Boy! I Never had nude models when I was 14

[PreachersWife2004]

Err...that's not what I said. I merely pointed out that after Adam and Eve sinned, they were ashamed of their naked bodies.

Before the Fall:
Gen 2:25 - The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

After the Fall:
Gen 3:7 - Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Gen 3:10 - He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

 

[ranmaonehalf]

frankly it would simple depend on the maturity of my kid.
me as a 14 year old could have handled it. I also find nothing immoral about the human body.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

frankly it would simple depend on the maturity of my kid.
me as a 14 year old could have handled it. I also find nothing immoral about the human body.

I would agree with this. There is nothing immoral about our bodies - just what we do with them!

 

[Shane Roach]

I personally can't get past the face, so drawing nudes is a non-issue for me.

Cute!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not so sure... at 14 I didn't know more than the biology book I had for school taught.

I'll chalk that up to cultural differences . You gotta admit, the whole "Wardrobe malfunction" outcry shone a light on how prudish the US is...

 

[Shane Roach]

The wardrobe malfunction was not a malfunction. The artists involved had contracted for a specific sort of show. It's not prudish to expect to be able to get through a Superbowl halftime without having to deal with someone's twisted idea of a vulgar joke.

I took drawing in college. I don't really agree with those who say that nude figure drawing is not sexual. Unless your model is ugly, there is going to be a sexual angle to staring at her naked form and having your hands attempt to follow those contours accurately on the page. I don't think it's for nothing that some folks flirt afterward either, or make bargains about posing nude for one another that really end up being opportunities to brink one another sexually -- a strange form of flirting indeed, but effective.

It doesn't take much covering to still get the experience of drawing the human form and not be completely exposed. Having said that, naturally, in that setting it is rare for anything sexual to happen, though one of the girls who had been in art for a long time told me that the man who usually modeled for us had once gotten an erection that just would not go away. She was not my idea of a prude, and indeed I half expected her to think that was funny, but she felt it was rather disgusting.

Now in medicine, there's really no getting around it. You're going to have to deal with the naked human form. There are also situations in life that are not sexual that lend themselves to the occasional glimpse of a naked person, of this or that gender.

By and large though, I think a lot too much is made of supposed American prudishness. A desire to maintain a decent level of decorum in public is not some hideous obsession with sex or the evils of the naked human body.

 

[Belk]

This is why it was so refreshing to go to Germany when I was in the army. It was nice to go to the sauna and just be naked. There was nothing sexual about it and people of all sorts where there, quite obviously comfortable with their bodies, no matter what the shape or size. As the Japanese say, "nudity is often seen, but rarely noticed"

 

[Shane Roach]

This is why it was so refreshing to go to Germany when I was in the army. It was nice to go to the sauna and just be naked. There was nothing sexual about it and people of all sorts where there, quite obviously comfortable with their bodies, no matter what the shape or size. As the Japanese say, "nudity is often seen, but rarely noticed"

*shrugs*

I've been to nude beaches, clothed saunas, naked suntan salons, and with the exception of the fact that it really is a unique experience to swim naked or have the sun strike parts of your body it usually does not, nothing else really benefits much from being nude.

It's as you say, in that circumstance it is largely irrelevant, no one "notices" (supposedly), so why bother stripping?

 

[keith99]

frankly it would simple depend on the maturity of my kid.
me as a 14 year old could have handled it. I also find nothing immoral about the human body.

At 14 I was a Math and Science geek, not an Arts geek. But I think it gave me enough knowledge of those absorbed in some area.

Nudes present real issues when it comes to drawing. Any 14 year old who should be the class would focus on those issues first and not be focused on sexuality.

In short they would see a nude, not someone naked. There is a difference, even if most of it is the perceprtion of the viewer.

 

[Jade Margery]

How many folks responding to this are actually artists, I wonder? Having been in several such classes myself, I gotta say it's about as sexual as drawing a toaster. Nude subjects are the very best way to study human anatomy short of getting into a biology class with human dissections (I've tried, but the number or prerequisite classes is startling. Perhaps I could just observe one...).

There may be initial giggles at seeing something one is simply not used to seeing, but an artist is much more concerned with the curves they are drawing than the curves they could fantasize about. Add to that the fact that most models are just normal looking people from your own town (I drew the mother of one of my sister's friends once, she was a very good model) and the smut-level is virtually nonexistent. Car commercials are more likely to result in a sexual reaction than nude drawing classes.

