The real root.
In my prior entry, I asked for some recommendations for a romance novel; I'm aware a lot of them are trash, but wanted to know if anyone had a particularly good read they enjoyed.

This, however, spured off some very interesting comments. And, unfortunately, Live Journal has a length limit on comments.

whingnut presented a very interesting take. I wanted to make sure it got a response that wasn't artifically truncated.





The actual purpose of the topic was in fact to simply get a book title suggestion, hoping it would provide some fun insight into what women see in these things. However, it seems if one digs deeper, "the roots" of the topic seem to spread deeper than I ever suspected. I think it boils down to "I'm not doing what _you're_ doing, and I don't view what _I'm_ doing as being as wrong."

What I'm learning here is that there are may complex issues of personal preference and perspective that play into the matter; there is no one correct stance. So, understand that any observations or discongruent views I may toss about are not a personal attack on you, what you said, or what you believe.

The crux of your point seems to come down to two things: fantasy vs. reality, and women selling out.

I have problems with both.

The first part being that one does not need to have a real naked women in order to have a picture of a naked women. They can be easily fabricated, rendered in as much or little detail as the artist allows, and if desired, a model can be made so realistic that it's indistinguishable from human source. Yet, these very images, are still the source of contention. If men looked at obviously fictional art, would the cause for concern in a woman's eyes be any less? I can't bring myself to say avoidance of reality would silence any disdain.

The fantasy idea, then starts to raise a serious problem for me; for multiple reasons. First, in absence of any real person, such an image would be entirely fantasy. Men, in fact, have the ability to conjure up very vivid images silently in one's mind. Does that fact make it any better? I'd also observe that as a guy, I know what I like for fantasy, and I know what I like for reality; and the two share little in common. I don't see a case where I could ever say "THIS is what I really want," simply because the fantasy based segment of the male mind doesn't work that way. I can however see where this might be thought to be telegraphed, but almost certainly that's not what's going on inside the male brain.

In many ways, I'd argue that the active fantasy role is in many ways more engaging. I wanted to say worse, but I don't have the alternate side for comparison. Gazing upon a photo, if it were, invokes more the "hmm, pretty!" emotional response, but does not start a full scale scenario running of what the viewer would do with the person. Certainly it doesn't take it to the depth or descriptive detail that a novel does. Which basically touches on another point that there are many beautiful people that one would not care to be intimate with in any fashion, and that it is very easy for a male to look upon a "beautiful" nude women and not be aroused physically or emotionally. At all. To make the same claim about an engaging read is far more difficult, as with even regular stories it's possible to get swept into them without trying. In one sense, the eyes see, but the mind filters; in the other the mind sees, and it full engages. Repetitively seeking out pictures of naked women may in fact be feeding lust, but to be fair, I'd say building a small book collection is doing the same. Lust for a person and lust for an idea is still lust; and if objectification is as real as claimed, then it is no longer lusting after a person, but instead an emotional experience, the same one obtained through romance novels perhaps?

As for the other point, I'm not convinced that women bare themselves because they simply sold out their principles for a buck. Ask yourself how much money you'd have to be given in order to go against any core belief. Instead, I think the issue comes down to self perception, if not self worth. The women I'm aware of that bared themselves didn't do it for cash at all -- for example, one got a boob job and wanted to show them off (she felt good about herself now); another set of individuals posed for artists -- either to assist the artist or to preserve their beauty that they knew would fade; even so being asked made them feel special. In short, it seems to boil down to a comfortablity with their own bodies. Looks and money had nothing to do with it. And, from an artist perspective, the fee for modeling is not a bribe or enticement, but compensation for one's time or for having to hold a very difficult or challenging pose. I'm not sure that this act devalues women in as much as any other act would do the same; nor am I sure that this turns women from people into objects. Bluntly put, some people are more attractive physically than others, and I suspect it's this reminder that's what's really offensive.

What I'm gathering from all this is that gender perceptions trigger in entirely different ways. Anyway, good and engaging comments! I can't wait to crack the cover.