Showing posts with label Nudity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nudity. Show all posts

Write What You Like?

on Thursday, November 8, 2012
English: Symbol of the "New York Society ...
English: Symbol of the "New York Society for the Suppression of Vice", advocating book-burning. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There are two pieces of advice that career around the writing world and, it seems to me, often conflict with each other. We are advised to ‘write what you would wish to read’ and, by the same advisor, ‘write for your readers’. On the face of it, these two exhortations can either conflict or make perfect partners. It depends, I think, on your reason for writing.

For me, they often conflict. Perhaps that’s because I write from compulsion and as a way of expressing ideas, making the world aware of my thoughts and opinions on a multitude of subjects. I write because, deep within me, there’s a teacher, even a preacher, trying to get out. Of course, I have to make the best effort to disguise my message without burying it, otherwise my stories will come across as proselytising, and most readers have no wish to be lectured to. A resistance I fully understand and share.

So, for me, the idea that I can write what I want to read whilst, at the same time, writing for readers is fraught with difficulty. I love children and the young, but I no longer live in their world and have no wish to do so, but my favourite genre is one where it seems almost obligatory to write for young adults. I’m talking about fantasy, of course.

I’m currently editing the second volume of a huge epic fantasy, so far unpublished. My problem with the conflicting advice, then, is that I’m writing very much for an adult readership, not for callow youths. I have something to say about sex, nudity and the way in which organised religion has distorted the human view of these two natural aspects of life. It seems to me that I can’t, with any honesty, tackle these themes in a book made suitable for developing minds. Not, that is, unless I’m prepared to cause offence to a large part of the population.

Many adults, especially of a religious persuasion, consider discussion of sex, reference to nudity, topics unsuitable for young minds. If I’m to develop stories that do justice to the subjects, I need the freedom to be truthful in my depiction, I need, under certain circumstances, the freedom to show events, refer to actions, that might be considered obscene by many readers.  Such freedom wouldn’t sit easily with most of the religious community. Though I do note that most erotic literature is produced by the US, a country with the highest number of Christian extremists. (but that’s a matter for another time).

My dilemma, therefore, if I stick to the advice I read, is whether to bowdlerise my story or whether to continue to make my tale open and honest, as I’ve always done in the past. Except, it isn’t a dilemma for me. I will, as I always have, take the route to honesty and if that reduces my readership, offends some potential readers, even loses me followers and virtual friends, so be it. Because, for me, honesty is what matters most. I’ll continue to write the trilogy for adults but place a warning there to let parents know that, whilst the content is not intended to be erotic, it does have many references to sex and nudity. That’s my choice as a writer. Such honesty of purpose is essential to me as an artist.

At the start of this piece, I suggested there were circumstances in which both pieces of advice are apposite. If you write for money, if you see your work as a product to be sold like cans of beans, then the advice to write for your audience will naturally coincide with that to write what you would like to read. Since your driving motivation will be entirely to do with numbers and with sales. Naturally, as a would-be best-seller writer, you will gravitate toward the subjects, style and language that will gain you maximum readership. If you’re writing erotica, you can indulge in any form of sexual distortion with impunity, knowing your readers will be eager to pursue their given proclivities. If you write crime, you can choose the strand that allows as much gore as you wish to portray. And if you write fantasy, you can include the necessary elves, dragons, magicians and, apparently much-lauded thieves, without ever worrying such things might be considered bad influences on young minds emerging into the adult world.

The choice is yours. To write for maximum readership. Or to write what you would like to read. If you write to honestly suit your own tastes, the former instruction is unlikely to apply. But if you write specifically as a way to turn out the next block-buster, you will be obliged to make sure that your writing conforms to certain rules and remains confined within specific boundaries. I repeat; the choice is yours.

I’ve made mine. Have you made yours?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Read My Novel, Free: Chapter 12.

on Friday, March 30, 2012

If you've come this far, you don't need me blathering on with stuff you already know. Enjoy the read.

But, if you missed the start, here's the link to it: http://stuartaken.blogspot.com/2012/01/read-free-my-novel-here.html

Chapter 1 appeared on 13 January and following chapters appear each Friday. You can find them via the archive.

Read, enjoy, invite your friends.

