nude

Current Issues  /  Social Commentary  /  video
Fitness And Sex
May 19, 2016
charles i. letbetter - fitness and sex

Our growing softness, our increasing lack of physical fitness, is a menace to our security. —John F. Kennedy

 

charles i. letbetter - fitness and sex

You know you need to exercise, fitness just hasn’t been any fun, until now

Look at the quote above and who made it and we realize that, for the most part, the current American citizenry has never been in the best of shape, and despite numerous fitness crazes we’ve only gotten fatter. This is especially true if one lives in the Midwest, and if one lives in Indianapolis specifically, we’re more out of shape than anyone.

No, I’m not kidding. The American Fitness Index report was released this week and of the 50 US cities surveyed, Indianapolis comes in dead last. This is really bad. Look at this list of areas where we are failing:

Improvement Priority Areas (worse than 20% of target goal): • Lower percent meeting CDC aerobic activity guidelines • Lower percent meeting both CDC aerobic and strength activity guidelines • Lower percent consuming 2+ fruits per day • Lower percent consuming 3+ vegetables per day • Higher percent currently smoking • Higher percent obese • Lower percent in excellent or very good health • Higher percent of days when physical health was not good during the past 30 days • Higher percent of days when mental health was not good during the past 30 days • Higher percent with asthma • Higher percent with angina or coronary heart disease • Higher percent with diabetes • Lower percent of city land area as parkland • Fewer acres of parkland per capita • Lower percent using public transportation to work • Lower percent bicycling or walking to work • Lower Walk Score® • Lower percent of population within a 10 minute walk to a park • Fewer ball diamonds per capita • Fewer dog parks per capita • Fewer park playgrounds per capita • Fewer park units per capita • Fewer recreation centers per capita • Fewer tennis courts per capita • Lower park-related expenditures per capita

Just the size of that list should be enough for us to realize that we have a lot of work to do if we’re going to improve our situation. There is one measure not on the list, though, and it may be the one that gives us a chance to redeem our fat selves: sex. You’re reading that correctly, we might very well be able to sex ourselves into good health. Or, if not good health, at least something less likely to end up in the cardiac ward of your neighborhood hospital.

How is this possible, you ask? The folks behind your favorite porn site, PornHub, have created a new program with you in mind: Bangfit. No, I’m still not kidding. We’re totally wearing our serious face here. This is a legitimate fitness program, or, at least, an attempt at one. Here, watch this surprisingly safe-for-work video that explains the whole thing:

https://youtu.be/DUFjNiusLEw

Okay, so that’s at least the way the thing is supposed to work. I wouldn’t be posting this if I hadn’t checked the thing out for myself and, uhm, … it’s not working. This may be due to the fact that dozens of online magazines and sources reported about the site yesterday and their servers are now totally overloaded; that’s what I’m guessing. When I first tried accessing the web page, it timed out. When I tried about five minutes later, I got the site, but none of the links worked. When I pull up the site on my phone, it asks for a specific code to sync my phone, which is supposed to track my “activity,” with the computer, which is supposed to provide “instruction.” That doesn’t always happen, though. When the sight finally DID work, the lag between clicking a link and seeing any result was rather slow.

In theory, the premise should be correct. Sexual activity should provide serious fitness advantages, especially when done on a regular basis. I’m seeing some problems with the reality of the concept, though.

  1. For there to be any fitness advantage, the sex is going to have to last more than five minutes. C’mon guys, you know damn good and well how rarely that happens. You’re going to have to work on your stamina.
  2. No one is that regular with their sex lives, at least, not if you’re using a partner. The program has the single-person option, of course, which is also likely to be the most popular. But the real fitness comes from the couples play and very few couples manage to make daily sex a reality.
  3. The product is still in beta, so there are still some glitches and not all features are present. For example, only three settings are currently offered: single, couple, and threesome (in your dreams).
  4. The scoring system relies on your phone being attached to your hip in some way and measures your movement accordingly. So, depending on the position, one person might get more of a workout than the other. I also found I was able to adjust my fitness score simply by shaking my phone.
  5. Really cheezy porn from Brazzers plays on your computer while you’re “exercising.” Maybe you like cheezy porn. I’m sure someone does … somewhere.

I do encourage you to give it a try for yourself. Who knows, maybe we can start having group “fitness” parties! Of course, there are the necessary caveats. Check with your doctor to see if your heart is healthy enough for sex (mine always looks at me funny when I ask that question). Be sure to stretch, hydrate, and all that other pre-workout stuff fitness people do. Don’t forget to use appropriate safeguards such as condoms and birth control unless you really, really want an excuse for never working out again.

Sex fitness really isn’t a bad idea, and may be just the thing to help Indianapolis get off its unhealthy and flabby ass. I see a lot of people clicking on the single user option, though. Out of shape people aren’t going to find workout partners for this program too easily. So, good luck with that. Let me know how that works out for you.

 

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
Philosophies Of Photography
May 10, 2016
charles i. letbetter - philosophies of photography

There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness. —Dalai Lama

 

charles i. letbetter - philosophies of photography

Why a photographer takes a picture is sometimes more important than what is being photographed.

I learned a long time ago that I can’t please everyone. There are a few people, fewer than five, who seem frustrated that I don’t write more about photography since that is mostly what I do. I suppose I could do that, but I’ve always operated under the premise that if one is reading about photography one is not doing photography and the only real way to improve is to do, not read. When I do write about photography, I want it to be something that is genuinely helpful.

What I’ve noticed, though, is that in those moments when I consider doing something crazy like writing a book, the outline itself seems sufficient instruction. If I were to title a chapter with something like, “Understanding Depth of Field,” what else is there to say except that the larger the aperture, the smaller the number, and the shorter the depth of field. There, done with that chapter. You’re welcome.

Okay, so I can BS my way through a thousand or so words on just about any topic, but is that really helpful when, if you want to improve your photography, you have to get out and shoot; that’s the only way anyone gets better. You can read all the damn books by all the “experts” in the world, but if your camera is not in your hand, if you’re not snapping regularly, if you’re not taking risks and trying things out differently, you’re not going to improve.

I’m no longer shooting anywhere near as often as I did four or five years ago and while I’m still not exactly “okay” with that, I’ve come to terms with the reality that my body hates me. We have a working relationship in that my body doesn’t especially like me working and lets me know when I’ve gone too far. Actually, if I could get more shoots in between 4-6 AM, we might be more productive, but there aren’t many people willing to shoot at that hour. Having plenty of time to step back and think, though, has allowed me to re-asses my philosophy of photography and make some changes.

Philosophies come and go and none of them are ever iron-clad; they’re circumstantial at best. Philosophies are based on a specific perspective to a specific reality and as both the perspectives and the realities change, so do the philosophies. As a result, philosophies held by other people are of limited value. Their perspective isn’t going to be the same as yours. The reality is not going to be identical to yours, even though you might share significant portions. Philosophies are valuable to other people only as guides in helping them establish their own.

I’ve held enough different philosophies of photography to fill a terabyte hard drive. Could I talk about each point at length? Yes, but I’m not sure what purpose that would serve. If you want how-to articles, there are plenty of those spanning different topics at Peta Pixel and PDN. Neither link is an endorsement, mind you, just two obvious resources. All I’m giving you are bullet points. Use the contact form if you have questions or hit me up on Facebook.

