December 5, 2004.

Do clothes sexualize nudes?

By Dwаynе Bell

We've all heard of the r4pіst who gets away with his crime by blaming his victim. "I had to do it!" he claims, "She was practically naked and flaunted herself so shamelessly walking down the street in her skimpy skirt and tiny top!"

One of the most horrendous examples recently involved a judge who released a man charged with molesting a 6-year-old girl and chastised the little girl for dressing too provocatively and for flirting with the man. [!]

But we were even more shocked and horrified recently to read on a tasteful nude website the following complaint by its editor and creator about how leaving even the most scant clothing on a model posing nude sexualizes her: "What is underwear or a bikini other than little signs saying: "forbidden, don't look here? What could be more interesting?"

I hate to have to break it to anyone, but neither clothes nor their lack is ultimately able to sexualize or beautify a woman. The thing that sexualizes a nude or prevents its sexualizing is the woman's mind. For example, if she is pouting and touching herself, whether completely clothed or totally naked, then the image is sexualized. If however, she is reaching for the sky, with the length of her body and to the limit of her strength, then the image is spiritual and metaphysically and artistically inspiring, whether she is clothed or not.

However, some people see women as mere body parts, and clothing as merely a way to cover those parts. They use a presence or lack of clothing as a substitute for sexual signals because they can't conceive of abstractions such as human mental states or character traits without great difficulty. They don't want to admit to or deal with a woman who thinks. They prefer a woman without a mind, and are stimulated by photos of women without them. They are the modern touchy-feely version of the old stereotype of the rascal who prefers dumb blondes. And, ironically, they are the reason that women have to wear clothes in the first place.

Now, normally we'd let such admissions of abject depravity go, but we hear so many similar comments and expressions of entitlement to a woman's sexuality lately, both on websites that claim to love women and in the email we receive from visitors to our site who whine because not all of our photos feature total nudity, that we felt we'd better expose this kind of thinking before it goes any further.

But before we dissect this evil attitude, let's get this much straight: If a woman wants to pose nude, except for a bikini bottom, that is her right. And as a man in a job where I deal with naked women all day, I can tell you that many of them have quite good reasons for not wanting to show people their privates. And as a photographer, I can tell you for a fact that bottoms on a model are not meant to say 'don't look here'. Quite often I'll create an image of a woman nude but for drawers precisely because I want the viewer to focus on her mind, on the intensity of her eyes, on the bravery in her actions, or the courage in her pose, in which case, her pants are meant to say "look elsewhere", "deal with my mind, not my muff", "notice the intensity in my sparkling eyes as I stare you down even though I'm half naked", or "admire the nobility of my passion as I stretch out my arms and lift my gaze towards the sky".

Bottoms are meant to allow the viewer's attention to be drawn to the beauty of the whole woman, not just her body. It's a very sad chore indeed that we should have to remind the cretins out there who claim to love women and beauty, that all women - yes, even beautiful ones - have minds.

In fact, in everyday life, even more than in photos, clothes are a tool for women to say to the people around her, "this is how I want to be looked at". So if a woman wears shorts, she's telling you she doesn't want you to look at her bare ass.

Men who respect women, respect that. Those who don't, don't. Instead, they see it as an invitation.

Which brings us to the troubling emails we've received lately. (I've left the abysmal grammar, punctuation and spelling intact since it seems typical of this kind of moron.)

"...some [photos] appear as though the photographer is trying to hide sections of the subjects body. i don't see enough pubic hair, which to me is all part of the female beauty. the arse is extremely attractive. i don't see much of that either."

Ah, such romantic sentiment. Dіdn't Kеаts write that?

"...i don't want spread eagle shots, but i don't want the natural parts of a women hidden either. is that an area not accepted yet as beauty?"

Of course the female body is a thing of beauty - when it's part of a whole woman, mind and all. Is a woman's vulva beautiful by itself, without being part of a woman who wants to show it? Necrophiliacs think so. And does a woman's beauty entitle every man who wants to see her private parts? R4pіsts think so.

So does this guy. What do you think the models in our galleries would say to this? They are the ones he's talking about.

"...hiding a womens body by tall grass is really annoying a few is ok, but fifty are ridiculous never did get a good look at that beautiful body. for some odd reason, the grass got in the way...lighten up. we want the whole thing. not much to ask for. stop the hide and seek...!!!"

Such love for women. Touching isn't it? I'll bet he beds lots of women with that line.

What got in the way for this guy - and what gets in the way for r4pіsts - is a woman's mind. For these guys a woman's beauty has nothing to do with her choices, her personality, her purpose, or her character. For them it's not about a woman at all. It's about "that beautiful body", which to them means: a crotch and an arse. After all, "what could be more interesting?"

There it is. That which tries to pass itself off as a vaunted appeal to higher artistic sensibilities is nothing more than a tasteless, classless thug's crude attempt at sexual extortion, his way of trying to gain sexual access to a woman who doesn't want to give it. It's the statement that if a woman insists on wearing a short skirt, or heaven forbid, a bikini, that a man has no choice but to fixate on her sexually. And his reaction is obviously not respect for her wishes, but a demand for complete, unrestricted access.

Happily, there is another kind of man.

We at Body in Mind believe that it is a woman's mind more than her body that makes her beautiful. We find proud women more beautiful than those who are ashamed of themselves. We see more beauty in happy women than sad ones. We are attracted to bravery in women more than helplessness.

We admit that a woman can be more beautiful completely nude, but only if her nudity accentuates her mental state. For example, if she exudes bravery, doing so nude shows even more courage, which in turn makes her more beautiful. Or if a photo is meant to show a woman selfishly enjoying her own existence in the world, if she is standing nude on a rock and basking in the glow of the rising sun, she seems even more selfish than if she was clothed, and again, more beautiful.

Body in Mind steers away from explicit sexuality in our images because we frankly love beauty more than sexual fantasy. If we respond sexually to a photo, it's because we find the model beautiful, not because she's wearing bright pink panties. Moreover, fantasies are private, and do not invade on a woman's privacy or sexual freedom. Demanding more nudity in a model's photos, does.

This is true regardless of the degree of nudity. It is true if she's fully dressed or totally nude. It is true if she's wearing a short skirt, a bikini, or some panties and no top. At no point do we ever stop appreciating a woman's character. And nothing can force us to think of a woman sexually if we do not - or she does not - wish it.

"What can be less interesting?"

To prove our point we're thrilled to be able to bring our members this gallery of Sabrina both wearing clothes and not, by photo genius Stеfаn Sоеll. We can think of no better model to demonstrate the power of a model's mind to create the beauty we see in her images, and no better photographer to artfully prevent the assumption of sexuality by intentionally filling his images with interesting psychology, intelligence, romance, and yes, even clothing.

In our view, there's nothing more interesting - or sexy - than beauty.

© 2004 by Body in Mind