home - photos - newsletter

The "non-sexual nude" survey

One morning at five o'clock I suddenly decided to ask my members about a question that keeps popping up once in a while. Within a few days I had over 300 replies! Here they are, uncencored and unedited. My own conclusion is at the end.
Eolake

* Hiya!
*
* Once in a while, I get into a debate regarding a goal of
* mine; to create the non-sexual nude art. (Possibly even
* showing genitalia while still being non-sexual.)
*
* Some say it is impossible to make and to view art involving
* the nude without there being something sexual about it.
*
* I wish to test how rare this viewpoint is. So drop me a
* line:
*
* 1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
* 2: Do you think that would be desirable?

* Yours, Eolake

Hello
To answer your questions
Yes nude art can be non sexual, and yes it can be desirable.
Ray

1: yes
2: no

1. NO
2. Yes

* 1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
yes, but it's rather hard... IMO a nude is inherently sexual to some extent, it's the content/composition of the piece that has to draw one's attention away from that aspect. for me, personally, beauty and sex rarely mix, so emphasizing the shear artistic beauty of the subject usually draws my attention away from the attention away from the fact that she's not wearing anything.

* 2: Do you think that would be desirable?
absolutely. most art, after all, leans towards breaking conventional molds or taboos or forcing the viewer to think differently than they'd usually do.....
Q

1: Yes
2: Yes
Mvh Stefan

I guess that first I would have to see the artwork before making any decisions on your question

Depends on your intentions. If you forcibly stress the sexual element in the whole picture than it is not possible to look at it as a non-sexual object. Otherwise having genitals or whatsoever as the detail of the whole will not divert the fact that it is an art, with the exception of the viewers intentions at this point. See it is all based on the human desire, creators or viewers.

*Some say it is impossible to make and to view art involving
*the nude without there being something sexual about it.
*
*I wish to test how rare this viewpoint is. So drop me a
*line:
*
*1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
*2: Do you think that would be desirable?
#1. Absolutely!
#2. ????? All I know is that nudity, like other things, is either sexual or it is not.
When I lived with my friends in the woods in Arkansas, everybody ran around nekkid for months. After a while there was nothing sexual about it! This isn't "art," but what can ya do.
John

Eolake,
If, for the purposes of this discussion, we can agree that what is sexual and what is non-sexual is virtually impossible to define with any certainty. What is sexy to me may not be to you - that sort of thing.
If we then agree to have some agreement, say by consensus, it is likely that one can produce so-called nude art that has a woman/girl who while superficially attractive, isn't sexy at all. Or is so arranged that she appears somewhat awkward. Or the lighting's bad. And so on.
Then yes, I suppose we could work at it in such a way the the majority of men - we will assume that our voting population is men (though it need not be) - will agree that the composition is non-sexual.
But for God's sake, to what end? Why bother? Who would want it? Don't answer; I know.
So I guess my answers are Yes and then No.
Warm regards,
Dr. Bill

Answers to questions:
1: No & why would you want to?
2: Definitely not!
sincerely, Jim*

Absolutely, without a doubt, some nudes can be non-sexual. Roger

From: Jack
The sexual thing is all in your mind and how you look at the naked human body,

Of course nude art can be non-sexual. However sensual may be a different matter. If you, as can many, appreciate nude horses, dogs or statues, as sensual non sex objects of art, then why would a nude female not fit into the same category. It is truly in the eyes of the beholder. I even have a file that contains such nude female non-sexual art. David Hamilton is one source of such images.... Dan

In response to your query, yes, I do think so. However, making a piece, whether it be by hand, brush camera, etc., that does not arouse sexual feelings is very difficult on two parts. One, 99.99% ( and that's rounding DOWN) of the world's population is inherently... oh how do I put it - ah yes! ... stupid. They can't look at an early renaissance painting without thinking, "hu-huh... naked fat chick... hu-huh" (ala Beavis and Butthead). Two, for those few blessed with the ability to appreciate art, even pieces that do not invole the human body may have a certain sexual appeal.

Here's my two cents worth:
1. Yes, it can.
2. If it promotes any appreciation of beauty, it is desirable.

I beleive this is indeed possible... in fact, advertizements today are full of this kind of non nude, even showing genitalia.. it is a type of subliminal advertizing.... for example, just look at female deoderants.... look at the shape... some females say they never noticed.... however, many are shaped like a penis... mens deorderants are not usally in this type of container... compare next time... your walking though they drug store.... the measurements are quite simular... they even come with round or conic shaped tops.... so much for containers... now magazine, flip through the pages, look in the shadows. for instance... i can remember a black and white add for something... it was a man with his shirt off and pants loose fitting at the top...his washboard stomach shadows looked like his penis was coming out of his pants quite suggestive for some girl looking to buy some type of aftershave for her boy friend that might put a little zip in her sex life... if you would like to test this theory.. then look at a magazine, flip though the pages but hold the magazine the diagnal x 3 and look quickly... and thing about sex when your looking at the pictures... visualization can be processed about 1000x faster then reading.... mark

1. Do you think that nude art can be made non-sexual?
-Depends entirely on the viewer. For me, no. I can't help but let some sexual thoughts enter my consciousness, however minute and trivial. I can't help but think a little of the sex. Is that offensive? Again, that depends on the beholder. I find sexual thoughts to be mostly of a non-offensive nature.
2. Do you think that would be desirable?
-I guess... but it will take a lot of growth for humanity to outgrow our tendency towards sexual associations to nudity. Most humans are simply not ready for that step. Suppressed sexuality and obsessive over-indulgence in sex are things that need to be overcome. I would say that the tendency towards being offended at nudity is an actual secret desire OF nudity. People just simply are not ready for non-sexual nudity.
Chris

Sure nudes can be non-sexual. I think I have done that already. Most of my nudes are non-sexual. But I am the only one to think so. And, since my opinion is the only one that REALY counts, that is what they ARE.
I have a provocative shot of a milk carton that IS highly erotic, but, again, I am the only one who thinks so.
Am I sick? No!!! Not sick at all. and that is also, 'MY' opinion. lol
All art is subjective. I can look at a FINE ART NUDE, and not see it as sexual, conversely, I can look at a fully clothed woman of statuesqe proportion and average face, and find nothing but erotisism in every nuance of her.
In every fiber of her, I can see how she exudes sexuality, as well as sensuality, in a raw and pure way.
As long as there is an 'opinion', there will never be an absolute in this area. Never be anything that is purely 'this', or totally 'that'! it is the tomato/TOMATO issue till the cows come home!
MOOOO!
There are NO absolutes.

Of course its sexual, but then virtually anything we do can have its base in a sexual motive.
The real question is why are some people uncomfortable with sexuality.
Paul

Absolutely yes to both questions! Art can be sexual or not, with or without clothing. I've seen any number of fully clothed, sexually arousing females, and equally, I've been privileged to to view artwork of nudes that are simply a joy to behold, but have no sexual connotations whatsoever. Would one paint a horse or sunset with clothes on? of course not! Anyway, that's just my opinion.
Thank you for providing such a marvelous site for the simple appreciation of the young female form, and keep up the good work!!!!

From: Andy
1. Here's the trouble: Every individual is different. Some will regard any hint of nudity as sexual. Others like myself, regard posing as art (to me, sexual pictures are the hardcore variety, where the subject is ruining herself by being a f*cking slut and ruining any art she may have on her)
2. Give it a try. We'll see how it goes. I think it would be desirable

Hiya right back!
I believe that it is very easy for nude art to be non sexual in nature. The human body is a thing of beauty and can be admired for many reasons. I am a naturalist by nature and find beauty in the female form. It does not automatically equate to sex.
Untill next time
Mitch

Nude art will always be sexual... as non nude art... art is inevitably a sexual encounter because of the emotions that it conjurs in different people... Look and Michel Angelo's "David", it is a nude statue of David... quite artistic and by most a sexual expression of purity... much depends on how it is viewed and construed...

Hi,
1. Yes,indeed!
2. I know I'd like it.
Keep up the good work. I've found no site better than yours. John

Yes, not only do I believe this ART can be non-sexual; but also mind-changing. I, for one, have been an artist in the medium of: charcoal, pastel, pin/ink, and a number #2 led (federal prison issued) pencil, but also in THIS format, lately. Bob A...........

Offhand:
I think sexuality, like beauty, is in the eye, or whatever, of the beholder. There are definitely strong tendancies. PBS has had some good programs about sexuality, which claim that things like health, smooth skin, and symmetry are pretty universal positives. I gather that T&A are the primary US options, and maybe legs and slimness, but that belly dancing is because that is most sensual in those cultures. Total nudity is some (fewer) places the norm, and such things as earlobe length or tattoo pattern are very important. I don't really know much about it, I just know what I like.
Would it be desirable? Not on any moral grounds, for me. An interesting exercise; perhaps useful research.
For me, the turn on can come from nudity or hard-core action, or just beauty, or the gesture (perhapps one implying intent). I just know it when I see it, and sort accordingly. Complex pattern, really.
Don

1. Yes
2. Yes

I think u are right there can be nude pictures with out a sexuallity matter.
I like ur pics and I would be happy if I could get more of them.

To answer your questions. . . .
1. YES
2. YES

I think that nude art can be tastefully done so as not to present the intent of sexual arousal, but to make it completely non-sexual would be impossilbe, since the sexuality of anything is ultimately an interpretation of the veiwer.
Dax

Eolake,
I don't believe that nude art can be made non-sexual in the United States in most peoples eyes. In general I would have to say I believe that when Americans see nude art sex comes to mind. Not all people are like that, though. A lot of the art that you have shown is artistic and can be considered non-sexual. I enjoy your artwork. Several of my associates agree with me. We find your art impresssive, but to say that it is desirable would imply that it is sexual.
Mark

Hi, Eolake.
This is the introduction. Then I'll answer your questions ("yes," and "yes," by the way). I'm a brand new member. I'm not impressed by titles or credential, but let me tell you who I am. I was trained as an artist, architect, sculptor. I do architecture, teach construction and computers, but (alas) have let the other more creative things go. I'm 56. I felt "at home," at last, to find your organization. I find womankind to be the most wonderful aspect of all creation. (You don't need to be preached to on that account.)
I love to write romantic things (in stories, and to women on the Internet). Somehow, I resonate with women's minds to a remarkable extent, and I have (I don't know what to call it) seduced, or had to fall in love with me, numerous ladies, from ages 19 to 50. Of course the young ones, with lithe, nubile bodies, take my breath away, but the older ones - inside their minds - are as romantic, sensual, and sexual as the "babes." Oh, these "stories" become quite erotic, but in ways that ladies adore.
I have been a member for a couple of days (two of your e-mail's worth) and have enjoyed your writing immensely (especially about your owl-pal).
Why am I writing to you? 1) To answer the questions you posed. 2) To say "hurrah" for the whole thing you are doing. 3) To offer to correspond with you along the lines of creating a "thing" which would do for women, what DOMAI does for us men. It will be in the writing, the words, that we will touch them (ah, the images are what fire our men's minds). But, you know well, from your experiences (like with the damosel in the park who undressed for you - as well as for her awful husband's benefit), that it was your words that got you anywhere at all with her.
Can we do this, have fun, and be artful and creative? Do you have women-friends who can test the idea?
OK, now to your questions: 1) Yes, nude art may be non-sexual. Women may be non-sexual. The observer decides, not the artist. The artist (photographer, cinematographer, painter, scultptor, cartoonist - even) controls the liklihood of perceptions of sexuality, but only that. Chances are, nudity will evoke sexual responses - because, alternatively, most clothing hides it. Not all (however). Certain garments (lingerie, swimwear, and dresses from Frederick's or Victoria's Secret), or kinky paraphenalia, are deliberately, and effectively, more sexually evocative than the woman beneath. I'd say the artist would have to TRY to express nudity in a non-sexual manner, but it can be done.
Ah, now ... you ask, would it be desirable? Yes, and no. It is necessary to describe female beauty BOTH sexually and normally. (WHY, do I say normally?) Sexuality is normality, of course, but there is more to life than sex. (Is there?) I think prowess, insight, caring, hurt, loss, and many other human states of consciousness may be expressed in nudity. For us men, of course, it is more fun to gaze at, arousal, fertility, passion, nubility, temptation, and heat, but we will face, as will our lovers, that previous set of emotions.
Pleasing a woman is both being the same as she is (for compassion and understanding) and being opposite (for bonding and mating her). Nudity is what Adam and Eve ask us to love. It is unifying, not divisive.
Gosh, Eolake, I do not know you. I fantacise that you have seen almost everything, know almost all there is to know. But as an artist, like you, I know we both are just starting to see what is around us. My question to you is, can we do something that will please women, which is analogous to how DOMAI pleases men?
William

Here's my point of view.... art is art because of how it is percieved by others... not by its own merit. I think that, looked at in a certain way, any piece of artwork can be sexual, whether it features nude forms or not. By the same token, any piece of artwork that features the nude form, looked at in a certain way, can be entirely non-sexual. It's all a matter of perspective.