Chapter 12

I took her down to eat by the river. It was warm enough to sit outside and avoid the inevitable fug of the bar. She experimented, at my suggestion, with scampi and chips in the basket. Confident it would be the real thing and not the usual monkfish, I joined her. A half of bitter quenched my thirst and I persuaded her to a glass of the decent enough house white.
We visited the second-hand bookshop at Bootham Bar where I looked for photography books. She left me to my own devices and set off to explore the musty treasure trove. After a while, browsing, I discovered a volume of Ansel Adams landscapes, reasonably priced and went in search of Faith. She was sitting on the floor, displaying her knickers to the world, and reading a tatty paperback.
‘You’re not a student, Faith. You’ll get muck on your skirt sitting down there.’
She looked guilty, like a child caught with a hand in the cake tin, and struggled to get up. I helped her and made her turn so I could brush dust from her seat. Freed from the detritus of the shop floor, that bottom was tempting and I could not resist administering a very gentle tap.
‘Don’t you dare…’
But she saw my face and her quick anger dissolved into a grin at some private joke she wouldn’t share. She was chuckling as we went down to the till.
‘Word of advice, Faith. Tights outside knickers or you’ll get cystitis.’
She frowned, understood the significance, blushed and then nodded her thanks. She was carrying a large volume, already paid for, wrapped in a brown paper bag.
‘Money?’
‘I told Father I might have to pay for dinner today. I said we’d be going to a restaurant and I should pay my share. He was unhappy, but gave me some cash when I reminded him it was yours in the first place.’
We sauntered along the river to spend some time reading on the bank and found a secluded bench under willows and cherry trees not yet in leaf or blossom. Side by side, we sat with the water rippling a few feet from us.
‘It’s not much, but it seems more art than pornography and I thought you might like it. It’s a little “thank you” for today.’ She handed me the brown paper bag and pecked my cheek.
I withdrew the book and was astounded to find a slightly damaged but sumptuously illustrated volume on the nude in art. I flipped through the pages.
‘You don’t like it.’
‘Faith, it’s the most perfect present but I don’t want to embarrass you with the pictures. This is so unexpected and so undeserved.’
‘Unexpected?’
‘I’m amazed you’d buy me, of all things, a book of nudes. I thought you were offended by all images of nudity and didn’t know the difference between pornography and art.’
‘I’ve a lot to learn, Leigh. My life and education have been in the hands of one man. I’m growing more certain with each passing day, each passing hour, that Father’s mistaken about the world. Today’s been more of an eye opener than anything that’s ever happened to me. That doesn’t mean I’m going to put myself exclusively into the hands of another man, no matter how wonderful, kind and generous he may be.’
‘Thank you, Faith.’ What else was I to say?
I opened her gift again and saw she’d written a message on the inner flyleaf. ‘To Leigh, with deep affection and many thanks, Faith.’
‘There’s more to you than meets the eye.’
‘There’s more to everything than is seen by the eye alone. And looking at covers without sampling the content leads to a superficial and misleading understanding of things.’
Forgiving the unintended pomposity, since the comment was aimed more at herself than me, I was struck again by the extraordinary contrast between her knowledge and her intellect. As she came to know more things, so her powers of deduction and her native intelligence realigned her view of the world and of her place within it. It was rather like, I imagined, a parent watching an exceptionally gifted child growing up, except that this was happening much more quickly as Faith’s knowledge caught up with her chronological age.
I recalled my promise to discuss nude photography with her seriously and thought it a perfect opportunity. Neutral ground; public enough to curb our passion and private enough to allow us to speak freely. The book was a perfect introduction. It was almost as if she’d chosen it with this in mind.
‘Look at this, Faith.’ It was The Source by Auguste Ingres; a young woman pouring water from a vessel balanced on her shoulder. ‘What do you think of it?’
She studied the figure for a few moments without apparent embarrassment and I was as surprised as I was pleased by that.
‘It’s an allegory, I imagine. She’s nude and seems to be standing on the surface of the pool, so there’s a hint that she isn’t merely human, perhaps some sort of goddess. And the water from the urn is feeding the pool as if it’s from an everlasting source, which obviously can’t be true, so it’s telling a story.’