This topic does bring up some issues in our society. For example, why is it so horrible for a kid to be exposed to a naked body or sexual feelings? I'm not talking about doing anything to a kid, before someone starts making silly noises about pedophilia. I'm talking about how we hide a huge part of being alive and human from children so that they aren't prepared to deal with it when they grow up. Imagine if we blindfolded kids every time we took them in a car because they aren't mature enough to drive yet. Do you think they would be better or worse equipped to drive when they became sixteen? And yet we do (or try to do) exactly that with sex.

So really, what would be the harm if, in addition to an art lesson, they had something to go home and pleasure themselves over? So long as the model wasn't trying to be smutty, why is that so awful and inappropriate?

Edit: Huh. I did not expect that word to be censored...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The wardrobe malfunction was not a malfunction. The artists involved had contracted for a specific sort of show. It's not prudish to expect to be able to get through a Superbowl halftime without having to deal with someone's twisted idea of a vulgar joke.

Case in point: an exposed breast is seen as "someone's twisted idea of a vulgar joke".

I took drawing in college. I don't really agree with those who say that nude figure drawing is not sexual. Unless your model is ugly, there is going to be a sexual angle to staring at her naked form and having your hands attempt to follow those contours accurately on the page. I don't think it's for nothing that some folks flirt afterward either, or make bargains about posing nude for one another that really end up being opportunities to brink one another sexually -- a strange form of flirting indeed, but effective.

Is that such a surprise? A society that eschews nudity because it considers it overtly sexual is bound to see nude models as overtly sexual. A society that doesn't see nudity as necessarily sexual (and, thus, taboo), won't see nude models as sexual.

It doesn't take much covering to still get the experience of drawing the human form and not be completely exposed. Having said that, naturally, in that setting it is rare for anything sexual to happen, though one of the girls who had been in art for a long time told me that the man who usually modeled for us had once gotten an erection that just would not go away. She was not my idea of a prude, and indeed I half expected her to think that was funny, but she felt it was rather disgusting.

Now in medicine, there's really no getting around it. You're going to have to deal with the naked human form. There are also situations in life that are not sexual that lend themselves to the occasional glimpse of a naked person, of this or that gender.

Indeed. And different societies react in different ways.

By and large though, I think a lot too much is made of supposed American prudishness. A desire to maintain a decent level of decorum in public is not some hideous obsession with sex or the evils of the naked human body.

A "decent level of decorum in public"? I say that is an obsession with human nudity.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

How many folks responding to this are actually artists, I wonder? Having been in several such classes myself, I gotta say it's about as sexual as drawing a toaster. Nude subjects are the very best way to study human anatomy short of getting into a biology class with human dissections (I've tried, but the number or prerequisite classes is startling. Perhaps I could just observe one...).

I'm an artist, although a digital one and not a drawer. I agree with you here in principle...the question, though, is whether it's appropriate for a 14 year old kid to be in this type of atmosphere.

There may be initial giggles at seeing something one is simply not used to seeing, but an artist is much more concerned with the curves they are drawing than the curves they could fantasize about. Add to that the fact that most models are just normal looking people from your own town (I drew the mother of one of my sister's friends once, she was a very good model) and the smut-level is virtually nonexistent. Car commercials are more likely to result in a sexual reaction than nude drawing classes.

Again, try thinking in the shoes of a 14 year old.

As an adult (and even as a college student) I understood what was involved in painting a nude. I only did it once, and did such a horrible job of it that I decided to go into digital graphics instead.

This topic does bring up some issues in our society. For example, why is it so horrible for a kid to be exposed to a naked body or sexual feelings? I'm not talking about doing anything to a kid, before someone starts making silly noises about pedophilia. I'm talking about how we hide a huge part of being alive and human from children so that they aren't prepared to deal with it when they grow up. Imagine if we blindfolded kids every time we took them in a car because they aren't mature enough to drive yet. Do you think they would be better or worse equipped to drive when they became sixteen? And yet we do (or try to do) exactly that with sex.

I don't hide that from my kids, but I also don't parade around the house naked. I want my children to be knowledgeable about their bodies and what happens to them as they grow up. My mom always pledged to me that I would not be the girl who freaked and thought I was dying the first time Aunt Mae visited me, and while my sons won't go through that, there's plenty of other things that could make them feel like freaks. Being "comfortable" with our bodies isn't the same as flaunting them naked.

