The Initiation

Lighting is spotty in this apartment. It looks gorgeous in front of the windows, but then you have these dark corners. I put a large mirror against the wall to reflect the light and shine it into one of those corners (where the bed is strategically placed). I didn't think there'd be enough light to get a decent picture, but look how it turned out. Surprisingly bright, and very clean and white.

I was in a picture-taking mood, and started wondering about a thing that's been on my mind. Namely, how does one go about shooting a subject that is blatantly and explicitly pornographic, in a way that makes it "artistic", and maybe even beautiful? I'm not sure if I succeeded this time around, but I am very happy with the result either way.

Basically, I came to the conclusion that it would depend primarily on the light used (hence my acrobatics with mirrors). This light may be a little too harsh, and not dynamic enough for a truly "artistic" portrait - it even looks kinda flash-y, though a bit prettier than your typical head-on flash.

But where an amateur pornographer would only be concerned with exposing the subject and getting the audience's blood pumping, I, as an artist - in addition to those goals - am concerned with posing my model in an aesthetically pleasing way that is as flattering as possible.

Success or failure is ultimately going to be a matter of subjective opinion. Obviously, there are some who would curl their nose at the most artistic depiction of human sexuality, and others who think the raw act is the very definition of beauty itself. Me? I'm content to produce an image that I think covers both goals of being aesthetic and erotic. That's what separates me from the non-erotic artists and the non-artistic pornographers.

And I'm not concerned, either way, with whether my art is suggestive or whether it is explicit. There are merits to both approaches, and I see no reason why an artist should limit himself to one or the other. "Going all the way", so to speak, does not prohibit one from continuing to appreciate subtlety. It's not quite like tasting the apple and being expelled from the garden. I see it as more of a revolving door.

A Visual Lesson

So I'm still in the process of posting some of my images on deviantART, and gathering fans. I'll be honest, there's a lot to dislike about deviantART, and a significant subset of the community is one of them. But there are also good people on there, and they're less restrictive on the posting of erotic (although not "pornographic") art than a lot of sites that won't even allow the posting of nudes. But it's inevitable that I will find myself frequently frustrated by the rules they do have in place. I'm not gonna go all into that here, but I did want to show an example of some of my underlying thoughts on the issues involved.

I was looking through some of my old photos, picking out ones I want to post on dA, and I came to this one set that I've always really liked. It's a very tasteful and artistic set, with some beautiful lighting emphasizing the pale glow of my skin, while I strike some erotic and/or statuesque poses in the kitchen. Some of them I'll be able to post. Others I will not, because, in them, my penis is in a state of partial or full arousal. I get why the full arousal pics won't be allowed on deviantART, but with the semi-arousal pics, it kind of emphasizes how much of a shame it is, that I can't post this beautiful, artistic image, which isn't even very in-your-face sexual, all because of a technicality based on human anatomy. What really strikes me as ironic is that there's this other picture in the set, which I feel is a lot more in-your-face sexual, and yet it violates none of dA's rules. Take a look:

Beautiful Art

Suggestive Erotica

Maybe I'm just strange. Maybe I have warped perceptions. It's entirely possible. But even though the first image involves the male organ in a state of mid-arousal, it doesn't quite scream "sex" to me as much as the second image, which despite not showing any of the physiological changes that accompany sexual arousal, nevertheless involves a pose that is very suggestive of receptive intercourse. Now, I'm not saying I would call either one "pornography", necessarily, and it's not as though the first image doesn't suggest sex to me at all. Maybe it's because I view the tumescence of the male organ as more of a physiological change, a demonstration of anatomy, moreso than sexual intercourse.

It seems kind of strange to me, if the view of a penis by itself is not restricted, that its allowance should depend on its physiological state. I know people associate erections with sexual intercourse, and there is probably no more obvious sign of sexual arousal in the human male or female - and they're not wrong to do so. But isn't there more to it than that? Maybe it's because I'm a highly sensual person, and that I can become aroused very easily, not always due to blatantly sexual triggers? If I should be enjoying myself, in the nude, and taking pleasure from the tactile sensations of the world around me, and if I should happen to become erect as a result, why should that be assumed to be a change of state from "pure and non-sexual" to "raging pervert, lock up your daughters"?

I guess I do just have different standards. And I fear the prevailing mentality is the result of stereotypical male behavior, which poisons the well for us more gentle, sensual creatures.

Here's another irony, that I've been wanting an opportunity to point out, that relates to dA's rules on what is and is not permitted. It wouldn't be practical (and isn't really in the mission statement) for the staff at dA to enact a quality control gateway restricting the uploading of images on their website. So, even though the members often complain of poor quality images ruining the site's image as an "artiste website" (I say that with derision in my voice, aimed not at true artists, but at those pretentious lot who are concerned more with image than substance - many of which are, ironically, poor quality artists themselves - go figure), the fact is that bad art is welcome on the site as much as good art.