  • Photography is a means of communication. When you take a picture, you are saying something. When you share a photo, you are broadcasting a message. Think before you talk.
  • Photography is a visual language and just as we don’t all speak English we don’t all take photographs the same way. That’s good. Diversity opens all our minds.
  • Sometimes we have a lot of pictures to serve as our vocabulary, but we don’t always know how to put them together into cohesive communication. Learning to curate our photos before sharing them is important.
  • Just because someone else did it doesn’t mean you can, or should. Find your own distinct look and play to that.
  • Any camera that takes pictures is a good camera.
  • Every once in a while, stop what you’re doing and shoot dirt. Choose a common element, such as a tree or a dandelion, and find a way to make it interesting. Keep the creative juices flowing.
  • Don’t over-think any situation. Details can distract you from the creativity and artistry of the shot. Focus on the major elements and then shoot.
  • Shooting nudes is to photography what figure drawing is to a traditional art education: fundamental. To not study the human body is to be unprepared for shooting a clothed one.
  • Protecting the rights of photographers to shoot without interference is your responsibility, even if you never leave your own studio.
  • Beauty is built upon flaws. There is no such thing as the perfect photograph. Play to the quirks, the oddities, and the imperfections of a subject.
  • The world sees photography as a commodity. The only way to change their mind is to take pictures that are not common.
  • Photography has the ability to tell a harsh truth and that scares people. Don’t be afraid to take those pictures. Sometimes people need to be scared.
  • Censoring photography is like putting a gag in someone’s mouth. Just because someone doesn’t like the message doesn’t mean they have a right to control it.
  • Photographers own the rights to their pictures just like a speaker owns the rights to the words coming from their mouths. Limiting the rights to a photograph because of who is in it is like limiting the rights to a novel because of the words the author used. Stepping in front of a camera does not give anyone rights to that image.
  • Giving up rights to a photograph is a weakness.
  • Neither taking a photograph nor being in a photograph gives either side the right to bully the other.
  • Think with your eyes, see with your camera.
  • Criticizing photographs is a waste of time. When examining a photograph, there are but two questions: Did you capture what you wanted? What would you do differently? Everything else is a matter of one’s creative taste.
  • Saying one understands the whole of photography is like saying one understands every language in the world: you don’t. Photography is too broad, too complex, and too  individual in its details to be consumed as a whole.
  • One doesn’t need friends who limit one’s work. One needs friends who will stand/sit/lie naked in front of your camera while one searches for an angle.
  • The value of a photograph is not in the subject but in the photographer’s ability to tell the story of that subject in a single frame.
  • Just as mountains are millions of years old, there are an equal number of ways in which they can be photographed.
  • Light introduces us to a subject; shadows tell the story.
  • Morality in a photograph lies not in its content but only in the mind of the person viewing it.
  • To be jealous of someone else’s photography is to demonstrate the need for one’s own improvement.
  • Displaying a photograph in both color and black and white is like telling a story from two different perspectives; one is the three little pigs, the other is the wolf.
  • Technology and digital camera works open the field of photography to a whole new realm of exploration which we’ve not yet begun to understand.
  • Never share a picture that didn’t first make you feel something.

I’m going to stop there. I’ve probably already exceeded the point of interest for the vast majority of people. Philosophies become boring the longer one is forced to stare at them. Consider what your philosophy might be. You don’t need to write it down, just think about it then pick up the camera and start shooting.

Philosophies don’t take pictures. Photographers do.

Continue Reading

Nature
Gardening Naked
May 7, 2016

What a man needs in gardening is a cast-iron back, with a hinge in it. —Charles Dudley Warner

 

charles i. letbetter - gardneing naked

Sure, gardening in the buff sounds like a lot of fun, but we have a feeling that it’s not all its made out to be

World Naked Gardening Day has been trending on Facebook for the past three weeks. While, from what I can tell, most of the participants appear to be British, or at least European, the event seems to be a wildly popular idea. They even have their own website. With such popularity, one might get the idea that everyone around the world is shucking their bloomers and heading out to their gardens.

The movement, now in its twelveth year, is something encouraged by naturists who have a tendency to run around naked rather often anyway. The appeal is understanding. Feeling the cool, loose soil between your toes, the warm sunlight on your back, and a gentle breeze blowing on your nipples sounds almost erotic in its own way. For people who enjoy gardening and enjoy getting back to nature in the most literal way possible, the day sounds perfect.

But, as I sit here in my nice, warm house, drinking my nice, hot coffee, I’m thinking that World Naked Gardening Day probably isn’t something in which I’m likely to participate. Not today. Probably not next year, either. There are some aspects of gardening nude that just don’t appeal to me. At all. Consider these issues:

  • As I’m writing, the temperature here in Indianapolis is 62 degrees. Now, if one is reasonably clothed, that’s not a bad temperature at all. In fact, for all those strange people out running the mini-marathon through town this morning, that temperature is damn-near perfect. However, if one is gardening, an activity that, generally speaking, is slightly more sedate and doesn’t quite count for getting in one’s cardio exercise, 63 degrees is a bit on the chilly side. Things are going to shrink and peak and the whole thing is going to be uncomfortable.
  • Unless you have a tall, solid fence, you’ll likely get arrested. For the larger portion of the United States, being out in your yard naked, where the neighbors and all those impressionable young children can see you, is illegal. We are some of the biggest prudes in the world. Tall fences eliminate the public indecency charges, but they also cast long shadows which isn’t necessarily good for gardening. Even worse, if one is arrested for being naked, which is bad enough, one if going to be tossed in jail naked until they can find you one of those pretty orange jumpsuits. Ick.
  • One word: bugs. Most people who are connected enough to the earth and really enjoy gardening are more likely to use natural methods of pest control, which means there are some species of bugs that manage to survive and are crawling around in the garden right now. If they’re crawling around in the garden, that means  they’ll be crawling all over you, too. The very thought of having bugs crawling into one’s more private crevices is not the least bit enticing, and probably isn’t all the healthy, either.
  • Gardening typically involves a lot of bending over. Stop and think of that visual for a moment. We’ve all seen the lawn decoration that is supposed to resemble a woman in a red and white polka dotted dress bending over her garden. Imagine that woman naked. Worse yet, imagine her husband out there with her. Got that visual in your head? Good luck getting rid of it.
  • The primary reason we don’t want children seeing adults naked is because we don’t want to answer those questions. We know they’re not interested in intercourse at an early age, and we know that a healthy attitude about their own bodies is a good thing. However, when they do happen to see an adult, especially a parent, naked, their curiosity is sparked and they start answering questions; questions we’re not in any hurry to answer. Questions that start with phrases such as, “Why does mommy have …” and “What is that thing?” There is a time and place for answering those questions, but the garden is neither that time nor that place.

I love the idea of gardning naked, in theory. I encourage everyone to spend as much time naked as possible, especially in front of my camera. I rather like naked people. But naked gardening? Uhm, I think I’ll take a pass on this one, thank you.

