Model Vs. Photographer

July 27, 2005 7:14 PM

NSFW- Model vs. Photographer"First, I really thought that the shots would be funny. Second, it was about the only truly creative idea I had ever had. While I've often seen photographers do nude self portraits, I had never seen a male photographer try to adopt the same poses as his female models. Third, what better way to blunt the criticism that most nude art degrades women? I'm saying that I'm perfectly willing to do anything that I ask my models to do. And I really think that the more feminine the pose, the funnier the shots become."
posted by nadawi (73 comments total)

Nothing's more feminine than a pair of 3D glasses.
posted by interrobang at 7:20 PM on July 27, 2005

Interesting idea; one thing that struck me, though - some of the shots really emphasize the differences between female and male anatomy, for example, the way that joins work (esp. the hip).

As for nude art (as opposed to pornography that explicitly puts females in degrading situations) being degrading - I've never really understood that. Is Michelangelo's David degrading to men?
posted by PurplePorpoise at 7:21 PM on July 27, 2005

And speaking of 3D, if you can cross your eyes well enough, there's an interesting stereoscopic effect to this one.
posted by interrobang at 7:22 PM on July 27, 2005

nothing says class like comic sans

that said, interesting post, thanks!
posted by crunchywelch at 7:22 PM on July 27, 2005

kudos to this dude for having the courage of his convictions, but these photos lend credence to my oft-repeated theory that naked women=beautiful, naked men=ridiculous, by and large.
posted by jonmc at 7:22 PM on July 27, 2005

This one made me and all my kids LOL.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:26 PM on July 27, 2005

taken individually these are, without exception, boring. paired up they're quite good, precisely because they're so mediocre. funny that.
posted by tighttrousers at 7:33 PM on July 27, 2005

If the guy had a tatoo, he would be a lot hotter in the pictures. I'm just sayin...

Great post, this is funny and interesting!
posted by fluffycreature at 7:33 PM on July 27, 2005

might want to go on a diet there.

I just can't stop laughing, the guy just looks so goofy in all of these pictures.

---

Also, it seems like he dosn't know how to (or can't) arange his body the way the women do, for example . And he dosn't get the facial expressions right, maybe due to the beard
posted by delmoi at 7:47 PM on July 27, 2005

I just can't stop laughing, the guy just looks so goofy in all of these pictures.

Exactly my point, dude. I can actually understand a gay guy getting off looking at naked dudes, since they possess dicks and balls and hairy asses. They're at least familiar with the terrain. I'm still quite frankly amazed that women can look at our naked bodies and not die laughing.
posted by jonmc at 7:51 PM on July 27, 2005

Uh, jon, women are pretty familiar with the terrain, too. At least my a certain age. And male bodies are plenty hot and can be photographed so: see Mapplethorpe for instance. But yeah, they're different, so the same poses aren't going to work. Shoulders, though, male shoulders . . . mmmm. And a nice cock is always pleasant to look at--the giggling stage ends at like twenty.
posted by dame at 7:59 PM on July 27, 2005

Oh, and nice post, nadawi.
posted by dame at 8:01 PM on July 27, 2005

Well, to give you guys at least a little credit, jonmc, it's not like we're comparing attractive young women with an attractive young man here. I bet that an overweight middle aged woman (we do get that way too, despite what photographs would have you believe) in some of these poses would be pretty humourous as well.

Great post, though. Strangely thought-provoking, but I won't bore youse with the thoughts.
posted by carmen at 8:01 PM on July 27, 2005

Perhaps the charges of oppression come from the context and the apparent intent of images, along with the implied power structure and "male gaze," not just from the poses? Just sayin'...
posted by klangklangston at 8:01 PM on July 27, 2005

The pregnant shots are hilarous, with him sticking his stomach out. Funny project.
posted by mathowie at 8:05 PM on July 27, 2005

Male nude modeling can be attractive. However, I find it's generally harder to accomplish. It's harder to get a good pose unless he's in perfect physical condtion...I say that and it's not even my "type" of guy. It just looks better on film. Women can have a little pudge or boobs that sag and it can still be a sound photograph.

