Two other points I want to clear up about my post above – because I know that some of the things I’ve said are bound to set the accusations flying…

1)I think a Leopard, a Porsche 962 and the Guggenheim Museum are also objects of beauty. Do I have sexual feelings about any of them? No. Therefore am I homosexual for considering the male form an object of beauty and can look at a photo of a nude woman without getting aroused? No – I’m a happily married man who loves his wife and is totally comfortable with his sexuality.
2)Yes, I am aware of the fact that I used the term “object” when referring to a woman’s body. Does this mean I see woman (or their bodies) purely as objects? No. You’ll also note, I refer to the male form in the same way. I’m simply using the word because it suits my needs for the message I’m trying to convey – if the ardent feminists out their read too much into my choice of words and over analyse the semantics then…Well frankly, I can’t be bothered to argue. Whatever anyone says or does is bound to offend someone somewhere and I refuse to dig out a thesaurus at this time of night.

One last point. Why’s everybody bashing Playboy? Compared with some of the magazines available over here in Europe, Playboy is pretty tame. In fact, I’d go as far to say that at least 60 – 70% of the shots in an average Playboy issue are, in themselves, works of art. As an armature photographer, if I could create photographs of that standard – I’d be proud. But then perhaps us Europeans have a different point of view

2. differentiate between food & junk-food:
erotica grows relationship & wholeness
( whether it is verbal, as female-erotica tends to be, or visual, as male erotica tends to be )
pr0n reduces relationship & wholeness, substituting sensation
( whether it is cheap “wromances” or playboy, if it conditions the experiencer to dumbed-down others, it’s pr0n, not erotica )

3. the “fashion industry” does more harm to women’s lives than does “playboy” magazine ( even with playboy’s bogus “women” made of silicone & airbrush/photoshop ).
The fashion industry values stylized used appearance, not Woman.
It prefers anorexic models, partly because of the 300mm lenses used ( to make the photographer look Important ), but which require anorexic models to compensate for the telecompression.
It screams into girls that they aren’t worth anything as someones, only as appearances.

4. the main reason female nudes are so much more numerous than male nudes, is because female porn is verbal:
Harliquin has put out more books than any other publisher, ttbomk.
For some reason “feminists” insist that sexuality is evil if it’s in the male-visual style, but not if it’s in the female-verbal style.

Idiotic, shallow, but true.

4b. the *other half* of the main reason female nudes are so more numerous than male nudes, is because males are pushier than females, so, though women enjoy visual porn, it has to be done in the style women *like*!
Look at the renditions of maleness done by males: block-like, aggressive, mean, fighter, etc.
Look at the renditions of maleness done by/for females: “Fabio” on the wromance books, a long-haired gentle “hunk”, who gradually ravishes woman… blah blah blah…
Since males generally are SO committed to blocking women from equality ( the “glass ceiling” e.g. ), woman-rendered maleness doesn’t get shown much, does it?

Where would it be published?
a *woman* owned publishing-house?

Which one?
Penthouse? Playboy? Conde Nast publications? Pop Science? Ziff Davis conglomerate?

See a trend here?

Anyone who opposes male contribution to female excellence/wholeness isn’t “feminist”, they’re prejudiced.

Anyone who contributes to female excellence/wholeness IS feminist, whether they admit it or not.

SHOWing woman how her wholeness IS valued/treasured, is one of the countless healing contributions needed.

SHOWing males how wholeness doesn’t threaten, how it enriches, is a good thing, too little done.

Finally, most of this is all the result of the white/anglo body-uptightness culture:
this isn’t an issue in a nudist colony!

Only in cultures that commoditize women on appearance, can modified-appearance be considered capable of controlling women.

( some cultures commoditize men on appearance: the stylization shows that way, too )

At any rate, I’m not out to support the feminist cause so much as to show people the beauty that I see in women who wouldn’t be considered for the pages of Maxim or Playboy.

The Supreme Court of these United States cannot agree on a definition of pornography and yet this woman is flying in the face of the law of the land with every word she writes.

At least I’m not an attention whoring troll.

Glad you’re back in town!

- Eric

“When it comes right down to it, I am a male feminist. I want to empower women. I want to build their confidence…”

Yeah, because they need a MAN to do that for them. Need a man to protect them from the industry created by corrupt men who used women to corrupt women for the purposes of corrupting men so that we no longer have the ability to corrupt women.

How do you like them apples?