Continue Reading

Art  /  PotD  /  Status
Toxic Frustration, Easy Solutions (video)
May 5, 2016
charles i. letbetter - toxic frustration, easy solutions

Laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning up to do afterward. —Kurt Vonnegut

 

charles i. letbetter - toxic frustration, simple solutions

Frustration is toxic and poisons an environment quickly. Solutions don’t have to be complicated, though.

My alarm wouldn’t shut up or snooze this morning. I couldn’t find the image I had planned to use for this article. A child was up way too damn early. A cat demanded I fill the food bowl, despite there being more than enough food already there. I try to not be too terribly superstitious, but this morning has me wondering of there’s some validity to all the concern over Mercury being in retrograde. As I’m writing, we’re not even to 6:00 AM and already my level of frustration has reached a toxic level.

There are a number of things that can be frustrating.  Realizing that it is only Thursday, not Friday, is one. Finding out someone ate the last of the Frosted Flakes will certainly do it. Remembering just now that we forgot to get milk for breakfast adds to the list. In a society where the pressure to perform is high, where expectations exceed reason, where resources never seem to match demand, frustration is a daily occurrence. The question is never whether we’re going to be frustrated, but how quickly in the day is it going to happen.

Frustration is toxic and spreads quickly. Twitter is probably the best example of that fact. One person posting their frustration is all it takes for a topic such as #DropOutHillary to start trending. Whether the topic is valid or has any merit is irrelevant; people are frustrated with the entire election system so they’re more than happy to jump on the bandwagon and wail. Frustration hits quickly, hits hard, and lands punches where we least expect them. As a result, our reactions are often excessive or even inappropriate to the size of the problem.

Solutions are not especially difficult to find, though, except for that part about wanting to change who is running for political offices. Most of what frustrates us are the tiny annoyances that have a relatively small impact in reality but feel significant at the time. We can’t always stop or prevent the frustration from happening, but we can address the toxicity through some rather simple steps.

  1. Step back from the situation and take a breath. When my alarm wouldn’t shut the fuck up this morning, I was so frustrated Kat had to intervene. I couldn’t find a solution to the problem because I was too emotionally involved. Being able to step back and see the insignificance of the annoyance gives us a chance to find a solution without causing damage.
  2. Drink something. When problems happen before I’ve had my morning coffee, my frustration is immediate and often severe. Being able to wrap my hands around something other than someone’s neck, something like a coffee mug or, later in the day, a glass of scotch, reduces the likelihood of collateral damage.
  3. Momentarily distract yourself from the problem. Most of what frustrates us does not require our immediate attention, unless it’s an alarm that refuses to shut off. Dwelling on the problem only ramps up the frustration. Find something less volatile, like a comic strip or a stripping comic to distract you until you’ve calmed down. Then, you can approach the problem more calmly.
  4. Put down the gun. Gun safety is requisite for those of us whose high anxiety levels lead them to frequent periods of frustration. Even getting to our weapons is a multi-step process that is intentionally difficult to perform when angry or frustrated. This has saved countless lives of passing motorists whose stereos are far too loud and preserved phones, computers, and other digital devices from being riddled with bullet holes. Violence is never the solution.
  5. Create something. Being frustrated takes up an incredible amount of energy. Pouring that energy, even if it is negatively motivated, into doing something creative can be cathartic. Not only may you create something beautiful and fulfilling, you might well be saving yourself a heart attack in the process.

What did it for me this morning, at least momentarily, was this clip from last night’s Late, Late Show with James Corden. I mean, how can you hold on to your frustration when George Clooney is in the backseat doing Hollaback Girl? This is a very funny 15 minutes and I’ll probably watch it more than once today, given how this day seems to be challenging me right out of the gate. Perhaps it will help you as well.

Continue Reading

Art  /  Mythology  /  Photography
Random Naked People
May 1, 2016
charles i. letbetter - random naked people

It is necessary to fall in love… if only to provide an alibi for all the random despair you are going to feel anyway. —Albert Camus

 

charles i. letbetter - random naked people

Even if nudity were legal, we all know damn good and well that very few people would ever just go waltzing down the street naked. Still, the chance that someone might decide to take such a stroll should encourage more people to walk

I passed an alleged statistic somewhere this week, one of those that I can never go back and find when I need it, which said something to the effect that 20% of all American couples in a long-term relationship had experienced a three-way sexual triste or “some other form of kink.” I didn’t have time to stop and read at the moment and didn’t think to save the link, so I have no idea who is making that claim. If it was the Kinsey Institute, which is entirely possible, then I really want to read that study and find out what they mean by “some other form of kink.” I have a feeling their definition is broader than mine.

Human nature is funny in that we all, to one degree or another, are drawn toward those things which we are told are off limits. Even the most ancient mythologies about the beginning of human civilization involve some form of “disobedience” whether it be Adam and Eve in Abrahamic mythologies or  Izanami and Izanagi in Japanese mythologies. With both, as well as many others, there is some random “fruit” that someone eats when they’re told it’s forbidden. We all want what we can’t have.

Yet, if we had what we think we want, would we be happy? Probably not. We are motivated by the pursuit of things, even if we don’t know how best to use them once we have them. That includes mates. Ancient bedouins, for example, considered the number of wives had to be a symbol of their wealth. King Solomon, circa 970 – 931 BCE, allegedly had 700 wives and 300 concubines and they called him wise. I might want to challenge that assertion. Do you think he actually knew the names of all his wives, their birthdays, or their country of origin? Ancient misogynists collected wives like trophies. They didn’t know what to actually do with them once they had them and trying to keep them all happy was undoubtedly a nightmare.

That’s why I don’t think allowing for more open, casual nudity in public would actually result in much, if any, change. People are too into fashion, too self-conscious of their bodies, and too afraid of being shamed to just run around naked all the time. Sure, there would be some, here and there, who would take advantage of the opportunity, and that might provide a momentary thrill for a neighboring 15-year-old. But random naked people isn’t likely to set off any kind of a crime spree; incidents of rape aren’t likely to increase (because it’s not about sex, moron), communicable diseases aren’t likely to spread (that would involve some form of contact and they’re really just not that into you), and Beelzebub will not suddenly appear and take over the world (too many have already voted for him in the Republican primaries).

There’s nothing wrong with a little random nudity. So here, enjoy some I pulled from the catalog.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 

Continue Reading

Art  /  pop culture  /  PotD
Dining Pure And Natural
April 28, 2016
charles i. letbetter - dining pure and natural

Should I go on playing bridge and dining, going in the same old monotonous circle? It’s easy that way, but it’s a sort of suicide, too. —Antoinette Perry

 

charles i. letbetter - dining pure and natural

Sitting around a table with your closest friends having dinner in the buff might sound nice, but is it really something you want to do more than once?

Chalk this one up to yet another idea that would be illegal in the United States. Business Insider is reporting that the London restaurant Bunyadi has seen reservations jump from 4,000 on April 20 to a waiting list of over 28,000. The bad news is that not all these people will get in. Ever. The restaurant, which only seats 46 diners at a time, is only scheduled to be open for three months starting in June. A lot of people are going to be disappointed.