Also: thanks for the nice comments. In case you didn't know, this is my first topic.
posted by nadawi at 8:11 PM on July 27, 2005

Nice find, interrobang.

Also, I think this one wins for sheer goofiness.
posted by mikeweeney at 8:13 PM on July 27, 2005

funny project! He's not a great photographer in my totally not-expert opinion, but this was funny...
posted by cell divide at 8:15 PM on July 27, 2005

Well this clinches it, he choose a really ugly male model.

Ooh, he's the model? Bummer. Are we sure this wasn't just an excuse to wear women's underwear and post pictures of it to the internet?

Its an interesting post though.
posted by fenriq at 8:24 PM on July 27, 2005

With the two side-by-side, I actually found him more interesting to look at than the women. He was engaged with the camera differently than the women were, like he was sharing the moment with me, thinking "kinda funny, right?" The women looked like models look, either trying to look diffident or statuesque or oblivious.

Maybe it's because I imagined what he was thinking, being interested in the photograph and the idea of the photograph being compared to another, while the women models I imagined were thinking of themselves. I wonder if my reaction would have been different had I not known the gimmick first.
posted by dammitjim at 8:24 PM on July 27, 2005

No accounting for tastes, I know, but *I* think he's a cutie. His playfulness and obvious self-confidence are awesome, and some of the pics of him are honestly really sexy to me.

I've always been drawn to "average joe" kinda guys, personally, but yeah, I think he's a hottie. I think it's sad that guys who look basically like MOST of us look consider their naked bodies to be gross. (Have a laugh at my expense. Throw up. Do something!) We're all so conditioned by mass media as to what is sexy and what is not that we don't find each other hot, much of the time, and that's a pity.
posted by BoringPostcards at 8:47 PM on July 27, 2005

I absolutely loved this. I was charmed by the fact that he included women who look - well, normal.

Great find!
posted by Space Kitty at 8:48 PM on July 27, 2005

/evacuates stomach

I think he's holding the camera the wrong way.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:51 PM on July 27, 2005

This is great. And I just spent three hours watching experimental film nudity at massart, so you know my standards are way high.
posted by VulcanMike at 9:00 PM on July 27, 2005 [1 favorite has favorites]

blagh!
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 9:12 PM on July 27, 2005

hilarious find..

you have to admit it.. the guy has balls..
posted by AloneOssifer at 9:18 PM on July 27, 2005

you have to admit it.. the guy has balls..

And we have the pictures to prove it!
posted by OhPuhLeez at 10:02 PM on July 27, 2005

That's pretty cool. He should do that with a female photographer -- he directs the shot on her and includes a frame with himself. Them she direct the shot on him and then include herself in a frame.

Nice find.
posted by NewBornHippy at 11:09 PM on July 27, 2005

[this is good]

The reverse of this would also be interesting: male models contrasted with not-exceptionally-attractive middle aged female photographer.
posted by hattifattener at 11:46 PM on July 27, 2005

I would like to buy a pair of prints, and use them as the signs for 'male' and 'female' washroom doors.

Hell, I'd like to buy a pair of prints and just hang them around my house.
posted by Jairus at 11:56 PM on July 27, 2005

Great idea and nice execution. Art that attempts to "question itself" I usually find boring or inane, but this was actually thought provoking (and hilarious).

Good post.
posted by dreamsign at 11:57 PM on July 27, 2005

These are great. And I actually think he comes out looking a lot better than the women in many of them, but then I'm probably more critical of other women's bodies than of men's.
posted by cali at 12:01 AM on July 28, 2005

hattifattener...don't you realize that men can be handsome or ugly and still be treated with the utmost of respect, but unless a woman is a 20-year-old hawt thing she's not even worth the most basic consideration as a human being?

