Indoctrinating children in a religious faith is abusive

February 18th, 2011
by Josh Zytkiewicz

INDOCTRINATING CHILDREN IN A RELIGIOUS FAITH IS ABUSIVE

The article linked above is from December.  I’ve saved it, because I wanted to share and comment on it at some point.

It refrences The God Delusion, a 2006 book by Richard Dawkins.  I read the book when it came out and used to own a copy.  One part that many people think is more extreme is when Dawkins equates teaching, or indoctrinating, children in specific religions with child abuse.

If I recall correctly he begins that section by saying that there are not Christian children, or Jewish children, or Palestinian children, there are only children.  His reasoning is that children do not have the experience, knowledge, or in some cases mental ability to comprehend what religion is and what they believe.  That by teaching them at such a young age you are not allowing them to choose a religion.  Forcing them into your particular world view and associated biases.

Jesus and Mo - slack jesusandmo.net

This particular Jesus and Mo is not about religious teaching directly, but does bring up a very good point.  Much of what is done to children is done without their consent.  Often it’s done without asking for their consent.  Most people, most parents don’t even consider the possibility of asking their children what they would like to do.  Even parents who I think may be some of the most well informed and open among us.  If you read the comments on the article I linked you can see that even among Atheist parents, the concept is foreign.

“But wait,” you may say, “Didn’t you just say the children couldn’t make those decisions?”

Yes, I did.  But just because they can’t make them, doesn’t mean you should do it for them.

Too much in our society, children are treated as property.  What is done is not in the best interests of the child, but in the best interests of the parents.  Parents are given incredible leeway over how and what they can do to their children.

Why?  Just because you figured out how to fuck somebody?

You know in many parts of the country the process to paint your house a different color is much more difficult than the one to butcher a newborns penis.  Or that with one simple form, once a year, a child can be kept at home, cut off from the outside world.  And I’m not even going to mention what happens in some of the less developed nations of our planet.

That baby, that child, that teen, that’s a PERSON.  An individual that, by chance, shares 50% of your DNA.  So the next time you’re thinking of making a decision for your son or daughter ask yourself if you would feel comfortable making that same decision for your brother,

Or your sister,

Or your parents,

Or a stranger.

Because you don’t OWN your children.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Life | Comments (0)

It’s all about choice.

February 1st, 2011
by Josh Zytkiewicz

Some companies seem to understand the power of the internet.  And some don’t really.  And the difference  between them is often random.  Sure there are new media companies that “get” the internet, and old media companies that don’t, but the opposite is also true.

Often you’ll hear people talk about the power of the internet being in communication.  The ability of one person, or one company, to reach out to thousands, millions of people all over the world.  And while that is advantageous, for many companies the real power should be in personalization and customization.  An area where many companies fail by not even trying.

Netflix is a company that does very well in offering consumers a choice of services.  Something they’ve been doing, almost since the very beginning.  They currently offer 11 different subscription plans.

From their $4.99 a month limited DVD plan, to their streaming only $7.99 plan, the $9.99 One DVD plan, all the way up to their 8 DVD’s at a time plan for $55.99 a month.  Depending on how much you want to pay, and what you want to watch Netflix gives you quite the choice.

In addition, the streaming only plan and all of the DVD plans include unlimited viewing on any Netflix capable device.  And that list is huge, Mac, PC, PlayStation 3, Wii, Xbox 360, Apple iOS devices, Apple TV, Google TV, other set top boxes, networked Blu-ray players, built in to select TV’s, and Windows Phone 7.  Netflix lists 35 separate devices on it’s website.

Now lets contrast that with Hulu.  A company that’s actually newer than Netflix.  Hulu has two plans.  There’s the free service and Hulu Plus, for $7.99 a month.  Hulu’s free service has select shows from NBC, ABC, FOX, and a few others.  Generally only the 5 most recent episodes, and the vast majority of them have commercials.  Now because I’m not paying for the shows I understand why there are commercials.  And since the commercials are only limited to only one or two per break I’m okay with that.  Somebody has to pay for the content, and advertisers appear willing.  The free Hulu service is limited to watching only on a Mac or PC.