I think in todays society that you will not be able to make a 'non-sexual' nude. There will always be someone out there that finds a nude sexual on some level. If you were able to make a 'non-sexual' nude then it would not be desirable. Those two concepts are the opposite of each other and in my opinion cannot exist in the same space.
Dan

most nude art is non-sexual...but we can't stop everyone from seeing the true beauty of the human body...there is always someone out there who will make a big deal out of such a simple thing...please keep up the good work...I'm a freelance photographer and I enjoy taking a few pictures now and then.

I would like to be more help but can only come up with "eye of the beholder". I find it interesting that in my own life younger women are much more appreciated than when I was their age, however, unlike some, that does not include little girls. I could never see a little girl as a sex object and am offended by people who do. People seem to find eroticism in clams and bananas, is that art? A reason for a nonsexual nude? That's why they climb mountains my friend. Example to follow?

As an artist and a photographer, I think the human form is the ulimate creation and expresion of beauty. Whether it is a nude sculpture or a nude model, the reaction is the same; excitement for the very essence of perfection, not sexual intention. Humankind has desired to express his appreciation since the dawn of time. Why would we seek to supress our human nature?
Seven

Yes, I think it can because it has for years in art. However, you will always have people that are against the idea. Do have a site already created with this theme?

i do believe that the human body can be transformed into a work of art. to do so requires genius on the part of the artist, whether the artist is a photographer or a sculptor.
the creation of non sexual nude art would, to me, be the more desirable of the styles of nude photography. i applaud the efforts of those in search of that genius...

yes, if we all went nude every day, MOST nude pics would be non sexual, it's only due to the fact that we hide our bodies that everyone wants to see them...

Nude art can not be made non sexual and I would find nude art made sexual very desirable.
Kim

Yes, just as fully clothed art can be very sexual. It depends on what you are looking at, and looking WITH. Each person has their own idea of what is sexual.....
* 2: Do you think that would be desirable? It already exists, no matter what we might try to say, desireable or not. And it has for millenia! Look at greek statues, Asian frescos (like Ankor Wat).....
Anyway, your taste is good in all areas, sexy or not, and clothed or not. Keep up the good work.
--

The thought of what is sexual, begins and ends within the mind of the viewer of the material. For one person a fully clothed pic of a beautilful woman would allow the viewer to undress mentally the image and still conger up sexual excitement. For still others, a nude woman could be just admiring the beauty and grace of creation. Therefore to say that a person could easily display a purely "non-sexual" picture is quite impossible to accomplish.

I don't see the point. Sexuality is the essence of the human experience. Why hide it?

Yes I agree with you many pictures of nude women are not sexual they are just a thing of beauty. Just like a meadow or a water fall any thing beautyful canbe admired and not become a sexual object.
I thank you for your pic of the day.
carl

Yes on both questions

I think so! the beauty is in a flowor, in the nature and in a nice girl too (that i prefere in non sexual activity)

I believe it is very possible. Usually the figure is in a posture or pose that would depict an everyday activity, such as sleeping or reading or what have you. I often have viewed pictures of a non-sexual nature that I have found very beautiful. Included are two such pictures that I view as non-sexual and yet are in my mind, stunning.
-Tom

yes i afree with you its art i love it n the body
Have a nice day n smile

To make this short: The answers are, "Yes...and Yes." Keep up the good work.

Just did a whole gallery show in Hamburg, Germany titled "Erotik" filled with non-sexual nudes. Went over really well (but then it's obvious that the Europeans are far more advanced and have far fewer hang-ups when it comes anything sex-related). I then took it a step further and did "Erotik II" with no nudes at all! At first, people didn't get it, then they realized I was trying to say that things like mood and lighting can be far more erotic than nudity alone. Andrei

* Once in a while, I get into a debate regarding a goal of
* mine; to create the non-sexual nude art. (Possibly even
* showing genitalia while still being non-sexual.)
Medical textbooks. Q.E.D.

* Some say it is impossible to make and to view art involving
* the nude without there being something sexual about it.
*
* I wish to test how rare this viewpoint is. So drop me a
* line:
*
* 1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
Yes. I point out Michelangeo's 'David'--it's nude, and it's also non-sexual. Ditto for the 'Discus Thrower' of greek art. Ditto for 'Venus de Milo'.
* 2: Do you think that would be desirable?
Yes. (Of course, I'm an artist, and therefore biased as to this topic...)
Tim

*Some say it is impossible to make and to view art involving
*the nude without there being something sexual about it.
If it does, what difference does it make. Just because something is sexual or sensual that does in no way diminish it's artistic aspects, and what might be sexual or sensual to one person may not be so to another.
*
*I wish to test how rare this viewpoint is. So drop me a
*line:
Regardless of my above opinion.

*1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
Yes, absolutely

*2: Do you think that would be desirable?
Most assuredly. I'm assuming that you are referring primarily to the female body. I believe that the female is the most beautiful thing that God placed on the Earth, and what better way to enjoy that beauty than by viewing it in it's unclothed state whether genitalia is visible or not. I hold that same opinion when I go out to local dance clubs where we can enjoy viewing nude dancers. I just enjoy looking at nude females.
Best regards,
Richard

Subject: Re: DOMAI A non-sexual nude?
1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
DEFINITELY YES! IMAGINE A NUDE SHOT OF JANET RENO AND NEWT GINGRICH... But then again - would that be "art"? Maybe according to the taste of people who like Hieronimus Bosch?
2: Do you think that would be desirable?
HELL, NO!!! WE WANT ... "Smut, give me smut and nothing but, a dirty novel I can't shut, if it's uncut, and unsubt-le..." (Tom Lehrer) ;)...
Sukebei

yes to the both question

Answers to questions:
1. No
2. No
Sex makes the art.

Yes, of course art can be non sexual. Look at the statues in the Louvre museum. Many show genitalia, but how many are appreciated for their sexuality? Most are appreciated purely because of their beauty. For either sex, surely one can appreciate beauty without getting horny. The same can equally apply to photographic art. The point of art is to make you think. Not necessarily "How I would like to get off with her", but, as with the Mona Lisa for example, "What is she thinking, to give her that smile?" This is a subject that can be debated for months, but I hope I make myself clear.
And, yes, it would be desirable.

Eolake,
My opinion is:
1: Yes, I have seen many examples of what I would call non-sexual nude art. For example, picture galleries are full of them. Nudity can express so much more than just a sexual attraction - arguably, some of man's most impressive/breathtaking works of art involve the nude human form. 2: Of course! (For reasons mentioned above)

* 1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
Of course it can, but it is totaly in the hand of the viewer. His or her mind makes the way the art is seen.

* 2: Do you think that would be desirable?
I feel that is the real problem here: if you show nude minors, it HAVE to be non-sexual. But you never can control the way the visitors to you site do see the art: artful or sexual. So you have to be extra careful, esspecially when you say '(Possibly even showing genitalia while still being non-sexual.)'
Bart

*1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual? Yes it can. It depends on the viewing-point involved. You can use the human body almost the same way you would use e.g. a building. It all depends on the composition of the art-piece.
*2: Do you think that would be desirable? Yes.
best regards
Jan

Dear Eolake,
On 04 Feb 1999 you wrote:

*1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual? My first thought was 'quite a dificult question' but after thinking a while I can very easily think of non-sexual nude photos, e.g. if I was a lover of small tits, I could enjoy a beautiful image of a beautiful woman or girl with big tits without being sexually aroused in any way (very simple example). That's why I would have to answer 'no' or 'not in general' to this question, because there ARE lovers of big tits who would reagrd such an image as sexual (I hope you get my point).

*2: Do you think that would be desirable? If I come across a nude image that is beautiful but non-sexual to me, I enjoy it.
Helmut
PS: Ask these questions to women, there might be some interesting answers....

Since humankind is in fact sexual, with or without clothes on it would be hard to make a non-sexual nude, however defining sexual in a different since would make it possible. Art, guess that would be in the eye of the beholder, whether it be a picture or painting it the actual depiction that would determine if its sexual or not. Sexual definition is extremely hard to define, if a picture arouses or not, just because a picture is pleasant to look at doesn't make it sexual, if it arouses then it becomes sexual I would think. There's much debate on what porn is and especially child porn, as soon as it is a picture of someone under a certain age it is deemed child porn, and here in the states in certain states that is, even a picture of a baby on a bear skin rug is considered child porn even though a real sick person would get aroused over something like that. If a person looks at a picture for the beauty of the human body that is art to that person, not porn not really sexual in nature, however and again I have to get this point across humankind is and always will be sexual. We were put here whether through evolution or God to procreate not just to live and die or the sexual urges would not be there at all, and through natural selection mankind tends to look for the best suited partner to procreate with, and yes youth plays a big part in that selection. And there's the mental part (anything under 18 is virgin yeah right) still it has a impact on what arouses man) guess I am getting off subject here, kinda let my mind look into all aspects of your question, so I guess the final answer would be no and yes you can in a way make a non-sexual nude but then you can't due to the very makeup of mankind.
Sincerely,
Rusty

Hi Eolake,
In response to your email:
Ever since I discovered my love of the female form, I have pondered the same question.
I think if one is heterosexual, then it is impossible to look at female nude art and not feel
a sexual desire to some degree.
I have never seen a photo/painting of a woman ( that I consider to be attractive),
that did not stir some kind of sexual emotion. I guess it is the degree to which
one reacts that is the difference.
I find these days I can actually look at what I love, and just enjoy the experience of viewing
something so beautiful as a female body.
My answer is no, I don't think it can be non-sexual, and no I don't think it is desirable.
Regards,
Peter

I think what you do with your web site is very nice work, there is nothing sexual about it!! I am a art major in college and I have got nothing but inspiration from your work. Your work has enspired me to try to find some models to pose for my photographs. I have been somewhat unsucessful so far but I have not given up trying. Hang in there, it is something people don't usually undferstand, that is what seperates what you do from porn. That is what the differance between art and porn. Take it easy and keep up the great work. Sincerly, Noel

A nude if done correctly can very easily be classified as non-sexual

to whom it may concern,
the first question that you posed was, " do you think that nude art can be made nonsexual?" i feel that as long as the act of sex is omitted from a picture it is not sexual. i love the human body. the human body is the most beautiful thing on this planet. to address any nude art as porn or to consider it sexual is not only ignorant, but rude. the next question that you posed was, "do you think that would be desirable?" the answer to that is yes. the mere thought that anyone would think that nude art is not desirable simply because it isn't sexual doesn't comprehend the meaning of the art. sincerely, zuma

well the answer is yes and no. Art good bad or indifferent is the interpretation of those that view it. A person has lots of baggage cluttering their head when they look at a nude. Some are positively shocked at seeing a rose tipped nipple, while others want more. From my personal point of view, all nudes are artistic, fat ones old ones skinny etc cause I draw em all the time at my art class. So my baggage is I love all kinds of nudes, from the erotic to the chaste to the downright pornographic. Its like saying is chilli hot , or is that lemon sour its just a question of taste. And taste varies with age, gender, and cultural background regards Rhonda

Hi Eolake,
Yes, this is a good subject! And in my opinion this debate will always go on....
The problem is that many, many people mistake nudity with sexuality and erotica. No matter how hard I try to deal in an open and natural manner with the nudity which is involved with my sculptures, I keep encountering people who give me that sarcastic smile which tells a tale on them.... not on me....
And people who do their utmost to look the other away... Can you believe it?
Whether nudity is sexual or not, depends solely on the viewer and not on the artwork! It's the perception of the viewer! One hundred years ago, viewing an female ankle, had a very high sexual charge.... You and I know it's different today! Fortunately!
OK, my own opinion! That's what counts!
What do you mean with sexual? Erotic? If so....: Yes, nude art and nudity in general can be non sexual. Sometimes, though beautiful, even anti sexual! ;-)
In general nudity does not necessarily imply sexuality. Even when genitalia are involved.
Is it desirable? Cannot give a straight answer to this one. It depends on the mood of the artist, the model and the circumstances. What is the goal of the artwork?
Bye,
Fred

Hi,
I certainly consider that it is possible and desirable to have non-sexual nude art. The representation of the human body in a way which makes us appreciate the rarity of true beauty, which hints at the gentleness and eggshell fragility of beautiful young girls - is a very powerful image. Speaking personally, I do not find such images sexual in nature - I prefer the word "sensual", which according to my dictionary is "gratification of the senses, or indulgence of appetite".
Art designed to be sexually stimulating I find too immediate and real and crude. I find that I need the subtlety of the fairytale image to consider something beautiful. The less said, the more imagined.