Why is this restaurant that is not even open yet so incredibly popular? It allows patrons to dine nude. You don’t have to, of course. If you’re feeling a bit shy or prudish you can sit at the bar with your clothes on. The emphasis, though, is on everything being natural and pure, from the food to the patrons.  With both vegan and non-vegan items on the menu, everything is prepared using all natural ingredients and methods (no microwaves), served on clay dishes with edible tableware. Furniture is made of bamboo and the room is lit by candlelight, which is probably a good thing.

The concept is unique and even at a mid-range price of around $30 per person not terribly out of reach for most people. It seems like an idea that might catch on and move to the decadent United States, but it can’t.

You’ve seen the sign in the windows: no shirt, no shoes, no service, right? That’s there for a reason. The US Department of Health long ago figured out that having naked people handling food isn’t exactly the healthiest idea ever born. Any open sores or wounds, scratches or rashes, can potentially carry bacteria which not only contaminates one’s own food but, potentially, the food of everyone around them. Bare feet that have been walking down dirty, dusty roads are the worst, as they bring contaminants in right off the road. There isn’t a county health department anywhere in the US that is going to approve a permit for a restaurant where everyone is naked. Sorry.

Another limitation to the concept of nude dining is that absolutely no photography is allowed. We can understand why. Among those who are lucky enough to actually get into the restaurant, there are almost certainly to be those who would rather not have their wrinkles and bulges and various details spread across the Internet, which is where we all know the pictures would end up. Not to worry, though.

The concept of dining nude isn’t exactly a new one. Four years ago I asked subjects who were part of another project to bring with them something they enjoy eating. While no one brought a three-course meal, and I would hardly consider some of the choices “pure,” we did get pictures of people eating while naked.

While opening a restaurant for naked people may not be possible here, you can always invite folks over to your own house for private dining and be as naked as you are comfortable being. Just be careful when cooking. Those grease splatters can hurt.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion
Sexy Isn’t What It Used To Be
April 4, 2016
charles i. letbetter - sexy is changing

A great figure or physique is nice, but it’s self-confidence that makes someone really sexy. —Vivica A. Fox

 

charles i. letbetter - sexy isn't what it used to be

What we consider sexy today is vastly different from what it was a year ago

I haven’t shot a full nude in over a year. Partial nude, yes. Topless, yes. Implied, yes. But our attitude toward nudity and what makes something sexy has changed dramatically, and that change has happened rather fast.

Now, from the outset, let me clarify that being sexy doesn’t require being naked and nude photography can be many things and sexy not come close to making the list. Nudity and sexiness are mutually exclusive for most conversations. Yet, where the two do intersect, or have in the past, the lines have moved. What would have been popular previously no longer is and some images that were recently tolerable no longer are.

One of the first articles to cross my path this morning comes from Mallory Schlossberg at Business Insider on the evolution of sexiness. The article relies heavily upon the opinion of Ruth Bernstein, chief strategy officer at Yard. All the usual suspects are referenced, specifically Playboy and Abercrombie & Fitch where changes have been most pronounced and public. Without question, there is a strong shift as to how we look at what’s sexy. I won’t argue that point at all.

Yet, while some retailers and magazines see toning down the blatant sexuality is a good move, still others are moving exactly the opposite direction. I look at images for Porter magazine’s summer edition, Flair Italy, the Marfa Journal SS2016, the April edition of Marie Claire Italy, among others and the level of nude and other sexy imagery is higher than ever. There’s even an editorial in the Spring/Summer edition of Gentlewoman titled “Crotch” and it is exactly what the name implies.

What’s changing isn’t so much the absence or presence of nudity, but rather how that nudity represents more than just being sexy. There is a greater emphasis on artistry, on the uniqueness of the photography and how it is processed. There is a tilt toward the bizarre, such as an editorial done with the model holding a very large, limp fish. There’s also an emphasis on empowerment. One magazine gave two models and camera and a boat to themselves for the weekend. No photographer, no crew. The result was perhaps surprising, with a lot more nudity as the models felt free to not bother getting dressed the entire weekend, but also empowering because they were in charge of what pictures were taken when.

Not everyone is making the shift successfully. Schlossberg’s article references how sales have dropped at American Apparel since they changed their ad campaign to something considerably less provocative. Similarly, Abercrombie & Fitch is second-guessing whether they might have let the pendulum swing a little too far.

Meanwhile, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition adds MMA fighter Ronda Rousey and plus size model Ashley Graham to their covers and get more attention than ever because they defined sexy as something other than the traditional size two.

Every generation redefines what sexy is for them, and the past few generations have largely copied off what came before. What’s happening now is that millennials, and the upcoming Gen Z folks what a more three-dimensional image of what’s sexy.  They’re not satisfied with a flat image of a naked body or two. Instead, they want that image to have something to say other than, “Hey, I’m naked.” Nudity is a strong communicator, as we’ve seen with celebrity nude selfies the past few weeks, but what they’re communicating with that nudity is a message of empowerment and independence.

Sexy is finding its voice, and that’s challenging for anyone who grew up thinking that one could either be smart of be sexy, but not both. Sexy is a protest. Sexy is casting an informed vote for president. Sexy is intelligent, has a hold on its future, and gets naked whenever and where ever and with whomever it wants, on its own terms, and doesn’t care whether anyone else approves or not.

Sexy is changing, for the better I think. Get on board the new sexy train now, because last ye ar’s definition just doesn’t work anymore.

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  PotD
Only Tom Hardy Can Go Naked On TV
February 11, 2016
charles i. letbetter - only Tom Hardy gets to go naked on TV

If you look around Hollywood there’s no end of white smiles and six packs. Long lines of beautiful people lining up to be incredible on film.—Tom Hardy

 

charles i. letbetter - only Tom Hardy can be naked on TV

Why can’t she be naked on television? Apparently only because she’s female.

At first, I was rather amused when I read Vanity Fair’s story claiming that Tom Hardy is filming a period adventure drama in the nude. After all, Hardy’s new show, Taboo, is filming in Essex of all places. There’s no way that being naked in Essex this time of year is even remotely comfortable. Brush up on your Photoshop skills because someone is going to need them! The whole matter seems just a bit absurd.

The more I thought about it, though, it occurred to me that the strangeness isn’t that Hardy is nude as much as it is the fact they’re getting away with it. Granted, the BBC censors have long allowed for certain amounts of non-sexual nudity and from what I can gather there’s nothing sexy about the role Hardy is playing. However, the program is scheduled to appear on FX as well, which means there will be naked man parts on US television.

Now, there are still some caveats, such as the fact that one has to have a cable subscription or in some other form be paying to watch content from FX. There still isn’t any form of nudity intentionally allowed on broadcast television in the US, whether it’s Tom Hardy or anyone else. We also assume (though we could be wrong) that there is some justifiable reason for Hardy’s character to be running around in nothing but his ink.

But, consider Tom Hardy compared to the photo above. They’re both human. They both are familiar with a tattoo gun. And they’re both naked. Actually, Hardy is more naked than our model; he tosses his underwear and goes full monty. Yet, it’s okay when Tom Hardy does it, but considered criminal if our model were to do the exact same thing.

Are you beginning to see the problem here?