Good heavens, haven't you gotten the rules from FratBoyCentral yet?
posted by watsondog at 1:07 AM on July 28, 2005

I just vomited in my mouth a little.
posted by Livewire Confusion at 5:51 AM on July 28, 2005

oh, I forgot to mention, he has a livejournal page.
God bless the internet.
posted by nadawi at 7:05 AM on July 28, 2005

Can't wait to get home and take a look at this!
posted by dead_ at 7:17 AM on July 28, 2005

I think the guy has an interesting project but can i suggest you check out gallery 2 before we all get too loved up. Some of his stuff leaves me feeling distinctly unimpressed.
posted by fingerbang at 8:46 AM on July 28, 2005

Oh, I definately think the model vs. photographer is the best of the site.
Although, this is about the most disturbing thing i've seen all week.
posted by nadawi at 9:07 AM on July 28, 2005

it seems like he dosn't know how to (or can't) arange his body the way the women do

I think the difference is that the women are models, and he isn't. As in, they know what they're doing.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:44 AM on July 28, 2005

My girlfriend wanted me to clarify my objections to you folks, since I did the same for her at home.
His argument that by assuming these poses, he's blunting the criticism that nudes degrade women is fundamentally hollow.
He's not assuming the same position as these women, he's assuming a similar pose as a man.
Let's look at the components of "the male gaze," as that's what he's reacting against (whether he articulates it or not). The gaze provides power through asymetry. When a woman is looked at in the context of the male gaze, it is a reductive and sexualizing framework that she is put into. Look at these images: Is there really a personality coming through, or is the point more just that these are naked women reclining? There is an inherently different assumption about the context of these women than there is about him.
Further, the social construct of violence against women does not affect him. These women are all posed in submissive poses, in vulnerable poses. That's why it's "funny" to see him in those same poses: because it's not a pose that you would expect a man with socially-implied power to take. But still, there's no danger for him. When a woman is naked in public, there's an implied vulnerability. There is danger of sexual assault, there is the danger of being written off as only a sexual object. This man is not exposing himself to that same danger. The male priviledge includes being able to be blase about nudity. While there is obvious self-consciousness in his poses, there simply is not the same level of cultural baggage. A similar point might be raised through David, who someone mentioned earlier. There is a tradition of powerful male nudes, but it's rare (outside of French revolutionary iconography) to see the same things for women, especially in the Western tradition.
So, he's able to view his posing as humor, not as danger.
No matter how willing he is to do anything that he asks his models to do, he, frankly, cannot.
And, he's still the one that's posing all of them. Both the model and his portrait still fall under his domain as photographer. Perhaps if he had posed the model, and then had the model pose him, there would have been a more equal power dynamic, but this is all really sham feminism, and that bothers me. It also bothers me that it seems to have gone so unexamined in the comments here, with almost all of them focusing on judging the pure aesthetics of the poses. While that's one part of the male gaze that he did open himself up to (though I'd argue that his position in it is still more powerful than the woman's), one of the odd bits is that the woman's appearance is still being judged. (Oh, and as a side note, yes, women can view things from the "male" gaze. It's really more about social power structures than individual gender).
Sorry that went long. My first comment would have been understood by someone who's studied this enough to recognize the jargon, but my girlfriend thought it was important for me to clarify it into something that more people could understand.
posted by klangklangston at 3:46 PM on July 28, 2005

Well, that's just great, klangklangston, but I ask: what is it that you want? You claim "there's no danger for him"; does it follow that his subjects are in some sort of danger because they are in these "vulnerable" positions? The vulnerability you see in these pictures is not real - it's pretend, playacting.

Are the only acceptable photographs of women those that show them in a dominating light? Punching the camera right in its dirty fucking face, perhaps?

More questions: is it okay if these "submissive" poses of the women were suggested by a herteosexual female photographer? What if she were a lesbian? What if the model and subject were one and the same? Can you truly exploit yourself?

It's great that we talk about these subjects and question them, but to make these overreaching and sometimes bizarre claims that literally all these photographs are degrading or indicative of some fundamental injustice is frankly ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous that you couch them in this academic cant - "power through asymmetry" being my fave - without actually supporting the idea that any of these women are really being taken advantage of. You do them a disservice by acting as an agent of the patriarchy and acting as if women are delicate "things" to be "protected." You see how easy it is to play at your game?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:11 PM on July 28, 2005

klangklangston, I think your critique is good. When I first went to the site, I misread and thought he was trying to demonstrate that nude art can degrade women. It was interesting going through the site with that in mind, because some of the poses clearly do illustrate the sexually exploitive nature of the poses.

