Sunday, May 26, 2013
I just realized yesterday (I know...) that what what some consider sexual or pornographic/provocative, I don't. Having a conversation with some people/clients, it became clear that to them the presence of a cock in a statue, drawing or painting, is at least sexual, if not provocative (when erected). OK, if the public needs another 2000 years of covered cocks, so be it. To me looking at a cock in a photo, painting, etc, is NOT related to sex, as looking at a nose is not related to the sense of smell, as watching a hand or foot is not related to holding a phone or wearing a shoe. Of course we use those body parts for various activities (including peeing, not just fucking) but taken out of that particular context, (to me) it's part of a human being. It's unnatural to see a statue of a nude male with a leaf covering his genitals. At least my genitals are not covered by any leaf when Im naked. And when Im naked I dont always have sex or am engaged in any "porn" activity. This was where I went wrong in my thinking. Some people get turned on by seeing a female nipple. Some dont. That's why I thought showing a female nipple in a nude painting of a woman would be the same way as showing a cock in a drawing. I wonder what it takes for some people to dissociate from some life activities and uses of the body parts, if art doesnt help them do that.