seems to me to descend into what we call Puritanism these days–referring not to the actual Puritans, but to those who are more interested in copping judgements than coping with the reality of God’s judgements.
OK, this didn’t really sink in the first time I read it, but I’m going to argue with that one.
At least from my standpoint (obviously I can only speak for myself) that seems like a complete mischaracterization of my own sensibility. First of all, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone “deny the loveliness of the human body/deny its erotic potential”. That images of half-nekkid men/women *are* both lovely and highly erotic is precisely the point.
It’s easy to ignore a photo of an extremely beautiful or handsome woman or man if it’s presented in a non-sexual context (a woman running through a field of flowers in a sundress, or a man on horseback with the sun setting behind him) because although one might have sexual thoughts on viewing it, that isn’t normally the first thing that comes to mind. The beauty is in the forefront – you can enjoy the beauty (Darlene’s Art, if you will) without becoming aroused against your will.
I can’t look at Mr. Bowler, OTOH, without immediately thinking of sex. So any discomfort I might feel has precisely nothing to do with denying either beauty or eroticism and everything to do with my not wanting to think about sex with someone other than my lawfully wedded spouse during the lunch hour :p
Ain’t sayin’ I don’t ever have such thoughts on my own. Just that I try not to let my mind wander down that path more than I can help. I don’t beat myself up about it, or judge other people. It’s just a personal preference (and not a bad one at that). It’s hard to live up to standards sometimes, and while I wouldn’t try to impose them on anyone else, I also don’t care for the implication that avoiding things one doesn’t wish to be tempted by is in any way equivalent to Puritanism.
That’s a message I think would get very short shrift in any church I know of, and rightly so. And I don’t even go to church! 🙂
..long story short, I wasn’t calling Cass a Puritan, but my prose was so garbled that it sounded like I was applying that label to anyone who wants family-friendly content.
FWIW, I didn’t think you were! I think I know you better than that 🙂
It is perhaps ironic that VC would never have been created, had I not unintentionally violated the standards of the site I was posting on at the time. I’m always a bit puzzled when people get upset at the notion that people have different standards. I don’t feel particularly apologetic about having my own notions of what is “right” (pun fully intended) and am always surprised when others seem to think that defending one’s own standard constitutes an implied criticism of theirs.
Anyway, you know me – I like discussing things and figured you were secure enough not to take offense 🙂