What makes “tasteful” erotica versus “distasteful” erotica in photography or art?
Post contains nudity:
Helmut Newton is good.
My theory:
Erotica is “distasteful” when it is actually the sexual act (penetration, coitus).
What’s the purpose of erotica?
My thought:
To stimulate sexual desire towards your partner in order to impregnate them.
At what point is a photo or art work “lewd”?
An interesting experiment:
If you select a photo which arouses you then you Gaussian blur it… at what point does it still arouse you or doesn’t?
This is me trying to fool Google AI:
Nude photos I don’t consider erotic
These photos don’t stimulate me:
But this non nude photo I find very erotic and stimulating:
Apparently this is not an “adult” photo, but it is “racy”:
Is it because of the arched back and breasts?
The look … the expectancy of coitus?
Youthfulness, fertileness?
Theory:
Us men desire a sexual partner who we consider fertile for offspring. This is why the attraction to youthful women.
Also an interesting point:
It seems for us men, it ain’t about a woman with massive breasts, but rather having perky, supple breasts in which the nipples point upwards. This is apparently a sign of youthfulness and fertility in women.
I wonder if this notion of a woman with insanely huge breasts (artificial augmentation) is socialization that nature.
