• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Erotic helplessness : a study of the history of the Damsel in Distress theme in art

Go to CruxDreams.com
Maybe we’re getting seduced by slavegirls away from the “maidens in erotic peril” theme.. unless she was recently abducted and forced into sexual slavery, in which case fine!
smileyvault-whip.gif
 
And now, a word to the moderators, @Wragg, @Barbaria1, @Jollyrei, @melissa, @thehangingtree, @Apostate, @phlebas etc.
When I established this thread, a few weeks ago, it was in the hope of having a space where erotic DiD art could be exposed, discussed, and where enthusiasts could share their finds and enrich each other's collections, in a climate of freedom and goodwill. It so happens that a lot of classical art includes children in various states of undress and/or peril, not necessarily with any erotic intent (I could hardly imagine a scene of a sack of a city where children would not be found, for instance). As I was made aware that this site has a strict no-minors policy, I tried blacking out children, as in the Bulgarian Martyresses (page 11). Such a policy was not accepted for Laubadère's postcard The Arena, which was censored despite the child being removed (I also noticed that @ducon007's Almohad Sack of Morocco has disappeared, unless he took it down himself). I was hoping that the blacking out of children would be an acceptable compromise wherein the site does not host depictions of minors while allowing art enthusiasts to be made aware of the existence of such or such work and find it on their own initiative elsewhere on the web. I do not wish to offend any sensibilities. Just to be as exhaustive and thorough as possible. So my question is actually quite simple. As a matter of policy, will such a compromise be allowed on this site ? Thanks for your answers...
 
Last edited:
The Arena pic was removed because you posted it with the comment that it was "self censored" implying that you were merely saving the moderators a job. To drive your message home you did it in the style of redaction with the black rectangle. That pic was posted with the intention of taunting the moderators. You went on to ask Barbaria1 for an explanation. However according to the log it was Phlebas who reinstated the pic having first brushed out the black rectangle. You have already been given an explanation of why we have the rule about minors on at least three occasions and now you wish to drag all the moderators into an argument. The No Minors rule on this site was introduced by @ImageMaker back in 2012. If you want the rule changed to allow children in paintings on your "Erotic helplessness.." thread then he is the man to ask.
 
melissa said:
The Arena pic was removed because you posted it with the comment that it was "self censored" implying that you were merely saving the moderators a job. To drive your message home you did it in the style of redaction with the black rectangle. That pic was posted with the intention of taunting the moderators. You went on to ask Barbaria1 for an explanation. However according to the log it was Phlebas who reinstated the pic having first brushed out the black rectangle. You have already been given an explanation of why we have the rule about minors on at least three occasions and now you wish to drag all the moderators into an argument. The No Minors rule on this site was introduced by @ImageMaker back in 2012. If you want the rule changed to allow children in paintings on your "Erotic helplessness.." thread then he is the man to ask.
Click to expand...
I am sorry if my approach was misunderstood. I was not trying to taunt anyone, simply acknowledging that I had taken note of @Barbaria1's instruction and had removed the offending child. Perhaps the word self-censored was unfortunate, but I did not mean it as an attack. I apologize for my lack of tact. As for the black rectangle, I am not a PC nerd and do not actually know any other way to remove or crop a part of an image than doing so simply on Paint. I did not know who had removed the photo, and so turned to Barbaria1 as I assumed it was him given his previous remark. As for why I tagged the moderators as a group, it was not to draw people into an argument but to have a unified response to the simple question of whether I can post paintings with the crude and simple black-out of minors or must refrain from such paintings altogether...
 
Last edited:
coldturkey said:
I am sorry if my approach was misunderstood. I was not trying to taunt anyone, simply acknowledging that I had taken note of @Barbaria1's instruction and had removed the offending child. Perhaps the word self-censored was unfortunate, but I did not mean it as an attack. I apologize for my lack of tact. As for the black rectangle, I am not a PC nerd and do not actually know any other way to remove or crop a part of an image than doing so simply on Paint. I did not know who had removed the photo, and so turned to Barbaria1 as I assumed it was him given his previous remark. As for why I tagged the moderators as a group, it was not to draw people into an argument but to have a unified response to the simple question of whether I can post paintings with the crude and simple black-out of minors or must refrain from such paintings altogether...
Click to expand...
I'm sure that art enthusiasts are well aware of the works by Orientalist painters and others. It isn't our job to increase the awareness of the public at large to such paintings. There are hundreds of sites where people can buy prints or download the images for free. If you wish to post paintings involving damsels in distress all we are saying is avoid works where children are visible. Since it doesn't make sense to cover them with black rectangles then quite simply do not upload them. Finally, public threads like this one should not be used to bring about any changes in the rules. You can do that either by sending a PM to the moderating group or in this case await a reply from ImageMaker.
 
coldturkey said:
I am not a PC nerd and do not actually know any other way to remove or crop a part of an image than doing so simply on Paint.
Click to expand...
@coldturkey : I use paint too. If there is something on a pic I want to hide, I cover it by cutting out a part of the adjacent background, and pasting it over the object I want to hide (beware of setting the background transparant). It is a few minutes work, but those who are ignorant of it, will most lik ly not notice it, especially if you mirror the cutout to be pasted, to break the monotony of the cover.

On this old photograph, taken in Afghanistan, originally pictured a child, just left of the woman. Here it was easy to cover it, by expanding the shadow. You still can see the tiptoes of the child's shoes below the shadow, but no one would have noticed if I had not pointed to it.


bg1.jpg

So, the pic could be used as a background for an oriental crucifixion scene.

The method can of course be used too for a historical work, when it should serve as a background, but is of course not advisable in case it is intended to be shown in its integrity.
 
thehangingtree said:
Is she embarrassed or secretly proud of their admiration of her body???
Click to expand...
More interesting than that- Phryne was a very celebrated hetaira, courtesan, up-market whore, and very wealthy too.
She was put on trial for some alleged misdemeanour - sacrilege or something of the sort - hired a dodgy lawyer, who, in the courtroom pulled off (literally) a dramatic demonstration that her body was so beautiful it could only have been sculpted by the gods, and to harm, never mind destroy, it would itself be a grave act of sacrilege.
So she's seen -at least by some - as a proto-feminist, using her bare body to shame the 'male gaze', not herself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom