# Art and Pornography



## WickerDeer

This is a vent that I decided to turn into its own topic.

I tried looking up "sacred pornography" since I wondered what it would mean.

Pornography is media that is supposed to evoke sexual arousal. So I figured sacred pornography would be similar, only perhaps some kind of thing beyond just carnal sexual arousal, but some kind of desire to find enlightenment or something. 

Which I guess is what much art evokes--like it is supposed to evoke some kind of feeling, in general (doesn't have to be the intention behind it, but it's widely described as a part of creative expression...that it communicates something or evokes a feeling.

So in that way, art is similar to pornography.

But I found this theological argument that "shame" is supposed to have us avert our eyes from something--something like nakedness or I assume weakness. So in this argument, pornography was wrong because it is _explicit._

So maybe sacred pornography would be pornography in which the things that people are ashamed of would be hidden. Perhaps because they would want to transform them?

But why should you be ashamed of something natural and healthy? Perhaps you need to illuminate it in order to transform it. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with sex.

But maybe this idea of keeping something secret or private...that is not shameful...that is sacred, is an idea for what could be a sacred pornography? Which I'm not even sure why it would be porn then. Maybe because it is a creative thing--an urge to transform and create something new.

Perhaps to focus on what you would like it to transform into. That is the pornography--that it's supposed to evoke a feeling of desire for change.

But it just reflects my desire for change as well. To aspire to be more or do more. 

And I don't like pornography--I feel there is a lot missing from it and so perhaps for me, it would be good to be able to express my own conception of sexuality and the process of creation and the role of pleasure, and the role of averting one's eyes or keeping some things private. I am really curious what that means--to keep something private. To me it seems the best to do it when you are protecting it. Not because you are ashamed of it. So it is also about protection of what is sacred.

And also "the invisible" since the material world is visible--and a lot of porn is just sensual, but there is the immaterial word too. Of dreams and of imagining better, and of values and love and appreciating inner beauty and also appreciating beauty that is difficult to see.


----------



## SgtPepper

I absolutely *love* erotic art and support it.

At the same time, I hate 99% of porn out there.


----------



## WickerDeer

SgtPepper said:


> I absolutely *love* erotic art and support it.
> 
> At the time, I hate 99% of porn out there.


Cool! Do you have any artists or platforms you would recommend or suggest to check out? I also don't like most porn and am curious about erotic art.


----------



## thedazzlingdexter

WickerDeer said:


> This is a vent that I decided to turn into its own topic.
> 
> I tried looking up "sacred pornography" since I wondered what it would mean.
> 
> Pornography is media that is supposed to evoke sexual arousal. So I figured sacred pornography would be similar, only perhaps some kind of thing beyond just carnal sexual arousal, but some kind of desire to find enlightenment or something.
> 
> Which I guess is what much art evokes--like it is supposed to evoke some kind of feeling, in general (doesn't have to be the intention behind it, but it's widely described as a part of creative expression...that it communicates something or evokes a feeling.
> 
> So in that way, art is similar to pornography.
> 
> But I found this theological argument that "shame" is supposed to have us avert our eyes from something--something like nakedness or I assume weakness. So in this argument, pornography was wrong because it is _explicit._
> 
> So maybe sacred pornography would be pornography in which the things that people are ashamed of would be hidden. Perhaps because they would want to transform them?
> 
> But why should you be ashamed of something natural and healthy? Perhaps you need to illuminate it in order to transform it. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with sex.
> 
> But maybe this idea of keeping something secret or private...that is not shameful...that is sacred, is an idea for what could be a sacred pornography? Which I'm not even sure why it would be porn then. Maybe because it is a creative thing--an urge to transform and create something new.
> 
> Perhaps to focus on what you would like it to transform into. That is the pornography--that it's supposed to evoke a feeling of desire for change.
> 
> But it just reflects my desire for change as well. To aspire to be more or do more.
> 
> And I don't like pornography--I feel there is a lot missing from it and so perhaps for me, it would be good to be able to express my own conception of sexuality and the process of creation and the role of pleasure, and the role of averting one's eyes or keeping some things private. I am really curious what that means--to keep something private. To me it seems the best to do it when you are protecting it. Not because you are ashamed of it. So it is also about protection of what is sacred.
> 
> And also "the invisible" since the material world is visible--and a lot of porn is just sensual, but there is the immaterial word too. Of dreams and of imagining better, and of values and love and appreciating inner beauty and also appreciating beauty that is difficult to see.


I mean people make and sell art which is meant to be "Erotic" so it could technically be both.


----------



## WickerDeer

thedazzlingdexter said:


> I mean people make and sell art which is meant to be "Erotic" so it could technically be both.


Yeah it can be both--good point. Perhaps I should rename the title.


----------



## Squirt

I remember when Bruce Timm (known for the Batman cartoons) did an erotic art book. Was a big fan of his work growing up, and so I thought that was bold with his reputation for making child-friendly content - he used the same art style as his cartoons, too. Bold move.

Pretty much anything can be imbued with eroticism... which could be part of that "avert your eyes" concept or being inexplicit. Of euphemism? Or Rule 34, lol.

I'd have more to say here but this is a public forum.  All I will comment further is that it is possible to create pornography that transcends the genre.


----------



## WickerDeer

Squirt said:


> I'd have more to say here but this is a public forum.


I'll avert my eyes...just pretend you're telling it to the chimney...  (There was a Grimms tale like that where the girl swore she couldn't reveal something, so the king told her to say it to a furnace or something, and then just listened at the top of the pipe--though it wasn't pornographic, it was about some curse or something...lol I always thought that was a funny loophole.)


----------



## Squirt

Has anyone seen Nymphomaniac? I'm told it was excellent - I have it but I still haven't watched it yet...

Nymphomaniac (film) - Wikipedia


----------



## tanstaafl28

WickerDeer said:


> Cool! Do you have any artists or platforms you would recommend or suggest to check out? I also don't like most porn and am curious about erotic art.


I know a number of them, I'll have to do them tomorrow though when I'm working from home. I like erotic art that is both titillating and beautiful at the same time. Art should evoke a passionate response no matter what the subject matter, IMHO.


----------



## WickerDeer

Squirt said:


> Has anyone seen Nymphomaniac? I'm told it was excellent - I have it but I still haven't watched it yet...
> 
> Nymphomaniac (film) - Wikipedia


Looks really interesting! Thanks! I will try to watch it if I get the chance.


---------------------

I like the graphic novel Cages by Dave McKean--it's not pornographic, I don't think, but it's still about creative expression and the urge to both isolate and also to creatively merge either romantically or with something larger (like art), so I interpreted it to be about sex even though it's really not.

I'll leave a video I just watched here even if it's not very on topic but it's sort of about art and artistic process.


----------



## tanstaafl28

Squirt said:


> Has anyone seen Nymphomaniac? I'm told it was excellent - I have it but I still haven't watched it yet...
> 
> Nymphomaniac (film) - Wikipedia


I watched some of it. It was good, but I'm either hooked or I'm looking for something that hooks me. I have to be in the right mood for movies with subtitles. It's extra work. There's so many stories I want to watch and so little time. Now that I have a bigger screen TV, maybe I'll give it another go.


----------



## Squirt

tanstaafl28 said:


> I watched some of it. It was good, but I'm either hooked or I'm looking for something that hooks me. I have to be in the right mood for movies with subtitles. It's extra work. There's so many stories I want to watch and so little time. Now that I have a bigger screen TV, maybe I'll give it another go.


That's part of why I haven't watched it, yet. It's also a long film split into two volumes.


----------



## Squirt

WickerDeer said:


> Looks really interesting! Thanks! I will try to watch it if I get the chance.
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> I like the graphic novel Cages by Dave McKean--it's not pornographic, I don't think, but it's still about creative expression and the urge to both isolate and also to creatively merge either romantically or with something larger (like art), so I interpreted it to be about sex even though it's really not.
> 
> I'll leave a video I just watched here even if it's not very on topic but it's sort of about art and artistic process.


Odd Nerdrum is often sensual/suggestive with his paintings, but usually in a grotesque or visceral way, and entwined with suggestions of death, dreaminess, or political/social violence.

Odd Nerdrum Official -

One of his paintings really struck me - an earlier one I can't find online. It is not surreal in the same way as his later work. It was of a boy (looking to be about 12) sitting on an unmade bed as if he'd just woke up. He was naked with a stunned look on his face. There was lovely pastel morning light streaming through a window, and a dark figure barely visible in the foreground pulling a shirt on. It was such a disturbing painting - being at once beautiful but with that "averted gaze" of meaning.

I pretty much view Odd Nerdrum's work to be like what you describe - an urge to both isolate and merge. That's a really nice way to phrase it.


----------



## WickerDeer

Squirt said:


> Odd Nerdrum is often sensual/suggestive with his paintings, but usually in a grotesque or visceral way, and entwined with suggestions of death, dreaminess, or political/social violence.


His artwork reminds me of Ni/Se and intuitive (or perceiving function) dominant as Jung described it (but I don't put a lot of stock in typing people by artwork--it's just something I thought about when looking at his paintings.

This painting reminded me of vulnerability and weakness--he uses a lot of colors in some of his flesh tones which maybe part of why I felt that way about it. But there are also paintings in which there is maybe a theme of protection, with people holding babies and perhaps this one sort of like both exposure and also protection or obscuring (I mean, the man's body is pretty exposed but he also is being sort of sheltered by a figure and a blanket).

I tried to look up a reverse google image search on it to figure out the name, but just came up with "women's erotica" so I guess you are not the only one who associated his art with erotica--seems like the algorithms do too.

But it reminded me of that idea of fragility and weakness, hidden things, and averting one's eyes.










I'm pretty sensitive when it comes to imagery that is disturbing though, which is one reason I don't like actual pornography--but I found it interesting, this concept of averting one's eyes from the ugliness of reality, perhaps--fragility and transience.

But examining it can also offer solutions--such as protection, nurturing, and valuing/respecting.









ODD NERDRUM, PITTORE NORVEGESE – Dipingere fuori del tempo e dello spazio - Meeting Benches







meetingbenches.net





So I guess it reminds me of the how pornography does depict reality--like the reality of sex in an explicit and realistic way, but not entirely since it's also trying to evoke positive feelings. I think that a lot of Odd's work evokes a mix of feelings both positive/negative--which is probably more characteristic of what people consider art than pornography. But there is something to looking at reality rather than fantasy, because it can also help us consider how best to engage with reality and what options are available--such as shielding/nurturing vulnerability and weakness.


----------



## WickerDeer

It's also starting to dawn on me that I'm absolutely not cut out to be a pornographer  ...lol but may as well still consider what the relationship is between porn and art since I've had so many hangups about issues around this (and the world).


----------



## JimT

WickerDeer said:


> This is a vent that I decided to turn into its own topic.
> 
> I tried looking up "sacred pornography" since I wondered what it would mean.
> 
> Pornography is media that is supposed to evoke sexual arousal. So I figured sacred pornography would be similar, only perhaps some kind of thing beyond just carnal sexual arousal, but some kind of desire to find enlightenment or something.
> 
> Which I guess is what much art evokes--like it is supposed to evoke some kind of feeling, in general (doesn't have to be the intention behind it, but it's widely described as a part of creative expression...that it communicates something or evokes a feeling.
> 
> So in that way, art is similar to pornography.
> 
> But I found this theological argument that "shame" is supposed to have us avert our eyes from something--something like nakedness or I assume weakness. So in this argument, pornography was wrong because it is _explicit._
> 
> So maybe sacred pornography would be pornography in which the things that people are ashamed of would be hidden. Perhaps because they would want to transform them?
> 
> But why should you be ashamed of something natural and healthy? Perhaps you need to illuminate it in order to transform it. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with sex.
> 
> But maybe this idea of keeping something secret or private...that is not shameful...that is sacred, is an idea for what could be a sacred pornography? Which I'm not even sure why it would be porn then. Maybe because it is a creative thing--an urge to transform and create something new.
> 
> Perhaps to focus on what you would like it to transform into. That is the pornography--that it's supposed to evoke a feeling of desire for change.
> 
> But it just reflects my desire for change as well. To aspire to be more or do more.
> 
> And I don't like pornography--I feel there is a lot missing from it and so perhaps for me, it would be good to be able to express my own conception of sexuality and the process of creation and the role of pleasure, and the role of averting one's eyes or keeping some things private. I am really curious what that means--to keep something private. To me it seems the best to do it when you are protecting it. Not because you are ashamed of it. So it is also about protection of what is sacred.
> 
> And also "the invisible" since the material world is visible--and a lot of porn is just sensual, but there is the immaterial word too. Of dreams and of imagining better, and of values and love and appreciating inner beauty and also appreciating beauty that is difficult to see.