Hulu Plus gives you every episode of current season shows, a large catalog of past seasons, 720p quality video, and the ability to watch on your Apple iOS device, PlayStation 3, select TV’s and set top devices, with many more coming soon.  But, and for me it’s a big but, it still has commercials.  That’s right, they want me to PAY THEM, to watch commercials.  This is where the problem is.  Would it really be that difficult or troublesome to have multiple plans, including some without commercial interruptions?  I would pay more than $7.99 a month for the things that Hulu Plus offers if it was commercial free.  But Hulu doesn’t want to give me that option.  I suspect it’s because the owners of Hulu, the traditional major networks, are beholden to the advertisers, and not the consumer.

Often this “mistrust” of the consumer isn’t limited to just the parent companies.  It can be seen in individual properties.  Sometimes even switching from one end to the other.  Take V, for example.  The reimagined series began in 2009 and was broadcast on ABC.  It was also available on Hulu, ABC.com, iTunes, and through the ABC iPad app.  But when season 2 began in January of 2011, it was only available via broadcast.  It is not available on Hulu, ABC.com, iTunes, the ABC iPad app, or any other legitimate streaming or digital service.  And though ABC has acknowleged episodes will not be available online, they haven’t really said why.

Unlike Bones, which embraces the internet like few other shows.  Bones can be watched

1.  Broadcast live with commercials

2.  Recorded from the live broadcast with my DVR, commercials can be skipped

3. The next day for free with commercials at FOX.com

4. The next day for free with commercials at Hulu.com

5. The next day for purchase, commercial free, from iTunes in HD $2.99

6.  The next day for purchase, commercial free, from iTunes in SD $1.99

7.  The next day for purchase, commercial free from iTunes in HD as part of the season $59.99 ($2.61 an episode)

8.  The next day for purchase, commercial free from iTunes in SD as part of the season $39.99 ($1.74 an episode)

9.  The next day for rental, commercial free from iTunes in HD $0.99

10.  At the end of the season when it is released on DVD for about $30-$40

11.  At the end of the season streaming on Netflix as part of your regular subscription.

12.  As repeats or in syndication.

Twelve different choices, with a cost to the consumer from free to $60.  Now I really like Bones, so I often watch it live, or slightly delayed, skipping most of the commercials in the first half.  But I wouldn’t be watching it at all if it wasn’t for Netflix and iTunes rentals.  Though Bones premiered in 2005, I didn’t start watching it until the summer of 2010.  At the time Netflix had seasons 1-4 available for streaming and I watched them all from the beginning.  But I faced a dilemma.  Season 6 began before Season 5 became available on DVD (and Netflix streaming).  I didn’t want to start watching Season 6 until I finished watching Season 5.  Some episodes were available for online streaming through Hulu.com but not all of them.  Then Apple introduced TV show rentals for only $0.99.  I was able to get caught up, and now watch every episode.

Finally I want to talk about manufacturers.  Most manufactures only make a limited selection of products.  Take milk for example, it’s sold in quart, half gallon, and gallon sizes.  Adding different sizes, or custom sizes would not significantly improve sales.  I doubt there’s much demand for 3/4 gallon, 2 gallon, or 100 ounce sizes, for example.

But other types of manufactures could see a significant change to their business if they offered true customization.  Car manufacturers are the perfect example.  They currently pretend they offer choice to the consumer.  But  you can’t really get exactly what you want.  Can I get a moon roof installed on the basic model?  No, you have to get the bigger engine, and the navigation system too.  Oh, you want the 4 wheel disc brakes with 17″ aluminum wheels?  Well, that means you also have to get the premium surround sound and leather seats.

The car companies are still living in the ’70’s.  They guess what people want to buy, make a lot of them, and hope they sell.  It’s a one way, top down style of thinking.  There is no reason, other than tradition, that cars can not be built on demand.

Why not send one or two vehicles to each dealership for consumers to look at and test drive, then set them down at a computer and let them choose the options and colors they desire.  Send the order to the factory, the car is built and delivered within a week.  No excess inventory, no huge end of season sales, the consumer gets exactly what they want.

In the end the world will change.  Those companies and people that understand this will win.  Those that continue to do things the way they have always done them will cease to exist.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Life | Comments (0)

When is a “child” not a child and a “teen” not a teen?

