Nude art - your opinions
- Thread starter CalledByChrist
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Why is it needed?
The arguments against it are clear, but I am not aware of any arguments for it. Why do you need this in your art? Why is it considered essential?
I am making the assumption that it is considered essential because otherwise you would just take it out and draw something else instead. You would not have started this thread.
The arguments against it are clear, but I am not aware of any arguments for it. Why do you need this in your art? Why is it considered essential?
I am making the assumption that it is considered essential because otherwise you would just take it out and draw something else instead. You would not have started this thread.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
This is just my own opinion and personal walk with God -- I don't condemn anyone with differing opinions, but this is what I've settled on for myself.
I'm no artist but I love art in many forms, and am friends with many highly artistic people across several mediums (painting, drawing, sculpture, etc.)
When Adam and Eve fell into sin in the Garden of Eden, the Bible says they immediately "realized they were naked" -- and hid from God. When God came looking for them, they told him they hid because they were naked -- and afraid. And God asked them, "Who told you that you were naked?"
Up until sin entered the world, there were apparently no ill effects of nudity. But sin changed everything.
When all was said and done, God didn't tell them to celebrate their nudity. He didn't draw, paint, or sculpt pictures of them as He had made them to hang them around the garden as art. Rather, God Himself made fig leaf clothes for them to COVER their nudity, because sin distorted what was once public and beautiful. (I know I'm being a little sarcastic here, but I promise it's for a reason.)
Today's world has so many problems with porn addiction, I cannot bring myself to call any nude piece "art," but that's just me. And it's not because I feel any particular pull to porn, nor am I some kind of saint. But my calling IS often to people who have been sexually abused and/or are addicted to sexual things, so for myself, I don't want, nor could I endorse, anyone having a nude image around them.
This forum has had hundreds, if not thousands of posts from people, some of them very sincere Christians, some married, who are struggling terribly with pornography. It's destroying their lives and their marriages. I can't see how "nude art" would be of any positive contribution to anyone, especially with these challenges. But again, this is just me and I believe part of my calling to those with troubled sexual experiences.
I am, however, a firm believer in medical representation, which can be very tricky. I grew up during the scare of the AIDS epidemic, and was part of a college program that taught about "safe" sexual behaviors that cut down risk for STD's and unplanned pregnancy. This was a public program and not Christian-based, and while abstinence was always taught as the "safest" option, the program had to be realistic that most of the students listening were not practicing abstinence. We had to memorize a 2-hour program and demonstrate various things like how a diaphragm and condom worked on medical models.
We had various pamphlets, literature, models, and products depicting drawings and representations of bare human sexual organs for the purpose of teaching.
One thing I will never forget -- my professor once called me to come in to talk to a female student, because she had been date raped. She was a foreign exchange student, had seen me at one of these presentations, and specifically asked for me because she was Asian. I was the only person on the approximately 12-member team who was also Asian, and she told my professor she would feel most comfortable talking to me.
She was from a culture that didn't talk about sex, especially to young women, and if you did, you would be severely punished. People will claim she was a liar, but she literally didn't know what had been done to her because no one had ever explained sex to her (and this was long before smart phones, and even before the internet was so widely accessible.) My professor and I had to explain what had happened because she truly didn't understand, and we used the medical models of the parts of the body to try to teach her as compassionately as possible.
I very strongly believe that some kinds of representations are necessary for educational and medical purposes -- another example was when working with differently-abled students -- for instance, you can't really explain sex to those who have been blind from birth, and therefore need to use 3-D models. (I didn't participate in this but had another professor who specialized in sex education for the differently abled.)
However, I also believe there is a very thin line between what can be considered "educational/medical" vs. "artistic" vs. "pornographic," as some could look at a image or model and say it qualifies as all 3 -- and I know this kind of argument has been going on forever.
Again, I am by no means perfect, but I know I have to be careful because surrounding myself with the wrong things is not only a sin against God, but a sin against the people that God calls me to listen to and pray for.
I don't know where God will lead you in your own journey, but I'd love to get to know more about you in the forums and hear how it's going.
What made you decide to become an artist? How long have you been trying to see your work?
May God bless your art career and I hope you will keep us posted!
I'm no artist but I love art in many forms, and am friends with many highly artistic people across several mediums (painting, drawing, sculpture, etc.)