Some poses are simple studies of the human form, and the comparison, as well as the humour, derive purely from the aesthetic qualities of each person's body. On the other hand, several other poses (9 17 26 29 42) make no sense with the male subject. The contrast that I found interesting was not just between the model and photographer, but also between those pictures we could classify as general studies of human form and those that required the female body.

I think that what the pictures show, to me, is that there are very certainly ways to photograph women that are not degrading and do not suffer from an imbalance of power etc. However, there are a lot of pictures that slip quite quickly towards sexual exploitation. What I was surprised about was where the lines were, and how easily I might have missed them without the comparison.
posted by carmen at 5:11 PM on July 28, 2005

Optymus: "what is it that you want? You claim "there's no danger for him"; does it follow that his subjects are in some sort of danger because they are in these "vulnerable" positions? The vulnerability you see in these pictures is not real - it's pretend, playacting."
Right. So is Playboy and Penthouse. I'm pointing out that his central thesis, that this somehow refutes the idea that women are exploited through art, is fundamentally flawed. As far as what I want? Well, first off, I'd like some quality art. Second off, I'd like more people to explore sexuality like Joyce Tenneson or like the later-era Stieglitz portraits of Georgia O'Keefe, both of which do a better job at challenging the dominant image of female sexuality. I'd like something that doesn't purport itself to be a response or creative when all it does is echo the dominant power structure. I'd like some art.
"Are the only acceptable photographs of women those that show them in a dominating light? Punching the camera right in its dirty fucking face, perhaps?"
Way to toss in a false dichotomy, Chief. See:Tenneson's Audela or even Robert Frank's portraits of his wife, which manage to be interesting and intimate.
"More questions: is it okay if these "submissive" poses of the women were suggested by a herteosexual female photographer? What if she were a lesbian? What if the model and subject were one and the same? Can you truly exploit yourself?"
Did you miss the part where I mentioned that many of the women here were adopting the stereotypical "male gaze"? The power dynamic isn't changed with regard to the model and the society that surrounds her. People can choose to exploit themselves.
"It's great that we talk about these subjects and question them, but to make these overreaching and sometimes bizarre claims that literally all these photographs are degrading or indicative of some fundamental injustice is frankly ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous that you couch them in this academic cant - "power through asymmetry" being my fave - without actually supporting the idea that any of these women are really being taken advantage of. "
What overreaching and bizarre claims? And do you deny that there's an asymetrical power structure between women and men? I'm sorry, I live in the reality-based community, where women still make less money than men, and where female sexuality is still much more likely to be used to sell products than male sexuality. And, even within those contexts, the traditional view of male sexuality versus female sexuality is very different. I'm not arguing that these women are being taken advantage of, I'm arguing that these women are being portrayed in stereotypical poses and are part of a larger context with regard to female sexuality.
"You do them a disservice by acting as an agent of the patriarchy and acting as if women are delicate "things" to be "protected." You see how easy it is to play at your game?"
I'm not acting as if they are delicate, I'm pointing out that his attempt to equate his posing with theirs is fundamentally flawed. It might be easier for you to "play my game" if you knew what the hell you were talking about.
posted by klangklangston at 5:50 PM on July 28, 2005

Just what I always wanted: nude photos of Lenin!
posted by davy at 5:54 PM on July 28, 2005

carmen, klang: way to take the fun out of nudity. good job, kids.
posted by jonmc at 5:54 PM on July 28, 2005

Carmen: See, I'd say that the first one of those that you linked to is definitely part of the cheesecake tradition. The woman's face demured, the hands behind her. That's an image that, without him, would be classic porn (and for a figure study, I'd expect both better lighting and more dynamicism in the form). His appearing next to her, wearing a smirk, doesn't mitigate that for her, and it doesn't put him into the same position. Further, a lot of the other ones that you linked to by number, specificly the ones where the woman is on the floor, betray a conformity to conceptions of women as powerless, and that reinforces the normative sense of women as powerless.
posted by klangklangston at 5:57 PM on July 28, 2005