Hi Eolake,
1. Yes, for example Lucien Freud's paintings and David Hamilton's photographs.
2. Yes, it has its place.
The goal of traditional nudism is to promote nudity without sexuality, so the idea is not new.
God bless you,
Richard

1. Possible, but tough, quite tough indeed. 2. No, why leave the natural spicy off the delicacy?

EO:
Any nudist knows that the answer to (1) is "yes," else one would walk around the resort all day sporting a massive erection. I think it's called "sensory overload." As for (2), I don't think so.
-lt

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 founder@domai.com wrote:
* 1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
no. sexuality is too much a part of the human form. and *anything* can be sexualized. even things that are normally non-sexual in nature (ie. fetishization). even if you do come up with an image that is non-sexual by your definition, others may find it mildly erotic or even obscene. it is far too subjective a quality.

* 2: Do you think that would be desirable?
i think it would be impossible.
hardrock
-I will honor and express all facets of my being; regardless of state and local laws.

On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 05:08:21 -0000, founder@domai.com wrote:
Some say it is impossible to make and to view art involving
* the nude without there being something sexual about it.
* 1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
YES. Art which does not show genitalia can be erotic and sexual and the opposite is certainly true.

* 2: Do you think that would be desirable? YES. The opportunity to see more beauty would be welcome. There is an ample supply of the alternative already.
I wish you every success with your quest.
Regards Dave

Hello,
Yes it is possible to make nude-art non-sexual look at the pictures on the domai site
Keep the site this way, and we are on the good way !

Eolake -
I'm a 31 y/o old man. I call mysaelf an old man since the ventricles in my brain have been expanded/enlarged (due to damage sustained in a car accident) to those of a 6 5 year old. (or at least so says my psychologist upon inspecting my MRI) So that's where I consider myself an "old man." The "dirty" is just nature. (;
A non-sexual nude?
1) Sure - they do it elsewhere in the world all the time. 2) It would be desirable as long as she didn't look like a Monica Lewinsky - skanky ho. (call Stephen King for that horror)
Regards,
Kevin

I would vote, "yes", on both questions. There is a great deal of art involving nudes which is non sexual, especially in photography. But, I do think that some people will always equate nudity with sex, regardless of the intent of the artist.
don

This is a very interesting subject I've thought through in making my pic collection.
The answer cannot be a simple one.
Nude art that does not in some way suggest the sexual vitality in the original or in the creator (artisit/photographer) or touch a sexual chord in the viewer is hopelessly fucked up. And we have enough of that in all cultures. Puritanical Christian, Moslem and Jewish culture is what most strongly comes to mind. Other (Eastern and primtive) cultures have been better able to keep sexual vitality in art and in everyday life, not shuffling it off to the porn arcade as we do. I've looked at your sample pics and seen enough of your stuff on forums to know (or think I know) your viewpoint. It pains me to see a nude with a face, tits or a muff that is not in some way sexually inviting. Japanese girl/porn art is the best. They have a real appreciation of what they're looking at and why.
Keep up the good (bad?) work. Try not to crop out the muffs. Hair is good. Forget the shaves--I can't remember if you do that--but it's the worst. Try panty strips.
Best wishes,
Martin

subject: NON-SEXUAL NUDITY
Dear Eolake,
I wonder how a reasonable person can go before he leaves the Human Race. The whole idea of the truly beautiful nude is to titillate the beholder into thoughts of procreation. And why not? On the other hand, I have travelled to many Nudist rendezvous and it has been the rare female which would entice me with her 'innocent body' into thoughts of sex with her.
I love the enticing images in DOMAI, and the World would be a poorer place without the thought of having sex with one of the models. I am not ashamed of my attitude and my wife also enjoys them. Forget the non-sex! Bury it! Totally undesirable!
Regards, Mike

yes to both questions, statutes for example, but no to purposes trying to void a nude of sexuality

i think you are doing a wonderful; job
answers to questions is yes to both keep up the daily page it is great and always beautiful

I have, over the years, viewed many nudes. Several were so sloppy they removed any feelings sexual that may have been there. I still enjoy seeing the nude as art. The creator, in his wisdom, has made it possible to look upon the nude not only in awe, but in a way that creates a desire. This desire is not the same in all eyes. For which I thank him. PLEASE, continue.
Fred

What about all of the nude art we have in this world? Just because someone is nude, doesn't make it sexual. GO FOR IT!

Hi Eolake,
Not an easy question. I have been to nude beaches and found them to be non-sexual so it is
possible to have nudity without ot being sexual. But the idea of viewing nudity as opposed to
being in the nudity may make non-sexuality a very difficult thing to achieve.
As to whether it would be desirable or not almost confuses me too much to answer. Isn't desirable
in and of itself a term of sexuality?
Joel

Dilemna: How to create non-sexual nude art?
You will see from the following argument that the only way to achieve your ambition - to create non-sexual nude art - is by breaking your "dirty old man" association!!! A catrastrophic conclusion I grant, but this is how the twisted logic goes:
Your problem can be expressed clearly as follows: is a sexual organ portrayed in art transformed beyond its functionality? i.e. does the art form exist in itself or can it only be defined in sexual terms?
Do you concede that pure art cannot be defined by words and that it exists beyond the imprisioning limits of subjective description? If so, then you must concede that sex and art can be both mutually inclusive and exclusive.
In other words, art encompasses all possibilities including the non-sexual nude. But your problem is you cannot imagine what the non-sexual nude is. (Of course, by defining it as "non-sexual" you are already defining it in sexual terms, which can't help matters.)
Since the perception of what is and is not art is fundamentally subjective, it is possible to create art involving nude humanity, even displaying genitalia, that is not sexual, provided it is perceived as such.
So it depends on subjective perception. Your problem is that you are dogged with the thought that any portrayal of the human nude figure, especially if it includes the genitalia in whatever context or form, will be viewed as interpreting an element of sexuality. However, this is an association in your mind as the viewer since the interpretation of the art is always in the mind, not in the piece of art itself.
So - in conclusion - the crux of the issue: if you are a "dirty old man" you will find it more difficult to break the association between portrayal of the sexual organ and the thought of sexuality - a link created in the mind of the viewer - not in the art form itself.
The only solution is to break the "dirty old man" association in the mind! Only then will you see the art in its purest form, undefined by any other set of terms or associations.
Of course, as T S Eliot wrote in his poem "The Hollowmen":
Between the Idea
And the reality
Falls the shadow.
And T S Eliot is, afterall, an anagram of toilets. This is the way the worlds ends, my friend, not with a bang but a...
Julius Mad Dog Englishman

1) yes -- it;s done all the time.
2) absolutley not!!! Keep doing what you are doing.

a non sexual nude. sorry anythime i see a nude person is sexual to me.

Hmm... I have a kind of skewed opinion about this, so my answer is both yes AND no.
1. Can nude art be non-sexual? In my opinion, the society we have grown up in has done whatever it can to make nudity a moral no-no, despite the fact that (Yes this phrase is getting old), underneath our clothes, we're ALL nude, and (Yes, THIS one is old, too), we're all BORN naked. Yes, it is very hard to avoid making nudity sexual in nature, but only because society trains our minds into thinking of it this way.
2. Would what, exactly, be desirable? If ALL nudity was less thought of as a sexual thing, we would very likely find a deeper understanding of other people, looking for beauty that is more than skin deep. If SOME nude art was non-sexual? It depends if the art does what it is supposed to: either create an image of beauty, or to make us think differently.
Sorry if my answers seem a little TOO philisophical... but I'm a philisophical kida' guy...

*1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
Yes. I find classical art non-sexual. Say Michaelangelo's Sisteen Chapel, etc.

*2: Do you think that would be desirable?
Sure. Art is art and has value as such.

No way, no how. Can't do it. Virtualy everthing has a sexual edge to it. We are very sexual creatures (men that is, not my ex.). We cannot even look at a clothed woman without thinking about sex.

about non-sexual nudes...
naturists are non-sexual nudes....
I happen to like nude women, regardless
and I like women who
like sex

I think it's in the viewer's perspective. Some people see sex in many things. I've seen people sit through a porn movie and never display emotion and I've seen people get aroused over fully clothed people. It's in each persons perspective and attitude.
Jeff

*
* 1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual? Simply yes, by defenition. A picture is only made sexual by inference of it being so, i.e. containing a sexual act . Nudity does not make anything sexual. A suckling baby on TV is taken to be OK as it is natural & not a sexual thing. Childbirth is OK for TV. These both contain nudity & is accepted with showing of genetalia.
* 2: Do you think that would be desirable? Don't you thing the bc seies you post onto your site answers this question?

Being a graphic artist with a decent background in the historical art of several cultures, I believe I am qualified to speak on the matter in question, and my answer is very simple: it depends.
By this, I mean that the entire nature of eroticism (or "what makes something sexual") is basically determined by the culture or sub-culture in which the material is viewed. In feudal japan, for instance, hentai and other erotic art forms were socially acceptable and readily available to the public but, in the westernization that followed WWII, such materials were deemed obscene according to the more "modern" laws the new govt. enacted. The curious thing is that, unlike many western nations that had to wrestle with christian-based moralities concerning what was and wasn't obscene, the Japanese simply outlawed all depictions (photo or hand-drawn) of the male and female genitals---breasts, nipples, butts and even the anus are legal to show (and even appear regularly on late-night tv), but all photos, videos and art displaying genitals must be censored, including their own historical pieces! The same country that produced a huge, beautiful (and oftentimes strange) body of art cannot now view that very same art! A similar case is the thousands of erotic sculptures that adorn many of the ancient temples of India, while the effects of the Mughal emperors in the 16th cent ad produced a pervasive puritanism that lasts to this day.
So how can you produce "non-sexual" nudes? In a nudist colony, it is considered gauche to show sexual arousal---in that sub-culture, nudity is divested of its eroticism. But, in the larger world, most people see sexuality where ever they see nudity. The only way, as I see it, to produce non-sexual nudes is to make sure that only people who are capable of viewing nudity without perceiving it erotically are allowed to see the work. Anything else is open to interpretation and, brother, we know how the masses interpret!
Thanks for reading
Reuter

First of all, your subjective bias is stated when you say: "I wish to test how rare this viewpoint is."
Honestly I don't think that viewpoint is all that rare...Unfortunately I think most people view nude art as sexual (at least in the United States). I think this is true because of our purtanical upbringing...it's ashame because the human form is so beautiful and can be viewed non-sexually, but for a majority there are too many taboos to overcome...
I love your site and newsletter...Keep up the good work...
Mike