When Adam and Eve fell into sin in the Garden of Eden, the Bible says they immediately "realized they were naked" -- and hid from God. When God came looking for them, they told him they hid because they were naked -- and afraid. And God asked them, "Who told you that you were naked?"
Up until sin entered the world, there were apparently no ill effects of nudity. But sin changed everything.
When all was said and done, God didn't tell them to celebrate their nudity. He didn't draw, paint, or sculpt pictures of them as He had made them to hang them around the garden as art. Rather, God Himself made fig leaf clothes for them to COVER their nudity, because sin distorted what was once public and beautiful. (I know I'm being a little sarcastic here, but I promise it's for a reason.)
Today's world has so many problems with porn addiction, I cannot bring myself to call any nude piece "art," but that's just me. And it's not because I feel any particular pull to porn, nor am I some kind of saint. But my calling IS often to people who have been sexually abused and/or are addicted to sexual things, so for myself, I don't want, nor could I endorse, anyone having a nude image around them.
This forum has had hundreds, if not thousands of posts from people, some of them very sincere Christians, some married, who are struggling terribly with pornography. It's destroying their lives and their marriages. I can't see how "nude art" would be of any positive contribution to anyone, especially with these challenges. But again, this is just me and I believe part of my calling to those with troubled sexual experiences.
I am, however, a firm believer in medical representation, which can be very tricky. I grew up during the scare of the AIDS epidemic, and was part of a college program that taught about "safe" sexual behaviors that cut down risk for STD's and unplanned pregnancy. This was a public program and not Christian-based, and while abstinence was always taught as the "safest" option, the program had to be realistic that most of the students listening were not practicing abstinence. We had to memorize a 2-hour program and demonstrate various things like how a diaphragm and condom worked on medical models.
We had various pamphlets, literature, models, and products depicting drawings and representations of bare human sexual organs for the purpose of teaching.
One thing I will never forget -- my professor once called me to come in to talk to a female student, because she had been date raped. She was a foreign exchange student, had seen me at one of these presentations, and specifically asked for me because she was Asian. I was the only person on the approximately 12-member team who was also Asian, and she told my professor she would feel most comfortable talking to me.
She was from a culture that didn't talk about sex, especially to young women, and if you did, you would be severely punished. People will claim she was a liar, but she literally didn't know what had been done to her because no one had ever explained sex to her (and this was long before smart phones, and even before the internet was so widely accessible.) My professor and I had to explain what had happened because she truly didn't understand, and we used the medical models of the parts of the body to try to teach her as compassionately as possible.
I very strongly believe that some kinds of representations are necessary for educational and medical purposes -- another example was when working with differently-abled students -- for instance, you can't really explain sex to those who have been blind from birth, and therefore need to use 3-D models. (I didn't participate in this but had another professor who specialized in sex education for the differently abled.)
However, I also believe there is a very thin line between what can be considered "educational/medical" vs. "artistic" vs. "pornographic," as some could look at a image or model and say it qualifies as all 3 -- and I know this kind of argument has been going on forever.
Again, I am by no means perfect, but I know I have to be careful because surrounding myself with the wrong things is not only a sin against God, but a sin against the people that God calls me to listen to and pray for.
I don't know where God will lead you in your own journey, but I'd love to get to know more about you in the forums and hear how it's going.
What made you decide to become an artist? How long have you been trying to see your work?
May God bless your art career and I hope you will keep us posted!
-
3
-
3
-
1
-
1
- Show all
As an artist I must tell say this about nudity in art. Drawing nude is necessary part of becoming a great artist. Before you get into consutmes, drawing the nude is needed. You have many stages of a painting when drawing the human figure, or even a fictional beast. Skeleton, muscle, flesh, constume, hair, accessories. You build it up from skeleton, then put muscle on your drawing, then you can flesh it out. Putting costume and it's accessories on, along with finally doing some hair. A hat might be a later stage.
The great masters did this.
Many artist will make final renderings with nude, because they haven't learned costumes yet. There are many a great works of art, that have nothing to do with the nudity being a lust of the flesh.
These same stages are done with Digital, even your 3D models. One needs to look at nude, in a 'mature' way of thinking.
'Let those who cannot control themself, marry'.
The great masters did this.
Many artist will make final renderings with nude, because they haven't learned costumes yet. There are many a great works of art, that have nothing to do with the nudity being a lust of the flesh.