Jon: Sorry, man, but nudity isn't always about the prurient thrill. I know that you look upon efforts to separate art and porn as harshing your everyman buzz, but if titties on the internet is all you want, you may have wandered into the wrong discussion.
posted by klangklangston at 6:05 PM on July 28, 2005

klang, I just disagree that getting a sexual thrill out of looking at titties (or coks or assholes, for that matter) wherever is neccessarily degrading and oppressive.
posted by jonmc at 6:08 PM on July 28, 2005

Jon: It's not always. But sometimes it is, and I feel like you often want to argue that it's never degrading or oppressive. Because otherwise, it's just up to everyone to draw the line on their own.
posted by klangklangston at 6:10 PM on July 28, 2005

and just so you don't think I'm totally ignorant of the complexities surrounding this. I agree that the porn industry chews up and spits out a lot of women (and men too, to be fair) and that plenty of porn (like the Max Hardcore/gonzo variety) is truly misogynistic. But consenting adults gettinga thrill out of seeing dirty pictures of the gender of their choice isn't de facto degrading regardless of artistic merit is all I'm trying to say.
posted by jonmc at 6:12 PM on July 28, 2005

Jon: Yeah, but what annoys me is when porn wants to dress itself up like art. While Max Hardcore doesn't do anything for me personally, it's at least honest about what it is.
posted by klangklangston at 6:16 PM on July 28, 2005

Perhaps that's a kind of honesty, but what they're honestly expressing is disgusting and offensive (and I'm a fairly difficult person to offend). But stuff like voyeurweb and ishotmyself is not neccessarily "art" in that it's very frankly for sexual stimulation purposes, but for me (and I imagine a lot of other veiwers) the pleasure, beyond the obvious pleasure of seeing a pretty girl nude, is seeing an ordianry woman discover her attractiveness and sexuality. The pro stuff for the most part leaves me cold since the women are some groomed and prepared that their nude bodies seem like just another outfit, if that makes sense. In a way sites like these are almost prot-feminist while being totally welcoming of het-male sexuality as well.
posted by jonmc at 6:22 PM on July 28, 2005

Jon: Yeah, I agree with you on both points, though I think that sometimes the feminism argument is overstated with alternaporn, as it's really just more of the same only with different girls.
I dunno. I did an article once where I interviewed people from Suicide Girls, Burning Angel and some livejournal communities, and what I found was a lot of insecure, anorexic girls who were desperate for attention (both peer affirmational and male sexual) in a way that was kinda creepy, especially after talking to the guys that ran most of the sites (Supercult and Suicide Girls, particularly). It's kinda like when a guy will tape himself jumping off of his roof on a bike, in the hopes of making it on TV, or something like that.
On the other hand, those are the types of girls that I like to see naked, and I enjoy seeing them naked. The pro stuff is too weird, and most of the gonzo stuff is too angry or meanspirited.
posted by klangklangston at 6:30 PM on July 28, 2005

Jon: Yeah, I agree with you on both points, though I think that sometimes the feminism argument is overstated with alternaporn, as it's really just more of the same only with different girls.

I'm with you there. However hot some of the Suicide Girls might be, it's basically Playboy with tatoos and hair dye. You may want to check out abbywinters.com for a "real girl" alternative. But sites like the ones I've cited are basically amateurs showing themselves off for the hell of it, which makes a difference.

and just a final note on the "everyman," thing. I'm not everyman. I don't think such a creature exists, we live in a much too balkanized society. I've been tagged with that label here at MeFi but I'll live with it. I just get uncomfortable with posts and comments that casually write off huge swaths of the population and I say so. But I'd never presume to spreak for everyone.
posted by jonmc at 6:35 PM on July 28, 2005

I really liked this site and good a good laugh out of it, but I can't read the ensuing discussion because after four years of art school I throw up in my mouth a little everytime someone says "the male gaze."

Gotta go make a Listerine run... ;)
posted by grapefruitmoon at 7:09 PM on July 28, 2005

I'll never quite understand the ISM women's face & tongue piercing thing, and I think it's back-assward that so many shave their crotches but not their underarms.

And I'd expect a photographer to have a different take on being photographed than a model -- which I'd expect to be self-mocking in a bragging arrogant way. In contrast, very few of the few ISM models I've seen have failed to portray themselves seriously. "This is who I am, and I'm beautiful in my own way," they say.
posted by davy at 9:09 PM on July 28, 2005

I'd like some art.