January 24th, 2011
by Josh Zytkiewicz

A few weeks ago I was reading Injustice Everywhere when they mentioned an article in the West Virginia Gazette-Mail titled Policing the Police.  I recommend the article, but this post isn’t about police misconduct.  What I find more interesting was an article listed on the side of the website that was linked with the headline “Teen charged with murder”.  Unfortunately I can’t find the same article on the website, but I did find similar ones such as “Teens plead guilty to killing S. Charleston counselor” and “Teen charged in East End shooting“.  These headlines are really what prompted me to write this post.

I’ve been noticing for a while that certain people and organizations will use words that while true will imply something different and specific to the people who hear them.  The people and groups I’m talking about generally have a specific agenda they are promoting and include, but are not limited to, politicians, media outlets, and special interest organizations.

The specific words I want to talk about today are those related to age.  To help me on this I asked a number of my friends to give me their first impressions as it relates to age on 23 words.

child
high school
old
teen
woman
adult
student
underage
mature
baby
minor
man
mother
toddler
father
college
pedophile
young
adolescent
parent
puberty
middle aged
juvenile

While this was not a scientific survey, and I only received 3 responses, the data generally backs up my beliefs.

Let’s start with “teen”.  When I hear the term teen my first instinct is someone 16 years old.  If I think about it a little longer I would say 13 to 18. Other impressions I get are high school aged or someone in high school.

But the definition of teen is someone who is at least 13, but less than 20.  That is how it’s used in the stories linked above.  They are both about 18 and 19 year olds.  So while a headline of “Teen” is true, it implies something to most people that is completely different.  If you’ve just seen a headline that says “Teen charged with murder” you’re going to look at those walking to high school a little fearfully, aren’t you.

Let’s take a look at another word, “child”.  My first instinct is someone roughly 5 to 8 years old.  In my survey I received a response of 4, 5, and 5-13.  Wikipedia says that biologically a child is a human between birth and puberty.  I think when the majority of the population says “child” that’s what they mean.  The biological definition.  But legally a child is anyone who has not reached the age of majority, generally someone under 18.

One of the places you’ll see child mentioned in the media is in a headline like this:  Former UW-Madison student is on trial over alleged encrypted child porn photos

But one thing that is very rarely, if ever, mentioned in stories like that is the actual age of the “children” involved.  Legally, child pornography is pornographic images of a human under the age of 18.  It doesn’t matter if they’re 7 months, 7 years, or 17 years old, it’s all illegal.  But by calling it child pornography the police, the justice system and the media are creating certain ideas in our minds.  We’ve already seen that most of us think of a pre-pubescent person when we hear child.  Is it too much of a stretch to think that the people responsible for “protecting” us are using that to their advantage?

Now I’m not defending anyone who would force another, through violence or psychological coercion, to perform a sexual act.  And I’m also not defending recording a sexual act without a persons knowledge and/or consent.  But I am saying I have a very different reaction to pornography involving a 7 year old, than I do to pornography involving a 17 year old.  Especially considering that in 38 states, that same 17 year old can legally consent to sex.  (30 states = 16yo 8 states = 17yo)

That’s right, the esteemed legislatures of 38 states have voted and decided that a 17 year old is old enough to wisely choose a partner, understands the risks, rewards, and consequences, and potentially create another human life and become a parent.  But that same 17 year old is NEVER allowed to show an image of him or herself in a sexual situation.  Even if they’re the only person in the image, and they are the ones creating it.  In fact it’s illegal just to create it and teens have been prosecuted for it.

What kind of message does that send?  Everyone talks about body image issues that teens have from magazines, TV shows, fashion models, etc.  But here we are telling the same group of people that their bodies are so wrong, so immoral, so dangerous that they can’t even photograph themselves?  That doing so could land them in jail for years, put them on sex offender registries, and basically ruin their entire lives.

Next we have “minor” and “underage”.  For “minor” I received responses of 21, 18, and 17.  While “underage”, received responses of 17, 18, and 17.  I thought these responses were quite interesting and honestly that they would have been reversed.  Legally, a minor is someone who has not attained the age of majority, for the US and most of the world, that’s 18.  “Underage” is basically the same thing, and describes a person who is “under” the age of majority.