These same stages are done with Digital, even your 3D models. One needs to look at nude, in a 'mature' way of thinking.
'Let those who cannot control themself, marry'.
-
4
-
1
-
1
- Show all
This is an interesting question. My opinion used to be fairly black and white, with the same rules applied for both sexes. This has changed as I have become older (and hopefully wiser), but the following is still only my opinion.
I don't disagree with nudity in art, but I would first ask what the intent of showing the nudity is. If the intent is to arouse sexual desire, I would say this is not an acceptable motive. However, if the intent is to reflect or encourage beauty, I don't think all nudity is wrong. The female form is very beautiful, and although frequently sexualised in today's culture, I don't think it is necessarily sexual. When viewing art, (if the intent is beauty rather than sexuality), I'm comfortable viewing all but the yonic region. I believe in man's fallen state, the female beauty of this particular area is inseparable from its sexual functionality, and hence the reason why tasteful art involves the use of leaves or other artistic obstacles to ensure beautiful art does not also become pornographic. I believe for similar reasons, this is why in the Song of Solomon, the maiden's breasts are referred to often (amongst other anatomical features), but the most intimate feminine area is not mentioned once (at least specifically).
I believe different rules apply for male nudity, and that it is not necessarily sexual (e.g. it can be symbolic). Again, intent is important, and I would always class a male form in a sexually aroused position as inappropriate or pornographic. I have wondered if for similar reasons, Michelangelo's David is depicted as uncircumcised despite the obvious conflict with the biblical facts, to ensure the focus is on the art itself, and eliminate any hint of sexual desirability.
I don't disagree with nudity in art, but I would first ask what the intent of showing the nudity is. If the intent is to arouse sexual desire, I would say this is not an acceptable motive. However, if the intent is to reflect or encourage beauty, I don't think all nudity is wrong. The female form is very beautiful, and although frequently sexualised in today's culture, I don't think it is necessarily sexual. When viewing art, (if the intent is beauty rather than sexuality), I'm comfortable viewing all but the yonic region. I believe in man's fallen state, the female beauty of this particular area is inseparable from its sexual functionality, and hence the reason why tasteful art involves the use of leaves or other artistic obstacles to ensure beautiful art does not also become pornographic. I believe for similar reasons, this is why in the Song of Solomon, the maiden's breasts are referred to often (amongst other anatomical features), but the most intimate feminine area is not mentioned once (at least specifically).
I believe different rules apply for male nudity, and that it is not necessarily sexual (e.g. it can be symbolic). Again, intent is important, and I would always class a male form in a sexually aroused position as inappropriate or pornographic. I have wondered if for similar reasons, Michelangelo's David is depicted as uncircumcised despite the obvious conflict with the biblical facts, to ensure the focus is on the art itself, and eliminate any hint of sexual desirability.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
I've really been enjoying this discussion -- I have always been interested in art and find some of the points brought up here to be fascinating.
This is a sincere question and not sarcasm, because I've never been to art school -- just an art history class in college.
Do all artists need to be taught how to draw the human body nude if they are going to be depicting people in their art? Is this a requirement?
I ask this sincerely because I do not know.
One of the lesser-thought-of categories of art I've always been fascinated by are sketch artists in legal settings. I am blown away by people who can help victims identify a perpetrator using just a description, and those who sketch renditions of a trial while it is in progress.
Are all artists who draw these kinds of depictions required to learn to sketch the naked human body first?
Again, this is a sincere question, because if nude sketches are a basic foundation when learning to do these kinds of drawings, I truly wasn't aware of this and would actually like to know.
This is a sincere question and not sarcasm, because I've never been to art school -- just an art history class in college.
Do all artists need to be taught how to draw the human body nude if they are going to be depicting people in their art? Is this a requirement?
I ask this sincerely because I do not know.
One of the lesser-thought-of categories of art I've always been fascinated by are sketch artists in legal settings. I am blown away by people who can help victims identify a perpetrator using just a description, and those who sketch renditions of a trial while it is in progress.
Are all artists who draw these kinds of depictions required to learn to sketch the naked human body first?
Again, this is a sincere question, because if nude sketches are a basic foundation when learning to do these kinds of drawings, I truly wasn't aware of this and would actually like to know.