Of course, it’s not like gender discrimination is anything new. Women were screaming about it long before there was the Internet. The biggest difference between then and now and that more people are aware of the senseless discrepancy both in terms of law and practice. No one can claim ignorance anymore and the excuse that everyone is doing it only underscores the need for change.

Sexism is a problem all around the world, but it becomes difficult to battle when we see such biased values supported through media such as television. The qualities of Hardy’s character matter little in light of the fact that, were his character female exhibiting the exact same qualities and motivations, she would either have to put on clothes or risk being arrested and/or fined. Only Tom Hardy can be naked on TV. Anyone else has to cover up.

This is exactly the form of sexism that the #FreeTheNipple campaign protests. Double standards are abhorrent no matter where they occur and when they are so obviously gender-biased there is every good reason to use civil disobedience or whatever other means seem reasonable to protest. What’s important to realize in this case  is that we’re not opposed to Hardy being nude. Good for him! We’re happy! What rankles our temper just a bit is that it’s only Tom that can get away with this. A woman in the same role just wouldn’t fly past BBC or FX censors.

We’ve talked about the problem with gender bias and nudity before both here and here so I won’t bother repeating everything I’ve already said. Let’s just consider this a dramatic underscore. Tom Hardy doesn’t get special privileges.  If he gets to go naked on television, women deserve the right to do the same. No excuses.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Published
Google Me, If You Dare
January 17, 2016
charles i. letbetter - google me

Why bother with Google when I have a wife who knows everything about everything!—Akshay Kumar

 

charles i. letbetter - Google Me

We don’t control the information visible when someone searches for our name

I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to the nonsense surrounding presidential politics because I’ve already decided for whom I will vote and, beyond that, the rest is little more than a poorly-put-together entertainment spectacle. No one could write television as bad as the debates and keep their job. Yet, those debates keep happening and the amount of bovine excrement from them continues to mount.

There was one brief moment of hilarity this past week, though, when a certain former senator from Pennsylvania suggested that people, “Google me.” I’m not going to mention the candidate by name, because I want nothing to do with furthering his infamy. However, those who have watched the former senator’s nonsense for a while immediately burst out laughing, then picked up their smartphones and started tweeting. Google him? Unfortunately, we already had.

The candidate, you see, has a Google problem. He made some enemies back in 2003 due to an anti-gay statement he made. Since then, those offended by the statement have made sure the former senator’s name is associated with, “The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.” Multiple websites were purchased containing the candidate’s last name and before long the entire Internet associated that name with this definition. The former senator, or more likely his staff, has gone to great lengths to make sure that searches on his full name bring up the more desirable response of his campaign website. However, if one looks only for his last name, the results are not suitable for viewing with children in the room. Google is clearly not this candidate’s friend.

While, in this case, the punishment would seem appropriate to the crime, it’s not so funny when the rest of us do a search on our name, or worse—your parents do a search on your name, and the results come back less than flattering. This happens often and frequently there is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent those results from coming up time and time again.

Without getting too terribly technical, there are a number of reasons for why you can’t control this problem.

  1. There’s no controlling the Internet, no matter what you’ve heard.
  2. There are almost certainly people other than you with the same name, or one similar which can be just as bad.
  3. You can’t prevent other people from using your name in online conversation.
  4. The Internet never forgets, even if you do. That dating file you had before you met your spouse? It’s still out there.

All of this can amount to some very embarrassing moments. I’ve had a few of my own. Probably the most disturbing was when someone purchased a domain similar to mine. The contents of that hastily constructed site were false and unflattering. Had it stayed up, it might have severely damaged my reputation. Fortunately, there are laws and rules against such things and it only took one letter to the correct people for the site to be taken down. Still, that result continued for come up in search results for several months.

We can try to control our names as much as possible, but even when one has one as relatively unique as mine, there are still other people in the universe with the same name and, in my case, one poor soul with the same name and the same occupation. I go to a lot of trouble to make sure this website comes up at or near the top of most search engine results, but before getting to the bottom of the first page, one might be directed to a page or article that has absolutely nothing to do with me.

Even more confusing is the fact that different search engines have different formulas for displaying information. If one Googles my name, without the middle initial, the results, in order, are:

Nothing I can do about the white pages nonsense; that’s going to show up everywhere. Do the same search on Bing, though, and in addition to the same information, you get a link to the top 25 LinkedIn profiles for Charles Ledbetter. Note the difference in the spelling of the last name. None of those results are going to be me. Search Yahoo! and the first result is an ad for Charles Schwab, which is definitely  not me. If you use Ask.com, the first result is my Model Mayhem profile. Fortunately, all the top results actually do link to pages I control in some form or fashion, so any content is of my own doing. Still, the speed with which the results point to someone else is rather unsettling.

On the other end of the spectrum, if one searches for Kat, one gets — nothing. Sure, it displays some results, but either they’re not her, or they’re spam phishing information off public records. In one case, the link is to a social media account abandoned by someone in Canada with the same name. Kat has been diligent about keeping her social media accounts locked down for security reasons, and those efforts have paid off. The one link that does actually contain information about her is the link to this website, and that is always more than half-way down the page.

Now, we could cause some major embarrassment for other people. I have taken pictures of a lot of people in various stages of undress, or sometimes worse, badly dressed. Over the past few years, we’ve stopped mentioning those people’s names in conjunction with their photos not merely to prevent embarrassment (which wouldn’t bother most), but also to prevent stalking, which is another serious online issue. Not only do we not credit nude models on the website, we do not share their names with anyone unless they have specifically asked us to do so. We appreciate the people who pose for us and do not want to place them in any danger.

Since you’re not doing anything today (don’t lie), you might take a moment to Google yourself, then check the other search engines as well. You might be surprised by what you find.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  Music
Ciara & The Double Standard
January 12, 2016
charles i. letbetter - Ciara & the double standard

You Can Create Your Own Life Story With The Things You Say, So When You Speak, Say Good Things.— Ciara

 

charles i. letbetter - Ciara & the Double Standard

Spin Me (2012). Model: Angela Denton

There was, apparently, a football game last night. Apparently, Grammy award-winning artist Ciara sang the national anthem. Apparently, the only thing some people noticed was her dress.

This is one of those times when a portion of American society is being so incredibly stupid that I wish I could reach out and give them all a collective slap right across the face. Apparently, not everyone has gotten it through their heads that shaming women for having breasts isn’t cool; in fact, it is a very disgusting habit that demonstrates severe ignorance and perpetuates the kind of culture wherein rape is always the woman’s fault. Stop. This type of behavior is not acceptable in contemporary society.

Just how offensive is this dress Ciara wore? Take a look at this gorgeous gown for yourself:

charles i. letbetter - Ciara & The Double Standard

Getty Images

How in the world some people dared to call this nude is beyond me. Do they have x-ray vision or something? The trolls hit Twitter so fast it was infuriating. Making matters worse, they were led by former ESPN analyst Bonnie Bernstein who should know better than to make a statement as offensive as this:

That was all the cue Twitter trolls needed. Within seconds, the pile on became heavy and increasingly ignorant. The diatribe continued even after the game was over, as though, somehow, Ciara wearing this dress was going to bring about the fall of civilization. Quite to the contrary, it is such narrow-minded, sexist opinions that are more likely to be our undoing.