What bothers me about minor, and to a lesser extent underage, is that they’re so negative.  The definitions as used in relation to age are negative; “not attained”, “under the age”.  The way the word is used not related to age is negative; “inferior, smaller, unimportant, not serious, academics requiring fewer courses”.  This is how our society, how our legal system, defines those who are that way merely because of when they were born.  If you don’t believe me you’re not remembering hard enough or you were very lucky.  The way most “adults” treat minors is that they are inferior, unimportant and not serious.

I guess what I want you to take away from this is to try to be more aware of the words people use who might want to influence your opinion.  And not just the definition of those words, but of how those words are used and how they make you feel.  Especially if they create a strong emotional reaction.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Stupid politicians and the people who love them

January 21st, 2011
by Josh Zytkiewicz

Ok, so after the new Governor of Alabama, Robert Bentley, was officially sworn in he went to a church across the street to celebrate his inauguration and MLK day.  During a speech inside the church the new Governor said:

There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit, but if you have been adopted in God’s family like I have, and like you have if you’re a Christian and if you’re saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.”

Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.

SOURCE

Really?!  I sincerely hope he was ad libbing and not reading a speech.  To say it was bad enough, but if he, or someone else wrote that down and still didn’t catch that it’s not right then something is very wrong. But then again it is Alabama.

Since saying that he has now apologized.

Now politicians say stupid things like that all the time.  Other people do as well, but politicians have reporters and cameras following them so what they say gets reported.

But what really bothers me is the reaction of people in Alabama.  Such as:

I get what he was saying. It didn’t bother me.

I see really nothing wrong with what he said. I think it was innocent, and people are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

He probably shouldn’t have said it, but it didn’t bother me.

Now I think they’re saying this for two reasons.

1. Christian Privilege

2. They haven’t really thought through the consequences.

When I say Christian Privilege I mean the tendency of Christians to believe they should be treated differently, preferentially, because they are the largest group.  The majority of people in Alabama are Christians so the Governor saying that Christians are his brothers and non-Christians are not doesn’t bother them because they are Christian.

And that kind of leads into the second point.  They don’t realize that the language the Governor used is exclusive.  It says that certain people (Christians, those who share the belief) are good, and other people (non-Christians, those who do not share the belief) are not.  Which is really one of the basic tenets of almost every single religion of the world.  Replace Christian with something else and you’ll see exactly how divisive his words were.

There may be some people here today who are not WHITE, but if you are, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.

Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters.  So anybody here today who is not WHITE, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister.

Or how about:

There may be some people here today who are not REPUBLICAN, but if you are, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.

Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters.  So anybody here today who is not REPUBLICAN, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister.

Or even:

There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit, but if you have been adopted in ALLAH’s family like I have, and like you have if you’re a MUSLIM and, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.”

Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who is not MUSLIM, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.

Do  you see now how wrong his language is?

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Life | Comments (0)

My New Year’s Resolutions 2011

December 28th, 2010
by Josh Zytkiewicz

Last year..this year…2010, I didn’t have any resolutions.  In 2009 I did, and that was to do at least one photo shoot a month.  See what happened in previous years, and in 2010 as well, is that I would go months without having any photography, then do 3 or 4 in a week or two.  So in 2009 I made the resolution, and actually did it, I had at least one shoot every month.  This year I’m going to do a few resolutions and see how it goes.

1.  Do six to twelve shoots for University Nudes.  This was kind of a resolution last year, but more of a hope or an idea.  I put up a few ads, set up one meeting but never actually photographed anyone.

2.  Set up a cleaning schedule.  20 minutes a day, repeats every 30 days.  It’s not like my place is dirty, I clean now, but it’s a little unorganized, and it could be cleaner.  And I really like lists and schedules.

3.  Stop using deity based words and phrases to express surprise, anger and frustration.

4.  Do 100 sit ups, 100 push ups, and run for 30 minutes every other day.  I was doing pretty good with running for about two months.  Then I kinda stopped. 🙁

5.  Use Things more.  Things is a to do list program for my Mac and iPhone.  It works very well, I just have to remember to use it.

6.  Share my thoughts more.  I haven’t posted to this blog as much as I would like.  Part of that is time.  Actual time that it will take me, and often thinking it will take longer than it does.  I’m also somewhat of a perfectionist, and one of the things that perfectionists often do is not do anything if they can’t do it perfect.  And the third reason is not wanting to upset people.  Often with the issues I feel passionate about I’m not of the majority or socially acceptable side of the issue.  For a while now I’ve lived my life by the phrase “What other people think of me is none of my business.”  Internally I feel that way, but externally I haven’t always behaved that way.

