Almost Certainly a Stupid Question

[Will]

The subject line was designed to get everybody's attention, which in turn increases my chances of finding out what I want to know. In order to do that, however, I need to divulge a little more about myself than our general level of anonymity, which I value very much, usually provides.

 

For several years, I have been professionaly engaged in research on the history of the representation of the naked male body, particularly from around Michelangelo's time (1475-1564) through Robert Mapplethorpe's (+1989). Naturally, I've had to do a lot of reading and looking in the periods before the sixteenth century as well, so I think I'm rather familiar with the common themes in the history of the male nude. (One interesting thing I've learned is that "nude" is a noun that always refers to an image or representation of a naked person. In other words, "nude" as an adjective is a euphemism.)

 

In the course of that research I have become increasingly aware of the totemic power that body hair exercises in, apparently, all human societies. Thus the thread on "Shaving" reveals not only currently fashionable body-coiffeurs among gay men, but, more broadly, the profoundly problematic but perennially intriguing human fixation on what's left of our ancient simian pelts.

 

My question is this: Would any of you who have contributed some of the posts to the Shaving thread mind if I wrote a private message to you, asking that I be able to use your comments in the context of scholarly discourses (articles, papers at conferences, books, etc.)? Naturally, I'll honor whatever degree of anonymity you wish to maintain; on the other hand, I don't want simply to print out the Shaving thread and appropriate it as "research." I'd much rather be able to correspond with some of you and to learn more expansively what your thoughts are, and how you've arrived at them.

 

I hope it goes without saying that this post is perfectly above-board; if you don't want me to contact you, please just say so.

[btmstudnyc]

I think you did a lot of NUDE research....Is that why your face got so close to my ass? I should have known you were inspecting body hair...

 

From a Hairy perspective...you can ask me anything.

 

JIM

[guptasa1]

I'm always open to any PM's or questions.

[Doug69]

Will - sounds interesting. A suggestion: you should write to the guys at Hairy Studs Video - they started this e-publication called "Hair Wire" which I guess I get because I've bought their videos before and suppose you get put on the subcription list automatically.

 

Aside from arousing material, the "magazine" is all about body hair trends, its appeal, meaning, etc. They're pretty obsessed with the topic, so I'm sure they'll have some worthwhile material for you.

 

I would also recommend reading the Andrew Sullivan article linked on their site if you haven't done so already.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>For several years, I have been professionaly engaged in

>research on the history of the representation of the naked

>male body, particularly from around Michelangelo's time

>(1475-1564) through Robert Mapplethorpe's (+1989).

 

It's interesting you should bring this up, Will. When making my last post on the shaving thread I thought of a lecture I attended in art school comparing three textbook sculptures of David in his Goliath-fighting days: Donatello's, Michelangelo's, and Bernini's. They represent three distinct ideals, each with their own unique claim to some kind of classicism. And we see various "schools" of posters on this site who favor body types epitomized by each of these artists' depictions. Donatello did a jaunty young twink -- a very young one at that, possibly in the "too young" category:

 

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/D/donatello/donatello_david.jpg

 

Michelangelo's David is pensive and the most classical of the three; a little bit of muscle, nice, athletic proportions, still a bit boyish:

 

http://artchive.floridaimaging.com/m/michelangelo/david.jpg

 

While Bernini's David is a buffed jock, decisive and action-oriented:

 

http://www.dl.ket.org/humanities/sculpt/images/bernini_.jpg

 

Given how gay erotic photographers of the fifties sought to cloak their pornographic and quasi-photographic intentions with appeals to classicism, I think it's interesting indeed to look at older exemplars of the archetypes they modeled themselves after.

 

>My question is this: Would any of you who have contributed

>some of the posts to the Shaving thread mind if I wrote a

>private message to you, (etc.)

 

Feel free if you like.

[Rick Munroe]

>I hope it goes without saying that this post is perfectly

>above-board

 

How boring.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Possibly Maybe

 

Body hair is difficult to photograph, draw, scult and otherwise represent artistically. This, as much as current, prior and existing culturally conditioned responses, is responsible for much of the representation (and attendent fixation) of body hair in partial or total male nudity.

 

Beyond this comment, anyone is welcome to attempt to engage me in communication at any time.

[Guest Merlin]

Feel free to contact me. It should be remembered that young guys, late teens, early twenties, often have smoother bodies than they will have as they grow older. One of the reasons the nude male is depicted as having little body hair has to do with the emphasis on youth.

[pierrot]

Did you see the article in the New York Times on August 19th entitled "Why Humans and their Fur Parted Ways"? It is a very interesting article about new research that explains why man lost his fur as he evolved. But there are also speculations that our attitudes toward hairiness might be determined by evolution. I can't explain it all, but here are a couple of quotes the give the gist.

"Humans lost their body hair [say some researchers] to free themselves from external parasites that infest fur--bloodsucking lice, ticks and fleas and the diseases they spread."

 

Then:

"Once hairlessness had evolved through natural selection... it became subject to sexual selection, the development of features in one sex that appeal to the other. Among the newly furless humans bare skin would have served, like a peacock's tail, as a signal of fitness. The pains women take to keep their bodies free of hair -- joined now by some men -- maybe no fashion statement, but the latest echo of an ancient instinct."

 

Fascinating stuff. Given your study, you should check it out.

[Will]

Thanks, Doug, that's a good idea to write to Hairy Studs Video. I've already received a really helpful e-mail from a poster here. Now I'll go directly to the source, as it were.

[Will]

Thanks! I will definitely check it out. I read the NYTimes almost every day. But that "almost" makes me miss out sometimes on just what I need to know. I'll order the article online from the Times. Thanks again.

[Bilbo]

I would be flattered were you to ask me questions, and twice so to know that you might be citing me in scholarly research, sir.

[Guest Dan]

So Will, this leads me to believe that you are deducting what you pay escorts as a business expense????? :9

 

 

Dan Dare

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/dandarela.html

http://www.rentboy.com/location/getrb.asp?rentboy=844