Almost all nudes are sexualised by intent. Old masters were often just expensive porn, but with religious or mythic themes to keep it "respectable". The trouble is that because we are so used to this it becomes hard to turn that perception off (in others) when the intent is otherwise. It's just the way we have been trained.
Unfortunately if you want to capture human beauty (the reason for most portraits) clothes get to be a distraction (Try looking at fashion shots of women from the 80's and you'll probably spend more time laughing at the clothes than admiring the beauty of the models). But take the clothes away and the mind veers towards sex. And to some degree our perception of beauty will also be tied up in sex, if only by our biology.
The problem with pictures of children is that all we can do with them is look at them. We miss that part of the child's personality that projects innocence and often the context of the photo too. So without the reinforcing giggles and squeals of a child playing in a sprinkler all we see is a wet, naked child. A six year old girl trying to dress up like Mummy becomes Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby". Depending on the context a photo can be the cutest thing you ever saw or out an out porn.
The thing about naked males is that until recently they were very rarely shown in a sexualised manner, so our mind doesn't immediately slip the "porn" filter on. There isn't a long history of selling cars by draping naked men on them and there was no widespread circulation of "french postcards" made for women so a naked man could remain for the most part just a naked man.
The other thing is that until recently men weren't overly image conscious, so a situation where men were naked together wasn't a real problem after the initial embarrassment was over. Nobody particularly cared how much body hair you had or whether there were a few extra pounds in the wrong place because your looks weren't connected with your status.
no subject
Almost all nudes are sexualised by intent. Old masters were often just expensive porn, but with religious or mythic themes to keep it "respectable". The trouble is that because we are so used to this it becomes hard to turn that perception off (in others) when the intent is otherwise. It's just the way we have been trained.
Unfortunately if you want to capture human beauty (the reason for most portraits) clothes get to be a distraction (Try looking at fashion shots of women from the 80's and you'll probably spend more time laughing at the clothes than admiring the beauty of the models). But take the clothes away and the mind veers towards sex. And to some degree our perception of beauty will also be tied up in sex, if only by our biology.
The problem with pictures of children is that all we can do with them is look at them. We miss that part of the child's personality that projects innocence and often the context of the photo too. So without the reinforcing giggles and squeals of a child playing in a sprinkler all we see is a wet, naked child. A six year old girl trying to dress up like Mummy becomes Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby". Depending on the context a photo can be the cutest thing you ever saw or out an out porn.
The thing about naked males is that until recently they were very rarely shown in a sexualised manner, so our mind doesn't immediately slip the "porn" filter on. There isn't a long history of selling cars by draping naked men on them and there was no widespread circulation of "french postcards" made for women so a naked man could remain for the most part just a naked man.
The other thing is that until recently men weren't overly image conscious, so a situation where men were naked together wasn't a real problem after the initial embarrassment was over. Nobody particularly cared how much body hair you had or whether there were a few extra pounds in the wrong place because your looks weren't connected with your status.
{yes}