IDiivil wrote:
The photographer did express he didn't intend to reference the 2012 Delhi gang rape. I'm not sure how much that pardons him, however.

I too was put off by this photoshoot. I feel free speech grants him the right to express himself the way he wants, but man, knowing about the 2012 Delhi gang rape and then seeing this made my gut clench.

Just a sick feeling.

Like you I don't think it should be an off limits theme. But its not what you do, it's the way you do it.
This glamorizes rape. It also is fresh in the mind. And it's on a bus.  It's very poor taste.

So for example I think it would have been fine to recreate "Rape of the Sabine Women".

It's the same to me as doing a girl's with guns shoot. Nothing wrong with that, but do one with elements connected with say a recent high school gun massacre eg setting it at a high school location is going to make it in extremely bad taste.

GER Photography wrote:
For what some people call "art" they should be banned from polite society for life!! Calling something art should not give one carte balnc to do anything their sick perverted mind can come up with.

Why does a person's mind have to be sick and/or perverted just because you don't agree with what they call art?

If some people had their way, taking any pictures at all wouldn't happen because each time you press the shutter button, you're shortening the subject's life a little bit.  It's "sick" to want to shorten someone's life.

In other cases, anyone who shows more skin than their eyelids is a sick something. As I said, I don't agree with the premise to these photos but I won't call them sick or perverted for doing it. They may have some perfectly valid reason for doing them ... even if that perfectly valid reason is only in their mind.

Danielle Reid wrote:
It made you "feel" something. Good or bad, it caused a reaction

Girls that actually get raped "feel" something. It causes a reaction.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

Girls that actually get raped "feel" something. It causes a reaction.

I'm sure they did

Lovely Day Media wrote:
If some people had their way, taking any pictures at all wouldn't happen because each time you press the shutter button, you're shortening the subject's life a little bit.  It's "sick" to want to shorten someone's life.

What in the fuck are you talking about?

London Fog wrote:
I don't see what the big deal is, it's just a photoshoot for fucks sake! So many over sensitive people out there...!

It's because it's a photo shoot based off of a sensitive topic and done in a glorified way

London Fog wrote:
I don't see what the big deal is, it's just a photoshoot for fucks sake! So many over sensitive people out there...!

That's easy for you to say with your male privilege.

Danielle Reid wrote:

It's because it's a photo shoot based off of a sensitive topic and done in a glorified way

What glorified way, one guy has his arm on her leg and around her ankle, the other has his around her upper arm and below her boob. There's nothing even remotely being suggested, in fact the whole thing looks like a bunch of stills from a 'bollywood music video'. 

Big fucking deal!

London Fog wrote:

What glorified way, one guy has his arm on her leg and around her ankle, the other has his around her upper arm and below her boob. There's nothing even remotely being suggested, in fact the whole thing looks like a bunch of stills from a 'bollywood music video'. 

Big fucking deal!

I'm not disagreeing with you

Lovely Day Media wrote:
If some people had their way, taking any pictures at all wouldn't happen because each time you press the shutter button, you're shortening the subject's life a little bit.  It's "sick" to want to shorten someone's life.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
What in the fuck are you talking about?

What I'm talking about is this: the person I quoted said something about someone's 'sick perverted mind' (not an exact quote, I know). I asked why a person's mind has to be sick and/or perverted just because they don't agree with the art they're trying to create.

Then comes the above quote ... some people are against picture taking totally. Someone told me their religion tells them that pictures of live things (including animals) is forbidden because it shortens a person's life.  I don't agree with them but I can't tell them what they should or shouldn't believe and why or why not.

In the same way, I can't tell a person what art they can or can't create and since no one died and made me moral police, I can't say if their mind is sick or perverted for creating it.  If someone could do this, it would seem most Quentin Tarantino movies wouldn't get made because most feature a whole bunch of stylized violence. If you've ever seen the original Kill Bill movie, you know what I'm talking about here.

That's what the f*** I'm talking about.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

Lovely Day Media wrote:
If some people had their way, taking any pictures at all wouldn't happen because each time you press the shutter button, you're shortening the subject's life a little bit.  It's "sick" to want to shorten someone's life.

What I'm talking about is this: the person I quoted said something about someone's 'sick perverted mind' (not an exact quote, I know). I asked why a person's mind has to be sick and/or perverted just because they don't agree with the art they're trying to create.

Then comes the above quote ... some people are against picture taking totally. Someone told me their religion tells them that pictures of live things (including animals) is forbidden because it shortens a person's life.  I don't agree with them but I can't tell them what they should or shouldn't believe and why or why not.

In the same way, I can't tell a person what art they can or can't create and since no one died and made me moral police, I can't say if their mind is sick or perverted for creating it.  If someone could do this, it would seem most Quentin Tarantino movies wouldn't get made because most feature a whole bunch of stylized violence. If you've ever seen the original Kill Bill movie, you know what I'm talking about here.

That's what the f*** I'm talking about.

That is an incredibly weak comparison.