So really, what would be the harm if, in addition to an art lesson, they had something to go home and off over? Why is that so awful and inappropriate?

Err...you need to remove the [wash my mouth] tags from that.

Most Christians see masturbation as a sin, so I suppose that would answer your question about why people think that could be harmful.

 

[sidhe]

Drawing a naked person is actually a good way to familiarize yourself with the multitude of flaws in the human body.

 

[Washington]

How many folks responding to this are actually artists, I wonder? Having been in several such classes myself, I gotta say it's about as sexual as drawing a toaster. Nude subjects are the very best way to study human anatomy short of getting into a biology class with human dissections (I've tried, but the number or prerequisite classes is startling. Perhaps I could just observe one...).

There may be initial giggles at seeing something one is simply not used to seeing, but an artist is much more concerned with the curves they are drawing than the curves they could fantasize about. Add to that the fact that most models are just normal looking people from your own town (I drew the mother of one of my sister's friends once, she was a very good model) and the smut-level is virtually nonexistent. Car commercials are more likely to result in a sexual reaction than nude drawing classes.

This topic does bring up some issues in our society. For example, why is it so horrible for a kid to be exposed to a naked body or sexual feelings? I'm not talking about doing anything to a kid, before someone starts making silly noises about pedophilia. I'm talking about how we hide a huge part of being alive and human from children so that they aren't prepared to deal with it when they grow up. Imagine if we blindfolded kids every time we took them in a car because they aren't mature enough to drive yet. Do you think they would be better or worse equipped to drive when they became sixteen? And yet we do (or try to do) exactly that with sex.

So really, what would be the harm if, in addition to an art lesson, they had something to go home and pleasure themselves over? So long as the model wasn't trying to be smutty, why is that so awful and inappropriate?

Edit: Huh. I did not expect that word to be censored...

I couldn't agree with you more. Everything you said was right on. I took quite a few art classes in college and in those with nude models there was absolutely no sense that anyone of the opposite sex from the model was interested in anything but "getting it right." The models themselves were quite average looking and the males often wore a posing pouch. As you say, it was little different than drawing a toaster.

Although most 14-17 year-olds rarely see anyone of the opposite sex naked in real life, I fail to see where doing so could impact them negatively. So you see X or Y naked. So what? If the incident happens to come back to mind later on and a fantasy of sorts manifests itself, so what? Big deal!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


I kinda see both "sides" here...

Nudity (I'm saying NOTHING of sexuality here) seems to be a sensitive issue in our culture - perhaps an influence of Judaism among us, and I understand more in the USA than probably anywhere else on the planet. There is a strong cultural aspect here.

BESIDES the strongly cultural mileau, I think there's a strong influence of how we feel about our own bodies (the whole body image thing). I think that comes into play here, too. And this situation of the opening post is a bit "different" because it is high schoolers - where we all recall that our hormones were on overdrive. (I almost posted that a high school guy can get turned on by a rock - but I felt such unnecessary to post - we all know that, lol).

Nudity was not a part of my growing up. On the other hand, I developed a very positive body image - and I'm sure my family had a large role in that. I abandoned the PJ's for sleeping when I was probably 12 or so, and no one cared. In the night, I'd venture to the bathroom so "attired" and no one cared. An incident I recall when I was like SIXTEEN. Anyway, I had been doing my own laundry for many years by then and all my underwear was either dirty or in the dryer out in the garage, so pretty early, I ventured (not attired in anything) through the house and out to the garage to get my clothes. Unbeknownst to me, my sister (she's 7 years older than I) had come home from college after I went to bed and had gotten up. She saw me and gave me a sataristic wink and thumbs up as I past - just kidding me. I wasn't embarrassed at all, but I DID put on my boxers in the garage before returning through the house, LOL. Another little story: When I was in my younger to mid teens, I was a part of a youth theatre company. We had this discussion a couple of times if whether we'd do a nude scene in a play - assuming it was not of a sexual nature. It was an interesting discussion. MOST of us really didn't have a problem with the nudity as we did with the audience. Nudity involves some trust, we stressed. It would be hard to know how the audience was responding, were THEY making it sexual? THAT is what made most of us uncomfortable with the idea. Among those we trust, even "mixed" gender, most seemed to have no issues with it.