I think folks need to remember how we came into this world and view the human body as a beautiful entity into itself.
Nude art is non-sexual in nature if tastefully done. You prove it with your web site. I prefer pictures that are black and white. It reduces the tendency for folks to see it as just another dirty picture.
If you look at the fashion magazines it looks like the they are selling the model not the clothes.
Regards,

Subject: Is a potato sexy?
Eolake:
Sex is in the eye of the beholder--I have a true experience to share on this theme. Being a photographer practically all my life (I started when I was 11), I have developed an eye for interesting aspects of the ordinary around us. One day, while peeling potatoes, I notice that the potato I was about to peel was two semi-spheres, with a crevice in the middle between the spheres. I grabbed my camera, quickly set up some paper, i.e., shelf-paper "seamless," and photographed the potato using side light to emphasize the curves of the interesting shape. I used a very sharp macro lens, a small aperture to preserve the detail throughout, and a tripod.
Some time later, I developed this film and was so pleased with my interesting shot of the potato that I mounted it and displayed it on my wall. I swear that
several men have thought that it was really sexy, and one for sure got arouse viewing that photograph!
So I don't claim to be able to make a non-sexy nude to everyone. But fortunately, few people got erections looking at this potato picture! For those, I can and do produce neutral nudes. My back studies are particularly so; reviews and collectors have commented that (my work) helps them see bodies anew, as they can extricate themselves form the sexual baggage they fell they have...
Jor
When I find it this photo in my piles of pictures, I will scan it and send you a copy. In the meanwhile, look at my site and see the many nudes which t sexy (unless you fall into the category of seeing backsides and buttocks on some potatoes)

Nude art can be non-sexual, and it is very desirable.

yes by all means nude art is in essence non-sexual. other wise it could and should not be considered art; for then it would mearly be porn. u have exhibited some very nice forms of this art in the past; which i have commented on. particularly u'r b/w's. and yes i have found them desirable; in a admiring artful way. simmerly to a Rubin's or a van Gough

Yes I do believe as you do. I do find that type of pic very desireable. Tom

Hi
I do not see how you can make nude art non sexual. Sex is sex and showing it creates the emotion. I cannot see how you can separate it unless you are trying to justify a particular viewpoint.
Just my thoughts
Bill

1. Well, I for one think the human body is the ultimate artistic creation. Why? Because God made it so. Anyone who has read the Bible, can tell you that when God first created Adam and Eve, they had no clothes on. Why? There was nothing to be ashamed of. It wasn't until after they sinned did they feel "naked" and ashamed of themselves, thus making the first clothes out of the leaves of plants. It also says that everything God created was good, and that God thought it was good also. So, He created the human body, and what could be more offensive to an artist than to hide their "artwork", their masterpiece? Based on this, I make my opinion known that nude art, showing any and all of the body, including the genital area, can be view in a non-sexual way. Too many people simply aren't capable of seeing a nude body, man or woman, without associating it with something sexual...this would include your die-hard Christians, claiming that public nudity is a sin, even though God himself created man and woman and instilled in them a sense of it being natural to be nude. It was part of their being until sin came into the picture. Of course my comments here are, in the least, controversial, but I think many people think as I do. There are "naturist" or "nudist" camps everywhere, and I think this signifies a new appreciation of the human body. There are many websites and resources online to validate my point.
2. Yes, it is desirable. However, the posing of the nude model needs to be precise to not show signs of a sexual pose. I.E., if there is a female, laying on her back with her legs open, to me that is non-sexual. However, is this same female were in the same pose, but using her fingers to spread apart her "lips", to me that is move of a sexual pose. Almost like an invitation to perform some kind of action. This is where the difference between porn and art comes into play I believe. If the pose is such that would make you want to perform and action, then maybe it isn't necessarily art, but porn instead. Now, if the image makes you sit there and think "Wow, this is really nice," or "She is really beautiful", then to me that would construe art. Again, the difference lies in the reaction of the viewer, and some people are naturally more inclined to see any nudity as "a piece of ass", while others like myself see a nude body as something "to behold".
This is probably way more than you wanted to know, but I couldn't think of any other way to explain my opinions on this. I hope there are a lot more people out there who think like this. The human body is truly amazing...
Please feel free to use these comments as you see fit, and I am always open to a good debate myself ;)
Keep up the good work and the great art!
Dave

I truly believe that nudity does not automatically represent sex. As a nudist, the viewing of a naked body does not stimulate me sexually. I am appreciative of the human form, both young and old, male & female. I am around the nude body all of the time, and I believe that the two concepts
are not directly related. I am also a fine artist working in mainly pencil
and charcoal. I have had the pleasure of drawing the nude body on several
occasions, even in college. When I am drawing a nude figure, I am not seeing
the "body" as much as I am seeing light, shadows, texture and contrast. Non-sexual nude art is created all of the time. The fact that some people
find ANY nude form sexual, is a testament to their lifestyle and lack of an
open mind. I hope this helps.
David

The human form has been the object of art since cave painting...were not the hunters depicted as in their natural state while on the hunt? Classical Greek
sculpture in western tradition and the nude oriental statues and bas reliefs in the eastern clelbrated the human form as natural and idealic.
It seems to me that there may have been critics then of these forms, but the old axiom is true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder...or more to the point, some folks see what they want to see and sometimes it's an image that stimulates them (a banana, a cucumber, a cored pineapple). To each his/her own.
Thanks for asking.
________________

*
* 1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
Why do you explore this question.? Is sexuality and eroticsm an affront to political correctness? Does eroticism debase what you have done because you have "stooped" to appealing to the "purient" interests? If you think it is good art and you are happy and by a miracle you can also make $$ at it, why do you care about this question?
*
* 2: Do you think that would be desirable?
See my respone to #1. My advice:
Quit wasting your time and do what makes you happy and don't worry about the idiots who aren't happy when you are happy

Thankfully no to both!!!
Have a great day!!

1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
No, I don't. I think there's some kind of biological response to nudity in general. The response can be 'trained' but that has nothing to do with the art.
2: Do you think that would be desirable?
No again, part of the beauty of nude art is the 'strange' way in which we respond to nudity. Without the sexual interpretation a nude body is still very beautifull, but without it you might as well start showing male nudes.
Jan

Absolutly, in time it might be, do u have any samples

I would think that the sexuality of the art would be in the eye of the beholder. We often hear about a sexy car, golf club, computer etc...
I recall seeing many sculptures from ancient times that I was fascinated in for non-sexual reasons (even the 'naked' ones).
All in all I would think that non-sexual art is possible. Many of the pictures I have seen on your sight amaze me for the sheer beauty of the subject. Not the sexuality, not for some reason generated by 'the little head' but rather that the subject, the medium and the quality of the art combine to make something greater than the sum of the parts.
Unfortunately, in this overly puritanical world we live in, I think you would have a difficult time gaining approval for such a subject, but if it's of any consequence, I'd be interested.

Nude art is sexual or non-sexual as it is perceived by the viewer. One person's art is another person's porn.
I'm not interested in looking at non-sexual art. Whatever that is.

1. Maybe, it depends in the woman that is in front on you. 2. As i mentioned before it depends, cause if you are seeing a pussy of an old lady or a fat one I think it will not be desirable.
But knowing your taste, the nude art with those ladies is going to be sexual and desirable anyway!!!
Regards
Manuel

Hey!
*1: Do you think nude art can be made non- ?
I sincerely believe that you can make art that you intend to be no- . Whether the viewer sees it as non- is purely his or her own interpretation. IMHO, I think there is probably always something sexual about it..We are creatures and I don't think that can be separated. But there is a BIG difference between viewing nude art and appreciating the human form and viewing which is purely by nature.
*2: Do you think that would be desirable?
Of course it is desirable. If we cannot make and view nude art to appreciate beauty, form, light, shadow, texture, etc. Rather than having a carnal reaction to the sight of genitalia, are we any better than the animals?
K

Nudity is not in and of itself sexual. It is a biological fact that there are two sexes, male and female, all adults and most children know the difference. Genitalia is part, a small part, but not all, of that difference. Which seems to be a fact that most feminists and moralists have, as yet, to come to grips with.
Therefore, the viewing of genitalia should not be viewed as anything other than the physical manifestation of the difference between male and female. Our culture has embued the physical differences as immoral or unclean which is a shame. Many cultures considered more unsophisticated than ours have lasted for thousands of years without hiding the physical differences between men and women with clothing. Clothing is nothing more than a protection from, among other things, the elements. No amount of hiding the human body, or its' genitalia, from view will increase the morals of society. That is a lost cause created by the immorality of those to whom, for whatever reason, we hold in esteem, particularly the hollywood element.
When these people live together without marriage, have children by numerous mates and hold homosexuallity up as not only an alternate life style, but a desirous life style which must be given all the rights and privileges of committed married men and women, then the viewing of genitalia becomes most insignificant as a moral issue.

to question one:
I certainly think nude-art can be made without sexual intent and nudes can be viewed without producing sexual response. We can test this idea by offering nude images of the morbidly obese, or perhaps even ones of amputees. These are extreme examples, but you will find that most people would find these images completely non-sexual. However, you will also find those who do find this sexual and who are aroused by them. Take also nude images of men intent to appeal to the gay community, these will not be taken as sexual - and perhaps called perversion - by straight society. In addition, gays might not have a sexual response to images that are intended to arouse other men. So, all this boils down to one thing: the beholder. Those who insist that all nude images must in some way, either overtly or subvertly, sexual are really only saying that they cannot distinguish the difference themselves. I am certainly capable of it, though it is true that I am more often aroused by nude images than not. But that's me, not you! Ask any psycologist or sociologist, and they will tell you the same thing.
to question two:
I think it is desirable to have nude art that is non-sexual. It allows people to express and enjoy the human body/form at a different level. However, it is not undesirable to have more images that are sexual - because isn't that the natural state of reproduction? In the animal world, many animals choose mates by their visual appeal, mostly in birds. It would seem a rather good thing for people to be aroused by a nude image - it's kind of a compliment. For the sake of arguement, you can throw out pphiles and people of that nature, because they are acting under basic-insincts that have in some way been tampered with and abused.
Anthony

Eloake,
Yes I do believe it can be Katarina Witt in Playboy of all places I didn't think was sexual at all, just beautiful. More desirable kind of an apples oranges issue to me. Sometimes I look at women in a sexual way and sometimes you just want to admire them for their outstanding beauty. Your daily images lately have been fantastic.
Jason

Well Eolake, An interesting set of questions, so here's my opinion
1: Do you think nude art can be non-sexual, Certainly the art itself can be, the cherubs in much art are nude and show genitalia and are not meant to be sexually stimulating, also such sculptures as the Venus de Milo and Rodin's The Thinker would fall into this category I believe, the problem is the perspective such things are viewed from, I remember as an youngster the titillation such art brought about because they were showing their 'bits' so to speak. So without changing the world's perception of the human body and the taboo's which so limit society in it's ability to separate sex, sexuality and beauty from each other,
I must conclude that sadly nude art for the majority of people will always be sexual in nature, whether it arouses or offends. A very lamentable state of affairs which will continue until the human race evolves beyond it's current philosophy that nudity and sex are one in the same thing.
2: Do you think that would be desirable? YES! Any shift in philosophy which can sever the link between sex and nudity would be desirable. I think that then perhaps much of the less savoury aspects of sex in our society would no longer be present. Just the freedom to be able to express to a woman walking down the street that you think she is beautiful, without all the perceived sexual connotations and agenda's would be a huge step forward for us as a race.
Pretty heavy stuff I know and unfortunately unlikely to happen in my lifetime, mostly because 'sex sells' and business' not government's or even the people are now those who most affect public opinion, in order to turn a profit, still we live in hope.
I hope this helps you in your survey and I'll look forward to reading you results.
Cheers Mark

Eolake,
I have wondered about that same issue. I do not know the answer. I believe that a work of art brings out our feeling and tells something about us. If we change the word sexual to sensual I think we get closer to what we really feel. I do not necessarily want to make love to every beautiful body I see but I do appreciate the art form and see the sensuality that is naturally persent.
In answer to your second question; Yes, I think that would be a good thing for us all.
Thanks...John

Hi Back:
Some say it is impossible to make and to view art involving the nude without there being something sexual about it. Wrong.
*
*I wish to test how rare this viewpoint is. So drop me a
*line:
*
*1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual? Yes I do
*2: Do you think that would be desirable? Sure, most of the females on your web page are Nude and posed but in non-sexual ways.
Keep up the great work and daily pictures.... Sammie

Dear Eolake:I guess everything in this life is possible.Even more,you can make nude art non-sexual.The thing is that the people who think it can't be possible is because every time they see a girl or better,a naked girl,they immediately think about sex.And of course it would be desirable for all those who consider art as the beauty,no matter what it is about.
* Sincerly
* Eduardo

My question is why would you want to make non sexual nude art to begin with, and who cares what the other people with a negative attitude have to say, Thanks CHRIS

?1. NoÊÊ ?2. No

1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual? Yes, I think it can be made non-sexual.
2: Do you think that would be desirable?
Maybe for some people, I don't think I would appreciate it much more than a good landscape or any other kind of art.
Thanks for asking for my opinion.
Carl Hennig

Yes I do ,

*2: Do you think that would be desirable?
Yes sometimes I get tired of Sexual porn and just like to admire the tastefullness of the nude body.

