Greek statuary and the nudist ethos
Greek statuary is notable for the somewhat minimized depiction of the male genitalia. The statues were mostly of figures to admire. And mastery of the body, mastery of the passions - were admirable attributes. Rather larger genitalia represented a lack of that mastery, held up for condescension or mockery, as in figures of barbarians or comic vase paintings.
It occurs to me that there is a strain of nudism that celebrates that sort of mastery. Depending very much on context, I can certainly feel that impulse in myself. It's not prudery or anything of the sort, but a kind of pride. As the Greeks were proud of how civilized they were.
The internet is not real life, and photography is not sculpture; they can't, I don't think, embody the same symbolism. But do you think that in real life nudism - "true" nudism as it would define itself - there's real pride in a level of mastery of the passions that would not be so evident in the clothed male body?
Pride in the mastery of passion sounds like a celebration of an athleticism, discipline and vitality. These are all admirable traits still celebrated today albeit with genitals covered. However, the idea of nudism needs closer examination. My understading is that the Greeks were very strict in keeping the foreskin covering the head of the penis, often tying it shut, and considered an uncovered glans vulgar. In addition, much of the Christian morality (defined largely by Saul of Tarus aka the Apotle Paul) was a reaction against the boy-man love Greek practice of pederasty which was later incorrectly translated from Greek into the term homosexuality, a word that wasnt's even invented until the 1860's. Somehow the nudist ethos started out as hero worship but became a way to sow fear against minorities for political control.
Having no expertise in Greek statuary or the early historical basis of Christian morality (but more power to those that have!) all I can say is, yes Steve, I have felt and was drawn by that feeling of self-control, not only of body but definitely of mind as well. It feels as if discipline of character provides more space for a fuller appreciation of more than one's sexual self. (Not that that need be fully suppressed, just quieted unless and until sparked by deeper, more personal connections.) This is what is at odds with the nudism-is-for-cruising-for-sex crowd.
Steve, Andy and bairskyn raise great points about nudity and self-control as we find it in Greek art. But for the Greeks nudity had multiple meanings, most connected, strange for us to imagine, to notions of the sacred. Gods and heroes are often represented naked to indicate their immortal status and their origins in ancestral time-space. Athletes in the great games competed naked in order to resemble them and honor them. Even everyday Greek men exercising in the gymnasium were imitating these sacred figures to some degree. On the other hand Greek vases can also depict satyrs (half-human, half-goat), buddies of Dionysus, engaging in every sexual act possible, often w huge erect penises. This was for laughs, for arousal of the drinkers at symposiums (drinking parties), but also under the sacred shadow of Dionysus, god of exuberance (musical, alcoholic, sexual, make-believe). These vases also show ordinary Greek men and women sometimes performing sexually at drinking parties: this is the other side of self-control, its opposite, but also under the influence of the gods ability to make folks behave beyond the limits. Pretty confusing stuff!
And it's worth noting that the female pudendal cleft was almost entirely absent in classic Greek and Roman sculpture. I suspect that the artists were going toward a more idealized figure that downplayed those parts of the body that were devoted to reproduction. And while male genitalia can't be totally dispensed with, the artist could minimize it... yeah, he's a guy, but it's the rest of the anatomy that's important.
As been noted above, the only time you see prominent male genitalia in art of that period is when it's intended to be erotic.
In the modern world, it seems to be something to take satisfaction / pride in if one has the ability to be aroused when appropriate - but satisfaction / pride in the ability NOT to be aroused when that's appropriate to circumstance seems to get taken as prudery. Aren't both true?
On this site, one hears over and over again more or less "I can't control my body". Which - channeling my inner ancient Greek - would seem to be an indication you've got work to do on yourself.
Anyway, my conjecture is that there's a little frisson of satisfaction / pride in successfully managing nudity in nonsexual contexts, to the point that people will seek those contexts out partly for that feeling.
Steve - you raise a point of great interest to me. I have always been confounded by the notion promoted by some that the only bodily function that seems consistentky uncontrollable is male arousal. It begs the question, is it the body function that isn't being controlled or is it the behavior of the individual?On this site, one hears over and over again more or less "I can't control my body". Which - channeling my inner ancient Greek - would seem to be an indication you've got work to do on yourself.
IMO much of the historical Greek practice of nudity is misunderstood or misinterpreted today. For example recent historical references suggest the participants in Greek Olympics as a whole were not naked. Only the penultimate event the sprint was done naked so as to avoid the restrictions to movement that came with the kind of clothing worn.
Another point is that there were very specific rules around nudity in Greek society and general nakedness was a sign of enslavement. Finally the practice of any social nudity in Greek society originated with their adoption of the practice observed from the gymnosophists or naked philosophers that Alexander encountered in his conquest of India. It did not emerge from within Greek society.
Just a couple thoughts on this subject as it relates to the historical and current nudist ethos.
IMO much of the historical Greek practice of nudity is misunderstood or misinterpreted today. For example recent historical references suggest the participants in Greek Olympics as a whole were not naked. Only the penultimate event the sprint was done naked so as to avoid the restrictions to movement that came with the kind of clothing worn.
This is news to me. According to the International Olympic Committee "All athletes competed naked" (see https://olympics.com/ioc/ancient-olympic-games). It doesn't sound like athletes stayed clothed until the second to last (penultimate) event, but that nudity was a part of all of it. If you have sources, including the order of the events, I'd love to read more.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!