Friday, March 23, 2007

Café Philos: Now With Gratuitous Sex!

The image to the left comes from Eolake Stobblehouse's "adult" website, DOMAI. I put "adult" in quotes because I have never found an image on Eolake's site that it wouldn't be appropriate for a healthy 14 year old boy to look at.

Eolake never publishes photos that degrade his models -- unless you are deeply buried in the American psyche and warily suspect nudity itself is degrading. But Eolake is Danish and his models have actual personalities that go way beyond the playmate's plastic smile. He does not turn his models into copycat bimbos.

If I had a 14 year old boy --- or a 14 year old girl interested in girls --- I'd comfortably give him or her the link to DOMAI..

In the first place, nearly every 14 year old in the country now has access to porn --- real porn. The kind you would prefer they didn't have access to. My thinking is to guide them to something better.

Second, I like the articles on Eolake's site. You should know upfront there are no articles of general interest, no interviews with famous people who are not erotic photographers, nor updates on men's fall fashions. Instead, most of the articles are in one way or another on erotic beauty and our responses to it. The ones I've read were healthy, authentic and inspiring. Any 14 year old could do with a dose of those articles to inoculate him or her against all the bullshit that gets dumped on 14 year olds these days with regards to their sexuality.

Last, I'd be comfortable giving the DOMAI link to my 14 year old because, as I mentioned above, the models are not degraded, have dignity, and come across as real people.

If I have any qualms about Eolake's site, they come from a conversation I had with Anne a while back. She pointed out the site pretty much represents only one standard of feminine beauty and that it tends to idealize that standard. I agree with her, and it's a serious criticism. But given the site's pluses, I'd take that minus and still give my 14 year old the link.

I've been using "14 year old" here just to illustrate. But when you get right down to it, Eolake's wonderful site is suitable to any person of any age who is interested in beautiful nudes.

So there you have it. My proposal for corrupting today's youth in a nutshell. Underlying my whole dastardly scheme is the notion it is far better to guide a horny teenager to good erotica than it is to sit back and hope s/he doesn't find worse stuff on his or her own.

After all, it is foolish to tell teens sex is evil and hope that lie keeps them from corruption. And it is just as foolish to throw them to the wolves by giving them no guidance at all. So, I think my approach is actually the more reasonable and practical one. What do you think? Am I right about that?

UPDATE: There is a correction to this article here.

6 comments:

jacquie4000 said...

As I have a son who is almost 14 I will check the site out and give you my feedback. It is true they will visit or see nudity reguardless. I remember comming
home one night not to long ago and had found my son and a friend had been looking at what i would say to be very soft porn. They were smart enough to delete the photos but only so far as the recyle bin...lol. This is where I found them and discovered what he was up to.

Patty said...

Where's her trampoline? Must be just outside of the picture.

Paul said...

Hi Jacquie!

When you get a chance, let me know what you think of the site! I'm very interested in your opinion of it.

LOL Patty! I'm still a follower of the "Girls On Trampolines" religion, but I haven't converted Eolake to it yet. Only time will tell.

jacquie4000 said...

I found the site to be very tastefully done. The women are very natural looking and I have no problem with it. I also like the articles that I had a chance to read. However I don't know if kids at fourteen would read much of the articles with their hormone levels being so high after viewing the photos. They might be inclined to do other things. If you get a chance I left one of my writtings up for you to see.

Anonymous said...

The "correction" link is broken. (Nice article, I agree with you, and with Ann)

Paul said...

I believe I've fixed the link now, Anon. Thanks for the heads up!