What’s even more glaring, though, is the double standard such outrage presents. While, apparently, it’s okay to give Ciara grief over wearing such a wonderful gown (I mean, come on, the arch of that cape is perfect), no one says a damn thing about college students running around the field looking like this:

charles i. letbetter - Ciara & the Double Standard.

I wonder if the University of Alabama offers a degree in Objectifying Women or if it’s just an extra-curricular pastime on campus?

Quite honestly, it shouldn’t matter one bit if Ciara opted to walk out onto that field bare-ass naked; that would still be no just cause for attempting to shame her. We, as a nation and as a society, need to get the hell over this bad habit and realize the long-term harm such attitudes do to women, to the violence this attitude perpetuates.

Whoever dressed Ciara for this occasion should be congratulated on choosing a gown that was beautiful, flattering, and looked spectacular under the stadium lights.

Meanwhile, I guess I’m the only one who noticed the 0 in the 2016, which was a significant part of the game’s marketing, looked a bit too much like a vagina. And if you still want to really be upset by something, consider the fact that Coldplay is doing the Super Bowl halftime. Now that is offensive.

Continue Reading

Art  /  Photography  /  PotD
Relevant Culture
October 22, 2015
charles i. letbetter - relevant culture

charles i. letbetter - relevant culture

String of Pearls (2010)

It’s much easier to be successful than it is to be relevant. The tricks won’t keep you relevant. Tricks might keep you popular for a while, but in all honesty, I don’t know how U2 will stay relevant. I know we’ve got a future. I know we can fill stadiums. And yet with every record, I think, ‘Is this it? Are we still relevant?’—Bono

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Marilyn Monroe. Jane Mansfield. Elizabeth Taylor. Ursula Andress. Kim Basinger. Linda Evans. Joan Collins. Drew Barrymore. Belinda Carlyle. Bo Derek. Tara Reid. Jamie Pressley. Denise Richads. Dita Van Teese. Tori Wilson. Nancy Sinatra. These are just a few of the celebrities who not only posed nude for Playboy®, but did so at a time that made their presence in the magazine culturally relevant. From the very first issue in 1953, Hef used celebrities as a way of making sure the magazine mattered, that what appeared in the magazine would be conversation fodder for water coolors and bar rooms everywhere.

Having content that was socially relevant took the magazine from something one hid under the bed or in a closet, to one that was regularly discussed at dinner tables. It didn’t matter whether one approved of the content, it was the fact that people were talking about Playboy and its nudes that made the magazine relevant. For a celebrity, being in Playboy was an instant invite to the late-night talk shows, a career booster like no other. In fact, for a set of celebrities such as Pam Anderson, Carmen Electra, and Anna Nicole Smith, their careers would not have existed without their appearance in the magazine; it was just that relevant.

Playboy has long held a very unique and even peculiar place in American society. As hard as the mainstream media tried to demonize the men’s magazine, Hef continually produced content so incredibly relevant that people had to pay attention. The magazine’s interview with Georgia governor Jimmy Carter in 1976 was one of the factors that propelled Carter into the White House. Nancy Sinatra’s spread in 1995 helped rejuvinate a career that had been dormant for two decades but was about to explode again with the Kill Bill movies. Drew Barrymore and other former child stars took to the pages of Playboy to let the industry know they were ready for more adult roles. Granted, the spreads worked out better for some than it did others, but the point is that the nudes, as well as most all the content, were relevant.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Now, ask yourself the last time you rushed to pick up a Playboy because of who was going to be in its pages? When was the last time that anyone actually  cared about who was doing a spread in the magazine. While management’s decision to completely abandon nudes happened only a week ago, they’ve quietly been moving away from that format for the past three years with an increasing number of pictorals not going any further than implied nudity and several non-gatefold sets not even getting close to anyone being naked. With the base reason for picking up the magazine dwindling, the rest of the content, such as the interviews and fiction, have been largely ignored. Playboy is no longer as relevant as it once was.

Over the past few years, Playboy has stepped away from the controversy that once surrounded their nude spreads. As the quality of the photorgaphy diminished, so too did their choice of celebrities and models. One of the challenges they now face is that international fashion magazines, such as Vogue Italia, not only have more nudity than does Playboy, but they are more culturally relevant (because of the relationship to fashion) and the level of photography is arguably light years above anything Playboy is producing. Photographers such as Steven Meisel and Nick Knight are shooting the new celebrities, fashion models such as Cara Delevigne, Joan Smalls, and Karlie Kloss in nude editorials that render the mediocre nudes in Playboy almost boring.

Playboy could still come back to a position of being dominantly relevant, but it is not likely to do so by dropping nudes. The success of fashion magazines publishing creative nude spreads demonstrates that the right style of nude photography is still amazingly relevant and capable of selling print issues. Change has to happen, but dropping nudes isn’t the answer now and won’t be the answer in the future.[/one_half_last]

Continue Reading

Art  /  Photography  /  PotD
A Shadow of Former Glory
October 21, 2015
charles i. letbetter - a shadow of former glory

charles i. letbetter - a shadow of former glory

The Smallest Light (2008)

That though the radiance which was once so bright be now forever taken from my sight. Though nothing can bring back the hour of splendor in the grass, glory in the flower. We will grieve not, rather find strength in what remains behind.—William Wordsworth

The November 1972 issue of Playboy® sold over seven million copies. This month, they will be lucky to see 500,000 copies leave store shelves. What made that 1972 issue so popular? Was there a special interview? Were the articles particularly on point? Where the editorial cartoons especially biting? No, it was the gatefold of Lena Söderberg, shot by Dwight Hooker, that made the issue leap off shelves. In fact, it remains one of the most sought after collectors’ editions to this day. For years, a cropped version of that picture of Lena has been used as the ultimate test for dithering in color computer imaging. The gatefold is also a topic of conversation in the 1973 Woody Allen film Sleeper. Ah, the glory days.

Much of the glory, however, is gone and the reasons have nothing to do with the magazine’s iconic nudes. There isn’t a printed periodical in the country that hasn’t been severely challenged by the Internet, for starters, and more than a few great titles have completely folded as a result. Online “magazines”, not unlike online shopping, took traditional publishers completely by surprise and even those who attempted to adapt early often did so in ways that were not sustainable. Only a few titles, such as the New  York Times and Condé Nast’s Vogue have recently figured out how to make their print and online presence work symbiotically. For Playboy’s circulation numbers to have fallen dramatically isn’t surprising for that reason alone.

Playboy’s circulation problems didn’t begin with the Internet, though. Numbers had been declining long before online publishing was even a thing. Circulation in the 80s was lower than the 70s, and the 90s numbers were dramatically lower than the 80s. Blaming the Internet for the magazine’s decline ignores the fact that the glory that was once Playboy was long gone before live streaming and pervasive free porn ever became a factor. Playboy was already standing on the edge of a publishing cliff. All the Internet did was push it over.

If the Internet isn’t the cause of Playboy’s troubles, though, what is? Where is the luster and glory that made the name so well known? The list of reasons could be long, but overall they can be summarized into two primary categories: 1. Hugh Hefner left the magazine, and 2. the emphasis changed. One of the most seismic declines in circulation came when Hef turned control of the magazine over to his daughter, Christie. There were already some challenges even before than happened, but, inevitably, Christie’s vision for the magazine wasn’t the same as her father’s and it had been Hef’s view of how life should be lived that had driven the magazine since its inception. Sure, his name has always been on the masthead as editor in chief, but once his voice was no longer dominant, the magazine faltered.