Issues like these are a good reason to read books on art criticism. Art critics get into issues like these.

One of my favorite books of all time is "Sexual Personae" by Camille Paglia. It's a survey of Western culture (art, literature, sculpture, etc.) that breaks art into two main camps: The Apollonian vs the Dionysian.

The Apollonian is the traditionally "male" style: A direct, piercing, analytical, "rapey" way of looking at the world. It reveals, differentiates, pierces, and analyzes.

The Dionysian is the traditionally "female" style: It is a sensual, hiding, enticing, "sexy," procreative way of looking at the world. Think Georgia O'Keefe.

Anyway, that would be one way of looking at the themes you mentioned: The pornographic gaze that looks directly at the world and sexuality, versus the style that conceals and beautifies.

By the way, Paglia says that the best art and literature balances both styles.

For example, Paglia provides a long analysis of the famous bust of Nefertiti and says that it's a bust of a woman done in the Apollonian (male) style: Straight lines and angles, very revealing, almost pornographic. Link: Nefertiti Bust - Wikipedia

Then there is the Mona Lisa painting (La Gioconda). Again, the subject is womanhood, but the style is Apollonian: The woman is gigantic, in the foreground, puffy-faced, with a penetrating gaze and mannish hands. In the background is an uneven, hellish landscape. Over the years, many critics have called the Mona Lisa "vampiric," and Paglia agrees.
Link: Mona Lisa - Wikipedia

Meantime, there are typically male subjects done with sensuality, almost womanish in their depiction: Michelangelo's David (which is about a boy about to go into battle against Goliath), or Cellini's Perseus, which is simultaneously military, misogynistic, and yet also sensual.
Link: Michelangelo - Wikipedia
Link: Benvenuto Cellini - Wikipedia

As for "sacred pornography," Paglia talks extensively about the Catholic Church's love for sadomasochistic art (the torments of the saints, for example). The very crucifixion of Christ is handled by the Church in a manner that borders on the erotic at times. (Paglia herself was raised in the culture of the Roman Catholic Church.)

However, a big warning: Reading "Sexual Personae" without preparation is like being dropped into a shootout in the wild west. Paglia is talking about Western art & literature, after all. And Western art & literature are about wars, death, maimings, torture, blood and thunder, murder, betrayal, sadomasochism, disembowelments, impalements, etc. And Paglia draws it all out to the last drop in order to illustrate her theories. It can be quite overwhelming. The chapter on the Marquis de Sade is practically a catalog of tortures and sexual perversions.


----------



## Squirt

JimT said:


> The Apollonian is the traditionally "male" style: A direct, piercing, analytical, "rapey" way of looking at the world. It reveals, differentiates, pierces, and analyzes.


I often draw in an analytical style. That juxtaposition is interesting. There is a certain conflict there, even within my own work.

Would not have thought of it as rapey, but heck, maybe I did technically molest that pinecone... with my eyes.


----------



## WickerDeer

edit: I should legit shut up lol









I fear I am too mentally immature for my own thread.

Anyway--just wanted to offer an image of a Dionysian pine cone, which could offer an explanation for Apollonian behavior (or also just I wanted to say something dumb.)


----------



## JimT

I'll have to re-read "Sexual Personae" to see if Paglia has a chapter on pine cone art.


----------



## JimT

Just some random quotes from my notes on "Sexual Personae"...

"The western eye makes _things_, idols of Apollonian objectification. Pornography makes many well-meaning people uncomfortable because it isolates the voyeuristic element present in all art, and especially cinema. All the personae of art are sex objects. [...] Pornography and art are inseparable, because there is voyeurism and voracity in all our sensations as seeing, feeling beings." (p. 35) [In the book, Free Women, Paglia makes the argument that all art is *objectification*.]

[...]

Paglia resumes the theme of "Apollonian demarcations." "Sex object, art work, personality: western experience is cellular and divisive. It imposes a graph of marked-off spaces on nature's continuity and flow. We have made Apollonian demarcations that function as ritual preserves against nature; hence our complex criminal codes and elaborate erotics of transgression. [...] Sex needs ritual binding to control its daemonism, and [...] society's repressions _increase_ sexual pleasure. There is nothing less erotic than a nudist colony. Desire is intensified by ritual limitations. Hence the mask, harness, and chains of sadomasochism." (p. 35-36)

[...]

"Nefertiti is ritualized Western personality, a streamlined thing. She is forbiddingly clean. Her eyebrows are shaved and redrawn with male width and frown." (p. 46) Paglia talks about mannequins in store window and runways: they are an androgyne, "because she is femaleness impersonalized by masculine abstraction." (p. 46-47)

Nefertiti "is sexually unapproachable because bodiless." (p. 47) "From the front, she rears up like a cobra head, woman as royal intimidator. [...] The bust of Nefertiti is eye-pleasing but oppressive." (p. 48)

[...]

Christianity, with its emphasis on imagery, sets up a conflict between definiteness and dissolution. Sex has a dangerous freedom. It was previously consigned to medieval Hell; now it waits in every glade, returned to nature. The western eye creates sharp boundaries of selfhood; but it gets sucked into dissolution and will-lessness by sensual beauty. "To preserve its autonomy, the Spenserian eye suspends itself in voyeurism, a tactic of defense that turns into perversion." Thus, the western eye is amoral. (p. 172)

[...]

Voyeurism is the amoral aesthetic of the aggressive western eye. [...] Christianity, far from putting out the pagan eye, merely expanded its power. Cristianity's vast tracts of the forbidden are virgin territory for the pagan eye to penetrate and defile." (p. 191)

[...]

"For two thousand years, the torture of martyred saints, as well as of Christ, has filled western imagination with sadomasochistic reverie. [...] The sex and violence in Christian iconography are an eruption of pagan mystery religion, of which Christianity is a development." (p. 245-6)


----------



## Squirt

JimT said:


> I'm a Paglia fan. Seriously, I would put "Sexual Personae" as one of the top five books I've ever read. So if she defines things that way, then I'll own it.


I'll give it a read. Thanks for the recommendation!


----------



## WickerDeer

JimT said:


> I'm a Paglia fan. Seriously, I would put "Sexual Personae" as one of the top five books I've ever read. So if she defines things that way, then I'll own it.


I think she's got a lot of good ideas, but I don't agree with her. I think there are ways to approach art that are receptive--it's inherently receptive. You are not just imposing your image onto the world, but you're also sensitive to and recording the world.

So yeah, I might have been a little dickish with my dislike of the model wearing a vest, which @Squirt replied to--but I definitely think there is ample room for artistic philosophy that is more about receiving an impression--and it has nothing to do with Georgia Okeefe and her vagina-looking flowers or the angles of the Nefertiti bust, but rather the intention of the artist to be receptive or work with the reference, or else impose their own idea--and even that idea may be unconscious.

I did not be mean to the vest woman--@Squirt--it's not how it looks! I just had an issue with the idea of pornography being injected in my artwork and threw an internal fit about not being able to be as in control as I wanted to be.  

But yeah--it was kind of shocking as a woman to be faced with this--I think it was more a controlling thing though, could be an introverted thing. I just didn't want to make porn, it's only now I'm considering why with this thread. I think to me it's just that I do want to represent something more than my fantasy, but what happens if they are also trying to represent a fantasy--it's difficult to navigate.


----------



## JimT

WickerDeer said:


> [...] I also find it kind of weird that Paglia has the feminine be Dionysus, when he was a man...made from the thigh of another man...like he wasn't even gestated in a woman. He burst forth from the thigh of a man. So there's not a lot of room for biological femininity in Paglia's categories, though perhaps she explains why she chose the titles.


In the time of the ancient fertility religions, female fertility goddesses were in charge of the universe, and Dionysus was associated with Demeter, one of the top fertility goddesses. But with the rise of the patriarchal gods in Greece and Rome, the male gods shouldered aside the ancient female goddesses. In fact, many of the older fertility goddesses became monsters under the Greeks and the Romans: Medusa, harpies, sirens, Scylla and Charybdis, etc. So a male god ends up in charge of what were once female attributes.

Dionysus is considered androgynous, a hermaphrodite. He was born twice: Once by a woman (plucked as a fetus from his dead mother's womb) and once by a man (sewn up in Zeus's thigh to gestation). He wore women's clothes; his beard was his only male appurtenance; and the Dionysian mystery rites were largely for women and included orgies and the tearing apart of live animals. His symbology is all about femaleness, ecstasy, emotion, and sexuality.

As Paglia says, _"Dionysus' transvestism, then, symbolizes his radical identification with mothers. I connect this to his association with water, milk, blood, sap, honey, and wine. The Roman and Renaissance Bacchus is no more than a wine god. But Greek Dionysus rules what Plutarch calls the hygra physis, wet or liquid nature. Dionysus is, as Farell puts it, 'the liquid principle in things.'" (p. 91)_

Paglia then goes on for pages showing Dionysus's connection with menstruation, bodily fluids, etc. (and showing how Apollonianism is against those things).


----------



## WickerDeer

JimT said:


> In the time of the ancient fertility religions, female fertility goddesses were in charge of the universe, and Dionysus was associated with Demeter, one of the top fertility goddesses. But with the rise of the patriarchal gods in Greece and Rome, the male gods shouldered aside the ancient female goddesses. In fact, many of the older fertility goddesses became monsters under the Greeks and the Romans: Medusa, harpies, sirens, Scylla and Charybdis, etc. So a male god ends up in charge of what were once female attributes.
> 
> Dionysus is considered androgynous, a hermaphrodite. He was born twice: Once by a woman (plucked from his dead mother's fetus) and once by a man (sewn up in Zeus's thigh to gestation). He wore women's clothes; his beard was his only male appurtenance; and the Dionysian mystery rites were largely for women and included orgies and the tearing apart of live animals. His symbology is all about femaleness, ecstasy, emotion, and sexuality.
> 
> As Paglia says, _"Dionysus' transvestism, then, symbolizes his radical identification with mothers. I connect this to his association with water, milk, blood, sap, honey, and wine. The Roman and Renaissance Bacchus is no more than a wine god. But Greek Dionysus rules what Plutarch calls the hygra physis, wet or liquid nature. Dionysus is, as Farell puts it, 'the liquid principle in things.'" (p. 91)_
> 
> Paglia then goes on for pages showing Dionysus's connection with menstruation, bodily fluids, etc. (and showing how Apollonianism is against those things).


Maybe I should also read it. I do think Paglia put a lot of her own interpretation in there, which is normal with Greek mythology in Western tradition, but I have also thought about the fertility goddesses becoming "monsters."

I just don't really relate to Dionysus or Apollo--I always related more to Artemis or maybe Persephone or Hecate. But I respect all the gods and goddesses.


----------



## JimT

WickerDeer said:


> Maybe I should also read it. I do think Paglia put a lot of her own interpretation in there, which is normal with Greek mythology in Western tradition, but I have also thought about the fertility goddesses becoming "monsters."
> 
> I just don't really relate to Dionysus or Apollo--I always related more to Artemis or maybe Persephone or Hecate. But I respect all the gods and goddesses.


I always liked the part of the Dionysian orgies where the women tore apart the live animals: Ancient kitchen skills. "Ladies, those sandwiches aren't going to make themselves!" 

By the way, Paglia got her inspiration from a guy named Erich Neumann, a student of Jung's. If you want to pursue all the way back to the ancient fertility religions and rites, read "The Great Mother" by Neumann. Even better known: "The Origins and History of Consciousness." Both are kind of academic and long-winded, but each is fascinating in that you get to see humanity at the earliest stages of culture and consciousness.


----------



## JimT

WickerDeer said:


> [...] but I have also thought about the fertility goddesses becoming "monsters."