Like the dressing issue, this is a CONTEXT and CULTURE issue. IMHO, an art class, where the context is learning to law the human form and there's nothing sexual about this, I think that in MOST cases, it would be find. But if the teen has been raised in a culture where nudity = sex, or where there are significant "body image" issues, I think some "parantal guideance" would be appropriate. Which, it seems to ME, is exactly what the University was suggesting by so strongly informing the parents.

One more little note: I don't think there is a 14 year old (guy anyway) who hasn't been exposed to nudity - if not personally, then on the net. It's not going to be a revelation at all. And for one who grew up on the beach and at the pool (as I did), well - going from a very, very tiny bikini to nude is, well - not much of a leap anyway. It might be different for teen girls. And maybe a GOOD thing would be appreciate the FORM as this art class would do, the stress being on the form - not on sex. Seems like that might be a GOOD thing for those who one MIGHT think should not particiapte in this. They just might be the ones to most benefit?


I'm all for parental guidance, BTW. While I doubt the university needed to say that nudes would be involved, I totally honor that they did - and for parents.


Just my $0.00


- Josiah





.

 

[Jade Margery]

I'm an artist, although a digital one and not a drawer. I agree with you here in principle...the question, though, is whether it's appropriate for a 14 year old kid to be in this type of atmosphere.

Again, try thinking in the shoes of a 14 year old.

As an adult (and even as a college student) I understood what was involved in painting a nude. I only did it once, and did such a horrible job of it that I decided to go into digital graphics instead.

Since I'm no longer fourteen, you may take this with a grain of salt, but from memories I have of my art classes at the time, I do not think that the importance of figure study would have been lost on anybody, male or female.

I don't hide that from my kids, but I also don't parade around the house naked.

Heehee, my mom did. Not on a regular basis, mind, but if she was looking for a shirt or a pair of pants lost in our endless laundry system... Didn't faze any of us in the least. I can't say anything for the neighbors though.

I want my children to be knowledgeable about their bodies and what happens to them as they grow up. My mom always pledged to me that I would not be the girl who freaked and thought I was dying the first time Aunt Mae visited me, and while my sons won't go through that, there's plenty of other things that could make them feel like freaks. Being "comfortable" with our bodies isn't the same as flaunting them naked.

It's good you're not keeping them in the dark about stuff. I guess I don't see the connection between flaunting and being naked. 'Flaunt' seems to imply that one is purposefully acting in a way to catch others attention. One can be naked for one's own sake and not to bug other people. I think that sort of nakedness inspires a level of comfort and acceptance that American society is severely lacking.

Err...you need to remove the [wash my mouth] tags from that.

Most Christians see masturbation as a sin, so I suppose that would answer your question about why people think that could be harmful.

Waaay ahead of you.

I have long wondered at the the whole 'sexual pleasure = sin' equation. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Sex is probably one of the most enjoyable activities a person can partake in, alone or with a partner (or partners) so why make it bad?

 

[Shane Roach]

A "decent level of decorum in public"? I say that is an obsession with human nudity.

I'd see it at the most as an interesting cultural difference that I personally celebrate so long as it remains true in America.

 

[QuakerOats]

I think it depends on the child. If he or she really had no interest in the art and wanted to attend simply to see someone in the nude, I'd have to at least think it over before allowing them to go. It could still be a good overall experience for them, but folks who aren't prepared to learn, so to speak, can often be disruptive, particularly young people, so again, I'd say it would totally depend on the individual child. However, if you're looking for a general 'yes' or 'no,' it'd have to be a 'yes.' I ultimately see nothing wrong with children of any age seeing the nude human body, be it male or female.

 

[Shane Roach]

Most Christians see masturbation as a sin, so I suppose that would answer your question about why people think that could be harmful.

That sort of reached out and grabbed me...

Not meaning to derail the thread, but that seems untrue to me. In fact, I couldn't count on my fingers and toes the number of times I have heard it said that this was not a Christian teaching?

Maybe an issue for a different topic though. Just sort of shocked me. Not in any horrible way mind you! Just took me by surprise.

 

[Shane Roach]

Drawing a naked person is actually a good way to familiarize yourself with the multitude of flaws in the human body.

Our prof brought in a very obese model once. That was an interesting change of pace.