More critically, though, Playboy the company became the primary competitor to Playboy the magazine. Special Editions introduced in the 80s were much heavier on photographs and contained extended set not shown in the magazines. Those who were primarily interested in the pictures picked up titles such as “Girls of the Big Ten” rather than the full magazine. The introduction of videos in the 80s also distracted some magazine buyers. Over the years, Playboy the company has become more dependent upon revenue from licensing than publishing, and that distraction has stolen glory from the magazine.

Playboy dropping nudes from its magazine is a reactive strategy that is likely to only hasten its demise. While Playboy’s management is quick to tout the five-fold increase in unique views the website had when it dropped nudes, expecting print readers to respond the same way is foolish and naive. Playboy dropping nudes is like the New York Times eliminating investigative journalism or Vogue deciding to drop fashion editorials. Gutting their primary source of glory is likely to have the opposite effect and may well find its editorial staff looking for new jobs.

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  PotD
Smoking. Hot.
September 21, 2015
charles i. letbetter - smoking. hot.

charles i. letbetter - smoiking. hot.

Dances With Pearls (2014)

As an example to others, and not that I care for moderation myself, it has always been my rule never to smoke when asleep, and never to refrain from smoking when awake.—Mark Twain

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]I hate the sight of no smoking signs. Not that I’m this huge smoker by any stretch of the imagination. Cigarettes are, in my opinion, a waste of money; three or four puffs and they’re gone. Why bother? I’ll occasionally smoke a pipe if I’m stressed and trying to chill, or perhaps have a cigar while out in the middle of nowhere, sitting around a campfire. I don’t have this huge oral fixation that requires I put something up to my mouth all the time. Still, the very sight of a no smoking sign angers me because it restricts my right to choose. Am I not intelligent enough to make the right choice? Are you calling me stupid with your fucking sign? Can you not see how horribly insulting that damn sign is?

I understand: clean air.  The statistics regarding second-hand smoke are damning. I’ll admit, I don’t mind walking into an office, especially the doctor’s office, and the whole place not smelling like smoke. I don’t mind walking into a restaurant and not having to choose between smoking or non-smoking (we typically chose smoking  simply because it was less crowded). I don’t mind coming home and my clothes not smelling like a cheap brand of cigarettes. I get it. I understand what anti-smoking advocates are trying to do. I still don’t like the damn signs.

Statistics are clear: cigarette smoking remains the largest single preventable cause of death in the United States. In addition to killing somewhere in the neighborhood of 480,000 people in the US each year, the direct cost of that addiction in terms of healthcare and lost productivity is around $300 billion annually. Smoking doesn’t play fair, either. One is more likely to smoke if they are male, has their GED, is a former service member, and is racially mixed, according to statistical evidence. Children born to mothers who smoke during pregnancy are likely to have a significantly lower birth rate. Smoking is the second leading cause of death in the entire world. The numbers against smoking are absolutely overwhelming.

There’s just one problem: Uncle Fred.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]If you’ve known me more than five minutes I’ve probably told you about my Uncle Fred. I know I’ve written about him before. Uncle Fred was one of those migrants in John Updike’s The Grapes of Wrath that left dust bowl Oklahoma along with his wife, Aunt Irene, who was my grandmother’s sister. They settled in Turlock, California, up in the Northern end of that state, worked hard from sunup to sundown, raised three boys, were heavily engaged in civic activities, traveled when they could, argued with each other like cats and dogs and lived what was, for their time, a pretty normal life.

Uncle Fred was a two-pack-a-day smoker. He was respectful, he’d go outside, step away from the doorway, smoke two or three, then come back inside. If it were raining and the porch was too short, he’d either find a tree or stand under the eve of the house. All that smoking eventually killed him … at age 96. Aunt Irene, who didn’t smoke and wouldn’t allow Fred to do it in their house, died four years later at age 92. If we look solely at Fred and Irene’s statistics, smoking’s apparently good for you. That’s why I have a problem with those damn signs. Statistics are numbers and numbers aren’t people. We don’t know how many Uncle Freds there are because, since they aren’t dying off too quickly, we’re not studying them.

There are roughly 320 million people in the United States. If we lose 480,000 to smoking each year, that’s a whopping 0.15% of the total. Pay attention. That’s not fifteen percent. That’s less than two-tenths of ONE percent. We’re making all this fuss over a group of people so statistically small that, in almost any other study, they would be insignificant. With over seven billion people on the planet, we’re over-populated beyond the point of sustainability. We need more than 0.15% to die off if we’re going to continue living here. Sustainability is more critical than smoking at this point. Think of smokers as volunteers for population control.

Smoke ’em if you’ve got ’em and lose the damn signs.[/one_half_last]

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  PotD
Commando
July 11, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

The Taste of Nothing (2010)

My mom was sarcastic about men. She would tell me Adam was the rough draft and Eve was the final product. She was a feminist minister, an earth mom who wore a bra only on Sundays. —Daphne Zuniga

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]We end this week of lingerie-inspired posts with – nothing. For all the wonderful lace and silk and satin things there are for a woman to wear under her clothing, there are still a number of women who don’t want anything at all between them and their clothes. They prefer to go commando, as it were. Some like the feel of the fabric against their skin. Some don’t like the restriction of a bra or the bunching of panties. Some just don’t like to be bothered. Whatever the reason, we couldn’t end our discussion of what’s underneath clothing without admitting that sometimes there’s nothing there at all, and sometimes that’s wonderful.

Sometimes, however, the result is less wonderful and more curiously interesting. There is a humorous saying, “Go without a bra and pull the wrinkles from your feet.” Certainly, there is a point at which mother nature’s blessings give way to the reality of gravity and what was once sexy and attractive becomes more of a comic about old age.

I strongly remember a high school history teacher who had already put in 40 years of service by the time I was in her class. She was a striking woman, over six feet tall, broad-shouldered, and a sharp wit that could cut the most caustic teen sarcasm. In her youth, she had been quite a beauty and even a bit of an exhibitionist for her time. The pictures she showed were tame compared to contemporary styles but one had cost her a teaching job when she was fresh out of college. Over the years, she had kept that “don’t care” attitude and even as she was nearing retirement she would show up at school at least once a week not wearing a bra. One would have needed to be blind to not notice. Her large, once proud breasts sagged to her waist. No need to hide the laughter, though. She made the jokes herself and loved the horrified reaction of teenage girls.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Humor aside, there are times when not wearing underwear really does make sense, especially during the summer. Restrictive clothing and heat result in moisture that just sits against the skin, which is rarely a good thing. Moisture under bras, especially those with built-in support, can result in rashes that may then rub raw and result in infection. Those skinny jeans you like so much? On hot summer days they cause perspiration that, when trapped by underwear, leads to yeast infections and other not-so-nice hygiene problems. The solution for those situations is to, a: wear loose-fitting clothing, especially skirts, and b: go commando. Your body appreciates the extra air and freedom to move.