You're going to need to keep searching then, because this guy is a terrible photographer.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:19 AM on July 29, 2005

I really liked this site and good a good laugh out of it, but I can't read the ensuing discussion because after four years of art school I throw up in my mouth a little everytime someone says "the male gaze."

All men are the same and all men are bad, grapefruitmoon, and everything they do with consenting women is in reality an attack on and an exploitation of those women. Didn't you read what klang wrote?

Seriously: what a retarded, ridiculous stance to take. I'm sorry if the creators of SuicideGirls and Supercult are assholes; I wouldn't know because I don't visit or care about their sites. But you're lumping them and this mediocre just-having-some-fun photographer guy in with truly disgusting and misogynistic shit, and I think that's a disservice to everyone. If everything is exploitation, nothing is.

Because otherwise, it's just up to everyone to draw the line on their own.

I leave the decision about where to draw that line in the hands of the models for these sites. I fail to see how that's so bad.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:31 AM on July 29, 2005

klangklangston: "Further, a lot of the other ones that you linked to by number, specificly the ones where the woman is on the floor, betray a conformity to conceptions of women as powerless, and that reinforces the normative sense of women as powerless."

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was suggesting that those numerical ones were particularly good examples of what you were talking about. The reason they are "funny" is because the male form doesn't make sense in those poses. The reason it doesn't make sense is because of the power/sex differences between men and women.

jonmc: give me a break (re: nudity - fun)

Optimus Chyme: you've misunderstood what kks means by "male gaze." "Gaze" in this context is a specific term that was developed when people started to realize that when people in powerful positions had the opportunity to portray people in less powerful positions, those portraits are shaped by the choices, preferences, and prejudices of the more powerful party. Thus we have "the anthropological gaze," "the Western gaze," "the white gaze," "the male gaze."

These phrases don't imply anything about individuals or even (in this case) men as a whole. Rather "gaze" suggests a power imbalance, and "male" classifies the imbalance as one of gender. Think of it as an interdisciplinary way of saying "history is written by the winners."
posted by carmen at 6:56 AM on July 29, 2005

Optimus: "All men are the same and all men are bad, grapefruitmoon, and everything they do with consenting women is in reality an attack on and an exploitation of those women. Didn't you read what klang wrote?"
Well, you obviously didn't. Care to point out where I say that all men are bad? Obviously, I must have somewhere, otherwise you wouldn't say that I had. Because if you did say that, and I hadn't, well, you'd not only be building a straw man, you'd be pointing out just how much of an idiot you are with your inability to read what I wrote and understand it. You're not an idiot, are you?
"Seriously: what a retarded, ridiculous stance to take. I'm sorry if the creators of SuicideGirls and Supercult are assholes; I wouldn't know because I don't visit or care about their sites. But you're lumping them and this mediocre just-having-some-fun photographer guy in with truly disgusting and misogynistic shit, and I think that's a disservice to everyone. If everything is exploitation, nothing is."
Boy, that would have been a ridiculous stance to take. Where, exactly, did I take that stance? I'm sorry that your illiteracy is holding you back on the internet, Optimus. Perhaps there's some sort of remedial site that you could be on instead, while you get up to speed.
posted by klangklangston at 8:09 AM on July 29, 2005

Carmen: I get you now. And thanks for the help.
Davy: Any theory can be over-reaching, and certainly some feminism imparts "the male gaze" with a shrill sound. But I think that if you're talking about how we look at things, and with photography that's essential, the male gaze is an important thing to point out.
posted by klangklangston at 8:12 AM on July 29, 2005

Whups. Confused Grapefruitmoon with Davy...
posted by klangklangston at 8:55 AM on July 29, 2005

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:06 AM on July 29, 2005

Boy, that would have been a ridiculous stance to take. Where, exactly, did I take that stance?

Right here: "When a woman is naked in public, there's an implied vulnerability. There is danger of sexual assault, there is the danger of being written off as only a sexual object. This man is not exposing himself to that same danger. The male priviledge includes being able to be blase about nudity." The last two sentences are demonstrably false.