7.  Find a wife.  I’m getting older, I need to get married.  There’ll be some rather large posts on this coming.

There’s other things I want to do but none that I want to set up as a resolution.  Like I have an idea for a new series of  photos (not to the level of University Nudes), but I’ll probably just put that in another post in a few days.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Life | Comments (0)

I need new words to use for surprise, anger and frustration

December 27th, 2010
by Josh Zytkiewicz

I need new words and phrases to express surprise, anger, and frustration.  So basically new swear words.  I know that words are just words, and they only mean what we say they mean, but there are certain words I’d rather not use anymore because they don’t reflect who I am.

Really the only reason I use them now is because those were the words that were used when I was learning the language.  They’re words that are common in this area of the country, and people I know.  So here are the words I don’t wish to say any longer, and some common derivatives.

profanityGod (god damn, god damn it)

Damn (god damn, god damn it, damn it)

Jesus Christ (Jesus, Jeeze, Jeebus)

Holy (holy shit, holy hell, holy crap)

Hell (holy hell)

As you may have noticed they’re generally deity based religious words.  Now, I am no friend of religion so please don’t confuse my desire to not say these words with any particular respect for your customs or ancient beliefs.  I don’t want to say them because I don’t want to be associated with them, similar to the way the colonists disassociated from the monarchy.

Part of the problem with not saying these words is that some of them are more socially acceptable where a stronger swear word would not be.

For example, if I were in a group of mixed age people and stubbed my toe I could say “Damn it” and generally get away with it, whereas saying “Fuck” would be considered a poor choice of words.

I’m pretty sure that once I have new words I can replace the old words I use.  I’ve kind of done that with “frak” which is really just a polite way to say “fuck”.  I still say “fuck”, but it’s about 50/50 split with “frak”.

So what I would like from you is some ideas for new words.  It could be something you say, or have heard.  Quite a few of you are from different areas of the country so perhaps it’s something common in your area but I’ve never been exposed to.  Leave a comment with your suggestions.

Posted in Life | Comments (1)

Why this is wrong.

December 20th, 2010
by Josh Zytkiewicz

Author of pedophilia guide to face charges in Florida

There are so many things wrong with this situation.

1.  Obviously there is not enough crime in Polk County (or even the state of Florida) if Sheriff Judd has to go half way across the country to arrest and charge this man.

2.  It is entirely possible, and quite likely, that the only copy of this book in Polk County is the one purchased by the Sheriff.  Meaning that no one in his jurisdiction could possibly have been “harmed” by this book.  If you even buy the premise that it’s harmful.

3.  IT’S A FUCKING BOOK! It’s words printed on paper.  It can’t hurt you.  It is merely a physical manifestation of an idea.  Ideas are not illegal.  Thought is not illegal.

4.  If you don’t like it, don’t read it.  Don’t buy it.  You can tell your family, your friends, random people on the street that you feel it is wrong.  That’s your right.

5.  The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …

This is the very essence of why we have the First Amendment.  To protect unpopular speech.  It doesn’t matter if that speech is pedophilia, or swearing (Catcher in the Rye), or sexuality (Twilight), or racism (Adventures of Huckleberry Finn), or sorcery (Harry Potter), or violence (Grand Theft Auto).

So basically here’s what’s going to happen.  Sheriff Judd gets to look tough on pedophiles and crime in general.  He’ll get lots of money and be reelected.  Mr. Greaves will probably end up sitting in jail for five to ten years while the his case moves through the court system.  The people of Polk County and the State of Florida will spend millions of dollars defending the appeals all the way to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court will rightly rule in favor of Mr. Greaves.  Mr. Greaves will then be released having lost almost a decade of his life.  Mr. Greaves will not be able to recover damages from Sheriff Judd, because Sheriff Judd has qualified immunity.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Life, Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Song list for the Ultimate Wedding Ceremony

December 9th, 2010
by Josh Zytkiewicz

Wedding ceremonies today are much more theatrical than they’ve ever been before. Couples aren’t interested in doing what everyone else has done. And they certainly don’t want to listen to some old guy they barely know drone on about things that don’t matter to them.