Going commando also has its sexy side as well. The natural shape of the breast becomes more evident outside a bra. Over the past few years, exposure of side-boob has become a “thing” that has its own groups on tumblr and reddit. The sight of a woman’s nude silhouette beneath a dress of light fabric has always been enticing. Then, there’s also the fact that a large number of contemporary designs are such that wearing anything under them is either practically impossible or would be a horrifying distraction to the look, especially within the realm of evening wear. Our exhibitionist society often delights in seeing just how close to nude one can get without being arrested. Does Rhianna even own underwear?

Lingerie is wonderful and our all-to-brief look at it this week has been fun. While styles inevitably change and women’s preference shift, what women wear under their clothes is something we will always find exciting, interesting, and alluring.

Even when what they’re wearing is nothing at all.[/one_half_last]

 

Continue Reading

Art  /  Photography  /  PotD
Splitting Exposure
June 13, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

From the Window to the Wall (2006)

“The trouble with rules, though, is that you’ll always be tempted to break one- for the right reasons, due to unavoidable circumstances, because it feels as if there’s no other choice. And once you break one, the rest seem like so much broken glass. The damage is already done.” ― Stacey Kade, The Rules

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Here we are at the very end of this rule breaking week and I can tell by the significant drop in the number of visitors we’ve had that you’re really not too terribly interested in the topic. Perhaps you are too busy breaking your own rules in your own way to find our discussion of them to be of any value. Perhaps you’ve observed the breaking of rules for so long that you doubt, probably correctly, that we are covering any new territory. Maybe you just found other things to do. I don’t know. I only care because I really don’t like that feeling that I’m screaming into the wind.

So, I’m breaking one of my own rules today with a full nude. I had told myself, in my annual introspective meeting of my mind, that I would not post any full nudes outside the Art section of the website. The reason for that being my desire to not overtly offend those who might arrive at the website without prior knowledge of who I am or what I shoot. If one is simply looking for a photographer for your child’s one-year-old portrait, one doesn’t necessarily want to be inundated with nudity. I don’t fault someone for not wanting to look at nude photography without warning. Most the nude imagery is kept to the art section where it attracts people who are interested in that material.

Oh, but you, dear voyeur, have shown your true colors. You enjoy the enticing and even implied naughtiness of some pictures. When we posted a picture of a couple simulating sex last week, our hit count went through the digital roof with us doing only minimal marketing. If anyone was offended, they certainly didn’t bother saying so. If anything, the inference is that, given the opportunity, those of more salacious appetites will beat a webbed path to our world-wide door if we simply guide them with the right picture. Such knowledge puts us in a bit of a quandary: do we go for the increased attention or do we try to be good neighbors in our digital neighborhood? [/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Our picture today is actually one of my favorites and I do so miss the model who has moved on to other endeavors. Long exposure shots are always interesting and this one is made more so by the fact that the window through which a street lamp provides illumination contains two different kinds of glass. As a result, the glass in the lower part of the window creates a distortion that dramatically alters the lines. By having the model stand half in light, half in shadow, we open the image to numerous metaphors and interpretations. There is a lot going on here for such a very simple looking photograph.

Are we breaking a photographic rule? Yes, a couple of them actually. We’re not going to tell you what they are, though, since that’s almost assuredly not why you’re really here. If you’re just dying to know, though, you can always drop me a note and I’ll be happy to answer when I return from camping, which is how I am spending my weekend. While we will be taking some pictures this weekend, they are likely to be much more journalistic in nature and almost certainly won’t involve any nudity, or adult situations, or much of anything else that a reasonable person might find objectionable. Note that I said a reasonable person; those who are offended by everything we do are obviously not reasonable.

There’s a lot going on this weekend and I’m sure that no matter where you live there are better things to do than sitting around looking at nine-year-old pictures of naked people on the Internet. If you’ve not found any of those things, you are seriously in need of a life transplant and I cannot assist you with that. You’re on your own. For the rest of you who are stopping by either after or perhaps in between all the festivities, thank you. We take off in a significantly less structured direction starting tomorrow, so please add checking the #POTD to your to-do list. Better yet, just subscribe so that a gentle, loving reminder shows up in your email every morning. [/one_half_last]

PEACE

Continue Reading

Art  /  PotD
Not Quite Naked: Inherent
May 22, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

Mmmm, Chocolate (2012)

Modern pessimism denies the intrinsic beauty and replaces it with a subjective vision that cares little for the objective truth. In this thought the figure, whether nude or clothed, loses its form by putting more value on its symbolism than its actual form. That’s when you need a Rembrandt to step in a remind us of the value of content in its relation to form and beauty! -Shane Conant

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]Everyone gets naked, but not everyone knows how to be nude. Being naked is inevitable; one bathes, one changes clothes, sooner or later naked happens to everyone. Being nude, though, requires a level of comfortability with being in one’s own skin. The person who is naked is more likely to run for cover is the doorbell rings while the person who is nude may go ahead and answer the door. The person who is naked is careful to keep the blinds closed and the curtains drawn while the nude individual enjoys the warm sunlight coming through the window. Being naked is inherent, but being nude is a choice.

Artists often focus on the nude, not the naked, and I think it is important that we understand the difference between the two not just in the personal sense but how it makes a difference in the basic condition of approaching a work of art. Art school is partially responsible for our focus on the nude because it necessarily looks at the figure first as an object to be drawn. Even some photography schools insist that their students first take figure drawing classes before moving on to other forms of photography. Understanding the basic mechanics of the nude form is essential to accurately portraying the figure in other settings.

At the same time, part of our need to find symbolism and meaning in the nude form comes from a defensive position wherein we feel the need to justify having an unclothed person in front of our lens or our canvas. Moral criticism of the nude, which by its very nature objectifies the body as a thing to be shamed, puts artists on guard and finds us looking for meaning in work that, such as today’s image, doesn’t necessarily need any additional meaning for it to be appreciated. [/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]Insisting that there be meaning to every aspect of an image takes away one’s ability to enjoy the human figure for the natural work of art that it is. The human form does not require us to explain what makes it beautiful for it is beautiful beyond the ability of our words to describe. Imposing unintended symbolism on every image of a human form we see is just as improper as those who impose unnecessary morality upon everything that exists. Not everything requires our intervention or interpretation in order to be a work of art.

I very much like this quote from an artist who understood the difference between nude and naked:

Hitherto the nude has always been represented in poses which presuppose an audience. But my women are simple, honest creatures who are concerned with nothing beyond their physical occupations… it is as if you were looking through a keyhole. (Edgar Degas)

Dripping chocolate down a naked back has absolutely no symbolism, no greater meaning, no architectural inference. Mmmm, Chocolate is simply dripping chocolate down a naked back. That’s it. Nothing else. Any artistry comes naturally in the juxtaposition of light and dark, highlights and shadows, contrast and toning. One needn’t be an artist of great experience or full of profound thought in order to take this picture. Sometimes we don’t need any reason for capturing an image beyond the basic desire to capture that specific image. Art doesn’t always need an explanation or deeper meaning. Let art be art. Let naked be naked.[/one_half_last]

 

Continue Reading

Page 6 of 6