Also you are taking this wicked personally; take a deep breath. I didn't call you a "fucking retard" or anything. :)
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:56 AM on July 29, 2005

Don't you get it, Opti? We men are supposed to hate ourselves for having cocks.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:24 AM on July 29, 2005

Optimus: "This man is not exposing himself to that same danger. The male priviledge includes being able to be blase about nudity." The last two sentences are demonstrably false."

Really? Demonstrate them false then. You honestly think that a naked man and a naked woman in public have the same risk of sexual assault? Of assault in general?
Further, you really think that the media portrays them in the same general way? Are you fresh off the boat?

Five Fresh: Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. Your astute reading and cogent criticism have cut me to the quick! Please, more Freudianisms!
posted by klangklangston at 11:58 AM on July 29, 2005

You honestly think that a naked man and a naked woman in public have the same risk of sexual assault? Of assault in general?

No, you're right, it is quite unequal. People will naturally want to protect the woman, whereas passing feminists will naturally want to kick the man in the nuts.
posted by kindall at 12:36 PM on July 29, 2005 [1 favorite has favorites]

A naked woman strolling down the Vancouver Seawall would rate a silly human interest oddity story on BCTV News. A naked man strolling down the Vancouver Seawall is likely to be tackled and arrested by the cops. He'd end up in jail for being a pervert. She'd end up on some artsy-fartsy roundtable talking about how society treats women differently than men.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:40 PM on July 29, 2005

Kindall, FFF: Ah, right. I forgot that there's no difference in sexual assault rates, that there's no propensity in media to show women as vulnerable or sexualized, and that women are treated equally in every way of society. Thanks you guys, for reminding me that we do live in a liberal utopia! Thank God for bulwarks like you, otherwise we'd all be trapped by the feminazis and neutered! Way to go!
posted by klangklangston at 12:52 PM on July 29, 2005

It's true that this is not a liberal utopia. And thank God for that!
posted by kindall at 1:47 PM on July 29, 2005

IMO, you're reading way the hell too much into a set of silly half-arsed photographs.

And what really amuses me is that you cast your interpretation of the photographs as The One True Meaning. Contrary to even the photographers' statements.

Not everything is about the horrible treatment of women. Sometimes something fun is, gosh, something fun!
posted by five fresh fish at 4:07 PM on July 29, 2005

As a feminist who has done nude modeling and almost always enjoys the sight of a naked man, public or otherwise, I have to take exception to the unfounded dichotomizing that's going on here. klangklangston pointed out some reasonable criticisms in the way that one (especially one who is so trained) often does with art. The artist encouraged kks's line of thought by suggesting that his art speaks to the discourse on the treatment of women in the media.

FFF, he didn't say the treatment was horrible (until he started getting backed up into this ridiculous corner), he mearly pointed out that there is a power difference between a middle aged man who is designing images and a young woman who consents to be a part of his design.

Debating the value of this art and its message may or may not be interesting to you, but attempting to turn this into some kind of a man-hating-feminist debate is silly. There are no man hating feminists here.

If people are actually interested in a discussion of his art, let's take another look from a slightly different aproach. He claims that by posing himself in contrast to the models, he is "blunting" the criticism that nude photography exploits women, but he does not explain how his pictures accomplish that. Kks and I have argued that they do not, in fact, accomplish his stated goal because the humour of the photos often comes from seeing a man in a position that is associated with submissive/passive feminine poses. I would be very interested to read an argument that his photography does have the ability to "blunt" criticism. How does he accomplish this?
posted by carmen at 5:03 PM on July 29, 2005

You honestly think that a naked man and a naked woman in public have the same risk of sexual assault? Of assault in general?

My last paper in undergrad was on male vs female domestic violence -- interesting at the time (93) because the numbers were changing. On the street, though, the numbers were not changing. You were still seven times more likely to experience violence on the street if you were a male. Seven times. I couldn't find numbers on male versus female victims in same-sex partnerships, but I suspect an even greater difference (ie: males seen engaging in intimacy with other males are much more likely to experience violence than females engaged in same-sex affection), so other semi-sexual behaviour, such as nudity? I absolutely don't think that there would be the same risk of violence for a male as for a female. Far from it.
posted by dreamsign at 12:05 AM on August 2, 2005