‘Amazing. Very perceptive. But I was really more concerned about your view of the woman herself and the way she’s displayed.’
‘Well, her breasts are openly displayed but she has no genitalia and no pubic hair, just a suggestion of shadow, so she can’t be a real woman.’
‘Idealized. She represents an idea of female beauty that was prevalent at the time the painting was made.’
‘Didn’t women have pubic hair in those days?’
I flipped through and found an illustration of Olympia by Edouard Manet. ‘And what about this one?’
‘She’s lying on a bed but she’s got shoes on, so I think there’s a sexual content. A bit like some of the shots you’ve taken of Abby, I suppose.’
I let that go, but it did make me think.
‘Her hand’s covering her genital area so we can’t see it, but I don’t think that’s for modesty. I think she’s trying to be mysterious. Does hiding it like that really make it more attractive to men?’
I found Adam and Eve by Jan Mabuse Gosseart. ‘This one?’
She studied the picture of the pair with the serpent and the apple in the garden. ‘The Garden of Eden, of course. Adam seems to have no penis and his testicles are hidden behind what could be leaves or stylised pubic hair. Eve’s genital area is hairless but there’s a hint of a cleft there, so she’s a real woman. The bodies are both imperfect and more human.’
I flipped and found Renoir’s Bather Adjusting Her Hair. ‘And this?’
‘The fabric’s covering just enough to disguise her vaginal opening, but she would have to be hairless. Why are they all…?’
‘Couple more and I’ll make my point.’ I found Delacroix’s Woman Caressing a Parrot.
She looked at the painting for a moment. ‘The pose hides her genitalia. We can see her breasts and her build makes her look like a real woman.’
‘Last one.’ I flipped through and eventually found what I sought. Eugene Lacadre’s La Reveil served my purpose with the woman lying half on her side and facing the viewer, completely unadorned.
Faith scrutinized the image. ‘She’s another one with breasts but no genitalia at all. Not a real woman, but another of those so-called idealised beauties. She seems to be inviting sex without the means to partake.’
I closed the book. ‘You’ve come a hell of a long way in a few weeks, Faith. A month ago, you couldn’t have looked at those without blushing. Now, you’re able to discuss them with more objectivity than most people. I’m amazed and proud.
‘The point I was trying to illustrate, though, is that almost all artists, regardless of their era, have portrayed women as hairless and without sexual organs. Breasts have always been acceptable and have actually replaced the orifice as the source of sexuality, regardless of their primary function of feeding. Germaine Greer makes the same point. Women are portrayed as hairless and sexless. Our ideal of female beauty now demands they are like that. It’s that image I would like to banish.’
‘But your pictures show women hiding their genitalia behind knickers or in miniskirts or other clothes. Isn’t that what you say you’re trying to do away with? Isn’t it the whole woman you want to portray, the way you sometimes have with Abby, when she takes off all her clothes, even her shoes?’
‘I’d love to be able always to picture women as they are. With or without pubic hair but always with the female essential of vulva to demonstrate their sex. I’d like not to have to use pose to hide their sexual organs, though sometimes a pose excludes them naturally. I’d love to do this, but, for the moment, I can’t.
‘I know, and bear in mind I’m no expert on the subject, of only two works of art produced before the turn of this century that give the woman sexual parts, apart from the Gosseart Eve with her hint of an entrance. One is El Greco’s sculpture of Venus, an ungainly piece that nevertheless has the honesty to display her vulva. The other is Goya’s Nude Maja where the openly sexual woman lying on a bed has a shadow of pubic hair above her closed thighs.’
‘What about men? I’ve seen a lot of pictures, as you selected your samples, of men and most of them showed their sexual parts completely.’
‘I know. Odd, isn’t it? There could be all sorts of reasons for the difference of approach. But you’re right about that difference.’
‘Doesn’t that mean that artists have always been dishonest in their portrayal of women?’
‘Exactly, though they mostly reflected the wishes and values of their patrons, usually men of the church, and the societies in which they lived. I’d like to reverse that dishonesty by portraying them the way they are. Women have sexual organs and pubic hair; I’d like to portray them that way. I don’t want to idealize them. I want to celebrate them as they are.’