Classic repression. Once you're all grown up, you repress the urges and attractions of your own infancy. Mankind does the same with the goddesses of its infancy. And that repressed material comes back to haunt you in your nightmares.

Although, according to Paglia, even when they were at the height of their powers the old "Great Mother" goddesses were pretty bloodthirsty. The fertility cycles were just that: Cycles of birth and death. The goddesses were responsible for both. Paglia says:

_"The mother goddess gives life but takes it away. Lucretius says, 'The universal mother is also the common grave.' She is morally ambivalent, violent as well as benevolent. The sanitized pacificist goddess promoted by feminism is wishful thinking. From prehistory to the end of the Roman empire, the Great Mother never lost her barbarism. She is the ever-changing face of chthonian nature, now savage, now smiling." (p. 43)

"The femaleness of fertility religions is always double-edged. The Indian nature-goddess Kali is creator and destroyer, granting boons with one set of arms while cutting throats with the other. She is the lady ringed with skulls. The moral ambivalence of the great mother goddesses has been conveniently forgotten by those American feminists who have resurrected them. We cannot grasp nature's bare blade without shedding our own blood." (p. 8) 

"The portrayal of the Virgin Mary as kind and nurturing is a later invention, a product of Apollonian Christianity." (p. 43)_


----------



## tanstaafl28

@WickerDeer






Erotic Artists


Biographies and analysis of the work of the Classical, Modern, and Contemporary artists whose depictions had a significant erotic component.




www.theartstory.org













Artfinder - Nude and erotic art


Art for the soul. Art for life. Art for your home. Artfinder connects passionate artists with art lovers around the world. Shop nude and erotic works inspired by the fluidity of the human form.




www.artfinder.com













The Best Erotic Comics by Great Artists







comicsalliance.com













200 Erotic art ideas in 2022 | erotic art, art, sexy art


May 17, 2022 - Explore dani peck's board "Erotic art" on Pinterest. See more ideas about erotic art, art, sexy art.




www.pinterest.com







https://www.heavymetal.com/news/milo-manara-unseen-art-30-pictures/


----------



## tanstaafl28

Erotic Comics


An overview of eroticism and adult pornography in comics In this overview, we will try to give a general survey of comics with adult, sexual and erotic content. We have carefully chosen the graphic material, but apologize for anyone,




www.lambiek.net













Women-Produced Erotic Comics Enter The Mainstream


Women are revolutionizing the historically male-dominated field of pornographic comics — and we’re all better off for it.




medium.com













Guilty Pleasures: 15 Comics TOO HOT To Read In Public


These titles may not be safe for public consumption, but they're safe to include in your collection of good comic books!




www.cbr.com













10 Artists Whose Sexually Explicit Works Shocked the World


From randy Rembrandts to sexy silverware, discover shocking, sexually explicit art from around the world.




theculturetrip.com













The top 10 sexiest works of art ever


From Egon Schiele to Titian and Robert Mapplethorpe, these artists have celebrated erotic pleasure in unique and thought-provoking ways, writes Jonathan Jones




www.theguardian.com


----------



## superloco3000

JimT said:


> I'm a Paglia fan. Seriously, I would put "Sexual Personae" as one of the top five books I've ever read. So if she defines things that way, then I'll own it.


Man, you left me with my brain out, I had some intuition about sexuality and art but never in a way that makes me re-analyze the past.
That book I'm going to read this year xD .

Of course all art can relate to percentage differences of those 2 essences , personally I am rather analytical and then instinctive , But after learning ideas like using anima and other spirit phenomena , the art that appeals to me is the spiritualization of sexuality , hardcore pornography I don't like too much .

Rather I see the balance of the opposite poles creates a superior look ? I don't create value judgments either, but in each piece I see the individuality of the artist. ....

I have a lot to read and think about this xD .


----------



## JimT

Squirt said:


> [...]You might also slice them as Dionysian relating the irrational, perceiving functions and Apollonian relating to the rational, judging functions. This is first glance. I've not done any in depth reading, obviously! We might be just comparing apples and oranges, anyway. Intuitive connections running wild, lol. [...]


I saw this point when you raised it the other day, but I didn't want to address it until I addressed your other ideas. And then I forgot about it. 

But here's how I understand this stuff. As I pointed out the other day, the Dionysian-vs-Apollonian dichotomy is basically a gender dichotomy. It's not a rigid dichotomy; there are lots of males (maybe 10-15%) who use predominantly Dionysian thinking, and the same number of females who use predominantly Apollonian thinking. Furthermore, it's a _traditional_ model that is fading into irrelevance in the modern age.

But the broad _traditional_ distinctions are as follows:
--Dionysian = female, collectivist/extraverted, unconsciousness/emotional/empathetic/nurture, etc.; and
--Apollonian = Male, individualistic/introverted, consciousness/logic/rationality/analysis, etc.

I explained briefly the other day why the Dionysian would be extraverted and unconscious/emotion-oriented and why the Apollonian would be introverted and conscious/analysis-oriented. I could explain in more detail about how and why this dichotomy develops in the first place. But I'll stop there. Basically at this point I want to get back to what you said about the rational and irrational functions.

So if we want to start talking about how the individual functions factor into this dichotomy, then according to what I said above the functions would split up this way:
--Dionysian = extraverted = Ne, Se, Fe, and Te; and
--Apollonian = introverted = Ni, Si, Fi, and Ti.

If you think about the nature of creativity, that makes perfect sense. Jung said that true creativity arises from the individuation/centroversion process, where you draw energy simultaneously and synergistically from your Dominant function plus from one "shadow" or unconscious function. I described that in Parts 2 and 11 of my E&C blog. Link to Part 11: The Expansion & Contraction Cycle (E&C cycle)

That also matches what I said in this current thread about how great works of art will usually represent both Dionysian and Apollonian trends in the same piece of art. If creativity draws upon two functions, one extraverted and one introverted, then by definition it's drawing equally and synergistically from both the Dionysian and Apollonian sides.

Getting back to functions:

Furthermore it would be ideal if the artist could be using a rational function and an irrational function as the two primary synergistic functions. And that fits the model of the usual Dominant-Auxiliary combination that everyone has at their fingertips. So that's a good Dionysian-Apollonian combination for routine creativity: The Dom-Aux pair represents a Dionysian-Apollonian combination that also combines a rational function together with an irrational function.

Here's a little more about the nature of creativity:

In addition to Jung, Abraham Maslow wrote a lot about "self-actualization" as the top rung in his pyramid of "basic needs." He describes "self-actualization" in a way that makes it sound very much like Jungian individuation/centroversion. He says that creativity is the key to "self-actualization," and that creativity must draw from two sources. It must be holistic and come from the gut (emotional) in order to grasp the emotional essence of creativity, but it must also be logical and analytical in order to tame the subject and give it the polish and discipline and finesse of great art, IOW, to make the necessary decisions about subject, setting, composition, color palette, style, etc.

So again, Maslow seems to be describing something akin to drawing from both sides of the Dionysian/emotional and Apollonian/analytical, with perhaps an emphasis on using both an irrational and rational function: Presumably one's Dom and Aux. Again, the Dom-Aux pair would represent a Dionysian-Apollonian combination that also combines a rational function with an irrational function.

So that seems to be the simplest and most basic recipe for artistic creativity: Your art should reflect a synergy between Dominant and Auxiliary function.

Of course, you could also work up synergy between the Dominant function and some other unconscious function. For example, as an INFP I could draw creative inspiration from a combination of my Dominant and Inferior functions. They would be a workable Dionysian/Apollonian pair providing the necessary synergy. But since those represent two rational functions, I would be missing the perception-based vision provided by irrational functions. So at some point I would probably want to touch base with my Aux function as well.

Anyway, I'll stop there. It's just some brainstorming on the creative process based on function theory. Probably more than you wanted to know, but I thought I would throw it out there.


----------



## Squirt

superloco3000 said:


> Man, you left me with my brain out, I had some intuition about sexuality and art but never in a way that makes me re-analyze the past.
> That book I'm going to read this year xD .
> 
> Of course all art can relate to percentage differences of those 2 essences , personally I am rather analytical and then instinctive , But after learning ideas like using anima and other spirit phenomena , the art that appeals to me is the spiritualization of sexuality , hardcore pornography I don't like too much .
> 
> Rather I see the balance of the opposite poles creates a superior look ? I don't create value judgments either, but in each piece I see the individuality of the artist. ....
> 
> I have a lot to read and think about this xD .


I made the mistake of listening to the audiobook just before falling asleep.

Had some wild dreams.


----------



## JimT

superloco3000 said:


> Man, you left me with my brain out, I had some intuition about sexuality and art but never in a way that makes me re-analyze the past.
> That book I'm going to read this year xD .
> 
> Of course all art can relate to percentage differences of those 2 essences , personally I am rather analytical and then instinctive , But after learning ideas like using anima and other spirit phenomena , the art that appeals to me is the spiritualization of sexuality , hardcore pornography I don't like too much .
> 
> Rather I see the balance of the opposite poles creates a superior look ? I don't create value judgments either, but in each piece I see the individuality of the artist. ....
> 
> I have a lot to read and think about this xD .


Lol. Thank you very much for the compliments. I love the fact that I'm inspiring some thinking.

Anyway, check out my last LONG post to @Squirt. You and I basically cross-posted--I posted it just a couple minutes ago. That last post goes even deeper into the creative process. You'll probably like it as well.

Again, thanks!


----------



## Squirt

JimT said:


> Lol. Thank you very much for the compliments. I love the fact that I'm inspiring some thinking.
> 
> Anyway, check out my last post to @Squirt. You and I basically cross-posted. That last post goes even deeper into the creative process. You'll probably like it as well.
> 
> Again, thanks!


I noticed, haha. I don’t have the time to respond properly right now, but I will come back to it. I have read your essays, as well. I enjoyed them very much.


----------



## JimT

Squirt said:


> I noticed, haha. I don’t have the time to respond properly right now, but I will come back to it. I have read your essays, as well. I enjoyed them very much.


Yes, I saw your likes. I thought it was great that you managed to wade through all that material. It gives me inspiration to come up with more brainstorming along the lines of the material in this thread.  

Thanks!


----------



## JimT

Now I'm thinking that I should take the material that I've been discussing in this current thread on art and pornography and tack it on the end of my E&C blog as essays on the subject of cognitive functions.

It will take some rewriting. In the current thread, I discussed the material from the angle of art criticism (the Dionysian vs Apollonian) and only related it back to the cognitive functions at the end of the discussion. Whereas for the E&C blog I'll have to do the reverse: Start talking about how cognitive functions operate in the creative process, and then expand that out to get into concept of the Dionysian vs Apollonian.

Oh well, I'll try to do that over the next couple weeks. It should be interesting. And maybe I'll use that material as a bridge to additional in-depth essays about the cognitive functions in the future.

Opportunities for Ne-Aux brainstorming.


----------



## Squirt

JimT said:


> I saw this point when you raised it the other day, but I didn't want to address it until I addressed your other ideas. And then I forgot about it.
> 
> But here's how I understand this stuff. As I pointed out the other day, the Dionysian-vs-Apollonian dichotomy is basically a gender dichotomy. It's not a rigid dichotomy; there are lots of males (maybe 10-15%) who use predominantly Dionysian thinking, and the same number of females who use predominantly Apollonian thinking. Furthermore, it's a _traditional_ model that is fading into irrelevance in the modern age.
> 
> But the broad _traditional_ distinctions are as follows:
> --Dionysian = female, collectivist/extraverted, unconsciousness/emotional/empathetic/nurture, etc.; and
> --Apollonian = Male, individualistic/introverted, consciousness/logic/rationality/analysis, etc.
> 
> I explained briefly the other day why the Dionysian would be extraverted and unconscious/emotion-oriented and why the Apollonian would be introverted and conscious/analysis-oriented. I could explain in more detail about how and why this dichotomy develops in the first place. But I'll stop there. Basically at this point I want to get back to what you said about the rational and irrational functions.
> 
> So if we want to start talking about how the individual functions factor into this dichotomy, then according to what I said above the functions would split up this way:
> --Dionysian = extraverted = Ne, Se, Fe, and Te; and
> --Apollonian = introverted = Ni, Si, Fi, and Ti.
> 
> If you think about the nature of creativity, that makes perfect sense. Jung said that true creativity arises from the individuation/centroversion process, where you draw energy simultaneously and synergistically from your Dominant function plus from one "shadow" or unconscious function. I described that in Parts 2 and 11 of my E&C blog. Link to Part 11: The Expansion & Contraction Cycle (E&C cycle)
> 
> That also matches what I said in this current thread about how great works of art will usually represent both Dionysian and Apollonian trends in the same piece of art. If creativity draws upon two functions, one extraverted and one introverted, then by definition it's drawing equally and synergistically from both the Dionysian and Apollonian sides.
> 
> Getting back to functions:
> 
> Furthermore it would be ideal if the artist could be using a rational function and an irrational function as the two primary synergistic functions. And that fits the model of the usual Dominant-Auxiliary combination that everyone has at their fingertips. So that's a good Dionysian-Apollonian combination for routine creativity: The Dom-Aux pair represents a Dionysian-Apollonian combination that also combines a rational function together with an irrational function.