*Yours, Ishia

As for #1:
It depends. Much is said in a look. If a model is or is not clothed the eye contact alone can make a strong sexual statement. How the body is presented can also make a sexual statement.
As for #2:
Of course that does not make the image pornographic. Humans are sexual animals and measure of beauty is impart a measure sexuality.
I for one see no problem if the genitalia is visible as long as it is not done to shock. I have seen images where intercourse, oral sex, and/or masturbation was handled in such a way it was not offensive and down right beautiful.

To me this is a silly question. As I see it, on one end of the spectrum is pornography, which is obviously sexual in nature. On the other end of the spectrum is pure art, which is not sexual in nature. I'm not trying to suggest that one is better or worse than the other. I happen to enjoy both very much. I'm just using this to set up my reference so you will understand what I mean.
Now, when a person creates any sort of image that involves a nude or even partially nude (or even fully clothed subjects in some cases!), that person, wheither you describe him/her as an artist, photographer or even pornographer, will create an image that will be somewhere on that scale between pure are and pure pornography. In the majority of the images, there will be elements of both. The problem is that this scale is subjective. It depends alot on who is looking at the image and how the image makes them feel. To you, a photographer who delights in the female form, the photo of a young girl in the nude may be approaching pure art and be non-sexual. Unfortunately a pphile might view that same photo in a different way and to that person, the photo might indeed be sexual.
So much depends on the ideas and attitudes of the observer effect how a picture is interpreted that it makes it difficult to define what is art and what is pornography. Some will say that anything deplicting a sexual act is by its nature pornography, but I will disagree. I can think of dozens of examples of paintings, sculptures and even photographs of couples making love that I would classify as art rather than pornography.
One of the reasons that I was happy to stumble onto DOMAI on the internet is that I truely enjoyed the attitude and goal of the group. I wish more people could be comfortable enjoying the beauty of a pretty young girl and appreciate that beauty in a positive way without it being sexual.
It is unfortunate that so much of our society associates nudity with sexuality. It is unfortunate that so many have been brainwashed by society that they would feel guilt because they enjoyed the beauty of a pretty young girl and fail to understand that it is only natural that they would feel that way. It is unfortunate that so many confuse this enjoyment with sexual arousal.
Keep up the good work. Those of us who truely appreciate the beauty of all women, including young girls, appreciate your efforts.
Guy

Hello E

*
*1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
Yes non-sexual...but SenSual

*2: Do you think that would be desirable?
Yes verry much so I think that people are tired of seeing spread leg shots..they get old quickly
hsm

Hi
I, like you, believe in the absolute beauty of the Human Form. I believe one can look at a nude without sexual arousal. But then that could be because I have reached the age of 56 and have learnt to look at life from a different viewpoint. That is not to say that one can't take the same nude model and photograph he so that you do get a sexual perhaps it's the body language, the expression in the eyes. But then who does the term sexual actually mean. It always seems to represent something that one has to be ashamed of. In fact having been brought up in a Calvinistic South Africa, which I am happy to say has now become the new South Africa where nudity is no longer legislated against, it was drummed into you that to see a female breast was taboo, that is unless it was black!!!. A strange world we live in. The result of all this is a wife who is disgusted by the nudes that I find on the internet.
This gets me to my favourite discussion regarding nudity in the arts. It seems to be OK to have blood and guts all over the place, especially the most recent films. The age restrictions placed on these films are mild in comparison the restrictions placed on nudity. Perhaps the back-lash comes from those who are unfortunate enough not to have the beautiful figures seen in young girls. I'm sorry to have got off the subject. Perhaps we will have to come up with a new phrase that describes our reaction to the beauty of the nude.
Herman
Durban South Africa

I believe in a non-sexual nude site, BUT you have to accept that young men will look at all nudity as sexual. It takes years and a lot of living to come to the place where a man can look at a nude female and see her as art and not as a sexual object.
I also think it may come in a man's life when he realizes his youth has passed and the days when women beautiful young women persued him are past, and to look upon the fresh beautiful bodies of younger women is a celebration and reliving momentarily of his own youth, a day and time that will never return.
Old soldiers re-tell and re-live their battles, old atheletes re-live and re-tell their victories, and old lovers remember the days of wine and roses.
So, yes we can enjoy nudity as art, but it takes a lot of living to get to that place.
Maybe I envy the young man that doesn't know what the hell we are talking about.
Thats why I got back into glamour photography after being out of it nearly 20 years. A lot of beautiful girls thank me for taking time to capture their beauty on film. A lot of mothers say here is my beautiful daughter, capture her body on film, a lot of young husbands say My wife is beautiful, capture her on film.
So I get to make everyone happpy and be around beautiful women who wouldn't give me the time of day otherwise.
I have just been doing this for 13 months, but already I have more interested than I can fulfill. The attitude of the public about nudity etc has changed tremendously in the past 20 years for sure.
I have a lot of pictures that need to be added to my site and its far from finished. When you are bored drop in. There is no frontal nudity there. I will be building a different site for that when this one is finished.

Dear Eolake:
I think that it is possible to make and take photographs of female nudes that do not have sexual arousal as an end goal. Pornography has the goal of providing sexual arousal as a primary and not a secondary goal. The first is Art. The second is Pornography.
The display of genitalia in a photograph is not necessarily sexually arousing any more than you would find Botticelli's painting of Venus (Emerging From the Sea) or Michaelangelo's statue of David to be arousing.
Whether it is desirable or not depends on what your personal preferences are.
Good luck with your survey.
Thanks.
Will

Eolake;
Having just read / viewed two works by Jock Sturges and being a photographer myself; I believe that a non sexual nude is not possible or desirable.
Let me explain.
I know it is difficult to deal with the sexuality of young people but, alas, they are sexual beings too. The "non sexual" or antiseptic nude picture you are trying to produce or find is not possible for the following reason.
The feelings generated by images are purely subjective. The viewer brings all their own experiences, lives, and feelings to the point of the viewing. How each viewer perceives each picture is a random and uncontrollable variation.
What I may see as art, someone like Randle Terry may see as pornography, (Randle Terry is currently on a rampage against other artists as well as Sturges). Where he may see child pornography, I see art in Sturges' photographs. I feel confident, that Sturges' collaborations are produced on a higher plane than simply sexual gratification of the photographer or sexual gratification of the viewer. The subject's sexuality is there in the photographs, and it is treated with respect and honor.
I feel that the denial of the "sexuality of young people" is most probably just another form of child abuse. How that sexuality is dealt with is the real issue and should be the concern of everyone that cares and loves for their fellow human being.
Everyone grows up. Everyone has a body. Understanding and dealing with the "person" inside the body tends to "de-objectify" the body.
Imagine if you would the following.
Pictures of body parts.
Pictures of people.
Pictures of people with their body part exposed.
Pictures of people purposely showing their body parts.
Pictures of people defiantly showing themselves and saying, "deal with me as a whole person."
Now, decide where the line should be drawn; With an arbitrary age;
With a specific gender;
or not showing a. genitalia
b. feet
c. legs
e. arms
f. lips
g. eyes
h. breasts
i. buttocks
j. hands
k. smiles
The whole issue is purely subjective. Dealing with sexuality of anyone by denying that it even exists unless it is in a private, holy union, for procreation only, is absurd.
Sexuality will only "go away" when we as a species goes away. When beauty dies, so will the human spirit and it's body.
Photos that celebrate beauty, youth, age, places, things, feelings, ideas, life, and love can never be pornography. Photos that celebrate man's in-humanity to "life" are probably pornographic, but are commonly called "News" today.
Now the fact that there are certain laws that cover these matters is also a matter that must be dealt with. It is a person's responsibility to obey the law or suffer the consequences. The question of "right or wrong" is not always congruent with the "law." One jury's "Art" may be another person's pornography. Who is to know?
My real answer is that a non sexual nude may still be pornographic. It is purely subjective. If the "King" decides it is pornographic, then it is so. But I live in the USA, so maybe it is not so here. Why waste your time. Simply display "beauty" where you find it. If that gets you into trouble, rest assured that somewhere else, you would probably go free, or get shot. Life is risky.
HRDG

Hi!
Nice site, keep up the good work,
1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual? 2: Do you think that would be desirable?
Yes, definitly. Consider for example the painting Flaming June by Lord Frederic Leighton. Yes, actually she is drapped in fabric, but she is still rather nude, and the work is completely non-sexual, and unquestionalby desirable.

Hello. With reply to your question on nudity, I think if it were done correctly then there is not a problem with showing genitalia whilst still being classed as non-sexual. Most porn can be non-sexual if you don't want it to be. It is how you interpret it and what exactly you are after. Are pictures of a women giving birth pornographic? No, unless you want them to be. Basically.............show us some pics!!!!!!!! Well done anyway.

*1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual? Of course. I think there are two ways of looking at nude. Either you feel lust or you are astonished by the beauty.
*2: Do you think that would be desirable? As I mention above, it's a matter of the viewer, not of the publisher Yours,
bart

This is really a complicated question.
The reaction to art of any kind is extremely personal. Some art strikes a common chord in us and is viewed as pleasing by most. Nude art for some will always be tied to sex. For a very rare few (who may not exist), nude art will never be tied to sex. I think that most of us are more in a middle category. There will be nude art that evokes sexual feeling for some, but not others. Of course, the artist can attempt to influence such feeling. There is plenty of nude art that is intended to be very erotic. There are nudes that do not intend this.
I have viewed nudes that were very beautiful, but did not awaken any desire or sexual thought within me. I have seen others, intended to be more artistic and not erotic, that nevertheless 'really got me going'. I can't tell you why, just something about the girl in question.
I hope I have not rambled on in a confusing manner.
Frank

At 05:08 AM 02/04/1999 -0000, you wrote:
*Hiya!
*
*
*1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual? Absolutely. I have a few (d/l'd from your site!).
*2: Do you think that would be desirable? Yes, but not always. I can appreciate the form without being aroused; but, sometimes, I'd RATHER be aroused than interested.
*
*
Charles
Place your clothes and weapons where
you can find them in the dark.
--- Lazarus Long

As a true DOM in my own right, my mind just can't remove sexuality from female nudity. It just stays there. Won't go away. Maybe I would find a nude picture of a really ugly woman, in some totally disgusting setting, non-sexual. But I'm not even sure of that.
But I don't see why one would want to abstract sexuality from female nudity. To me, the sexiness is part of the beauty.