‘But you only use the most perfect physical specimens you can find. Isn’t that also dishonest?’
‘The camera’s less forgiving than the eye, Faith. And more selective. Place a woman with generous thighs in front of a camera and all you see are fat thighs. The camera actually draws attention to them. That’s not fair on her or on women in general. I choose the best I can find because that way I can celebrate female beauty more fully. I don’t want to show the failures of age, the results of bad diet and lack of exercise, the effects of starvation. I want to show woman as an object of beauty. Naturally, I select the best examples. But I don’t idealize. I don’t pose them so they’re sexless or unattainable. I show them as women, as sexual, desirable, beautiful creations. And, once I’ve built a reputation in publishing, I intend to take a more radical position; I want to go along the route of Bill Brandt or Edward Weston. They won’t mean anything to you, Faith, but they portrayed women exactly as they saw them, celebrated their nude bodies in candid poses and without hiding their femininity. That’s what I want to do. Am I wrong to do that?’
‘Father would say you are. He believes we should cover our bodies so that men won’t be tempted to lust after our flesh.’
‘You believe in God, don’t you?’
‘Of course!’
‘And God created you and all the other living creatures on the planet?’
‘God created everything.’
‘Even better. God created you. God created photography. God created the ability to see and conceptualise and judge. Do you think God is ashamed of any of these creations?’
‘God’s perfect. Everything God creates is perfect.’
‘So, it’s a huge insult to God to hide the creations and make them appear shameful or undesirable, don’t you think?’
She was silent, considering what some would call a specious proposition.
‘I think that what I do, in celebrating the beauty of women, is a form of homage to God. I celebrate creation. I hold it up exactly as it is and declare it beautiful. Is that wrong?’
‘No. But it can be misinterpreted. Some men see your picture of a naked woman and believe she represents all women. Your picture sometimes invites sex with that woman and some men see that invitation as universal. Your woman wants you to have sex with her, therefore all women want all men to have sex with them. That’s the danger.’
‘God, but your perceptive. But not many of my pictures invite sex, only those where such an invitation is appropriate. In any case, that aspect’s not my fault. I’m not responsible for how people view my work. I can only produce the pictures and hope they’ll be viewed in the same way as they’re made. If men misuse my images I’m sorry, but I can’t stop them. I can avoid suggestiveness and explicit sexual content but I can’t make my images of women asexual. That’d be a denial of everything I believe and it’d be dishonest. Any depiction of a naked human being must contain a sexual element. I take pictures of women because I’m a man and I love women as sexual creatures and as beings who attract my eye as an artist. I’ve no interest in the bodies of men so I don’t take pictures of them, though I’d use the same techniques and processes if I did.’
‘Thanks, Leigh. For treating me like a mature woman and explaining what you’re about. I don’t know whether you’re right or wrong. I’ve so much to learn and I’m still very much the child of Father. I don’t know if my attitudes come from my own feelings or from what Father has told me. But I respect your point of view and I’ll try not to make judgements in future. You clearly believe what you’re doing is right and honest and generally to the good. I’ll need more time before I’ll know whether I agree with you.’
‘Faith, you’re a singular young woman. I’m in serious danger of becoming very fond of you. Thank you for the book and the opportunity to discuss our differences. If nothing else comes from today, at least we understand each other better.’
‘Nothing else? Leigh, you’ve changed me from a dowdy girl to a confident woman today. Thank you.’
She kissed my cheek again and I wanted so much to take her in my arms and embrace her. But she wasn’t yet ready for that and I could wait. We were silent for a while, both mulling over what we’d said and heard. I settled down to take a more leisurely look at the book, now I knew the content wouldn’t offend her, and left Faith to her musing.
She turned to her paperback whilst I was reading and, intrigued to know what she’d bought herself, I tried to look at the front cover. To my surprise, she resisted and placed her hands over it. My curiosity was thoroughly aroused.
‘Will you do something for me?’
