Category: freedom of expression

We are tasteful – it’s not porn – or, why are there no vulvas in my photos. Pubes…

I’m asking myself this question – I don’t want to create porn, or perhaps even worse, soft porn, but why are there no vulvas especially visible in my photos. Vulvas, and arse holes, are not (do not equate to) porn, they are just parts of our bodies.

Very few people with penises come forward for my projects, but they neither show off nor hide their cocks and balls. So why are the Vs hidden.. Are they hidden, or did they just not end up being seen.

I guess it’s because vulvas are, largely, hidden. To see them closely in photos it’s going to be necessary to choose to do so – to ask the person to open their legs or to bend over. If my subjects wanted to sit or pose, legs apart, they would – not many have.

It’s an active way to see their genitals which is not relevant with penis owners. To see them, there mostly needs to be an active attempt to show them. Or, actually, the shots would need to be of actions that would inevitably, obviously, show them – like some yoga poses.

I observe on the naturist beach that far more women keep their knickers on even though their genitals will always be less visible than those of men just by being between their legs. And when they don’t wear knickers, unlike the men who have little left to be revealed, most keep their legs closed. It’s not unintentional – I’ve watched women turn from laying on one side to the other, with their legs clamped together, rolling log like.

It wasn’t always like this. Women were mostly not sat, legs wide apart, but they weren’t clearly clamped together. I wonder if it’s the lack of pubes. Obviously the near ubiquity of the baby-bald look is fading as many women say fuck that, but it’s still very common.

I wonder if, without that wonderful, soft, fur, which inevitably blurs the lines of the outer lips, the embaldened (sic) are now feeling exposed in a way they cannot avoid without legs near crossed. Pubes don’t do anything to disguise a penis and balls so perhaps those of us with them, just get used to the exposure.

I wonder why I feel cautious about suggesting poses that would tend to be more revealing – I’m hardly prudish. I think it’s possibly as I have such an internalised self-critic that is telling me that people must think I’m a bit of a perv.. so I avoid any shots that might be seen as sexual.

I have made vulva casts, but they are hard work and I was helping a friend with her project – her vulva. I’ve been asked several times to cast people’s genitals, but can’t really locate my own reason for doing so – isolated, they are interesting but not ‘my’ art. Other than ‘Nipple Stars’ not much of my casting felt like I had a reason for it.

But I can’t escape my own shouts of ‘hypocrite’ at myself. A big point of this whole thought process is that bodies are bodies, showing a vulva isn’t a sexual act and, really, it’d probably be good if more were shown generally in ways that are not intended to be sexual.

What do you think? Comments [shitty ones will be deleted – this isn’t a democracy].

Sue, Tessa, Eva, Kimi, Katie, Carey and Lucy – Burlesque Stars.

My Ages project is well populated by people who do burlesque. Why so many? Based on what they have all told me, it’s a form of performance that allows for a body positive, sexual confidence, that is on their own terms.

It’s not that the audience and putting on a show isn’t important, but they are the stars of their own show – it’s for them, and for them to share rather than for us to take.

I’m intrigued too by the generosity and giving nature of the groups. It’s clearly a really supportive process for the learners and as they develop the shows.

I’ve heard a few times how great it is that burlesque includes a really wide range of ages and body types. All are stunning, beautiful people – not judged for their appearance. And, as part of that, it helps to show to others that their body types are wonderful too.

Going to a burlesque show, well I guess I don’t need to go often myself – I love the energy and the beaming self confidence and joy of the performers. But it can be a bit lacking in queer for me – which is odd given my personal tastes defo being for female body types rather than male. But somehow, it could do with a bit of a Queering.

The best part has been observing my participants performing for themselves, with me/us as welcome witnesses. I often feel that’s my role as the photographer, to create a situation in which the subject feels able to reveal something of themselves, something perhaps not previously revealed.

Lucy
Carey
Tessa
Eva
Sue
Kimi
Katie

Nice shorts

Last week a rare thing happened, possibly a unique thing.

Wearing ordinary, typical man type shorts, and walking to my GP in a hurry, I overtook a woman who slightly moved out of the way for me and I said ‘ta’. And a moment later she called to me, ‘nice shorts’.