Which just makes it all the more frustrating when members argue about the allowance or restriction of porn on the site via the argument that it couldn't possibly be artistic. 1) an image doesn't have to be "artistic" (i.e., good, or tasteful) to be allowed on deviantART, and 2) pornography is restricted due mainly to laws about minors (the participation of which the site allows) being exposed to it, and not due to questions of taste or decorum. I'd love to have the opportunity to prove to all these naive whiners that pornography CAN be beautiful and artistic, and even, in my opinion, tasteful (although I wonder how other people define the word "tasteful", because to me, it's not what you can see that determines a piece's tastefulness, but rather in how it's presented - it seems that a lot of people can't imagine the possibility that a depiction of human sexuality could be anything but tasteless; poor souls). But I can't post my beautiful pornography to show them. However - and here's where the irony comes in - I can post some pretty smutty stuff, as long as it doesn't cross the lines defined in the rules that describe pornography. For example:

Smut

I haven't actually tried it, as I'm not actually all that fond of this image, personally (although it does have a certain basal thrust), but from my reading of the rules, this image would be permitted on deviantART (and I have seen others very much like it, especially depicting women). I don't think it's very tasteful. It's crude, and it's crass, and it's got pretty much one thing on its mind. But then again, as far as dA's rules go, that was never the issue. But I can post this image, meanwhile I have much more beautiful ones that will not be allowed. It just makes me sad, is all. I am, therefore, restricted to posting all of my tasteful NON-pornographic images, in the hopes that I can at least prove that NON-explicit erotica can be tasteful. (But then, a lot of people already know that, so what am I really proving?). Ah well, it is what it is.

Lousy Smarch Weather

Happy March, laidback blog followers. Here's a picture for you:

This has been the most wintry winter I've seen in many years (even 2010's Winter Storm Powerhouse confined itself to just a week or so), with consistent and relentless snowfall ever since the turn of the new year. It's March now, and there is still a thick layer of snow on the ground as I write this. I don't know about you, but as beautiful as the snow is, I'm ready for some warmer temperatures already.

Sexism? Sexisn't

Following on the theme of my last post, I just wanted to say that...sexism isn't men taking pictures of naked women for magazine covers. That's just sexuality. Sexism is criticizing a man for carrying a hot pink purse (for example) due to a belief that it is somehow demeaning for a man to "lower himself" to expressing an interest in anything typically associated with women.

Get your priorities straight, people.

Oh, and actually, criticizing men for taking pictures of naked women for magazine covers is sexism - sexism against men, which is no more justified than sexism against women. This isn't supposed to be a men vs. women thing. Whatever happened to equality?

This is what I'm talking about

The current trend is to disparage the male pattern of sexual behavior as demeaning and objectifying of women, which is an extension of the feminist mindset. I'd hate to be labeled as a misogynist for my views, because the truth is, I have oodles of respect for women. But I'm also sexually attracted to them, and whatever portion of the feminist movement is righteous (and a significant portion of it is, don't get me wrong), this whole subset of it that aims to demonize men for thinking women are sexually appealing is misguided and destructive.

My thinking on this matter is further clarified by my recent reading of the female half of the Kinsey Report, particularly on the statistical differences in sexual attitudes between men and women. Although the existence of exceptions and deviations from the average are important to note, the great diversity of attitudes present in women (more so than compared with men) also contributes to the problem of the sexes wherein men are pretty much of an understanding with one another when it comes to sex, while women are lost in a sea of confusion, not just as to how men feel about sex, but as to how other women feel about sex, too.

My conclusion, at any rate, is that an awful lot of this politically correct hullabaloo about men degrading and objectifying women is merely a symptom of a fundamental misunderstanding about the way men feel about sex, and the differences in the ways that men and women feel about sex. For example, this article bemoans the fact that in a GQ shoot (which, in all fairness, is a magazine that caters to men's interests), several men were photographed in suave business suits, whereas the one woman included (who happened to be pop singer Lana Del Rey) was photographed naked (though obviously not exposing anything of significance) in a number of alluring poses.

Is this evidence of the patriarchal subjugation of women as submissive sex slaves as compared to the power and sophistication that men wield? A resounding no! It's simply a matter of men being sexually attracted to beautiful women, and having a strong instinctual desire to see them naked, and in poses that may suggest to them the promise of sexual intercourse. It's not as if women's magazines don't similarly stereotype shirtless muscle-bound men - but if it happens less often than the gender-swapped alternative, it's only because men are more (openly, at least) interested in sex than women (and more responsive to visually suggestive depictions of it, too), and - not to ignore the homosexual population, but since the majority of the population is mostly heterosexual, that is, most of the time, going to result in more (and more noticeable) sexualized depictions of women than men in the collective cultural media. It's not some gender-based power play, it's just basic human sexual nature! You fail Sex Ed 101, people. Go back to the first grade.