A wedding is a performance. For many weddings the ceremony is the dull part, with all of the guests sitting through it patiently for the reception. Do not let your wedding be like that. Sing, Dance, Perform. Make your once in a lifetime event something no one will ever forget.

As of this writing I don’t even have a girlfriend, but if I were to have a wedding today these would be the songs in their order of performance.

Intro:
I Gotta Feeling by The Black Eyed Peas

Brides song:
All I Ever Wanted To Be from Being Erica

Grooms song:
Haven’t Met You Yet by Michael Buble

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AJmKkU5POA (embedding disabled)

Something There from Disney’s Beauty and the Beast

Vows:
I’ll Cover You from RENT

Finale:
Everyday from High School Musical 2

Surprise song:
The Way You Look Tonight by Frank Sinatra

First Dance:

Can I Have This Dance from High School Musical 3

Bonus proposal songs:

These two songs would be absolutely perfect for a proposal.

1, 2, 3, 4 by Plain White T’s

Marry You by Glee Cast

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Life | Comments (0)

Advertising’s Image of Women

September 20th, 2010
by Josh Zytkiewicz

My friend Kelly posted the video above today on her Facebook page. I started to write a comment on Facebook, but it got longer, and longer…..and longer. So I decided to write a blog on it instead.

There’s always been pressure on women to look a certain way, the Victorian era had extreme corsets, ancient Romans used makeup, the Chinese bound the feet, the Kayan Lahwi place brass rings around their necks.  To imply that advertising is the cause of how women feel about themselves today is disingenuous.  All of the above examples and many more were done decades and centuries before modern advertising.  Before TV, magazines, before books, and I’m sure there were ways that women changed how they look before we even had writing.

Second, where are women in this?  Is the speaker saying that women are so easily manipulated that a mere image destroys their self worth?  That women and girls don’t know and can’t be taught that what they see in advertisements is not real?  If the problems stemming from advertising are so inescapable why aren’t they more prevalent?

Third, “The person is dehumanized and violence becomes inevitable.”  Um, no.  While making a person an object may be the first step in violence against that person, I strongly disagree that it is inevitable.  To agree with that statement you would have to believe that humans are violent against all objects.  That because I think of a tree as an object I have to fight my natural urges to violently attack it?

You know what I think is causing all the self esteem problems in this country?  It’s the dichotomy between what we show and what we do.  We surround people with sex but then we tell them not to do it.  That a women’s body should be looked at, but not touched, even by her own hand.  If the only way you’re allowed to be sexual is through what you look like and what you wear, of course you’re going to take it to extremes.

We need to teach women (and girls, and boys, and men) that sex and masturbation are not bad things.  That feeling good is not something to be ashamed of.  That loving yourself physically is loving yourself mentally.

I think this last part relates to two recent posts by Katie West.

Women are sexualized and objectified to appeal to others.

and

Women who report masturbating score higher on a self-esteem index than women who do not report masturbating.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Life | Comments (0)

Keesh Lorraine

September 16th, 2010
by Josh Zytkiewicz

Keesh Lorraine is an amazing model in the Madison area.  You can see some of her other work on her Model Mayhem site.  I first contacted her about working with gold leaf, such as the ones I’ve done with Rebecca.  We ended up going a slightly different direction doing outdoor nudes at Devil’s Lake State Park.  While not the first time I’ve visited the park (many times as a boy scout), it was the first time I’d photographed there.  And I hadn’t been there in quite a few years.

After stopping at the Visitor’s center for a vehicle sticker, we went to the south side of the lake to climb the east bluff.

SONY DSCIn the far left distance you can see the lake, about a third of a mile away.  At this point we’re about 200’ above the lake, though we’d only gone 75’ horizontally.  I’d wanted to go higher, but, um, I’m not in that good a shape.  So we stopped here and got quite a few pictures.

SONY DSC  As you can see we’re above the tops of most of the trees.  The colors of the rocks, and the lichen really match well with her skin.

SONY DSC SONY DSC SONY DSC This next pictures is my favorite.  The diagonals of the rocks, the matching angles of her arms and legs, the straining of her muscles.

SONY DSC On the way back down, we took a little side trail, and found a boulder field much closer to the ground.

SONY DSC SONY DSC To me it looks like she belongs there.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in black and white, color, nudes, Photos | Comments (0)