So, I've read the first chapter of _Sexual Personae_ and I'm still not entirely convinced that psychological functions can be neatly mapped to her idea of the Dionysian and Apollonian dichotomy.

I see where you're taking the introverted tendency to impose the inner life on reality as being Apollonian, while the Dionysian reality of "is what it is" tracks with extroversion. The language of MBTI makes that difficult to see immediately, but you can definitely make a strong case there, albeit the outcomes in personality don't seem to match very well on the surface level. The "outward" seeking nature of Apollonian (she uses the phallus as an analogy) would definitely be more of an extraverted characteristic, while introverted would be more akin to Dionysian "mystery" - turning inward, hidden, or an invagination. You must see the correlates there! So, it's not a well delineated comparison.

It also continues to strike me that rational functions would be Apollonian (logic and order) while Dionysian would be irrational (amoral).

Considering this, rather than mapping it as a dichotomy, if you wanted to compare them it would make sense to develop a continuum, imo. For example, the "most" Apollonian functions might be Ti and Fi, while the "most" Dionysian would be Ne and Se, where the others fall between. Or, if you disagree, consider my objections as something to address in your essay. Another thing to address might be why these mappings could be possible in the first place. I do believe something is there, but it'd take a while (and more reading of Paglia) to figure out exactly why this connection is so attractive.

So far, I find her arguments fairly compelling but have trouble with her characterization of how men and women react to masculinity and femininity. She makes a lot of assumptions about individual psychology, and it appears to overreach (lacks evidence of any kind). At least in that first chapter, she discussed the male relationship with "mother", but did not discuss the female relationship with "mother" (and of course "father" was totally absent). We have to hear all the time about how men have complexes around their mothers, but very little is discussed about women's relationships with their mothers, or the archetypical psychology around that (Persephone maybe being the closest). Women are born screaming from another's womb, too. I've written some metaphorical fiction on that topic and discovered how it is not very well travelled territory.

However, I'm going to keep reading and reserve judgement. Much of her writing did resonate with some of the more abstract experience of... being alive, lol. Plus, the concept of sublimation is fascinating, and I'm delighted to hear a developed treatise about how art is essentially a psycho-spiritual-sexual expression.  Not to be too indulgent.


----------



## JimT

Good criticism, and I think I can answer some of your concerns. To take your points out of order:



Squirt said:


> So, I've read the first chapter of _Sexual Personae_ and I'm still not entirely convinced that psychological functions can be neatly mapped to her idea of the Dionysian and Apollonian dichotomy.
> 
> So far, I find her arguments fairly compelling but have trouble with her characterization of how men and women react to masculinity and femininity. She makes a lot of assumptions about individual psychology, and it appears to overreach (lacks evidence of any kind). At least in that first chapter, she discussed the male relationship with "mother", but did not discuss the female relationship with "mother" (and of course "father" was totally absent). We have to hear all the time about how men have complexes around their mothers, but very little is discussed about women's relationships with their mothers, or the archetypical psychology around that (Persephone maybe being the closest). Women are born screaming from another's womb, too. I've written some metaphorical fiction on that topic and discovered how it is not very well travelled territory.
> 
> However, I'm going to keep reading and reserve judgement. Much of her writing did resonate with some of the more abstract experience of... being alive, lol. Plus, the concept of sublimation is fascinating, and I'm delighted to hear a developed treatise about how art is essentially a psycho-spiritual-sexual expression.
> Not to be too indulgent.


In the case of Paglia in particular:

1) The Dionysian-vs-Apollonian dichotomy has been around since the time of Plato, and got developed in the modern age by Nietzsche and then Jung. So to a certain extent, Paglia treats the dichotomy as a _fait accompli_, that is, as something that simply exists and needs no elaborate explanation; it simply needs illustration, such as her book provides. So if you want more background on the subject, you can go to the Wikipedia article I suggested previously or to hard-core psychology writings on the subject. (Wikipedia article: Apollonian and Dionysian - Wikipedia)

And:

2) To the extent that Paglia develops the Dionysian-vs-Apollonian dichotomy in new ways and makes it her own, the book "Sexual Personae" itself becomes the proof of her theories. In other words, she presents her own ideas and theory in the first chapter and then spends the rest of the book illustrating and proving the theory by showing how those combinations of themes keep reappearing together throughout 5,000 (or whatever) years of Western art and literature.

Keep in mind that Paglia isn't a psychologist; she's a professor of art and literary criticism. So her approach is to take established psychology theories and show how they demonstrate themselves in culture and art.

So in that sense, the first chapter is just prelude, kind of an overture and overview. The proof is still to come: She provides her analysis of Western culture through the lens of that dichotomy and counts on the sheer weight of repetition of those themes to convince her readers.

To put it another way: The book is like a courtroom case. Paglia presents the outlines of her argument at the start (in the first chapter), and then she presents the evidence and builds her case over course of the chapters and tries to convince the jury (her readership) of the solidity of her case by the end of the book.

On a separate note:



Squirt said:


> So, I've read the first chapter of _Sexual Personae_ and I'm still not entirely convinced that psychological functions can be neatly mapped to her idea of the Dionysian and Apollonian dichotomy.
> 
> I see where you're taking the introverted tendency to impose the inner life on reality as being Apollonian, while the Dionysian reality of "is what it is" tracks with extroversion. The language of MBTI makes that difficult to see immediately, but you can definitely make a strong case there, albeit the outcomes in personality don't seem to match very well on the surface level. The "outward" seeking nature of Apollonian (she uses the phallus as an analogy) would definitely be more of an extraverted characteristic, while introverted would be more akin to Dionysian "mystery" - turning inward, hidden, or an invagination. You must see the correlates there! So, it's not a well delineated comparison.
> 
> It also continues to strike me that rational functions would be Apollonian (logic and order) while Dionysian would be irrational (amoral).
> 
> Considering this, rather than mapping it as a dichotomy, if you wanted to compare them it would make sense to develop a continuum, imo. For example, the "most" Apollonian functions might be Ti and Fi, while the "most" Dionysian would be Ne and Se, where the others fall between. Or, if you disagree, consider my objections as something to address in your essay. *Another thing to address might be why these mappings could be possible in the first place. I do believe something is there, but it'd take a while (and more reading of Paglia) to figure out exactly why this connection is so attractive.*


Addressing the bolded part in particular:

I mentioned above that Dionysian-vs-Apollonian dichotomy predates Paglia and that the theme has been developed by other thinkers, including Nietzsche and Jung. Unfortunately, Paglia doesn't go into into the psychological background and history of the dichotomy, so I agree with you that "something is missing" when it comes to explaining how the dichotomy arises in the first place. Paglia simply doesn't address the origins of the dichotomy.

But in Paglia's defense, the subject is kind of deep-dive psychology stuff; it's kind of a deep rabbit hole. And she herself isn't a psychologist. So, rather than try to rely on the abstract theories of Jung and others, Paglia would prefer to make her own case by doing what I described above: Present the Dionysian-vs-Apollonian dichotomy as a _fait accompli_ and then make her own case by showing how it operates across Western culture.

But FWIW, I can boil down the psychological argument for you. It won't be very convincing, perhaps, because like I said it's a deep rabbit hole. If you want the whole picture, you have to read Erich Neumann's book "The Origins and History of Consciousness." But here is the basic outline as I understand it.

[See next post for "the psychological argument." This post is running long...]


----------



## JimT

*The psychological argument behind the Dionysian-vs-Apollonian dichotomy*​
Here is the basic structure of the dichotomy again:
--Dionysian = Female, collectivist/extraverted, unconsciousness/emotional
--Apollonian = Male, individualistic/introverted, consciousness/analytical

The dichotomy takes shape in your brain in the very first weeks, months, and years after birth. It's basically the Jungian version of Freud's "Oedipus complex."

If you remember, Freud says that you get your ideas of gender via the Oedipus complex, which is centered on the father:
--Boys desire their mother, but the father is an obstacle. The father becomes a competitor for the mother's attention, and the father threatens the boy with castration if he steps out of line.
--Girls face a reverse situation (the so-called Electra complex): The father is an object of desire, and the mother is the obstacle.

And so on.

But Jung and Neumann objected to the idea of the Oedipus complex, because the father is rather a negligible presence in the earliest life of most babies. The mother is the primary influence in the lives of infants. Culturally, this shows up in the ancient fertility religions with their emphasis on "the great mother" as the center of the circle of life. So Jung and Neumann look to the old fertility religions and their cycle of birth and death (and sacrifice to the fertility goddesses) as their starting point, and project that backwards into the mind of the baby trying to sort out the world and their place in it.

*Two basic dichotomies*​
Let me start by outlining two dichotomies, and then I'll show how they are experienced by infants.

Collectivist-vs-individualist dichotomy
My ego is me. IOW: Ego = I/me. That creates a dichotomy, whereby not-Ego (not-I/me) is everything outside me: The outer world. That's the model for the collectivist-vs-individualist dichotomy: The outer world vs I/me/ego.

Unconsciousness-vs-consciousness dichotomy
Another characteristic of Ego (aside from being I/me) is consciousness. I/me only exists when I'm conscious; when I'm unconscious (asleep), I/me ceases to exist. So that creates a second dichotomy, whereby not-Ego (not-I/me) is unconsciousness: IOW, sleep. That's the model for the unconsciousness-vs-consciousness dichotomy: Unconsciousness/sleep vs I/me/ego + consciousness. (_I'm discounting dreams, because I'm going to put this in the context of infants who have rather formless dreams._)

How these two dichotomies are experienced by infants
These, then, are the big two dichotomies worked out as infants. We start out as unconscious, with no experience of being awake, of the world, or even a sense of ourselves. As we start experiencing short periods of consciousness (starting immediately at birth), our brains try to make sense of the new impressions coming in. The first two tasks:
1) Differentiate between the "self" (I/me) and the rest of the world (which largely consists of the nurturing parent and the immediate surroundings); and
2) Make sense of the constant back-and-forth between sleep and awakeness. Sooner or later the baby notices the fade between waking and sleeping states and experiences it almost as a type of death-and-rebirth cycle.

Eventually the infant works out these two dichotomies and learns to live with them as a fact of life.

*Gender dichotomy*​
One more big dichotomy remains: The gender dichotomy. As the infant learns to differentiate objects and people in its immediate environment, eventually it realizes that there are actually two main nurturing entities rather than one. (Obviously I'm talking about a traditional two-parent household here--the _traditional_ model.) That becomes the first awareness of the gender dichotomy.

As the baby grows, he learns from the example of the parents that genders exist, and that they play different roles in the baby's own nurturance and in the household in general. And across time, that awareness expands into social awareness of differences between boys and girls--knowledge which becomes available even to children who grow up in single-parent or same-sex-parent households.

And across time, the growing child increasingly identifies with one gender model or the other, thus making a choice between the female and the male models, with all the baggage that comes with that model. Thus, a new overarching dichotomy arises: the Dionysian-vs-Apollonian dichotomy.