Social evil? Or just beautiful art?

Beware the (wo)man who looks for evil under every stone.

A Valentine 4U

Happy belated Valentine's Day, to all of my fans. I've been really busy with a lot of stuff lately, not all photography-related. But I haven't given up on my camera!

Two of the great female icons that have inspired me: Dolores Haze, and the Cherry Bomb herself, Cherie Currie.

Psychologic Stimulation

I can't even begin to tabulate all the fascinating discoveries I've made while in the course of reading The Kinsey Reports (currently, the female volume), but above all, it's fascinating to me to uncover some scientific evidence (even if just of the statistical variety) on some of the psychological differences between males and females when it comes to the nature of sexual response. Inevitably, the question of nature and nurture arises, and there is always an uncertainty about whether our culture has been shaped around the differences in the sexes, or whether the differences in the sexes have been manufactured by the shape of our culture (or what combination of those factors is involved), but barring the answer to that question, it's interesting to study - not just speculate, but based on considerable un-conventionally-biased statistical sources - the way that males and females react differently to sexual stimuli.

More specifically, I've always been highly concerned about the way that females respond to visual erotic stimuli, as compared to males - which is a topic of considerable importance to me as a straight male erotic model. ...Who has, incidentally, experienced extremely limited attention from females, and a wealth of attention from, instead, gay males. It is not news to me that males are, on the average, more responsive to visual erotic stimuli than females are - after all, this is a speculation I've heard time and time again in response to the question of why visual male erotica is not more popular among females.

Interestingly, if you look at it from one perspective, images of nude females are produced for a straight male audience, and images of nude males are produced (in considerably lesser abundance) for a gay male audience. It's as if females are of no consequence. This actually dovetails with other media in different contexts to produce the picture that seems to suggest that males are the ones interested in sex, while females could take it or leave it. Interestingly, Kinsey et al. has found that while females are, on the whole, less interested in sex than males (although certainly not strictly uninterested, in most cases), there is actually a wider variety of individual variation to be found in females than in males. That's fascinating, too, but it's also a different story.

Although, incidentally, while we're on this tangent, I had a kind of epiphany moment (inspired by Kinsey's own interpretations, to put credit where it's due), that led me to speculate that maybe the reason (or a reason) females are so much more judgmental of other females' sexual behaviors, while males pretty much understand one another when it comes to sex, is due to the great variation between individual females. Males are rarely surprised by or unfamiliar with the sexual experiences of other males, but I imagine a considerably less responsive female would have a much harder time understanding the promiscuous behavior of a considerably more responsive female, when she's already come to the opinion, based on her own personal experience, that sex isn't particularly enjoyable, as a woman.

Honestly, the insights are nonstop. But let's get back to the original point of this ramble, which has to do with visual erotic depictions. There's been a question, in the feminist discourse, about how come there are all these erotic visual images of women in the media, to a disproportionate extent (compared to similar images of men). And the factory answer implicates the patriarchy, which may have something to do with it. There's a whole thing about the sexual objectification of women, and how that's a bad thing, and because I enjoy the portrayal of women as sex objects, yet like to play fair, I've invited, through my photography, anyone and everyone to sexually objectify me. The idea being to level the playing field - not by wiping out sexual objectification, which I enjoy, but by redressing the balance between the sexes, and objectifying men more frequently.

But then I was reading Kinsey, and it hit me. If women aren't interested in looking at men in a sexual way to the extent that men are interested in looking at women (and predominantly gay men, who probably constitute a smaller portion of the population than females, at other men), then it only makes perfect sense that there are more sexual portrayals of women in the media than of men. And it's not some stupid patriarchy thing, it's just how the sexes differ. But then, that's not an entirely new angle for me, because I believe that a lot of the feminist-inspired conflict between the sexes arises as a result of women being fundamentally confused about the nature of male sexuality - or else, they understand it, but are simply willing (and often enthusiastic) to discriminate against men in retaliation for past (and ongoing) treatment of their own sex. (Which is the reason why I am a post-feminist - to use a different civil rights issue in comparison, I don't believe the solution to white ancestors' enslavement of black people is for black people to enslave modern day white people who weren't personally responsible for the slavery in order to get even - the goal is equality, not retaliation).

So, really, I think, as important as it is for men to understand how females respond to sex - and, most importantly, simply to understand that females may respond differently to sex than the average male does (so, for example, she might not appreciate being texted a picture of your dick as much as you might love being texted a picture of her twat), I really think it's just as important for women to understand - and not just understand, but accept - the way men respond to sex. So-called "objectification", "sexualization", porn use, and so on and so forth. None of these are an excuse for men to treat women poorly. At the same time, it is not some big discriminatory conspiracy for men to respond favorably to sexualized depictions of women. It's human fucking nature (that has corollaries in other mammalian species), and I don't see how it's harmful.