I just popped on for a second, but have spent the last hour or so reading this whole thread, and now I have so much I want to say that... well, I just hope I'll be forgiven if I don't make much sense
First of all, I think an issue people might have with male nudity (and this was touched on briefly early in the thread) is the percieved threat of it. Women's nudity is might be considered seductive or alluring: if a woman wants to have sex, she <i>has</i> to make the man want it, too. On the other hand, if a man wants to have sex, he does not necessarily need the woman's consent, and rape is a much more violent, terrifying thing than seduction has ever been.
This does not mean that both forms are not beautiful, I want to make that clear, but there is that underlying phychology that can be projected on to the image, which is my explanation for why female nudity is so much more prevailent in the tarot cards.
That being said, I agree that there are some images in the non-erotic decks that really do take things too far. The Robin Wood deck has been mentioned because the women all look uncomfortable in their nudity, and I agree. It completely detracts from the message of freedom and ease that the nudity is supposed to represent. It was also mentioned that it is just as easy to portray the message of spiritual freedom with gauzy dresses, and I completely agree. For the most part, I would prefer that to be the case, especially with the star card, which is often a naked woman half-sitting in a rather provocative position that doesn't at all fit the meaning (in my mind).
There was a comment that the partically clad images are more alluring. This is true, when refering to sexual themes (in my opinion) but I prefer it simply because it is so much less blatant and in-your-face. Also, it detracts from any thoughts one might have about why the artists felt a need to take the symbolism to that extent (ie, the horny comic-book artists mentioned previously).
On the other hand, I LOVE Brian Froud's Faerie Oracle (I know we're talking about tarot cards, but the issue comes down to the same thing: there are a great deal of beautiful (multi-sized/shaped, btw) women, many of them partially or fully naked, and their male counterparts are (with I think just two exceptions) anthropomorphic, skrawny, or just androdenous. It's unballanced, yes, but it's not provocative or alluring, and as a whole the deck <i>feels</i> balanced, despite the visual evidence to the contrary...
But back to the topic at hand.
I also wanted to comment on the idealized forms seen in the tarot cards. I don't have a problem with this. Maybe the artists did it deliberately because of a narrow view of beauty, but I don't see it like this. In my mind, the images we see in the cards are the way those depicted in the cards see themselves, and the message I take is that, whatever these people may actually look like, they ARE beautiful, and they recognize that in themselves. Obviously, the fact that the cards do portray such a narrow visual reference for beauty does not say much about our society (the day societies come to honour beauty above all else is the day that society dies), I recognize the symbollism of it. Would I like to see other forms of beauty in the cards? Certainly! (That's one reason I think Froud's oracle is so dear to me) But having just the one form doesn't detract from my readings of the cards or keep me up at night.
I'm sure I had more to say, but those were my main points, and now I am going to go to bed.
P.S. the dove commercials were well recieved here in Canada, too, as far as I know.