Interesting....
Primarily that you would be interested in this. In response to your query, I offer the following reply:
*1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
Sure... history notes many works of art, some even religious in the extreme, that primarily consists of nude figures in paintings and sculpture. The Vatican's collection of religious artifacts and art is one example of such "treasures". Michelangelo's David comes to mind...
Nude Art, tastefully done (without scenes of wine bottles and ears of corn being inserted in some poor unfortunate young ladies body) IS a non-sexual art form. Or, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I should note that "non-sexual" should be replaced with the identity of "not necessarily sexual" art. After all, many a time has a young man picked up a copy of the Sears catalogue for the singular purpose of checking out the "underwear" advertisements.

*2: Do you think that would be desirable?
Sure... why not? Different Strokes for Different Folks... right? Frankly, I personally find the female form to be incredible in design, shape, texture and function.
One can admire a new GM pickup truck (with lust in his heart) and not feel the need to attempt the act of procreation with it!
Hope that this has been of some assistance.
J.M.
Dayton

1. Ja, kunst der viser den n¿gne krop kan sagtens v&Mac178;re uden sexuelt indhold. Vi ser her helt bort fra decideret porno. Mange af de gamle mester malede kvinder hvor formen er rent &Mac178;stetisk, og mange af de asiatiske piger du selv har, har rent &Mac178;stetisk sk¿nhed. De er smukke, ogsŒ uden seksuelt indhold.
2. Ja og nej. Smukke mennesker kan beundres uden seksuelt attrŒ. Men de bliver smukkere nŒr vi beg&Mac178;rer dem. Har vi lyt til en pige, ser vi ikke hendes legemlige kavanker sŒ tydeligt.
mvh
Peter

Yes I think nude art can be non-sexual. That's why I don't mind the pictuers of young girls you post on the news group I'm in. Its also a pleasant reminder that our culture is maturing in the fact that nice pleasant pictures like that can be released with out any perv factor.
Regards
Jonathan

I believe it can be made non-sexual , but only with great difficulty . Part of the mystic of the beauty of the human form is its ability to arouse sexual desires . Part of the urge to propagate I suppose .
As a result , the work would have to be so blatantly non-sexual that I fear it would lose its beauty .
Milt

Off course NO and NO
What is important? it is the ART and not words linked to this art.
*From Pierre .....( french )

Hi
The nude can easily be non sexual, it depends on the context of the image.
The B&W photo on the 'free' page of the site is just such an example, it shows the pubic area, but is distinctly non sexual.
Perhaps the use of B&W helps this because it removes a reference for the viewer.
The colour photo of the long haired girl bent over and viwed from the side is also non sexual, although the sexual areas are not shown.
A sexual interpretation is in the eye of the beholder, when one see's beauty one need not see a sexual connotation, just an appreciation of that beauty.

Eolake,
To accomplish what you are suggesting you first have to independantly define A: nude art and B: sexual (or it's antithesis, non-sexual). Then you can explore whether something can be classed under both definitions.
By why bother? It seems that the only purpose for this would be to say to the so-called critics of nude art "Nyah, Nyah, see, I created nunde art that is non-sexual, so there!"
But that doesn't really advance the causes of DOMAI or nudists or artists or photographers or any other group which enjoys the nude form, because any definition would neccessarily be overly restrictive.
So, publish the results of your survey, because I for one am interested how others respond.
Eric

jo vist kan det lade sig g¿re , og Balitski, har d flotte n¿gen serier der ikke (for mig) er seksuelle. mvh
svend

Eolake;
You said...
"Funny you should use Sturges. I see him as proof of the exact opposite, his nudes are totally asexual. Anything sexual is decidedly put there by the viewer."
Well, so is the opinion that his nudes are asexual. Many of his collaborations are face-on (with camera to eye contact) representations of budding/changing/maturing sexuality. By his own admission during an interview, he has stated that his subjects see themselves as "art."
If by asexual, you mean that the photos are not erotic to you, well, that means that maybe you have a healthy attitude towards young people. You "can" see them and their bodies as art and beauty. I feel that in his photographs he is the capturing beauty, individuality, and innocence. I find that beautiful and have no desire to corrupt it, but to just admire it and be glad that their are people in this world like that.
As I traced the years in specific models, I am reminded of my own life, and that of my own children. We grow; we change; our bodies change; and we are still beautiful. Being 9-18 yrs old is only a stage in an ongoing work, ourselves. As I approach 48; I find the beauty in my peers even more poignant. As a young man, I would sometimes not see older people as sexual or beautiful. As I mature, I have come to admire the changes. Even sex and the sex act have become more personal and better as I have gotten older. I laugh every time I here the joke about sex and beauty being wasted on the young. If they only knew!
Later.
HRDG

1.Yes, nude can be made non sexual, but on my opinion this only happens in when women are involved in desperate situations, like Concentration Camps and tht sort of stuff. Or definitly, again on my opinion, when the nude involves ugly women.
2.No, I don't think that would be desirable. Every time I see a beatiful lady, even if she is dressed up, I think about sex, not to talk about it whe she is half nud or totally nude. And I like it, with all the respect I have for women.
JER.

I dont think you can make anything non-sexual no matter what is done or said somebody somewhere will find it sexual myself I no longer find any pictures sexual having been so over exposed to them now they are just pertty pictures of pertty girles

This is a difficult question, for everything to some degree has subliminal sexual properties, from animals in the wild, to even purely material things such as a car, or so advertisers believe. But if you mean, do all pictures of naked women or men invoke sexual desire, I would say absolutely not. My WebSite is based on the classical and ideal vision of the human body. In the Christian era, artist considered the human body a manifestation of the image of God, for humans were made the image of God. In Greek in Roman times, and during our recent renaissance of the 16th century, human form was represented as Gods and goddesses. The human form was made beautiful and was elevated to a high ideal, not contaminated with the carnal or the sexual. Sexuality in its extreme manifestation takes one down, whereas the idealized human form representing the highest attributes of mankind and God take one up. Although a homosexual may find sexual stimulation in Michelangelo's statue David, the statue was meant to be the ideal form of man. I use Michelangelo statue David as an example, because a famine example from the renaissance period does not immediately come to mind, not because they did not exist, but because of my ignorance of higher arts in general. Although I have an ignorance of higher art that comes with being a contemporary citizen of this country, expose to extreme sexual contemporary images on television, in my heart I yearn for a more pure vision of the female form. A female form that represents timeless representation's, mother, wife, sister, daughter. Today most contemporary imagery of naked females is that of a extreme sexual nature, totally lacking any idea of love or beauty, for one cannot have one without the other. It seems the contemporary imagery shun's all that is decent, or that which would imply love or commitment, or any value that will represent family or nation. It is my hope that the Internet and information age will bypass the dominant media and the cultural elite, who have dominated and projected the images we have been exposed to for the last 50 or 60 years. Up until recently, if you were can artist or musician, you could find no forum for your art other than the established monopolies with their political and ideology motives. Some would say dark motives, whose intention was to destroy all high culture. There is a very large and untapped niche of people, with higher artistic and spiritual values, who I believe are ready to support imagery that takes one up, instead of down.
Madman

On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 05:08:21 founder wrote:
this seems to have a false assumption in it. it would seem that you are saying that sexual, as an artistic term, is bad. I have to not only deny that to be true, but also to ask why you would want art without "sexuality". Even by the standards of the (doomed) CDA it is not the sexuality which is questioned but the offenciveness. the wording of the law it's self says that to be considered obscene an artwork must be intentionally offencive. Art, in it's truest terms must have a sexual element to it. All so called classical art does, and indeed arts of every form do. Great painters have used not only sexual forms but also situations and even the insenuation of sex to grab human emotions. Great Composers use the rhythems of sex, modern lyricists speak of sex, poets...well duh. There is nothing wrong with sex of images of a sexual nature. Both of these assumed wrongs are based within the hypocritical teachings of the judeo-christian societies a large part of the world must slave under.

Thank you for your survey.
My answers are as follows:
1. Definitelly yes. When I look at the pictures in Domai I actually do look at them for the beauty there is on the young female body, I don't necesarily do it for a sexual purpose. Genitalia or no genitalia it's not a subject of much concern to me.
2. Sure. It would be desirable and nice. I don't see why it should't be done.
Sadesa

Question one: Yes i think so, i saw some artwork, (from an artist who's name i sadly forgot), in Groningen Museum in the Netherlands. He made photo's of nude senior citizens, which i personally didn't find erotic or even stimulating. espacially the expression
on the face of those on the picture can make a difference in how people react on it.
Question two: Art is always desireable to someone on this planet.
Best Regards,

Hej Stob, Set fra en skildpadde's synspunkt er et pornoblad en temmelig non-sexual ting.... Jeg tror at man i princippet kan lave non-sexual art, men helt &Mac178;rligt, hvem gider at have skildpadder som mŒlgruppe... "Problemet" er at kunst jo f&Mac178;rdigg¿res hos modtageren... Tag den! R&Mac178;ven

Perhaps I can take a stab at your questions ...
1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
Of course this engages the debate about "nudity being 'equal' with sex", which it isn't.
However, I don't think our cultural heritage allows us to separate the 2 very easily and purveyors
of pornography depict only one thing - when you're naked, sex is happening. The 'normalness'
or innocence of nudity is RARELY depicted with simple nudity (eg., bathing, swimming, sun
tanning etc. Or just watching TV or doing housework or whatever) ... our culture only
"rewards" the sexual stimulation we experience by having naked bodies pawing over each other!
I definitely think non-sexual nude art can be "made" ... but can you influence the viewer's
"interpretation" of the non-sexual art? Example: Artful picture of a nude 19 year old girl sun-
tanning by a swimming pool; would ANY viewer be 'aroused'? Would ANY viewer masturbate
while gazing upon the picture? Probably. Thus, your non-sexual INTENT was "adulterated" by
a viewer's "interpretation"! You "made" it non-sexual; the viewer "made" it sexual!
Question: If one person "changes" your art, does YOUR art actually change?? I don't think so.
But some would say, art is art - the VIEWER makes it sexual or non-sexual. There is some truth
to that; and if that's the case, does your non-sexual intent have any value or importance in
making the art?
2: Do you think that would be desirable?
Absolutely! I think the big challenge is "making" the art in such a way as to FIRST arouse the
beauty, innocence, non-judgmental, accepting feelings of the nude person, while minimizing
the tendency to arouse sexual thoughts. (you cannot prevent those thoughts , but maybe they
can be 'avoided' somehow by showing how non-sexual nudity is.)

Hi Eolake,
Yes I think nude art can be none sexual just as naturalist people are in public.
Desirable, yes sometimes.
Tedd

Dear Eoalke,
In response to your questions:

* 1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual? I'm not sure if this is possible, because sexuality is such a basic instinct among humans. However, if it is possible, the art would have to be so beautiful that it is without precedent. If anyone could do it, though, it would be you. I am constantly amazed at the quality of work that you do.
* 2: Do you think that would be desirable? I am sorry, but I really have no idea how I would react to it; I would actually have to see it to know for certain.
Before I end this message, I wish to thank you for the beautiful art that you produce. If only more people thought like yourself and could see the world as you do!