Again, speaking of _traditional_ families and gender models:

The Apollonian model
Boys _traditionally_ identify with boys and fathers. Remember that boys have already chosen the individualistic/introverted & consciousness sides of the previous two dichotomies. So the boy back-projects the gender dichotomy onto the previous dichotomies: The mother, as the primary nurturing parent, tends to get identified with collectivism/extraversion (because she is the primary "not-me" in the earliest awareness of the world) and with unconsciousness (again, because she is "not-me" = unconsciousness as opposed to me = consciousness). So the Apollonian model falls neatly into place in the boy's head: Apollonian = Male, individualistic/introverted, consciousness.

_I should note, by the way, that by this age the quality of "consciousness" is associated in boys' minds with more than just awakeness. It also becomes associated with logic, rationality, stoicism, and all the other baggage the comes with the male model. "Boys don't cry," etc._

The Dionysian model
Girls _traditionally_ identify with girls and mothers. You would think that girls would follow the model of boys and stick with the me-vs-"not-me" arrangement that the boys work out. But gender identification has a strong pull, as any trans person will tell you. So the girl back-projects the gender dichotomy onto the previous dichotomies: As the girl increasingly identifies with the mother, she increasingly comes to identify with the things that the mother stands for: The qualities of collectivism/extraversion and unconsciousness.

_I should note, by the way, that by this age the quality of "unconsciousness" is associated in girls' minds with more than just sleep. It also becomes associated with emotion, empathy, feelings, drama, etc. (Playing with dolls and practicing nurturing roles, etc.)_

Anyway, that's pretty much it: You now have the basic outline of the Dionysian-vs-Apollonian dichotomy:
--Dionysian = Female, collectivist/extraverted, unconsciousness = emotion, empathy, nurturing, drama, etc.
--Apollonian = Male, individualistic/introverted, consciousness = logic, rationality, analysis, focus, etc.

Here I should apply the usual disclaimers:

1) The Dionysian-vs-Apollonian dichotomy worked itself out best in the past, at the time of traditional two-parent families and rigid gender roles. In the modern world, a lot of these gender differences are breaking down.

2) Even in traditional times with rigid gender roles, the model was much more complex than I've described it. As a result, there was a lot of crossover in the model: Males who were extraverts, or perhaps males who were introverts but were more attuned to emotions and empathy than logic and analysis. And so on, with similar differences to be found among females. Psychologists who ascribe to the Dionysian-vs-Apollonian dichotomy say that even in traditional times, 10-20% of males tended to fit the Dionysian model and 10-20% of females tended to fit the Apollonian model.

So the Dionysian-vs-Apollonian dichotomy was never meant to be a gender straitjacket. It's just a way of describing two viewpoints that seem to _generally_ align with gender (but with lots of variations and exceptions).

No one knows for sure how much the Dionysian-vs-Apollonian dichotomy is a product of "nature or nurture." Given today's emphasis on the idea of "gender as a social construct," time will tell if the dichotomy disappears entirely (indicating that it was purely a social phenomenon) or remains in force to some extent (indicating that it may have some genetic basis in the human brain, with a nod to evolutionary biology).

But it's still a useful psychological model, even if only for understanding Western culture prior to modern times (prior to 1970 and second-wave feminism, let's say)...


----------



## WickerDeer

edit: nvm I need to think about it more.


----------



## JimT

Squirt said:


> [...]The "outward" seeking nature of Apollonian (she uses the phallus as an analogy) would definitely be more of an extraverted characteristic, while introverted would be more akin to Dionysian "mystery" - turning inward, hidden, or an invagination. You must see the correlates there! So, it's not a well delineated comparison.[...]


By the way, you seem to be hanging up in particular on the dichotomy of Male = introversion vs Female = extraversion.

That dichotomy doesn't mean that men uniformly have nothing to do with the world. Obviously they interact with the world in a very aggressive manner. But the presumption is that male interactions with the world start with internal analysis.

IOW, men don't interact with the world _as it is_ (the extraverted manner). Instead, they _analyze it and abstract it_ (the introverted manner) in order to modify it (architecture, science, etc.)

Similarly, women are self-contained because they are "the collective" (extraverted). IOW, it's a quality of being self-contained rather than introverted. They don't sit by themselves contemplating their navels; they are self-contained but also gregarious and oriented toward collective activities.

Furthermore, "Male = introversion and female = extraversion" is part of the traditional "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" dichotomy. For example,
--When pondering a problem, men brood and try to solve the problem, while women vent and seek external validation (emotional support)
--When relaxing, men want to rest and watch TV or retreat to their man-caves for solitary hobbies, while women want to go out and socialize
--As hunter-gatherers, men operated alone or in small teams; while as nurturers and homemakers, women worked collectively back at the caves or in the fields to raise the children: Hence the "It takes a village" mentality of women.

And so on.

I recognize that the "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" dichotomy is such a "trope" that it has become almost a joke. But it was psychologists who originated these "tropes."

Here's a quote from a highly-regarded female psychologist on the difference of the sexes: _"People used to look out on the playground and say that the boys were playing soccer and the girls were doing nothing. But the girls weren't doing nothing--they were talking. They were talking about the world to one another. And they became very expert about that in a way the boys did not."_ From Carol Gilligan, "In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development."

In that last example concerning playground differences, one might say that both genders were being extraverted. But the difference is male competition vs female collectivism. Competitors can be introverted; it even helps in many sports for athletes to be introverted and have a good "mental game." Meantime, the girls were largely inactive, but only so that they could congregate and puzzle out the world together in collectivist, extraverted ways. A sporting activity would have gotten in the way of that kind of interaction.

Anyway, just thought I would throw these additional considerations out there in addition to what's already been said on the issue.

Presumably these qualities will come out more as you read more of Paglia's book.


----------



## SgtPepper

Achilleos Chris, _Eve And The Serpent_


----------



## SgtPepper

Ciruelo Cabral, _India_


----------



## SgtPepper

Boris Vallejo, _Kiss of The Temptress_


----------



## SgtPepper

Boris Vallejo, _Music Lesson_


----------



## daleks_exterminate

Six said:


> Well nobody's going to have our chemistry @daleks_exterminate!
> x


Flirt


----------



## daleks_exterminate

I kind of don't want to admit this, because it's weird af, but I find Franz Kline paintings highly erotic.


----------



## SgtPepper

Georgia O'Keeffe, flower series


----------



## SgtPepper

__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content

















































Mihály Zichy


----------



## Squirt

So, I have this one on my wall. I thought it was an interesting decision to have his leg exposed brightly in the center of the composition. It adds an oddly sensual component to the painting, along with the figure being surrounded by shiny “objects”.










However, chemists with their legs out seems to be a thing:



















Maybe there is some symbolism here?

Cornelis Bega’s painting is definitely more pronounced though. _dog whistle_


----------



## Queen of Cups




----------



## Queen of Cups

Just ordered this deck specifically for the art work


----------



## Queen of Cups

My favorite queen of cups card:


----------



## WickerDeer

Six said:


> @WickerDeer
> 
> There is something I know in myself which I haven't really reflected upon which is I feel differently about burlesque to the way I do about stripping, camgirling and prostitution:
> 
> View attachment 895032
> 
> 
> I quite like burlesque, I think it's cool, and I wouldn't object to seeing a show - whereas I find stripping, camgirling and prostitution pretty disgusting - (I'd be happy to unpack why but I think _analogy is sufficient_):
> 
> @Squirt
> 
> As girls, thinking about it in male terms: You enjoy guys who are big, right?
> 
> You like muscly guys - (maybe not can't touch your own shoulders big however - a hard-bodied guy who has a bit of bicep - that's appealing, is it not?)
> 
> You like tall guys and again maybe not 7ft 6 giants tall but if your eyes are just under his nose with high heels - suits you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OOH SUITS YOU SIR
> SUITS YOU OOH
> SUITS YOU SIR
> GET INTO IT SIR
> 
> But it's not violence-unadjacent is it?
> 
> Yet you don't like violence - recklessly violent guys are unattractive - same thing with burlesque vs pornography, stripping, camgirling and prostitution.
> 
> It's not having your tits out on a stage.
> 
> It's not jacking into yourself with a dildo going YAH DADDY AHH YAH with your legs stretched out in front of a webcam.
> 
> It's not taking that fifth and final mouthful of trucker semen in a rest area before you mouthwash outside.
> 
> It's self-control about a power you have - "SENSUAL ARTS".
> 
> You don't like recklessly violent guys - but even Men of Actual Violence - something is there for them, Martial Arts - there's an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that these PASSIONS can be concentrated, coordinated and even rendered unto a sort of near or even actual transcendent state, and what it creates, is:
> 
> Gentle
> 
> Men
> 
> @lilacleia16
> A. How can I be free if I don't have the means to do what I want?
> B. How can I be free if I don't get to decide what I'm going to do?
> *C. How can I be free if I can't control my own impulses? *
> 
> Being gentle is not about lacking FEROCIOUSNESS it's about gentility IN SPITE of your facility with AGGRESSION - I feel like the same thing is a deserved as far as a female space, culturally, for that same sort of sublimation of these forces, designation of self-respect and well-heeled, stoic, artful self-control and self-mastery.


I like what @Squirt said about I/E and keep wanting to post about how Jung described Ni and Si as "subjective," and Ni (and Ne) still detached, so I think he meant "subjective" in that they focus within, on one's own subconscious and unconscious even if they are attending to the perception of objects outside of one's self. And to me these functions seem more Dionysian than Apollonian. 

But I'm also not really confident in the subject either--and Squirt said that Jung basically agreed with the dichotomy of I/E being Apollonian/Dionysian?

------

What you are talking about @Six with Dita Von Teese, reminds me of the dominant/submissive--aside from the more obvious references to dominatrix in the name and her whip, your description of women who have so much control over their own selves that they are able to perhaps, extend that control onto men by seducing them or perhaps causing them to lose control (like some of those guys in the Charlie's Angels' scene) is maybe an example of a male fantasy of being dominated.

I would argue that women have much more experience in the sensual arts than men, because seduction may have been one of the most available paths for women gaining wealth and power in the past when women did not have access to political or economic power.

But women have not had as much experience in developing their own fantasy and sexual enjoyment, and men haven't ever had to reflect that in their behavior to as large of a degree as having entire industries dedicated to male sexual fantasy.

I think maybe female authors were some of the first to dip their toes into female sexual fantasies with characters like Mr. Darcy, Mr. Rochester, Adrian Grey (50 shades of grey). But unlike male fantasy, female authors probably, at least in the past had less actual physical experience with sex and so perhaps depictions in books are more fantastical, taking place in the imaginations of the female authors, and perhaps even detached from reality more. At least women who didn't have as much access to birth control or lived in a less egalitarian community.

But I agree with you about the female fantasy of gentlemen--like if you look at some periods when romance did began circulating, the Arthurian knights are a good example of chivalry that might have reflected a female fantasy. The knights tended to have ladies who were into them...it wasn't like a king who just chose whoever, the women actually wanted the knights, and there are even stories where the queen was lusting after a knight, trying to dominate him (ugh...Sir Lanval, which is a rare example of fiction written by a woman at that time (marie de France). 

But I think that there are probably a spectrum between dominant and submissive that men and women will individual fall under? Or maybe it should just reflect what they are attracted to.

And whether it's viewed as dom/submissive is a matter of perspective--like you could argue the Burlesque girls are submitting to the audience's fantasy. Or you could argue that a chivalry knight is submitting to the lady he defends or protects. But I also think you could argue that these figures have qualities that would be seen dominant--especially in control...control over one's own self.

I haven't ever been really into burlesque but I have a strange appreciation of pinup art...I think there's something that reminds me of divinity in it--like they look like fertility goddesses, almost. They could give someone good luck...it's a lot like a knight with his lady (In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight--the knights had the virgin mary depicted on the inside of their shields). 










But it is also sort of a reflection of female power maybe--if it is like a goddess. And that reminds me of somethign @Squirt said once about objects and objectifying.

That there are also sacred objects as well--like religious objects. That are thought to hold a lot of power.


----------



## WickerDeer

Queen of Cups said:


> Just ordered this deck specifically for the art work
> 
> View attachment 895068
> 
> View attachment 895067
> 
> View attachment 895069


These look awesome!


----------



## Queen of Cups

Vachagan Manukyan


----------



## daleks_exterminate

@WickerDeer not necessarily though....

