Naked Nudity

[eyesup]

Is it possible the be even more naked than simply without clothes?

Nudity, especially on social media, is censored no matter the context. Even classic art has been subjected to it. Provocative images of people barely dressed are deemed ok. But not everyday nudity. When erotic and/or provocative photos are presented as “Art”, they are treated differently than natural and normal photos of naked people in everyday scenes. It’s a hypocritical system.

A woman photographer takes issue with the increasing split personality of online censorship with this gallery of photos of barechested women where she has altered her photos by removing the offending nipples. It’s startling how the removal of a single, natural feature of the body can change the photo of a person from pleasing to one that makes you uneasy at first, at a minimum, and after a minute can be disturbing. It makes them seem less human. Yet it’s what the censors want. They don’t want to see those nipples! Which is even more disturbing.

She states, “The images address the “can’t win” attitude that women face in relation to their bodies, often deemed inappropriate in their natural state.”  The pictorial that has removed a seemingly insignificant feature of the human body that has a surprisingly significant effect.

Duane

[jbeegoode]

Breast cancer survivors with augmentations might be disturbed by this, but one of them does look a tad alien.

So, the the censors idea creates a titillation (oh crap, another pun) a hidden jewel, which is the opposite of its intent. This doesn't.

I see images and people everyday with free breast, so I see something missing. I wonder how the more sheltered would see this.
Jbee

[nuduke]

Those pics certainly do make you realise how habituated we are to certain things.  My reaction to smoothed out breasts feels strangely uneasy for some reason.  I guess it would be the same for smoothed out noses or eyes.  The images feel 'incomplete'.  Good bit of Art that. Makes you think about your prejudices and preconceptions.
John

[Patrick1951]

It would be a worthwhile exercise to offer some  of these to facebook! See what those dictatorial editors say?

[BlueTrain]

Although the whole exercise seems a little strained, there is still something there. It probably isn't what the artist intended, though.

Generally speaking, women in virtually all societies around the world do not expose their nipples. Yet woe to a woman who is flat-chested. The altered images covers all the bases.

[Greenbare Woods]

Generally speaking, women in virtually all societies around the world do not expose their nipples. Yet woe to a woman who is flat-chested. The altered images covers all the bases.

There is a movement in Africa to restore traditional tribal nudity, especially for female breasts.   It was their standard until taken away by Christian colonialists in the 20th century. 

I find altered images offensive.   

[eyesup]

Generally speaking, women in virtually all societies around the world do not expose their nipples. Yet woe to a woman who is flat-chested. The altered images covers all the bases.

There is a movement in Africa to restore traditional tribal nudity, especially for female breasts.   It was their standard until taken away by Christian colonialists in the 20th century.

I find altered images offensive.

I’m assuming you are referring to photographs. Paintings are by nature, an impression recorded by the artist. Of course, once the painting is finished, it’s an image. The bane of the terminally vain is hi-res digital photography. Too true to life. Too tempting and easy to alter them.

Every culture has prohibitions. Some very odd to us westerners. Some don’t allow the navel to be visible, but all else is allowed. Some the face, some the legs. Some cultures force the wife to follow her husband at a set distance.

Of course our culture seems to annoy everyone, we at least don’t discriminate in that regard.

Duane

[John P]

Generally speaking, women in virtually all societies around the world do not expose their nipples. Yet woe to a woman who is flat-chested. The altered images covers all the bases.

That wasn't true until Europeans conquered the earth! In hot countries most people went around topless, and it wasn't considered erotic at all. What was unusual anywhere though, was a society where they just didn't think it was necessary to wear clothes. It seems as if the first artifact anyone wants to make is a covering for the genitals--either men's or women's or both.

I can recall reading somewhere the record of an interview between a white woman and an African tribeswoman. The white woman said that in western countries, women's breasts are considered erotic, and men are endlessly interested in them. And the African could hardly believe it: finally she burst into laughter and said "Well then, in your country men are no better than babies!"

[jbeegoode]

I think that the genital covering is more enhancement or to draw attention to virility. A guys gonna do what I guys gotta do to get laid...or spread his sperm and progeny. South America was covered with totally naked tribes. In many, it was just the males covering with sometimes very weird stuff.

Head cover, hair style and then some strange penis cover.

When the Europeans arrive, they get people to cover up, but they also record with pictures of people covered up, who may not always to have been so. The one who writes and records is like the historians of the winning side who record history.
Native, or more primitive tend to get an edict from an elder and then it gets accepted that things have always been that way. Even people who lived in clothing could drop off the robes without hassling with shame until this Victorian and church thing.   
Jbee

[Peter S]

I read many years ago that when the first early Victorian costume-adorned bather went into the sea at Brighton there was a rush to save them as onlookers believed they were committing suicide; up till them all sea an£ river bathing had been naked. Can’t quote the source or the veracity of the quote, but I’ve never doubted it either

Peter

[JOhnGw]

I read many years ago that when the first early Victorian costume-adorned bather went into the sea at Brighton there was a rush to save them as onlookers believed they were committing suicide; up till them all sea an£ river bathing had been naked. Can’t quote the source or the veracity of the quote, but I’ve never doubted it either

Peter

I remember reading in several places that it was the habit of ladies in the early 19th century to gather along the promenade to watch the naked male bathers emerge from the sea.
Legend has it that the shrunken genitals which result from immersion in the cold water of the English Channel were associated with many a female trauma on wedding nights.

[John P]

By the time outdoor photography became possible, men were required to wear clothing when bathing, at least in towns. Look at the Brighton Swimming Club (all male, of course) in the early 1860s. Maybe when they were told that the clothes had to be there, they decided hats were needed too :

A couple of decades later, the costumes had become bigger, and a policeman was present to ensure that the men were covered, both top and bottom:


(I made up that bit about the policeman. But he is there.)

[Greenbare Woods]

The 1860 photo looks like underwear, not specially made swim suits.  The men don't appear to be all that happy about it.

[jbeegoode]

Them don't look like hats, them looks like targets!
Jbee

[John P]

Here's an extract from the diary of the Reverend Francis Kilvert, written around 1870. It was evidently the period when men (not women, one thinks) might swim nude in an isolated area, but generally towns were insisting on clothing--at least "drawers"--being worn. Reading his experience here, it might be that one reason for the one-piece swimsuits with a top was that the garment would actually stay on!

Kilvert was an interesting character, doomed to die young, and his diary was largely destroyed by a relative after his death. But his lucid and lyrical descriptions of the countryside and country people are interesting enough that there's a Francis Kilvert Society in England.

Friday, 12 June

Bathing yesterday and to-day. Yesterday the sea was very calm,
but the wind has changed to the East and this morning a rough
and troublesome [sea] came tumbling into the bay and plunging
in foam upon the shore. The bay was full of white horses. At
Shanklin one has to adopt the detestable custom of bathing in
drawers. If ladies don't like to see men naked why don't they keep
away from the sight? To-day I had a pair of drawers given me which
I could not keep on. The rough waves stripped them off and tore
them down round my ancles. While thus fettered I was seized and
flung down by a heavy sea which retreating suddenly left me lying
naked on the sharp shingle from which I rose streaming with blood.
After this I took the wretched and dangerous rag off and of course
there were some ladies looking on as I came up out of the water.