U15289@uicvm.uic.edu (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun19.000002.23504@psych.toronto.edu>, chris@psych.toronto.EDU (Christine Hitchcock) says: > >I was thinking that one facet of what crosses _my_ mind when I see a >beautiful woman's naked form on someone's wall is one of inferiority. >I'm forced to realize that appearance is important to this person, and >that I'm not up to snuff. > This is arguably one of the more interesting comments posted to date on the display of erotic images. Much has been made, in other forums, of the notion that popular erotica portrays an unrealistic view of the body (of whichever gender)--one which few people can live up to in real life. It seems to me that one can view this in two ways: either stipulate to the exaggerated iconography, refuse to take it seriously, and emerge with one's self-image unaffected; or buy into it--as Hitchcock appears to be doing--and come away with a certain amount of emotional malaise. The author of article <91170.193201u23700@uicvm.uic.edu> (hereinafter "U23700") offers an ironic counterpoint to Hitchcock's views when she writes: "I have no problem with the bimbo bikini posters/pinups with big breasts (probably because my breast size is equal to or bigger than theirs). On the other hand, I resent pictures of stick thin women, because I am on the overweight side." It would seem that no nude can please everybody :-). On the other hand, when one takes Hitchcock's assertion that "appearance is important" to the consumers of erotica at face value, it is difficult to see what problem anyone would have with it. Most would agree, I'm sure, that somewhere there are parameters defining a "normal range" of physical appearance, and that the sight of those falling outside those limits is much less likely to elicit a wide variety of positive responses--including, but in no way limited to, sensual pleasure. (Consider, for example, the gag posters of morbidly obese nudes, which still occupy a niche in the novelty market). The ultimate solution, it seems to me, lies in a greater pluralism of erotic body images. The erotic possibilities of the aforesaid normal range, outside of the Body Utopian which seems to leave some people so dysphoric, have never been fully explored or applied. U23700--who describes herself as "not...a ravishing beauty with perfect features"--does not elaborate on the "art" photography she has been involved in, and calls "a celebration of the unique, or of certain concepts of beauty." But the kind of erotic icons being envisioned here certainly could fall into such a category. The commercial potential for mass-produced pictures of this type is unexplored, to my knowledge; but the creation and dissemination of erotic photos and GIF's of less-than-utopian, average bodies on a small scale should surely be feasible. The display of such _objets d'art_ should not be viewed as salvos in a flame war with the connoiseurs of the more traditional pinups. But the availability of a more diverse set of erotic role models, as it were, on office walls, etc. might facilitate those who share the same mindset as Hitchcock and U23700 feeling better about their own bodies. Ideally, this would render them less likely to see themselves as the objects of invidious comparison with the prevailing imagery, or to feel significant distress at the display of the latter by others. Mitch Pravatiner U15289 at uicvm.uic.edu