There were entire societies in which women had agency over their sexuality. There are ancient Greek books outraged about Spartaan women's freedoms, including sexual freedom. The celts had a very equal society. Women had sexual agency, could hold leadership, fought along side as equals etc. The celts are often described as barbaric for these things yet they had an economy that rivaled Rome's, and were technologically advanced (they invented chainmail). 

Vikings even actually did. There are old English books taking about viking men seducing english women by being clean and polite and such, which is a far cry from the stealing women/raiding narrative. Women have recently been found in viking Graves along side male warriors with weapons, which once again, points to a much more equal society than the narrative is commonly....there was a day for Freya where orgies were normal and seen as good, and women had say on that (Friday the 13th) it became viewed as cursed and evil because Rome say women's equality as bad, much like their Greek counter parts. Some native American cultures also fit this.

Babylon had a lot of female agency around sex as well.

temple prostitutes were a thing and in many ancient societies, regarded highly by many societies. They were not looked down on or viewed negatively and could refuse.



That's not a new world idea.... It's just one that Rome disliked and fought against.


----------



## Queen of Cups

Dance is another art form that can be erotic but not necessarily pornagraphic


----------



## Queen of Cups




----------



## WickerDeer

daleks_exterminate said:


> @WickerDeer not necessarily though....
> 
> There were entire societies in which women had agency over their sexuality. There are ancient Greek books outraged about Spartaan women's freedoms, including sexual freedom. The celts had a very equal society. Women had sexual agency, could hold leadership, fought along side as equals etc.
> 
> Vikings even actually did. There was a day for Freya where orgies were normal and seen as good, and women had say on that (Friday the 13th) it became viewed as cursed and evil because Rome say women's equality as bad, much like their Greek counter parts. Some native American cultures also fit this.
> 
> Babylon had a lot of female agency around sex as well.
> 
> temple prostitutes were a thing and in many ancient societies, regarded highly by many societies. They were not looked down on or viewed negatively and could refuse.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a new world idea.... It's just one that Rome disliked and fought against.


Thanks Daleks Exterminate--I am not that knowledgeable history and I've mostly only studied Western Literature and history, so I mostly meant the time in Western History before feminism, where women didn't have much input in either literature or art as creators.

But I think what you are describing is even more interesting than that--and pertain more to human nature and not just western history. I wish I knew more about these cultures you bring up.


----------



## Queen of Cups

Pole dancing is often put into the same category as stripping but this is art in motion.


----------



## WickerDeer

daleks_exterminate said:


> Speak for yourself, buzzfeed decided that i am Arya Stark, in the definitive "which random character are you quiz". So, be careful everyone, if there's been a buildup for you to kill anyone important or I'll swoop in first for absolutely no clear reason. Watch yourselves. XD
> View attachment 895847


I never really related to Lisa either--I love Arya Stark though--I think she's one of the best characters (and I can see the resemblance with you!) There's a swordswoman character in Isabelle Allende's Zorro that I was just thinking of recently, who reminds me of Arya a little. I was just thinking of how important this kind of character is, but now I don't remember why....ugh that's going to annoy me until I figure it out.

But it will have to wait since I better go cook or plan a schedule or something, because I've been way too distracted lately, as fun as this thread and conversation has been!


----------



## Squirt

superloco3000 said:


> View attachment 895845


Dali was pretty open about his rather extreme hang-ups around sex. He famously said a major influence was seeing photographs of venereal diseases when he was a child, and that his mother hosted orgies. He said he developed a fear of vaginal intercourse and was more into voyeurism as a result. It was a frequent topic of his paintings, which influenced the role surrealism in popular culture in general, I think.

His relationship with his wife Gala is also really fascinating in terms of the dynamics we've been discussing and sex as a creative force. For instance, Dali literally painted her as a Madonna.










This article refers to historical attitudes towards her as a "monster-muse":

Gala Dalí: Monster, muse – or misrepresented? - BBC Culture

This one calls her a demon bride:

Gala Dali: Salvador Dali's Demon Bride - Museum Hack

I also found her referred to as a "demonic dominatrix".

Yet, according to Salvador Dali, "She was destined to be my Gradiva, the one who moves forward, my victory, my wife."

His Arwen? He did give her a castle.

It's a lot to be for one woman.


----------



## SgtPepper

superloco3000 said:


> View attachment 895845


Really good ones. This one is my favorite though. I find it super erotic.


----------



## WickerDeer

superloco3000 said:


> Man, I loved that painting...it's something tragic and comical at the same time, I think it shows the double standard of these ideologies that try to control carnal pleasures.



It doesn't look that tragic though does it? It looks like they both got a happy ending out of it? 🤭

But I agree--I really like that one too. It's sort of light and it seems completely consensual. I also wondered how realistic the position they were in was--plus the symbolism. It's a pretty cool painting.


----------



## superloco3000

Squirt said:


> Dali was pretty open about his rather extreme hang-ups around sex. He famously said a major influence was seeing photographs of venereal diseases when he was a child, and that his mother hosted orgies. He said he developed a fear of vaginal intercourse and was more into voyeurism as a result. It was a frequent topic of his paintings, which influenced the role surrealism in popular culture in general, I think.
> 
> His relationship with his wife Gala is also really fascinating in terms of the dynamics we've been discussing and sex as a creative force. For instance, Dali literally painted her as a Madonna.
> 
> View attachment 895850
> 
> 
> This article refers to historical attitudes towards her as a "monster-muse":
> 
> Gala Dalí: Monster, muse – or misrepresented? - BBC Culture
> 
> This one calls her a demon bride:
> 
> Gala Dali: Salvador Dali's Demon Bride - Museum Hack
> 
> I also found her referred to as a "demonic dominatrix".
> 
> Yet, according to Salvador Dali, "She was destined to be my Gradiva, the one who moves forward, my victory, my wife."
> 
> His Arwen? He did give her a castle.
> 
> It's a lot to be for one woman.


The little I know about Dali is that Gala was an extremely intelligent woman, she was the one who filled Dali's mind with ideas, she was the one who first understood the avant-garde art and shared it with him....
I also believe that a woman very sure of her sexuality, intelligent and ambitious, is like a hypnotizing perfume ... So to be hypnotized is to be in love like mad.

Dali found his way to express his sexuality with her (but she was free as the wind, he forgave her all things), she was the person who fed him with concepts, Dali was totally in love with her.
Painting her as the mother goddess seems to me the conclusion xD .


----------



## daleks_exterminate

Guys, you keep posting about Dali, in a sexual art thread. It's becoming tempting to post his painting of Hitler masturbating bc he was turned on by Hitler. 

Pls no. 🤣


----------



## WickerDeer

In defense of the bad boy (I have no idea what half the discussions in this forum are about it not knowing things makes me mad, so I felt like writing this):

(I also like this guy's artwork and follow him on IG--maybe I'll post some more of it here...it's often about sex and humorous)














I found this image interesting--"eat you" in this example refers to oral sex, not cannibalism and I think it's referring to Little Red Riding Hood. 

So here's my unedited, fussy mind-spew vent:

The "wolf" is the bad boy. He's the villain.

But he "Sees you better" and "hears you better" --I think this means that the wolf allows you to get in touch with the darker side of your personality. It allows you to be more honest and to feel confident that you won't be shunned for falling off the pedestal around him. Or perhaps you just see him as already "badder" than you, so you don't feel worried about falling off your own pedestal. 

And I don't think that the nice guy has that effect so much. 

I relate to the nice guy a lot--I was just thinking about a story in which I listened to a female friend of the past talk about how she lied and also cheated. And I think she really needed to be able to talk about that.

Being able to talk about it with someone allowed her to accept what was missing and wrong in her life, and to transform it.

She may have never felt safe talking to a guy about it--all the guys she surrounded her with probably held her upon a pedestal and so she wouldn't have talked about that with them. They thought she was this virgin Christian saint sort of creature.

I think I come off as unjudgmental irl and sometimes people feel comfortable opening up to me. I am not some perfectly unjudgmental saint--I did judge her in my mind, I did feel some resentment towards her success in dating vs. my lack of success.

After all, I was single and she had a boyfriend even if she'd also cheated on him.

I was the one people would call a slut and she would be the one that people would put on a pedestal because of how we present ourselves.

She was the one who then miraculously found the love of her life before even leaving her boyfriend, and then quickly dumped him and gtot married to some prince charming type guy who could fulfill her dreams.

So yeah, I was judgmental as the "nice guy" figure in this. But I kept it to my fucking self, because the reality is that no one's perfect and that ultimately the best is that she did leave her boyfriend instead of cheating on him and stuff, and it worked out better for everyone (except me, because I had nothing to do with any of it--I was just a neutral party).

But I guess my point is that sometimes people want to be seen.

And do "nice guys" really SEE people taht well? Was I blinded by my judgmentalness? Yeah--did she fall off a pedestal in my mind? Yeah. But my flaws and listening may have allowed her to actually be real with me, which allowed her to transform.

And I think this is something the stereotype of the "bad boy" also allows. It allows you to get in touch with your darker parts, your imperfections. It allows you to be understood and seen in ways that someone who's idealized or idealizing you doesn't.

And that's important--just as important as being outwardly perfect...or more important.

So I'm just saying--I don't think there's anything terrible about being attracted to the "bad boy" or wanting the "nice guy" because the reality is that all of us have both inside of us. We are all bad and good, and we need those parts of ourselves.

Maybe "nice guy" would be the Apollonian influence, whereas "bad boy" would be Dionysian.

And look at Ariadne and Theseus--at least Dionysus saw Ariadne as more than just some used up discard--while I'm sure Theseus would have just left her for some perfect, strategic queen. Dionysus married a woman who was rejected...who loved someone and was betrayed. A fallen woman, in some ways. His "bad boy" ness allowed him to se the value in her, even though she didn't fit that perfect sought after ideal. I mean, right? Theseus didn't see value in her--he rejected her once he was done using her. And it was Dionysus who could value her for more than how others saw her (like kings or whoever). A lesser man than he is rejected her for marriage, but he saw her value anyway.


----------



## DOGSOUP

WickerDeer said:


> And look at Ariadne and Theseus--at least Dionysus saw Ariadne as more than just some used up discard--while I'm sure Theseus would have just left her for some perfect, strategic queen. Dionysus married a woman who was rejected...who loved someone and was betrayed. A fallen woman, in some ways. His "bad boy" ness allowed him to se the value in her, even though she didn't fit that perfect sought after ideal. I mean, right? Theseus didn't see value in her--he rejected her once he was done using her. And it was Dionysus who could value her for more than how others saw her (like kings or whoever). A lesser man than he is rejected her for marriage, but he saw her value anyway.


Ma'am, it's unfair to use my favourite myth to defend the bad boys with bands of drunken groupies....

I saw you mention the counterparts.... I think in a way Ariadne is quite apollonian (or perhaps atheneian is actually more correct, with the connection to weaving etc). She's the reason Theseus managed to beat the labyrinth, to find logical structure out of what seems to be indecipherable chaos, after all. It's such a duh moment when you think about it.

So I think it was cute Dionysos would be into her ("opposites attract"). But then again maybe he was just being a massive opportunist after waking up from a massive hangover. Which I can respect.
















_yass girl peel his grapes (or whatever you're doing)_


----------



## WickerDeer

DOGSOUP said:


> Ma'am, it's unfair to use my favourite myth to defend the bad boys with bands of drunken groupies....
> 
> I saw you mention the counterparts.... I think in a way Ariadne is quite apollonian (or perhaps atheneian is actually more correct, with the connection to weaving etc). She's the reason Theseus managed to beat the labyrinth, to find logical structure out of what seems to be indecipherable chaos, after all. It's such a duh moment when you think about it.
> 
> So I think it was cute Dionysos would be into her ("opposites attract"). But then again maybe he was just being a massive opportunist after waking up from a massive hangover. Which I can respect.
> View attachment 896022
> View attachment 896023
> 
> 
> _yass girl peel his grapes (or whatever you're doing)_


Yeah, but if you're going to say she's Athenian, then how come the most famous weaver (I mean to me, who isn't actually an ancient Greek or knowledgeable about this--aside from Penelope--is Arachne...who Athena challenged, and who ended up cursed as a spider (or maybe turned to a spider out of pity)?