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The human body can be beautiful, so I can understand why some artists focus on nude art (though I am not sure how popular it is now). In the Renaissance art, the works showed the epitome of male (mostly) and female beauty. However, there has to be a story beyond the nude image, so that the image is not sexual (or too sexual). If the image causes you to pause and think about something deep, then it is art. Just a nude image with no meaning is not art.
-
3
-
1
- Show all
If an artist plans to do regular work depicting the human body, and if the way to do that is from the inside out, I can definitely understand why nude models would be necessary.
I mean, if you're going to be making things like this:
Then yes, it's obvious one would need to know the anatomy of the body very closely.
My favorite era of art is The Italian High Renaissance, and Michelangelo is by far my favorite artist of all time (though closely followed by M.C. Escher.) I posted this picture of a copy of Michelangelo's infamous sculpture of David (a modest version!) because there might be younger members here who aren't familiar with him or his work.
I enjoy his paintings as well, but was fascinated when my art history professor said that Michelangelo always saw himself as a sculptor rather than a painter. Of course, he is probably known best for the Sistine Chapel:
But my personal favorite of his works is The Pieta (Mary holding the body of Jesus after it's taken down from the cross):
The sorrowful look on Mary's face, holding the body of her deceased Son, gets me every time.
My art history professor told us to look closely at the figure of Mary.
While Michelangelo was undoubtedly a champion of depicting the male figure, the professor pointed out that Mary's form is a bit blocky and awkward, and is basically a male figure that has been slightly adjusted to look female by "adding a few things" in the front. The robes hides Michelangelo's lack of knowledge of the female form.
Now I'm sure there were probably nude models throughout history, but my professor said that Michelangelo acquired his skill by going to the morgue and studying the bodies in detail. However, at the time, it was illegal to gaze upon the female bodies, and so it was said that since he didn't have access to them, he could not replicate females nearly as accurately as he could with males, and really had to guess at what their bodies looked like.
(I know information changes/gets added to all the time, so if anyone else knows differently, please feel free to correct me in your posts.)
This was utterly fascinating to me.
In college, I was once asked to sit as a model for an art class by a teacher who wanted her students to learn to draw different ethnicities. I was so impressed by one man's early black-and-white depiction of me that I would have gladly bought it, but the class wasn't over yet. He later added color, which I felt ruined the drawing (but of course, I didn't say anything) and I was no longer interested in it.
It's funny because I love color, and usually prefer it, but this black-and-white picture captured a haunted look on my face that brought out the things many people don't see in me, and I loved that. I also marveled at the way he had carefully drawn the beading on my sweater. Unfortunately, when color was added to the drawing, it took away the depth of my gaze (to me at least,) and looked like just any other drawing.
Obviously, I was fully clothed during these sessions.
But now you have me wondering how much time the people in the class had to spend learning how to draw nude figures before they were able to try to draw me.
-
3
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Thank you! I drew her purely from my imagination but, since I was going for a certain emotional connotation, she did end up looking strikingly familiar... 
So, I don't think it would be so inaccurate to call this a self-portrait. *
And you're comments about the detrimental effects of adding color has inadvertently encouraged me as I have been 'feeling that way (depicted)' about the general market for color as, although I am experimenting, I'm not so skillful working with any mediums other than pencil.
*There is speculation that the Mona Lisa is actually a self-portrait of DaVinci, or a portrait of his boyfriend.
So, I don't think it would be so inaccurate to call this a self-portrait. *And you're comments about the detrimental effects of adding color has inadvertently encouraged me as I have been 'feeling that way (depicted)' about the general market for color as, although I am experimenting, I'm not so skillful working with any mediums other than pencil.
*There is speculation that the Mona Lisa is actually a self-portrait of DaVinci, or a portrait of his boyfriend.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
If you want render a human figure, or even a creature with more accuracy, it is needed. But you certainly can render the human figure without studying it. HOWEVER, it will be obvious you do not have an understanding of it in your art.
Study the nude, is like studying the anatomy, the surface muscles, the muscles have nothing over them. The flesh is removed, or in most situations in modern times, you have books with renderings of it. Same with the bones, which is necessary to know if you want to law down in your rendering accurately, where the muscles are. Because the muscle attaches to the skeleton at near certain specific places. And then you have fat on the body. Finally the skin that goes over all of it. And then this thing called, 'Drapery'. Which is the cloths. Rendering cloths has it's own anatomy too, because of the folds and wrinkles.