I believe that it is posible to create non-sexual nude art. I am a strong believer in it. I find it more preferable than sex-oriented nudity. Sam

Greetings!
As a naturist for many years, I know for a fact that nude art can be made non sexual. I believe that nudity in art, even while showing genitalia, is quite non sexual. Nudity in art, in my opinion, only becomes sexual when it involves the subject in some sort of sexual act, whether that be masturbation or oral sex or intercourse. The mere posing of the human body in its natural state does not make the art sexual. Only vulgarity in its concept makes it so.
As a father of two children (one son and one daughter), it has been a privilege to be able to watch them grow both mentally and physically. It has been as exhilarating as was their births, which I was also lucky to witness. I've been able to see them blossom from little tots to grown adulthood, and the only thing I can compare it to would be as an astronomer witnessing the birth of a planet. For me, to be able to witness this first-hand has been incredible. It would be equally desirable to view in non sexual art as well.
Thank you for requesting my opinion. I hope it helps in your decision.
Greg

To be sure, nudity is not necessaryly sexual. The sexuality of nudity is rather the result of cultural and preconceived notions. Look at, say, primitive men, or else nowadays indian population: even though they are mostly "contaminated" by civilization, some of them stil walk essencially nude. The same can be said about some modern naturalist groups and societies, though it could be argued that at least some of the members join in "secret" sexual intents - like an unconfessed voyeurist taste - or that they share some psycollogically aberrant motivation. Originally, the use of clothes probably had rather functional objectives, but in time the "civilization" and / or sofistication of later human groups ended by attributing it also a behavioural attitude that probably had and has important consequences as to sexual behaviour - Like, for instance, the fact that a couple would ordinarily be naked only in presence of each other probably meant - and still means - some amount of couple unity and satility; on an inner level, it might mean a way to assure the perpetuation of one's genes, like: "if he/she is solely able to see me naked, that means he/she won't engage in sexual behaviour / intercourse with others". It thus also serves as an important means of social bondage and a fair chance for each individual to perpetuate his/her genome while allowing others to do the same - and thus protecting humanity and its genome as a whole. Of course, since men evolved superior (?) brains, it would seem that such subtle subterfuges are not completely necessary. Supposedly, everybody who has a brain should work with its conscious faculties rather than let himself/herself be lead by unconscious motivation. But then this is another story.
For may own part, I appreciate art in its many forms, even though I may be unable to understand it or else find any kind of artistic material untasteful - There will always be some who will like it. It might be difficult, however, to distinguish art from non-artistic material, for it may be difficult to determine the creator's actual intent. So it is that, in some cases, the distinction among pornography and art is something almost untouchable: Where can we draw the line? Is there a line to be drawn? It seems to me that a sexual intercourse, be it masturbatory, homossexual, heterosexual or else, can't be presented as non-sexual, even if it can be presentes as an art. Some would say the sexual act itself can be performed as an artful act under the right circumstances, others will say that it suffices for an image or other work of art to portrait the sexual act for it to be considered pornographic. I guess the answer fot that lays somewhere between these two extremes, but I certainly consider that a nude image or artwork can be considered both artful and non-sexual. It also can be considered both artful and sexual, or neither, or else simply pornographic. In that way, undoubtedly the nude artwork CAN be considered non-sexual. When it comes to that, I consider a non-sexual nude artwork somewhat "purest" in nature then a sexual nude artwork. therfore, I prefer non-sexual nudity to sexual nudity (when it comes to appreciate art). I do like some nude artworks I have seen, so of course I also consider it desirable. Please don't ask me to define what a sexual artwork is, and in what does it difer from a nonsexual artwork. I don't know how I would answer to that, but I doubt that two human beings would agree as to the answer.

Yes, I do think nude art can be non-sexual.Beauty is beauty, whether it's in the form of a sunset, moonrise, or a nude figure. It is sheer coincidence that the female form with all of its planes and curves is extremely erotic.
Erotic, doesn't mean sexual either. Like sensuality, eroticism is being in touch with sexuality. Not responding to it, or necessarily provoking it.

I think nude art can be non sexual in nature and I think it i svery desireable

is there any thing such a sexual or non-sexual nude? If one would put a context on nude being sexual or non-sexual, one would have to view the human body only as a sexual object. Therefore, we would have to say that the only way we can look at anyone, babies, children, adults or even god, etc., would have to be in a sexual way. The human body is the only thing we have that is our own. How we handle it is up to us. How we view it is also up to us. The human body is just that, a human body. Dead, alive, young, old, fat, skinny is still a human body.
Joe

Point 1.) : Yes!
Point 2.) : No!

In my opinion Nude art can be either sexual or non-sexual, depending on the presentation. A mountain stream can either be a beautiful representation of nature or an obstacle in one's path. Same subject, different perspective.
Do I think non-sexual nudes are desirable? Yes. I appreciate beauty in many forms. I also am a basic, hormonal creature who does also enjoy sexuality.
Just my lines for your review.
S.

I think it's a possibility - sexual interpretation has more to do with feeling than intellect. To differentiate is comparable to the debate between what constitutes pornography or erotica, it's a matter of perspective. The notion that the image of a nude person, whether male or female, is automatically sexual has more to do with the responsive feeling of the viewer as opposed to the intention of the portrayer. Whether one could portray a nude image that did not cause a sexual reaction in any viewer is another matter (and highly improbable - besides would we want a totally asexual audience).
The female form is intrinsically beautiful and can incite a sexual response in all or some viewers - perhaps it's a matter of taste. To claim that a particular portrayal is artful but not necessarily sexual is to claim a potentially privileged position over the viewer when the intrinsic qualities of the viewer are not known - not a good thing I would posit.
Bon Chance in your quest. Do provide a copy of what you portray in the end.
Best Regards.
MC

I think that as long as the photos are classy and not pornographic it would be fine, but I also
think a little left to the imagination once in a while looks great and keeps you in suspense
to see if there will be more to come. Start off with partial nudes of the same model and work your way up to showing genitalia. In other words it lets you kind of get to know the model and its not just another shot of the same old thing.

Dear Eolake,
I think that non-sexual nudes are possible. Certainly I think of the opening painting as a perfect example of that since it does not particularly stir me. I suppose it is a personal favorite of yours tho'. I have viewed several artists who have succeeded with very clever nsn (non-sexual nudes). These artists with a clever mind and a camera have made delightful photographs using full frontal or "backtal" nudity and blended it so that the mind must study it for a time to realize what is really being seen.
Some of the pictures take really deep thought, and searching to be able to pick out the most otherwise obvious parts cleverly hidden in obvious obscurity. Occasionally I miss the point, so there must be some photos outside of my preferential limits.
Perhaps though I mistake your meaning. A little more detail perhaps, and my mind will race away with the thoughts.
I enjoy many of the photos you offer, but I find myself putting each one of them next to Tina, about whom I have already written. Until the next time,
Tob

Hello
Yes I think nude art can be nonsexual, I love to look at the human body and study the lines and think nothing sexual about it . Afterall God intended us to in the garden nude until the devil temped eve to bite the apple of morality ( for lack of a better term)and made them aware they were nude and they felt ashamed.I think the world would be a better place if we were all nude, then people would see people for who they were and not what they could afford to ware.I could go on but I`ll stop there if you want to debate more then reply.
Mike

Yes I think that a picture of a nude person can be non-sexual while showing genitalia. What is sexual or non-sexual depends on the viewer in my opinion.

I think nude art can be non-sexually arousing. (Think of nudist clubs and resorts. Think of Michelangelo) (I presume that is what you meant by non- sexual)
As far as being desirable, look at the prices of the old masters' nudes.
Mike

1. Yes
2. Yes

1. Yes, for some people - No, for others
2. Yes, for some people - No, for others
Paul

Hello,
I think that there is a way to create non-sexual nude art if the person has a mind to look at the female body, clothed or not, and see beauty. I know that I look at some women and have a sexual urge but in others I just see that the are one of the most beautiful things that I have ever seen.
Lance

Interesting question:
There is an old saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." No one can control what goes on in another persons mind when they see a picture of a nude, or partially nude female body. To each person it may be a little different. I dont think what is shown or not shown is the determining factor. Two people may view the same picture; one may be as pure at mind as a monk and the other has to go take a ice cold shower to cool down. I certainly would not be offended by exposure of any particular body parts. The way some of our laws are going in the USA, I am starting to encrypt almost all of collection of images that could be remotely classified as being under age 18. On the evening news I heard of a young man age 28, had downloaded some pictures of what was called Kiddy Porn. I do not know the exact nature of those particular photos, but he was being sent to prison for 5 yrs and had to register as a "child offender." Unless this person had actually committed this crime bodily, or was proven to have absolute intent of doing this, I think this punishment is outrageous. Why dont they lock up everyone who watches murder on TV and in the movies and register them as murders. So what went through this mans mind when he had these photos? Was he curious? Was he going to keep them, destroy them, or use them to inspire him to commit a crime? I dont know, but it seems our LAW knows all that we think. Maybe someday they will hook electrodes to our brain and the government call tell what we are thinking and send the thought police after us, or just shock us with high voltage to make us pure at heart, whatever that is.
I personally find the more erotic poses refreshing and somewhat stimulating and it probably has some degree of sexuality connected to it for me, but that does not mean I am going to go on an uncontrolled crime spree against young girls. So exactly where does the beauty separate from the sexuality? Perhaps this is a personal question that each must answer for themselves.
Have you consulted with Donald, your wise old friend? By the way, I have an old homing pigeon (some call them carrier pigeons) named Spike, that I talk to also. I take him to work with me sometimes (38 miles) and let him fly back home. He is always there waiting for me when I return. I think he is wise too. He knows how to enjoy the simple pleasures of life. He does not try to be an eagle or falcon. He loves to watch the female birds and sometimes make strutting gestures to gain their attention. The simple pleasures of life, indeed. He is a dirty old pigeon, I guess. If you are interested, I will tell you how he got his name.
Until Later,
William

#1 I don't think nude art can be made completely non-sexual #2 Is it desirable? No,

As a Pro Photographer Client also have same question but as a art instructor friend of my once said art in the mind of the person looking at it, the sexual inplication is a very delicate subject, anything can and will be seen in the context that you present it.
* 2: Do you think that would be desirable?
in the early art forms the nude was used as a celebration of life to compare ourself to the god and in some culture in South America (Peru in particular) the sexual conotation was in all the art until the colonitation of this culture's by the Conquistator from spain centuries of tradition and art where totaly lost. today we still have this stigmas and taboo's that tell us that the human for is to be presented cover, has what the Catholic Church did to one's of the greatest art work from Miguel Angel "Capilla Sixtina" in Rome they cover all the nude, the artist refuse so they went to students to arter this master piece once the artist pass away. is this correct? No why anyone should be sensor by expressing them self's.

Hi, Yes, nude art can be non sexual.......I've seen some nude art that doesn't excite you, but pleasures you in a non sexual way, just for the beauty. Hank

A very intriguing preponderance. I feel wholeheartedly that there can be nude art without sexuality. Though I fear the "DOM" in me would sense a lack of beauty. The Thinker for instance is an enjoyable work of art, I am not however moved sexually by it. This is admittedly a terrible example. I am afraid trying to show nude form without sexuality may only strengthen the sensual reaction. Perhaps this is nonsense, I would be interested in your venture.
With Thanks

Eolake,
With our organization so-named as Dirty Old Men, etc, i don't think
that at least for myself that i can look at a woman's nude body and not
develop some sexual thoughts. I personally think it is normal and
healthy. I can't resolve whether it's desirable except as an art form.
You
rs, Mark

*1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
I think it depends on the nature of the image and the nature of the viewer. A 15-year old male viewer may see only a very sexual image. An older man or woman may be far more affected by the composition, lighting, mood of the image. Mapplethorpe's work is sexual, but the sexuality often seems secondary.
The short answer is yes, absolutely.
I'm not sure about #2. I guess I'm not completely clear on what you are asking with that one.
- D.

Yes, I think it is very possible. The body is a beautiful work of art.