I don't really know much about Ariadne, but I agree that she's great, and Theseus is a dick for abandoning her. He's obviously the inferior to Dionysus, being a mere king, who COULDNT EVEN SOLVE THE MAZE WITHOUT HELP FROM A GIRL.

Dionysus is a friend to all the single ladies.










But seriously, I was wondering if Ariadne was more apollonian, since opposites attract. At the same time, I think the aspect of the "hanged nymph" (which both Ariadne and Arachne might share, according to wikipedia with no source) could be seen as a Dionysian sort of artist woman who has a penchant for self destruction. 

Arachne was probably a more Dionysian artist than Athena, since she painted all the wrong things that the gods did--or maybe she was too Apollonian? But maybe she exposed the truth, just like a woman might expose her breasts in a non-sexual way, and so offend the Apollonian dream projected onto a woman's body...which is more than just a sex object.


----------



## Electra

The movie doesn't play and i have so little time 😔😔😔😔


----------



## Queen of Cups

Don’t trust the prince anyway….










Nice, bad Yada yada yada












eta: I also didn’t read the post so this was just free thought about prince charmings and wolves lol


----------



## WickerDeer

@DOGSOUP

Also, I haven't read that myth and know almost nothing about it, so I appreciate your insight even though I was joking about it.

I also almost ruined a frozen pizza while making that post, which makes me worry I've offended a god somewhere, so no offense to you or any of the Greek gods. I was just joking a little and I did succumb a little to Bacchus today so I wasn't being super careful (not that I ever am).

But I really appreciate hearing your input and I was wondering about the same thing with her--if she was sort of Apollonian. Maybe everyone's a mix though, except for Apollo and Dionysus of course.


----------



## Queen of Cups

My sex magic tarot deck also came in today.
I’ll break down the art with the meaning of the cards when
1) I get back from vacation this weekend and
2) I remember where I put them 😩😳


----------



## DOGSOUP

WickerDeer said:


> Yeah, but if you're going to say she's Athenian, then how come the most famous weaver (I mean to me, who isn't actually an ancient Greek or knowledgeable about this--aside from Penelope--is Arachne...who Athena challenged, and who ended up cursed as a spider (or maybe turned to a spider out of pity)?
> 
> ... Arachne was probably a more Dionysian artist than Athena, since she painted all the wrong things that the gods did--or maybe she was too Apollonian? ...


This probably depends on the interpretation and version cause there are always several... it seems like an obvious punishment but then there is the idea that she can "weave forever"... a reward, same with what happened to Medusa.



> Dionysus is a friend to all the single ladies.


I'll drink to that!



> But seriously, I was wondering if Ariadne was more apollonian, since opposites attract. At the same time, I think the aspect of the "hanged nymph" (which both Ariadne and Arachne might share, according to wikipedia with no source) could be seen as a Dionysian sort of artist woman who has a penchant for self destruction.


This thought is super interesting. I could especially see that for Arachne. And Ariadne perhaps moving from apollonian to dionysian (as a result of eros?? Ok I need sleep now.)



WickerDeer said:


> I also almost ruined a frozen pizza while making that post, which makes me worry I've offended a god somewhere, so no offense to you or any of the Greek gods. I was just joking a little and I did succumb a little to Bacchus today so I wasn't being super careful (not that I ever am).


Sounds like Hestia was not on your side.... But lol don't worry it was a great/funny/lovely response.


----------



## superloco3000

Well, most of us are millhouses and a lucky few are rock stars xD.

I remember Liszt filling concerts with ladies crazy about him, dionysian mysteries worked like a modern concert or party, getting drunk like crazy and having orgies to connect the being with the earthly.
Isn't music the evolution of a sexual magic?. Dionysian Mysteries - Wikipedia

















It also makes me laugh how Nietzsche predicted this departure of the senses and the collapse of rationalism, Future wars that now smells stronger than before.
Now I am starting to see this duality in every aspect I know xD , the roots keep expanding.


daleks_exterminate said:


> Speak for yourself, buzzfeed decided that i am Arya Stark, in the definitive "which random character are you quiz". So, be careful everyone, if there's been a buildup for you to kill anyone important or I'll swoop in first for absolutely no clear reason. Watch yourselves. XD
> View attachment 895847


Blame @Squirt for making me think about fractals and now I'm trying to organize my mind around that concept xD.

An esoteric way to understand it is that life is infinite roots , The duality of concepts are sub-divided in millions of sub-systems , If we take for example man and woman ... sexuality , mind and all our experience is built by small dualities and this simplicity of nature starts to multiply infinitely .
In other words, our personalities are infinite systems that seek to grow like a tree.
The Mathematics of god , Pythagoras what a genius he was .... maybe it is not only 2 , but 3 , 4 , 12 , I do not know xD , many of these numbers represent spiritual concepts such as duality , 3 the classic example of god , jesus and mary , 4 as the elements , ( N , S , T , F ) , 12 the cycle of the year and the western musical notes and that everything can be divided infinitely xD .








Pythagorean tuning - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





@Six posted this image , Yeah...lol.


----------



## WickerDeer

So I'm just going to post more of HundredAcreWorks which is collage, pop-art and it's not pornographic, but sort of funny and often about sexual topics.



I guess it's probably more profane and modern, and humorous than pornographic. 

It still seemed slightly on topic though.




















* *


----------



## ENIGMA2019

Eh- Most all porn sucks imo The kissing scene prior to sex in Top Gun is HOT. 

I prefer to read about it verses watch it. Subtle/engaging my mind is more of an art.


----------



## Squirt

superloco3000 said:


> View attachment 895842


So, I ran across a book about octopuses in the library the other day, and when I opened it up this painting was the first thing on the page. (I wonder how many unsuspecting children looking for animal facts found it, as it was sandwiched between titles like "Timmy's Fishing Trip" and "Sharks! Sharks! Sharks!" I love libraries...).

I thought I'd provide an excerpt of the text here, as it pertains to this discussion. The book is _Octopus_ by Richard Schweid. The excerpt comes from Chapter 6, Octopus Iconography.



> Eros and Thanatos, desire and death, are two of life's deepest mysteries. Over the past 200 years the octopus has served to symbolize both in the Western world, as it still does today. It was seen by the likes of Pablo Picasso as a sensuous creature, vital and pleasure-loving, while Victor Hugo drew an unforgettable portrait of the octopus as a ravening and implacable monster, bringer of death and destruction.
> 
> For Picasso and numerous other visual artists of his day, the artistic concept of the octopus was based on a coloured woodblock print made by the immensely talented Japanese artist Katsushika Hokusai in 1814, and widely circulated in Europe during the latter half of the nineteenth century. Known as _The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife_, it shows a Japanese woman, no longer young but still in the fullness of her body, lying with her legs spread open while an octopus performs cunnilingus between them, and a smaller octopus uses its arms to support her neck and caress her breasts. Her mouth is slightly open in pleasure, and she grips the arms of the larger octopus, pulling his mouth even further into her body. The octopus's huge, impassive eyes watch her face in its transport of pleasure. It is a deeply erotic scene, with a power that leaps off the page.
> 
> Hokusai's work is in the long tradition of _shunga_, the explicit Japanese woodblock prints that some call pornographic, and others see as erotic art. _Shunga_ has its roots in the eleventh century, and was well developed by the time Europeans discovered it. Early French travellers to Japan, in particular, seem to have been enamoured of the _shunga _they saw, and began bringing prints back to Europe in the mid-1800s. One of the early owners of the Hokusai print was Edmond de Goncourt, a close friend of Victor Hugo, who began collecting _shunga _in 1863. By the 1880s he had amassed a sizeable collection. _Shunga _paid respect to this all-important part of life shared by humans everywhere in graphic, delightful detail, with a touch of humour and another of style, and it was a revelation to European artists and art lovers. Picasso and the artists around him in Barcelona, and later in Paris, were tremendously influenced by these works, and the most influential of these were Hokusai's.


It goes on to detail that Aubrey Beardsley, Gustav Klimt, Emile Zola and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec all owned _shunga_ prints, and Picasso did a painting clearly inspired by this one in particular called _An Erotic Drawing: Woman and Octopus_, which is considerably more... clinical (y'all can look it up). Some art critics at the time considered the print to be a depiction of rape that was supposed to be ghastly. Fascination with the octopus from Victor Hugo's novel also solidified it as a monstrous creature (who must have also been familiar with the print). The book quotes this passage from Hugo:

"They are the chosen forms of evil... They are as the darkness converted into beasts... These animals are phantoms as much as monsters. They are the amphibice of death, the visible extremities of black circles. They mark the transition of our reality to another."

He also referred to it as a "sea vampire."

In the _Octopus _book, it says there was a psychoanalyst Jacques Schnier who, in the 1950's, argued that the Western depiction of the octopus as a terrifying creature was due to the influence of Greek myths of the Gorgons and Medusa. He claimed it symbolically represented "a woman with a penis" (there being no complete "male" in the picture, just... a bunch of penetration objects... or something) which was some Freudian subconscious fear of castration. I'm not sure how much I would ascribe to that idea.

I do wonder if that "terror" over a tentacled sea monster popularized by Hugo would have happened without Hokusai's absurd illustration of octopus sexing up a woman. Yet, the symbolism of such a strange-looking creature could be archetypically both horrifying and alluring without bringing castration or whatever into it. In Japan, the octopus was considered awkward and silly - octopuses were also often depicted as clumsy. A monster can represent what scares us about the unknown or the "other" (the Dionysian mystery) but the unfamiliarity and creatureliness can just as well make it curious and funny, instead.

And the woodblock was supposed to be funny. The text alongside it says stuff like, "_A plump, good pussy. A greater delicacy than even a potato…Juices are flowing like hot water." _It's also an obvious pun because _tako _(octopus) was slang for vagina during the Edo period. The myth that the illustration references is _Taishokan_ from somewhere between 538 - 710 CE, where a heroic young woman (an _ama_, or pearl diver) sacrifices herself in the face of a monster to recover a stolen jewel. It kind of reminds me of modern erotic art which does the same thing with European fairy tales like Little Red Riding Hood and Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

_Shunga_ seems like a "progressive" artform, featuring crossdressing, orgies, sexy satires of old folktales like _Taishokan_, and even a satire of a strict etiquette manual for women. Yet, many Westerns saw that illustration as horrifying (and _shunga _in general as offensive) instead of weird and funny and maybe kinda hot.

This is where I read more information about _shunga_:

Shunga: Beyond “Edo Porn” - Rabbit Hole (rabbitholemag.com)

@WickerDeer You were discussing sea creatures and the unconscious over in the art project thread at the same time I found this book, haha.


----------



## WickerDeer

Squirt said:


> So, I ran across a book about octopuses in the library the other day, and when I opened it up this painting was the first thing on the page. (I wonder how many unsuspecting children looking for animal facts found it, as it was sandwiched between titles like "Timmy's Fishing Trip" and "Sharks! Sharks! Sharks!" I love libraries...).
> 
> I thought I'd provide an excerpt of the text here, as it pertains to this discussion. The book is _Octopus_ by Richard Schweid. The excerpt comes from Chapter 6, Octopus Iconography.
> 
> 
> 
> It goes on to detail that Aubrey Beardsley, Gustav Klimt, Emile Zola and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec all owned _shunga_ prints, and Picasso did a painting clearly inspired by this one in particular called _An Erotic Drawing: Woman and Octopus_, which is considerably more... clinical (y'all can look it up). Some art critics at the time considered the print to be a depiction of rape that was supposed to be ghastly. Fascination with the octopus from Victor Hugo's novel also solidified it as a monstrous creature (who must have also been familiar with the print). The book quotes this passage from Hugo:
> 
> "They are the chosen forms of evil... They are as the darkness converted into beasts... These animals are phantoms as much as monsters. They are the amphibice of death, the visible extremities of black circles. They mark the transition of our reality to another."
> 
> He also referred to it as a "sea vampire."
> 
> In the _Octopus _book, it says there was a psychoanalyst Jacques Schnier who, in the 1950's, argued that the Western depiction of the octopus as a terrifying creature was due to the influence of Greek myths of the Gorgons and Medusa. He claimed it symbolically represented "a woman with a penis" (there being no complete "male" in the picture, just... a bunch of penetration objects... or something) which was some Freudian subconscious fear of castration. I'm not sure how much I would ascribe to that idea.
> 
> I do wonder if that "terror" over a tentacled sea monster popularized by Hugo would have happened without Hokusai's absurd illustration of octopus sexing up a woman. Yet, the symbolism of such a strange-looking creature could be archetypically both horrifying and alluring without bringing castration or whatever into it. In Japan, the octopus was considered awkward and silly - octopuses were also often depicted as clumsy. A monster can represent what scares us about the unknown or the "other" (the Dionysian mystery) but the unfamiliarity and creatureliness can just as well make it curious and funny, instead.
> 
> And the woodblock was supposed to be funny. The text alongside it says stuff like, "_A plump, good pussy. A greater delicacy than even a potato…Juices are flowing like hot water." _It's also an obvious pun because _tako _(octopus) was slang for vagina during the Edo period. The myth that the illustration references is _Taishokan_ from somewhere between 538 - 710 CE, where a heroic young woman (an _ama_, or pearl diver) sacrifices herself in the face of a monster to recover a stolen jewel. It kind of reminds me of modern erotic art which does the same thing with European fairy tales like Little Red Riding Hood and Goldilocks and the Three Bears.
> 
> _Shunga_ seems like a "progressive" artform, featuring crossdressing, orgies, sexy satires of old folktales like _Taishokan_, and even a satire of a strict etiquette manual for women. Yet, many Westerns saw that illustration as horrifying (and _shunga _in general as offensive) instead of weird and funny and maybe kinda hot.
> 
> This is where I read more information about _shunga_:
> 
> Shunga: Beyond “Edo Porn” - Rabbit Hole (rabbitholemag.com)
> 
> @WickerDeer You were discussing sea creatures and the unconscious over in the art project thread at the same time I found this book, haha.