Study the nude, is like studying the anatomy, the surface muscles, the muscles have nothing over them. The flesh is removed, or in most situations in modern times, you have books with renderings of it. Same with the bones, which is necessary to know if you want to law down in your rendering accurately, where the muscles are. Because the muscle attaches to the skeleton at near certain specific places. And then you have fat on the body. Finally the skin that goes over all of it. And then this thing called, 'Drapery'. Which is the cloths. Rendering cloths has it's own anatomy too, because of the folds and wrinkles.
-
1
- Show all
As to whether nude art can be considered pornographic or not -- I personally think it goes beyond just the possibility of inciting lust.
For example, I love Michelangelo's work. But would I have a depiction of something like his statue of David in my home?
No.
And it's not because I somehow start sweating and feel hot and bothered by such images (I'm not immune either, of course, but I don't consider these images problematic to me in a pornographic sense.)
I DO, however, believe that idealized images of human beings can be very damaging in the sense of envy, covetousness, and discontent.
When people choose art to display in their homes, they're generally drawn to images of beauty -- particularly their own personal and culturally-shaped ideal of beauty.
Case in point, the uproar over this statue in New York:
For varying reasons, many people are calling for this to be torn down. In other cultures and time periods, a female body like this might have been seen as more ideal (when thinness was associated with starving peasants.) However, many don't want this statue to remain because they say it's "ugly" to look at.
But yet, this statue depicts what many modern women look like.
The problem I see with surrounding yourself with idealized images, clothed or not, is that we humans want what we see. The truth of this is being made all the more clear through social media -- people bemoan the fact that they should be able to live like their favorite influencers. They see others going on exotic vacations, dressing to the nines, having all the things, and acquiring the best of the best in whatever are of life they're interested in -- and then automatically think they should have a right to these things too.
I believe that what we see greatly affects what we want and "think" we "deserve."
If someone is often or always looking at pictures, paintings, and drawings of the most beautiful, most fit images of human beings (and I know personal preference varies drastically, but let's just use these as an example
How much and how long does it take before we are completely unsatisfied with what real people look like? Compare photos or artistic depictions of those you consider "beautiful" to the way most people around you look...
And we can see what happens.
Married people can become dissatisfied with their spouse, wishing their husband or wife was more fit, more beautiful, more desirable -- more like the images they look at daily. They start being dissatisfied with their own spouse, then notice, and envy those who have what they deem more attractive spouses than their own. They start to imagine what it would be like to be with someone better-looking.
Single people are all hoping to find their one Godly unicorn -- and a good number of singles are single because everyone thinks they're going to find someone as good-looking as the images they see. How can anyone settle for an actual real-looking person when we can flood our homes, phones, and screens with depictions of only the most beautiful?
This is the danger I personally see in choosing to make idealized images a part of your home and decor. We can't fully escape the world around us, but we can try to be careful about what we choose to put in front of our eyes.
I know some might argue that this is just MY problem and something I must struggle with more than others, but from what I've observed, I think a lot more people are affected by images much more than they're willing to admit.
But this is just me and how I believe God deals with me personally, and I always try to keep in mind that others might be called differently.
For example, I love Michelangelo's work. But would I have a depiction of something like his statue of David in my home?
No.
And it's not because I somehow start sweating and feel hot and bothered by such images (I'm not immune either, of course, but I don't consider these images problematic to me in a pornographic sense.)
I DO, however, believe that idealized images of human beings can be very damaging in the sense of envy, covetousness, and discontent.
When people choose art to display in their homes, they're generally drawn to images of beauty -- particularly their own personal and culturally-shaped ideal of beauty.
Case in point, the uproar over this statue in New York:
For varying reasons, many people are calling for this to be torn down. In other cultures and time periods, a female body like this might have been seen as more ideal (when thinness was associated with starving peasants.) However, many don't want this statue to remain because they say it's "ugly" to look at.
But yet, this statue depicts what many modern women look like.
The problem I see with surrounding yourself with idealized images, clothed or not, is that we humans want what we see. The truth of this is being made all the more clear through social media -- people bemoan the fact that they should be able to live like their favorite influencers. They see others going on exotic vacations, dressing to the nines, having all the things, and acquiring the best of the best in whatever are of life they're interested in -- and then automatically think they should have a right to these things too.