‘Depends what it is.’
Her directness and literal approach still surprised me.
‘I’d like to take some pictures of you, standing over by the river.’
‘With or without my clothes?’
‘I’d not expect even a seasoned model to stand out here stark naked, Faith.’
Her little smile told me she was learning to pull my leg. I stuck out my tongue and she grinned at her success and placed her book, open and cover down, on the bench before she wandered toward the edge of the river. I sneaked a quick look at the title whilst her back was turned and had just replaced the book when she spun round. It was impossible to tell whether she’d caught me peeping.
‘Here?’
She was placed ideally within the frame and I took several shots from the seat and then from different viewpoints before I signalled I was done. We both returned to the bench and she sat very close to me so that we touched along one side.
‘Is that what drives you to ask women to take off their clothes?’
My face must have shown my perplexity.
‘Your incorrigible, unquenchable curiosity. Is that what makes you want to see what they look like in the flesh?’
‘Probably. Why?’
‘And what do you think of my choice of book, now you’ve seen it?’
‘Will you be taking this work of the devil back home with you?’ As soon as I said it, I knew it was a mistake. ‘You don’t have to. You can keep it at Longhouse.’ That seemed to relieve her a little but I’d undoubtedly cast a shadow.
‘I’m trying to understand the other point of view, Leigh.’ She said nothing else about the first book she’d ever bought herself, “Why I am not a Christian” by Bertrand Russell, but her sadness and seriousness made me realize how brave she’d been to select it.
I stood and held out my hand to help her to her feet. She rose reluctantly as if unsure what I might do. My embrace of pure affection, which was what I felt at that moment, put paid to any doubts and she hugged me gratefully in return. ‘Right, let’s go and take in a museum or Clifford’s Tower or some of the other shops, or the library. Whatever you wish.’
We walked part of the ancient walls, spent time in the museum, visited The Shambles and Goodramgate. She was full of wonder and interest in everything we saw, reawakening my own enthusiasm. Full of questions that I tried to answer with as much information as I could in an attempt to boost her knowledge and give her a wider appreciation of the world.
‘Are you really as wise as you seem, Leigh, or can you just string together words and thoughts in a way that makes what you say seem intelligent and considered?’
I was flummoxed by her question. Was she complimenting me, insulting me? I turned and saw that twinkle in her gorgeous dark eyes and knew I’d been had again. I just laughed and embraced her, held her close and found she held me with affection. I’d never felt so natural, so right, with any other woman. ‘God, but you’re amazing, Faith.’
She pulled a little face at my mild blasphemy but let it go and showed her pleasure at my remark. ‘You’re really quite extraordinary yourself, Leigh.’
Had we been somewhere less public, I swear she would have kissed me properly. As it was, her willingness to touch and be touched had surprised me as it had grown during the day. She was a different woman from the frowsy, uncertain girl I’d driven out of the Dale that morning.
Once more, we trekked to the car park, this time to deposit our books and pick up her dress.
‘Are we off back, now?’
‘Why? Had enough?’
‘Is there more?’
‘If you wish.’
‘I don’t want today to end, Leigh, ever.’
Neither did I and, in a way, that was a first for me. ‘If we’re to eat beforehand, we’d best find somewhere now. If you want to eat afterwards, we can find a little wine bar for the moment for a light snack, but we’ll be eating very late if we do it that way.’
‘Before what, Leigh?’
‘Oh, didn’t I mention it? I’ve got tickets for “Godspell”.’
She looked blank, of course.
‘The theatre. It’s a musical show; it’s about Christ, so I’m not sure it’ll be all it should for your first theatre experience, but that’s what’s on, so that’s what I’ve booked.’
‘A musical show about Jesus? I don’t understand. Is it in the Minster?’
‘The theatre. It’s a place where people go to watch all sorts of shows, sometimes serious, sometimes funny, sometimes bawdy, sometimes scary. This time it happens to be a musical. Songs, dance, a story; all celebrating the life of Christ. Willing to give it a go?’
‘Father would be apoplectic.’
‘And?’
She smiled mischievously. ‘All the more reason to do it.’
I grasped her hands and swung her round until she pleaded, laughing, that I stop.
‘Eat first?’
She nodded. I picked up the bag containing her new dress and we set off for the restaurant where I had a table booked.