I was wondering about the symbolism of the octopus and the fisherman's wife--it makes sense as a pun, and I think that octopus do have qualities that are maybe also sort of feminine too, like the way an octopus' arms can wrap around objects, or constrict them sort of blurs whether it's phallic or um...whatever the word for vaginal is.

I guess they kind of remind me of sea anemones, and I used to stick my finger in them as a kid. And so maybe the octopus having that sort of hole thing...I guess that beak is where the fear of castration could be, like that the octopus is sort of like this sucking maw--it can pull things into it, but it also has a beak that could chop them off. Maybe like vagina dentata or something.

But I guess it's not a man who has to worry about it because it's a woman? But maybe that way the octopus isn't emasculating to the man who's observing it--it's sort of like he might imagine that it would feel good in his own way, both the octopus and the woman.

That makes me wonder about snakes (like with Medusa or the story of Medea), because I did see them as phallic, sort of like how Eve takes from the snake.

But at the same time, the snake is also like a tentacle--it's got the capacity to wrap and constrict, so I think it probably also reminds of vaginas a little--and even the snake around the tree of knowledge, it's wrapped around the tree in lots of pictures, so which one would be phallic there? The tree more than the snake, I guess.

That makes me think about the Kundilini too. 

But maybe these creatures--snakes and octopus sort of evoke like a male/female imagery, like a hermaphrodite. And now I just thought of the cross-dressing devil from the Powerpuff Girls.

But maybe it's also sort of like the fear a "nice guy" or a nice girl next door might have of a creature that's not really bound by gender roles...like a more purely elemental, uncivilized creature (like a force of nature or an animal). That it represents how bizarre nature really is and how it isn't just missionary style but people come up with all kinds of stuff.

Idk--I didn't like the modern hentai porn or the modern depictions of tentacle porn, but I think it's an interesting idea to try to capture concepts like nature or sexual nature in a symbol like that--perhaps like the satyrs and the mermaids too or Minotaurs.


----------



## WickerDeer

Also--I didn't mean to be insensitive or use intersex people as symbols.

I was not describing what I meant well--I guess maybe just this idea of some elemental nature that is sexual, but is beyond just male or female, or perhaps both male and female...or some way to transcend that. 

Because sex is a means of understanding another person in a deeper way--of what it is like to be in another body. So perhaps that's related to the snake/tentacle imagery since they seem both phallic and vaginal?

The idea of the octopus/male/female thing reminded me of this song Multilove by Unknown Mortal Orchestra:


----------



## ENIGMA2019

Some eargasm art


----------



## Iced_Mocha

I'm personally a bit uncomfortable with this type of content, but I understand the wishes of people who like it. I probably will not post as much here.


----------



## NIHM

I guess some of my favorite art can be moving to me and falls in nudity or representing a lustful display or fertility.


















But then there are these that I could pause at.


















But the Sin painted in 1880 by Heinrich Lossowy had me stop to inhale. It certainly makes you think.


----------



## NIHM

Then sometimes you don't even need to see the nudity to feel something when viewing a piece of good work.



















Though some nude pieces are just that good even if they're simple or abstract.



















And some male work is always fantastic to view.


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## WickerDeer

*Thoughts, Philosophy, creative process of a painting I was working on recently:*

I was working on a small canvas 4x4 art project recently, and it's not porn but the theme was sort of erotic or sensual, or supposed to be (who knows how it will actually turn out it's not dry yet)

And it was a funny process because the paint I was experimenting with accidentally covered most of the nude form. But then I looked at it again and imagined that if it's like it's embracing her, then it's almost more erotic in a way, even though it's not what I intended. But as if the watery paint sort of reached out and embraced the form, despite my goal of keeping them separated.

Of course there is no way someone would really know that just from looking at it without knowing the process it went through.

At the same time, art is about the subjective experience and process to the creator as much as it's about the finished result and how others view it.

I'll just link it here since it's sort of on topic, but I'm also kind of sensitive about it since it's just work I'm trying to develop.

This is it so far--but it's not done or even dry yet.
















The paint around the figure seems sort of "dionysian" to me in a way, as it's difficult to control, it doesn't stay within the "apollonian" boundaries I created very well, and it's sort of doing its own thing--watery and emotional maybe. Whereas the form is perhaps more apollonian in that oil paint is much easier to control and also the human form reminds me a bit of judging and morality in some way, though idk...it all blurs together.

And here is the form originally before the paint basically covered over the figure. 










I was thinking of modesty at first, and how like...maybe I am "bad" for painting a sensual sort of figure, and the paint is covering over it because of shame.

But then I looked at it this morning and thought that maybe the paint is just embracing the figure--the colorful swirling paint is an oil based resin, so when it touched the wet oil paint of the figure, it kind of merged with it a bit and started bleeding into the figure in ways I didn't intend, so I guess it could be like erotic/sensual, in that they are different but similar (the oil paint and the oil resin) but at a certain time they may be attracted because of that similar oil between them.

eh...not sure.

But it was nice to have a different way of viewing it, as more of an erotic embrace than me messing up a painting I had been working on! LOL

The paint is just embracing the figure...lol...and then the end result is a mix of what I can control (my intentions, the oil paints etc.) and something that is beyond just me--as if a creative process between my will and the materials themselves, in which they merge together to create something that it not entirely one of the other.

Though tbh I will be putting more boundaries and stuff up for that pebeo paint next time so it doesn't cover over the entire form again if I do this lol

The painting is not done and I plan on probably touching up the figure again and doing other things to it, but this is the stage it's in right now. I will prefer to view it as an erotic embrace of paint, rather than a mistake on my part and a mishandling of materials.


----------



## WickerDeer

@NIHM

One of your recent selfies (I think the one you used as your last avatar) reminded me of this painting by Botticelli (sorry--I hope that it's not inappropriate to say--I'm heterosexual I just like to associate stuff)










(but I didn't use your selfie for the above nude painting so just felt like clarifying that since I made it right after I had asked you--lol--I just haven't gotten around to the other idea yet and I kind of messed up the first attempt. Idk why but maybe the coloring (I don't think your face looks like the Venus here, but it just reminded me of it--so I felt inspired!)

(also maybe I shouldn't be posting this in the art/pornography thread--as Venus is a goddess)

Also--I really like art that features male bodies too--I feel like there's this association with the erotic nude figure with the female figure, but I think male figures reclining etc. can be beautiful too and there aren't enough of them.

Reminds me of this Bjork song that I posted in another thread (I don't think I posted it in this thread?)






But it's nice to see male figures in art too, not always in violent poses like many of them--but reclining etc.


----------



## NIHM

WickerDeer said:


> @NIHM
> 
> One of your recent selfies (I think the one you used as your last avatar) reminded me of this painting by Botticelli (sorry--I hope that it's not inappropriate to say--I'm heterosexual I just like to associate stuff)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (but I didn't use your selfie for the above nude painting so just felt like clarifying that since I made it right after I had asked you--lol--I just haven't gotten around to the other idea yet and I kind of messed up the first attempt. Idk why but maybe the coloring (I don't think your face looks like the Venus here, but it just reminded me of it--so I felt inspired!)
> 
> (also maybe I shouldn't be posting this in the art/pornography thread--as Venus is a goddess)
> 
> Also--I really like art that features male bodies too--I feel like there's this association with the erotic nude figure with the female figure, but I think male figures reclining etc. can be beautiful too and there aren't enough of them.
> 
> Reminds me of this Bjork song that I posted in another thread (I don't think I posted it in this thread?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's nice to see male figures in art too, not always in violent poses like many of them--but reclining etc.


I'm honored actually and a little like this.










I have always had a duality about looks or if someone wants to compare me to something I've enjoyed. On one hand, feel pride but on the other hand, this overwhelming blush and awkwardness rise up. I think it's my Fi activating me into a very shy stance. It's brief and I can't control but it happens. Still, the reason why I'm taking photos of myself and practicing "the model" look is to help me fight my functioning issues by looking people in the eye. It's like trying to force myself to face something. I have no problem getting my best friends to take amazing beautiful photos of them and getting my work published in magazines. It's completely hard for me to face trying to pull off being "pretty" but model-looking. I probably put too much thought into this response. Anyways in the end I'm very honored by it. I don't mind if a female admires me. I don't think my husband is jealous of anyone. If a male is flirting with me he gets this overwhelming prideful look and teases me... like he liked you. And I'm like what the waiter? He's like yeah, "the man couldn't stop flirting," but it's not said in disapproval but in a way of being extremely happy about it. Like he's happy when it happens. We have a great and confident relationship, he was chuckling the last couple of weeks of Feb because I was on all those hormone shots. He's like so if you accidentally cheat on me, I'm cool with it, watching me go to hug random nurses and strangers. I didn't...thank god... my hormones had my sexual drive in the stratosphere and the horrible was I could do 0 about it. I'm an idiot when I flirt and I'm awful at it because when I attempted it, nothing happened or 0 response from anyone so I summed it up, as usual, to that I'm not very well-liked, lol, as to the level he seems to think I am at. Bless his heart though, he does try to pump me up. I'm like let's face it I'm a weirdo. Though in some way I'm also happy when females and males look at him in "that" way. Not that you're looking at me in that way but I can understand seeing another character to be used as a muse. Some of my best friends are my muses. So I understand. Below is my best friend. I don't think you need full nudity to pull off sensuality but I don't mind nudity. Not a painting but my photography.
















This one was my previous avatar. It takes me forever to get this practice with a relaxed but pretty smile. Normally I always feel like I'm pushing my lips out. They're already big so I have to control that. But this in btw smile is very hard for me to pull off. Also, know that I think of this. I was drugged up and just home from the egg retrieval and on some pain meds when I took this.


----------



## NIHM

Here's also more to keep the topic on point.


----------



## NIHM

WickerDeer said:


> @NIHM
> 
> 
> But it's nice to see male figures in art too, not always in violent poses like many of them--but reclining etc.


Also another topic, I like to find pieces that are not your typical beauty standards of today. I love The Sin because he's painted so differently and dominating that nun. Like it just makes heat rise under my skin. He's not your typical "hot" male. He's balding, older, in drab brown, and overweight. Like he's not painted like her. He's painted darker with this almost look of domination and it still takes my breath away. Like I love it for that reason. When people talk about dating only attractive people I'm like that's not how my brain works. I don't want a male that's going to beat me but I also get aroused by that confidence of that man in the Sin. My favorite character on The Legend of Vox Machina is the short bard and even though he's a cartoon it's the confidence and playfulness he displays. I like him more than the elf rogue.


----------