I turned around and thanked her and, noticing that she was also wearing shorts, I said ‘yours are nice too’ – and they were. And, as I carried on walking I realised that we were wearing the same colour shorts and, presumably, hers was a bit of a jokey comment.

I noted that I’d never usually say something to a stranger about their appearance, and that, in male clothing (I look like a man whether or not I am genderqueer), it’s unheard-of to be complimented by a stranger, and rare even from friends. Most men’s clothing is, of course, by design and by decree, boring at best, and mostly ill-fitting.

However, as a male looking person in clothes like skirts, leggings or even with just coloured nails, the complete disinterest in what I wear ceases immediately. It becomes open season for women to comment, complement and to compare legs – apparently mine are devine…

Most men, of course, say nothing – well, other than the occasional van-headed louts who shout their murderous lusts while, I imagine, wanking themselves into a foam from their manly oeuvre.

Most men say nothing to women, they say even less to other men, unless they are wearing something unmanly in which case, just a few men are aggressive. Women say pretty much nothing to men wearing men’s clothes, but they’ll say lots to manly looking humans in fem clothes. I wonder why.

And – it’s an interesting state of affairs for men or those of us that look like them. We only have to add they tiniest affectation of fem, and we may as well have a big, flashing, dong on the ends of our noses. . .

To step out is to be brave – to be seen – to be noticed – all I need do is have coloured nails and to cross the road without clenching my fists to hide them and – ‘Nice nails! Ready for Pride?’ – calls a woman walking by.

#deactivationday1

Deactivate Facebook and Instagram for 24 hours on 20 August. Let’s show them that they need us more than we need them.

They don’t do enough to stop racism being promoted on their platforms – and they impose sexist controls over how women’s bodies can be shown, but not on men’s.

Give them a day off – deactivate your accounts for 24 hours.

Please share this on.

Naked bodies

I came across this photo project yesterday 1000 Bodies – it’s several years old now. I flicked through the images of the naked participants with my partner – steadily, click, click, click like a slow, jerky animation.

1000 people, different genders and shapes and sizes – mostly younger, mostly white, mostly not visibly disabled (not intended as a criticism, it’s an observation). Standing, posing, sitting, stretching – caught in a moment.

Their nudity being less of interest than their pose and their presence. We noticed some parts of their bodies – remarking at bald shaven vaginas and the one man with an erection. Mostly, we were quiet and didn’t remark at all – the silently passing flicker of bodies, not that relevant to us, everything to those people.

The question always posed is why is nudity an issue, those body parts special, wrong etc. An answer is usually that they are sexual, and somehow that explains it. But what’s wrong with sex?

What is sexual, and who gives a toss anyway.

Messing about in my garden with my partner we took some photos that were intentionally censored by hands etc. I thought we’d post them on Instagram as they don’t show breasts or genitals. I added a sticker over the hand I was using to censor her fanny as I thought that might be needed to avoid being blocked.

But the image was immediately removed with a warning that it is a sexual image. Here it is, without the triangle. I don’t think it looks sexual, and we were not being sexual – we were playing about.

Once again, this is some Instagram bot determining that our behaviour was sexual as, presumably, it’s not blocking the image for showing genitals or (god forbid) nipples. There’s no appeal against its automated, soulless decision. Some dick has programmed it with a basic idea of what equals sexual, and it’s wrong.

But what business is it of Instagram anyway whether our behaviour is sexual or not? And why should we moderate or behaviour to be inline with its expectations – essentially it can piss off. Sexual, or simply full of joy (which is what that image actually capturing), is Instagram’s judgement. It doesn’t like sex and seems determined to seek it out and to find it where it isn’t present.

But, in any case sex and feeling sexual, is something most people seem to enjoy. If the image had been of us enjoying sex that, of itself, seems an odd thing to ban.

Someone might not want to see us having sex, but why can’t Facebook and Instagram just allow people to tag images as ‘adult’ and those people who would rather not see it could filter it out. If someone posted a sexual image untagged that might be a reason to block the image until it’s suitably tagged.

A further point that goes around my head is why, when such a huge amount of porn is produced and used for sex, do we baulk at seeing non-sexual or other sexual nudity. Why is it okay in porn but not when it’s an image of two people, who are in love or whatever, having a good fuck?