###

You've come this far, so it's unlikely you'll stop now. But, just in case you're impatient for the next chapter, you know where you can buy the book.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Can Humans See Nudity in Art as Purely Aesthetic?

on Thursday, March 22, 2012
Posing for the camera. Group nude on a beach.
Image via Wikipedia

If you're coy, or easily embarrassed, put on your dark glasses whilst you read this. And make sure your maiden aunt is out of the room. Don't want to make her blush, do we?
I'm interested in exploring our attitudes to nudity, especially as it applies to art; art of all types, whether that's painting, sculpture, theatre, cinema, or literature. The latter, of course, is my personal concern, as a writer.

Before we look at the issue as it relates to art, we need to understand what it means in life in general. It goes without saying, of course, that we're born naked. To understand why there's so much guilt, embarrassment and general negativity toward social nudity I'd need to go on for chapters. So, I've placed a potted and personal hypothesis at the foot of this piece, for those who are interested or curious. But, for our current purposes, it's enough to accept that nudity is a subject cloaked in secrecy, guilt, excitement, passion, disgust, admiration, lust and hypocrisy.

Because this natural state has developed associations that are so unnatural, writers and artists have had to approach it with a full awareness of the contemporary spread of attitudes. In earlier times it was a little easier, since the majority of educated people, those who'd come into contact with works of art portraying nudity, were also subject to the thinking imposed by the moral authority of the church, synagogue or mosque. I exclude the eastern religions, as they have generally displayed a much more enlightened and liberal attitude to the subject.

In our current multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-ethical society in the West, the situation is fraught with danger. On the one hand, the extreme sects of the Abrahamic religions universally condemn public nakedness, probably for the reasons explained below. But, on the other, those individuals and groups who are liberal in thought positively embrace nudity as a desirable state both publicly and privately.

When portraying the human body in its natural state we, as artists, are forced to consider the possible attitudes of those we hope to entertain, educate, impress or arouse. Visual artists are constrained more by simple taste and the likely location of their works than by other considerations. So, it's fine to portray the full frontal display if it's confined to the art gallery, where people go by choice and must know that they may be faced with such sights.

'I tell you, Ethel. She was showing everything. And I do mean everything. I mean, I didn't know where to look!'
'I bet Bert knew where to look, though, Gloria, didn't he?'
'Certainly did. I hauled him out of there as quick as I could.'

However, if a pictorial or plastic portrayal is to be on general public view in the street or similar location, the display is normally neutered to some extent. Erect penises and hairless and/or detailed vulva are generally frowned on and therefore avoided. And, in advertising, the airbrush becomes the weapon of choice against truth.

In writing, we have the double-edged benefit of the genre and the sub-genre. If we want to indulge in sexual fantasy, we can do so with little restriction under the umbrella of 'erotica'. That's fine. But what about the serious writer who wants to portray the natural in a work of a more literary nature? That it can be done and even appreciated is demonstrated by the successful publication of such works as Lawrence's 'Lady Chatterley's Lover'. Though even such well-established works as this are vilified, banned, and even burned in some of the more extreme communities.

What is difficult, is the portrayal of nudity devoid of sex, though not of gender. It's as if the very introduction of nudity is considered a preparation for sex. So, the heroine who naturally chooses to do her housework free of the encumbrance of clothing is inevitably, in the minds of most readers, prepared and ready for a sexual encounter, either alone or with some expected partner. The man who prefers to swim naked in the private lake is subject, in the minds of the readers, to some expected sexual act yet to be described. In writing, as in life, it's almost impossible to remove the general association between nudity and sex.

I started this feature with the question: 'Can humans see nudity in art as purely aesthetic?' My conclusion is that, in most cases, the answer is 'No', which is a shame. The human body is possibly the most beautiful living form in existence. Of course, as a human, I'm biased in favour of the human form, and in particular, as a man, of the female human form. That's a biological essential. Does that mean, however, I'm incapable of appreciating that form without the association of the possibility of sexual activity with it? Does it mean I look at a picture of a naked woman and always wish to have sex with her? If I study a piece of sculpture am I seeking a way to enter it? As a woman, is it possible to watch a nude man dance or exercise and see him only as a beautiful form? To what extent are desire and arousal associated with nudity? Is the association inevitable?

I suppose, what I'm trying to discover is whether it's possible for us to view or read about nudity from a neutral position in which sexual interest plays no part. And the answer appears to be that we are hard-wired to associate nudity with sex. There are exceptions, of course. To the normal mind, for instance, the nude child, corpse, and victim of torture or rape, all evoke emotions far away from sexual desire. To the heterosexual, nude depictions of the same gender can be viewed dispassionately and to those who love the same gender, the nude of the opposite is something devoid of sexual attraction.

So, if I want to make my heroine both attractive and nude, I must accept that she will be viewed in a sexual manner, even when that aspect isn't intended. I must be aware that my male nude hero will excite female, and some male, readers in ways not necessarily meant. This natural response therefore challenges the writer to portray such characters with care if they are to convey the image intended. It makes the process more demanding and difficult. Perhaps that's why so few writers are willing to step into this territory, or to turn all nudity into eroticism. It's a shame, but it seems inevitable.

Why my interest? Well, I'm writing an epic fantasy set in an invented land with invented history and customs. For reasons too complex to discuss here, I've made the major religion of that land one where worship and nudity go hand in hand. It's been difficult to convey the necessary spiritual aspect without unintentionally causing some level of sexual arousal in my readers. But it looks as though I'll have to simply accept that such is inevitable and make the best of it.