I believe that what we see greatly affects what we want and "think" we "deserve."
If someone is often or always looking at pictures, paintings, and drawings of the most beautiful, most fit images of human beings (and I know personal preference varies drastically, but let's just use these as an example
How much and how long does it take before we are completely unsatisfied with what real people look like? Compare photos or artistic depictions of those you consider "beautiful" to the way most people around you look...
And we can see what happens.
Married people can become dissatisfied with their spouse, wishing their husband or wife was more fit, more beautiful, more desirable -- more like the images they look at daily. They start being dissatisfied with their own spouse, then notice, and envy those who have what they deem more attractive spouses than their own. They start to imagine what it would be like to be with someone better-looking.
Single people are all hoping to find their one Godly unicorn -- and a good number of singles are single because everyone thinks they're going to find someone as good-looking as the images they see. How can anyone settle for an actual real-looking person when we can flood our homes, phones, and screens with depictions of only the most beautiful?
This is the danger I personally see in choosing to make idealized images a part of your home and decor. We can't fully escape the world around us, but we can try to be careful about what we choose to put in front of our eyes.
I know some might argue that this is just MY problem and something I must struggle with more than others, but from what I've observed, I think a lot more people are affected by images much more than they're willing to admit.
But this is just me and how I believe God deals with me personally, and I always try to keep in mind that others might be called differently.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Thank you! I drew her purely from my imagination but, since I was going for a certain emotional connotation, she did end up looking strikingly familiar... So, I don't think it would be so inaccurate to call this a self-portrait. *
And you're comments about the detrimental effects of adding color has inadvertently encouraged me as I have been 'feeling that way (depicted)' about the general market for color as, although I am experimenting, I'm not so skillful working with any mediums other than pencil.
*There is speculation that the Mona Lisa is actually a self-portrait of DaVinci, or a portrait of his boyfriend.
So, I don't think it would be so inaccurate to call this a self-portrait. *And you're comments about the detrimental effects of adding color has inadvertently encouraged me as I have been 'feeling that way (depicted)' about the general market for color as, although I am experimenting, I'm not so skillful working with any mediums other than pencil.
*There is speculation that the Mona Lisa is actually a self-portrait of DaVinci, or a portrait of his boyfriend.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Thank you! I drew her purely from my imagination but, since I was going for a certain emotional connotation, she did end up looking strikingly familiar... So, I don't think it would be so inaccurate to call this a self-portrait. *
And you're comments about the detrimental effects of adding color has inadvertently encouraged me as I have been 'feeling that way (depicted)' about the general market for color as, although I am experimenting, I'm not so skillful working with any mediums other than pencil.
*There is speculation that the Mona Lisa is actually a self-portrait of DaVinci, or a portrait of his boyfriend.
So, I don't think it would be so inaccurate to call this a self-portrait. *And you're comments about the detrimental effects of adding color has inadvertently encouraged me as I have been 'feeling that way (depicted)' about the general market for color as, although I am experimenting, I'm not so skillful working with any mediums other than pencil.
*There is speculation that the Mona Lisa is actually a self-portrait of DaVinci, or a portrait of his boyfriend.
It fits you spectacularly.
I LOVE color, and not just color, but bright colors -- they help lift my depression. BUT, I have found that certain black and white images REALLY bring out things like contemplation, sorrow, and raw emotion (depending on what the artist wants to communicate,) a lot more than color, which I love.
In other words... YES!!! Please, go right on experimenting! ❤️
-
1
-
1
- Show all
.
Eve was first to taste the forbidden fruit; and when she did, nothing
happened. It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that her original sense of
decency was replaced with an alternate version and she set to work
cobbling together a rudimentary apron to cover her pelvic area.
Eve was fully constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to his
tasting the fruit so it was impossible for him to pass the effects of the
original sin to her by means of heredity.
_
Eve was first to taste the forbidden fruit; and when she did, nothing
happened. It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that her original sense of
decency was replaced with an alternate version and she set to work
cobbling together a rudimentary apron to cover her pelvic area.
Eve was fully constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to his
tasting the fruit so it was impossible for him to pass the effects of the
original sin to her by means of heredity.
_
-
1
- Show all