Category: Normalise nudity

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].

Being 50 something

This week I photographed Caroline in the garden of a house in which she has lived for many years. She won’t mind me saying that the house is in a poor state of repair. It’s a great looking building though and a beautiful garden.

Caroline sitting on steps in her garden.

Like many people in my Ages project, she spoke about gaining body confidence later in life and about how she’d felt shamed for her looks while younger. I guess the remaining sense of body shame may be a limit on the numbers of younger people who will get involved – not yet having shaken that off.

I really enjoy working with all of the participants, there is though something I enjoy more photographing people of a similar age to me. There’s an affinity, our skins have been exposed to life for a similar length of time.

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?