I'd appreciate any input from my readers here. Suggestions, ideas, arguments are all welcome.

#####

My View of How Nudity Became Associated with Guilt and Sex.

The vast majority of indigenous peoples living in the tropics when first discovered by western explorers, lived as naked tribes, though some wore minimal cover. Those of us born in less friendly climates initially took to clothing as protection against the cold, since our skin no longer bore the hair of our earlier ancestors. There are different theories as to how we became the naked ape, and I'm not intending to discuss those here but I'll point you in the direction of The Descent of Woman, by Elaine Morgan, for one of the more credible explanations. (For a review of this excellent text follow this link). The simple fact, however, that we were and are, to all intents and purposes, hairless made clothing a necessity for survival.

It's likely that two different, though related, causes made us consider nakedness in public a bad thing. As long as we lived in small tribes that were extended families, sexual availability and display of gender were no problem. Once, however, we began to organise into larger communities, constant nakedness, with it's inevitable consequence of stimulus and availability, made some sort of cover essential. Otherwise people would be at it all the time, no work would get done and the women would be perpetually pregnant. At about the same time as larger communities developed, so also, as a consequence, the social contract began to be formed in a rudimentary way. Those who laboured to provide food, hunting weapons and other social needs, were defended by others who formed protection against the raids of other similar communities.

Thus, in a nutshell, was formed the basis of modern society, with leaders overseeing producers. That it all got considerably out of hand early on is a matter for a different discussion. However, as a consequence of their positions of power and all the benefits that brought, leaders needed some device to stop workers from rebelling. Thus religion came about. Early religion was cleverly combined with what were, at the time, plausible answers to otherwise unfathomable mysteries. Leaders formed associations between the powers of their gods, the invented afterlife, and behaviour in everyday life as a means of controlling their people.
In the early Abrahamic religions that now rule over most of the world the concept of guilt was introduced as a means of controlling a subjugated and resentful population. It was a convenient way of making those who served into a flock that was, to some extent, self-governing. Introduce the idea that selfish and anti-social actions will eventually result in an eternal afterlife spent feeding the flames of some sort of hell and you have a powerful tool of control.

Once guilt was established, it was a relatively simple matter, using fear and ignorance, to persuade people that reward was a divine matter used to benefit goodness, whilst punishment was reserved for those who were bad. However, it suited those in control to determine what was perceived as good and bad. It also suited them to have degrees of such qualities determined by the individual's position in the hierarchy that was the natural outcome of developing society.

So it was that a natural state, nakedness, became frowned on in public, even though such nakedness might be beneficial for reasons entirely separate from sexual activity. Many activities are actually easier whilst unencumbered by clothing; Labouring in the tropics and fishing in the shallows are obvious examples. And the relatively recent introduction of special clothing to cover us whilst we swim is a natural progression of the guilt theme.

Having established control through guilt, the leaders then discovered that they'd shot themselves in the feet. Nudity is the preferred state for sexual activity. Sexual activity is enhanced by power, which we all know acts as an aphrodisiac (in itself a matter fraught with questions). So, leaders were now in a state where they'd made clothing essential, even in places where it was really unnecessary. But they wished to have their women (by this time it was almost exclusively men who were in power, of course) naked and available for sex. Thus came about the introduction of revealing wear, especially for women, in those situations where it was permitted. Not because women necessarily wished to be on display but because their men required it.

The nature of the guilt association allowed the hypocrisy of partial cover to become an acceptable alternative to nudity. Partial cover, with its promise of the hidden and its drawing of the eye to the most sexually attractive parts, became more alluring than actual nudity, for many men. Clothes for women, initially, and more recently for men, except when there's a deliberate intention to make them plain and unattractive, are designed to draw the eye of the opposite gender. This is the hypocrisy of guilt born of religion. In hiding the sexual attractiveness of the naked genders, those in power devised a system where the clothed genders are, if anything, considered even more attractive.

Many of you, especially those with religious sympathies, will utterly disagree with what I've said here. Of course you will: you've been indoctrinated from birth by ideas that are now so ingrained that they're integral to your being. But a logical examination of the reality must conclude that what I've suggested as the development of sexual guilt as a socially protective device imposed for reasons of power is at least as credible as any other theory. The topic needs a full length book to develop properly, but those with open minds will understand my drift.
####

Another silly question for you to ponder: He's been in the jungle all his life, so why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?


Enhanced by Zemanta