Hi Eolake,
Thought the whole point of "Nude Art" was non-sexual. But then again, I know some people that get turned on by Minnie Mouse. It is easy to take a sexual picture of a woman, but you have to work to do a photo which is "Nude Art". Trying to capture a form, shadows, highlights, and the beautiful lines of the female form are not always that easy as you know. Sometimes the right woman and your mind just click, but most of the time it isn't that easy. Not if it is something you want the model and yourself to be proud of.
The female genitalia is a thing of beauty, never realized this until I saw some paintings done by a woman. She had made a study of the different shapes and had done some beautiful paintings. Until she told me, I had never realized what they were. They all looked like variations of Orchids.
Do I think it is desirable, You Bet. If your looking for something else, fire up your web browser, or hit the news stands. Just wish we could find more "Nude Art" on the web.
Ron

Dear Eolake,
Non-sexual? Posh! We are all sexual beings, thus there is nothing about humans that is not, in some way, related to our sexuality. According to my understanding, nudity CAN be non-erotic, but hardly non-sexual. Is not the beauty of a woman much more than that which pornographers depict? Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I really don't think so.
Sincerely, John

Hi Eolake,

* 1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
* 2: Do you think that would be desirable?
Yes, I think nude art could be a non sexual. It could be just nice or so, or some play with the light or better it could contains more of other idea than sexuality.
It's like sexuality in our lifes: it's less bright when you are on nudist club or beach beacuse. An opposite: some oops situation in far much sexual in some other places.
I think there is some kind of sexuality in all women nude art. Let see an example: men nude arts are totally non-sexual for me. So answer is definitelly YES, NUDE ART CAN BE MADE NON-SEXUAL :)
Miro

Yes

* 2: Do you think that would be desirable?
No

Eolake,
I have seen many non sexual nudes in paintings and statues alike. I think it is quite possible to have a photo, painting, sculpture or whatever that is beautiful and non-sexual and of course nude...
Anyway, thats my two cents worth.
Cam

Hi Eolake,
1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
No and yes. I think that dreaming about wonderful nice nude girls is not a sexual intercourse actualy. Many people kill their ugly bosses in their
imagine allegorically. Normaly they never kill humans in their life.
On the other side I think some kind of hoary deep instinct causes that the men pretty like to loot at young girls or nude girls or even nude female genitalia and this is why the men find the pussy wonderful nice. Same as we find our children, landscapes, pictures, flowers, the nature, and other things wonderful nice.

* 2: Do you think that would be desirable?
Yes.

1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual? In a kind word: No. Have you ever noticed that "Nude Art" almost always involves females? Not that I consider myself a pervert, but I think that is what I enjoy about nude female art - appreciating the femine features -- all of them!
2: Do you think that would be desirable? Not really. I enjoy non-erotic nude art as well as erotic.

I think art, in my case, nude art - can be non-sexual. The female body is a beauty to behold and I search the net for those rare nudes that present an image for the eye to feast upon.
If I were to get excited by genitalia, I'd be walking around stiff legged all day. That in proper proportion adds to the art.
For the record, I am partial to the Asian form having spent half of my adult life here. Attached is one of my favorites. Although showing full genitalia, I find it non-sexual.
Opinions?
Ken

Yes!
and
Yes!

Regards
I believe in todays society it is more common to find the sexual content in all things. Therefore it becomes the intent of the artist. I dont believe that during the ages of Michelangelo and Devinci that their intent was to portray nudes as sexual. After all did they even know what would be concidered pornography (soft or hard core). Thier intent was to portray life in a different light. The use of sexualy explicit paintings was not intended to sell or attract money. This profitering intent possibly makes the art work sexual regardless of the intent of the artist. As we as society have moved towards a puritanistic view of the human body making it impossible to percieve the nude body as anything but sexual. After all did the children of the aforementioned artists era sneak to see the paintings of nudes or was it just so common place that there was no sexual conotation included in the viewing of such. Ever since we decided that society as a whole must be clothed regardless of appearance of the nude body makes it difficult to show a nude without it being percieved as sexual. Now with all that said I do find the nude body very artistic and can find it non sexual. When concidering the content of a photograph or sketch or painting there must be a separation of eroticism and a nude portrayal. If the subject of the portrait is not in an erotic pose IE. legs spread and fingers busy or tounge or whatever, then the art work may be percieved as non sexual.
Rick

1.) No
2.) No
I'm not sure what the point would be . As well , you question implies at least two suppositions , that the sexuality is genitally based , rather than intellectually and that this is a "bad " thing . That is if we could look at a nude non-sexually it would is some way be better in a value laden way . I think both are false .
I think the majority of your pictures are sexual in a more intellectual way , a manner pleasing to the eye and mind . The more graphic pornography with embedded toys et all are not intended to be beautiful , but to excite the genitalia . This isn't good or bad , just different purposes .
I have two stunning beautiful daughters , both in their thirties , and I love to see them naked , but I've never had an erection over this . They both have an earthy sexuality and it's not hard to imagine them being sexually active with their husbands . But to see them nude , for me , is a beautiful , sexual , non-genitally arousing event .

Dear Sir, Yes, I do believe that a nude can Non-Sexual, even though it may be showing the genitalia. The difference lies in the perception of the mind doing the viewing, just as it is the Libido, that aids us in enjoying the "Act" of making love. Thanks for asking my opinion. SC

1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual? I think there will always be people who see something sexual in any form of nudity, there are
even people who think a dog without clothes is offending.... Some pictures you have at your site seem not that sexual to me, even though they are nude-pictures. It is possible that it's the culture I live in, because we have ads that are a lot more sexual than some of your pictures. But I can imagine that for example in Japan your pictures are very sexual because they have a "Do not show Pubic Hair" Code... f.e. A picture of a nude six-year-old isn't illegal but a picture of a twenty-year-old is,because it shows pubic hair..
I think It's more or less the result of the culture you live in what you think is sexual and what's not....

*2: Do you think that would be desirable? Believing in my previous statement, I think it is impossible...Some people just have very dirty minds... :-)
Good luck with the site,
Joost

All art is stimulating whether it be a beautiful mountain scenery or a naked human. Since sex is accociated with nudity they you will never have nude art that is non sexual.
Of course it would be desirable, The art lovers would like it, and the perverts would like it. Only the self rightiouse prudes would oppose it.

Yes, and it often is. More to the point, the best in any art can be sexual without inducing the crass and uncaring elements that eventually disappoint us and turn off the women. Perhaps that is why we are attracted to the innocence, and enthusiasms, of younger girls.
* 2: Do you think that would be desirable?
Whatever floats your boat. I would like to see nude art, including genitalia and actual excitement, without the hard looks and contrived expressions of the pros. Sex is a connection with the divine within ourselves. That is true beauty.
I hope I have made myself clear. Your efforts have given me a fresh perspective both on my hearts true desires and on my artistic goals. Thank you! RAB

The short version:
to question #1: yes
to question #2: it is unavoidable so it is not a question of desire (which implies emotional response -then you get into more problems).
the long version:
1. thousands of years ago, we don't wear any clothes, we don't see sexual advances made during that time do we? and I think people were more open at that time or they just don't care. The reverse logic of this means that nude art can be made non-sexual if the people viewing it does not think in that way. Therefore, I think the question begs the further question of why people think of something in sexual terms. Why do the ancient chinese regard bound feet as sexy? Why do over-breasted women were consisdered sexy during the 50's?
2. consider the difference in erotic and sexual. which is better? the whole question begs the problem beyond nudity. sometimes, I see a car which can be termed as erotically aspiring so what's the difference between that and a nude girl? However, if that above mentioned sport car is in a pig farm I doubt I would call it aspiring. I think the nude girl would find the same fate.
Hope I made a contribution to these question.
-me

What is the meaning then??????

I think it is impossible to make non sexual nude art, as the people who will be viewing it willl likly be thinking of it as sexual, but give it a go and see what happens

Humans are animals too. people always seem to avoid that. While there is a lot to be sad about the asthetic good provided by a nude of either sex, we all, no matter what persuation, background, religion, or demographic, view naked people in a sexual manner. This is not some kind of choice, this is what we are. And while there are those of our genus-species who can build a certain amount of resistance to the physical reactions associated with sex and sexual material. No one, no Human can get away with saying that a description of a nude human, no matter the media, does not cause them to become more mentaly active in the areas associated with sex.
just to add a bit more to the tulmit of mail.

I am on the record holding that nudes can never be really non-erotic and that if erotic nudes "objectify" women, then non-erotic nudes would objectify even more, because in a non-erotic nude, the model would be just a shape, not even a person. At least in an erotic nude, she is depicted as a sexually interesting person.
Still, in the position stated above, I am thinking of very attractive women. If you will include repulsive women, then I think perhaps it's possible.
As to the second part of your question, I confess I can't imagine what would be desirable in doing so.

*1: Do you think nude art can be made non-sexual?
*2: Do you think that would be desirable?
I'm an amateur photographer, and I shoot a lot of model portfolios and nudes. In my opinion, nude art can be either sexual or non-sexual. It depends on the photographer and model. My interest is in the non-sexual nude. In my world, if nude 'art' is sexual, it probably falls more into the pornography category. Little (some, but VERY little) of the sexual nude 'art' I see in the newsgroups I would consider art.
Perhaps this is an outgrowth of 25 years in the nudist or naturist lifestyle. I don't equate nudity with sexuality like a lot of people seem to. Based on the phrasing of your questions, it appears that you do. Do you?
Tonkers

Dear Founder
An interesting question. It of course, parallels the debate regarding what is phornography. The interpretation of all art is a dynamic between the object (and its display context) and the value system of the view. Even if one assumes one can create a non-sexual ( whatever sexual and non-sexual actually mean) nude - that is the artist considers and feels it to be non-sexual, it will probably be interpretated as sexual when displayed. Whether or not we a humans can look at a nude body without the tiniest bit of sexual interest/desire is debatable but I do not think we can. Is interest the same as desire? The closest is likely to be a male gay looking at a female body or visa versa. The other common perspective is that of the young child looking at a nude body with no sexual interest - the state of innocence. However, in these cases there is still interest, if no desire. Even if we accept a residual element of desire in all sexually aware people when viewing a nude body, the relative proportion of this feeling to others such as the comtemplation of beauty can be considered. In perfect Zen, one could look at the human nude without desire or perhaps without interest - would this be desirable? Perhaps.
Regards

Answer to your two questions:
1. Yes
2. Sometimes

Hi Eolake
Well this one is certainly an issue and I think it will mostly come down to personal beliefs and preferences. I think it is possible to create non sexual nude art as I believe that sexuality is really in the eye of the beholder. Sure it would be almost impossible to justify that a spread legged woman with cum dripping over her pussy is art but with a lot of the rest it really is in the way that the viewer perceives the piece.
i perceive a lot of black and white shots as more on the artistic side (well except for the explicit type ones example above) although colour shots can certainly be artistic too. Attached is a pic called nance17.jpg that is colour and artistic although it is at least semi nude. It really is hard to specify the difference between pornography and art but I think it comes purely down to perception. It is also influenced by the intent of the photographer as to where the focus lies - if the main focus of the shot is on the genitalia as sexual instruments then that is how the photo will come across, if the photographer is concerned with form and shape and texture then that can also show through as more artistic.
To show the other side of this, there are also non sexual shots that I find very sexually arousing (eg the second pic I have enclosed of the Australian actress Lisa McCune - sure it is possible to spot her breasts but even in totally non sexual situations she is arousing - to me.
So, in short, yes it is possible to have nude art and even nude art showing genitalia (in my eyes) just as it is possible for non nude shots to be sexual. Hope this helps???
Graeme

#1 for sure, Beautiful nudes (young too) can be non sexual, and has been. The female nudes are more artistic beauty than males. Women have said that the lady's body is more beautiful than a man's. This is the only place sex might be "involved" , but looking sexual requires a more overt act/pose. Mere nudes need not imply sexual.

No and No

I love the idea! I dabble in photography and I'm looking for the same thing. If you find something like that please notify all of us from your e-mail list. Pie

sir
without a doubt it can be done and has been done not all nudes are sexual in nature the sexual part is only in one's own mind on how he views such a picture

As the founder I get the last word:) But just as I was about to write it, Jack took the words right out of my mouth:

Dear Sir,
Just a quick note to answer your questions. Yes, true art transcends sexuality - it incompasses it but is more than that. If a picture shows nothing but the sexual side, it is merely porn, which does not interest me. From what I have seen of your site, you understand this well, which is why I have enjoyed what I have seen. I also think it is a very desirable goal, and commend you for achieving it.
To me, porn is only about sex, which is merely a biological function (albeit a very pleasurable one with the right person and circumstances). Art and beauty (is there a difference?) are much more satisfying - they last longer and are not contingent upon the vagaries of the human body, but also the mind.
Again, thanks for a site that I can truly enjoy, without having to wade through mountains of porn to find the rare glimpse of beauty.
Best wishes,
Jack

And that's it!
Eolake