Here you go:

Lovely Day Media wrote:

Lovely Day Media wrote:
If some people had their way, taking any pictures at all wouldn't happen because each time you press the shutter button, you're shortening the subject's life a little bit.  It's "sick" to want to shorten someone's life.

What I'm talking about is this: the person I quoted said something about someone's 'sick perverted mind' (not an exact quote, I know). I asked why a person's mind has to be sick and/or perverted just because they don't agree with the art they're trying to create.

Then comes the above quote ... some people are against picture taking totally. Someone told me their religion tells them that pictures of live things (including animals) is forbidden because it shortens a person's life.  I don't agree with them but I can't tell them what they should or shouldn't believe and why or why not.

In the same way, I can't tell a person what art they can or can't create and since no one died and made me moral police, I can't say if their mind is sick or perverted for creating it.  If someone could do this, it would seem most Quentin Tarantino movies wouldn't get made because most feature a whole bunch of stylized violence. If you've ever seen the original Kill Bill movie, you know what I'm talking about here.

That's what the f*** I'm talking about.

I gotta agree with Alabaster here (for the 2nd time in a month!), I still don't know what the fuck you are talking about!

London Fog wrote:

I gotta agree with Alabaster here (for the 2nd time in a month!), I still don't know what the fuck you are talking about!

Okay ... I'll try one more time.

The person I quoted said the photographer who wanted to do the rape shoot has a sick and perverted mind. I asked that person why a photographer's mind has to be sick or perverted just because that person doesn't agree with what the concept.

The rest is details that can be left out for less confusion.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
Okay ... I'll try one more time.

The person I quoted said the photographer who wanted to do the rape shoot has a sick and perverted mind. I asked that person why a photographer's mind has to be sick or perverted just because that person doesn't agree with what the concept.

The rest is details that can be left out for less confusion.

...Are you trolling or do you really not get how glamorizing rape is sick? I can't even believe I'm asking this.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

...Are you trolling or do you really not get how glamorizing rape is sick? I can't even believe I'm asking this.

+10000

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

That's easy for you to say with your male privilege.

I'm completely against glamorizing traumatic issues like this and think this was only done to cause controversy to get attention but I really hate when people throw around the term 'male privilege'.  It just reminds me of crazed tumblr SJW's who basically think all men are the devil and everything in life is easy for them.

Laura Bello wrote:

I'm completely against glamorizing traumatic issues like this and think this was only done to cause controversy to get attention but I really hate when people throw around the term 'male privilege'.  It just reminds me of crazed tumblr SJW's who basically think all men are the devil and everything in life is easy for them.

Truth's harsh.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
...Are you trolling or do you really not get how glamorizing rape is sick? I can't even believe I'm asking this.

Neither.  I get how sick and in poor taste it is or I personally think it is but I'm not willing to tell a person they can't. It's their life, their camera, their concept, it's legal, it's not encroaching on anyone else's rights and no one is getting hurt or killed (hopefully).  Do I agree with the concept? Absolutely not!

I've already said there are some things I think are in poor taste and shouldn't be done. Since they "shouldn't be done", I don't do them. If other people do them, that's fine. I don't have to look or stare. Very little offends me. When I do find something I think is offensive, I stop looking at it.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

Truth's harsh.

Opinion doesn't equal truth

Lovely Day Media wrote:

Lovely Day Media wrote:
If some people had their way, taking any pictures at all wouldn't happen because each time you press the shutter button, you're shortening the subject's life a little bit.  It's "sick" to want to shorten someone's life.

What I'm talking about is this: the person I quoted said something about someone's 'sick perverted mind' (not an exact quote, I know). I asked why a person's mind has to be sick and/or perverted just because they don't agree with the art they're trying to create.

Then comes the above quote ... some people are against picture taking totally. Someone told me their religion tells them that pictures of live things (including animals) is forbidden because it shortens a person's life.  I don't agree with them but I can't tell them what they should or shouldn't believe and why or why not.

In the same way, I can't tell a person what art they can or can't create and since no one died and made me moral police, I can't say if their mind is sick or perverted for creating it.  If someone could do this, it would seem most Quentin Tarantino movies wouldn't get made because most feature a whole bunch of stylized violence. If you've ever seen the original Kill Bill movie, you know what I'm talking about here.

That's what the f*** I'm talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Laura Bello wrote:

I'm completely against glamorizing traumatic issues like this and think this was only done to cause controversy to get attention but I really hate when people throw around the term 'male privilege'.  It just reminds me of crazed tumblr SJW's who basically think all men are the devil and everything in life is easy for them.

Two words come to mind.  "Victim Mentality".

Lovely Day Media wrote:

Why does a person's mind have to be sick and/or perverted just because you don't agree with what they call art.

It stems from the "reasonable man" legal assumptions, that if a reasonable man believes that something should be considered legal or illegal that that should be the only test necessary. I consider myself to be reasonable enough to discern for myself that someone walking to the middle of a stage, Dropping trou and shitting in front of a audience is sick and disgusting and should not be allowed, some disturbed "art" illuminates thought differently and so the "performance art piece" went on. The case in the OP I see as just as disturbed and depraved.