|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Does open leg = pornography?
Like the original poster, this topic seems to have long legs. Sep 09 14 03:31 pm Link Miss 5 11 wrote: Personally, I don't view nude artwork as pornography nor do i think there is anything inherently wrong with porn. To me the two are what they are and neither are linked to whether your legs are open or not. Some I like and some I don't. I find there is also some of each that are like the other which can make for some great looks. Miss 5 11 wrote: In my opinion, it is up to you to set your own prices of what you're happy with and for you to decide on how you feel about photos of you being distributed around the internet; If it were me in the situation (which i'm not averse to) then i would probably want them to be somewhere I was happy with first (like perhaps x-art or playboy if there were one for men with the same standing or hosted by a reputable gallery etc) but would also presume that they may end up in any multitude of other places coming from there or perhaps alternatively through a rights managed arrangement where they're likely to not travel as far due to copyright issues. Ive read quite a bit on the topic and although it's not watertight, I'd be more content with it. Especially compared with something like 'John citizen's seedy porn page' as a launching point. Miss 5 11 wrote: In answer to your question about the rewards, it depends on what you consider a reward but I do believe they are linked to your circumstances, where / how you market yourself (or are marketed), what you supply, what's in demand & the types of rewards available at any given time / place. The first off the top of my mind are money, travel / adventure / experience, creating something good, friendships / relationships, goods, fame, compliments / accolades, awards, happiness and many other things. As for the risks / dangers; casually typing, i'd say they're probably in as much availability as the rewards and probably don't need much saying for all of the information there is on them throughout the web but to list some: injury, assault, defamation, hate mail, stalkers, poor financial management, 'getting caught up in a bad crowd', being on 'john citizen's seedy porn site', unhappiness, fame for the wrong reasons / in a bad way et cetera. Miss 5 11 wrote: Art: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power Sep 09 14 10:56 pm Link There is no defined point, at which, art becomes adult imagery. However, this is my own view, and doesn't necessarily relate to whether I think you should or should not do whatever you feel ok with, in any way. Legs open is simply nudity. That is the reality. It is no different than standing with your legs apart, or with your legs together. Nudity, in and of itself, is not adult imagery. When it tends to become adult imagery, is when you start to actually physically do something to imply sexual acts.......no matter what that is. That again, is fine, as long as the model is ok with that. Frankly, there are literally thousands of models who are doing such adult imagery, regularly. That is their personal decision to make, and no one else. No one should look down upon them for that choice. So, my answer here, is if something bothers you, make that clear before shooting, and make sure the photog accepts your limitations. Then we can all be happy, and get the images we both want. Nothing wrong with having limitations, and frankly, those vary tremendously from one model to another, without any rational explanation, but if you are going to offer to do anything, and I mean anything, remotely revealing.......determine what your limits are, and make sure the photographer knows them in advance. There is nothing a model might request, that I would not be willing to consider. Likewise, anything I might ask the model about, should also be considered......not necessarily agreed to, but thought about. Those discussions should be done in advance of the work, so when you shoot, everything goes smoothly, according to expectations. Sep 11 14 05:49 pm Link Porn is not art, lets clear the air about that. It is created for one purpose only, to get people off with explicit visual sexual content. End of story. There are different degrees, but its the same nonetheless. Fine art and glamour nudes are also completely different. The thing that ultimately decides which is which is content. Facial expression, pose, lighting, retouching etc all decide whether or not a photo is nude art, erotica, or porn. The spread eagle shot always falls under the erotica guidelines of shooting, now within that it depends on the final result. Most people think anything too revealing is porn because we are bombarded with mediocre nudes all over the internet of girls in little g strings showing butt hole shots or straight on spread eagle. Without having the proper knowledge of what varies an image from the next in its entire context and purpose of existence, most viewers will look at it all the same. Treats is a good example of whats fine art, erotic, and fashion all in one. Playboy is strictly erotic, its somewhat reserved but still revealing. Penthouse and Hustler are where you enter the porn factor, spread legs and raunchy poses galore. You have to study the way models in these publications pose and the editing involved that decides what is what. Ive shot glamour girls nude in artistic situations featured on the black & white Spider awards, and no one would know. You can shoot anyone tastefully nude. The photographer is there to guide the model. Sep 12 14 09:59 pm Link God bless Australia  Sep 13 14 10:51 am Link Porn isn't found between the legs. . . it resides between the ears. Perception, that's all porn, art, or any other part of what each of us defines as reality is. To thine own self be true, if it's porn to YOU, then it's porn, otherwise, it isn't. Sep 13 14 12:12 pm Link Gabby57 wrote: Well said! Sep 13 14 12:22 pm Link In Japan, the display of female genitals can get you arrested. Every popular glamour magazine in this country shows a little "pink." So, the bar has been raised (or lowered, depending on your point of view). Not pornography, but is subject to "2257" regulations. Sep 17 14 06:37 am Link A photographer recently told me that if you smile with your legs open it's porn but if you have a serious face it's art nude. Sep 17 14 06:49 am Link I fell in love with OP and I am not affraid to admit it. Sep 17 14 10:42 am Link A little historical context: In the 1930's a 'pornograph' was a photo of a prostitue (porno is greek for prostitute). It was not illegal because sex is bad, it was illegal because it was evidence from a crime scene, which is illegal to own. Sex is no longer a crime in a lot of places, but the stigma of pornograph=illegal has followed images of sexuality down through history. Sep 17 14 11:38 am Link 4 R D wrote: Get in line after me, my friend. Sep 17 14 12:52 pm Link The problem is not having your legs open. It's how the rest of your body is posed in conjunction with your facial expression. Sep 17 14 08:41 pm Link Miss 5 11 wrote: Wrong Sep 17 14 08:42 pm Link A photographer recently told me that if you smile with your legs open it's porn ... Sep 17 14 09:51 pm Link Miss 5 11 wrote: Ha, I love this. Sep 17 14 10:01 pm Link I think I need more vagina shots in my port actually. Seeing her port def makes me think like mine is lacking that. Sep 17 14 10:22 pm Link Avanti Kailani wrote: Since your vagina is INSIDE your body, this will be impossible. Sep 18 14 04:58 am Link This entire thread has been extremely entertaining and informative. Thanks to all that contributed. I guess perspective is everything. Sep 18 14 11:18 am Link Intent has a higher influence on the depiction of pornography, than the mere act of opening your legs. You can celebrate the beauty of the human form in a clinical or even sensually artistic manner, without having to show the space between a woman's labia or a guy's erect penis. Some people just need to be honest with themselves, and accept the fact that not all Erotica is pornographic, but all Pornography is erotic. If your intent is to arouse people in a very primitive sense, it will be evident in the imagery, whether it is Erotica or Porn. Erotica is sexually arousing, without the graphic crudeness usually attributed to porn. Note: Use "Porn" in your thread title. Sep 18 14 11:51 am Link The vagina is internal; the term you're searching for is vulva, pussy, Mound of Venus or even hoo-ha. Nov 09 14 06:22 am Link Miss 5 11 wrote: Were you able to keep from laughing at that? Nov 09 14 06:30 am Link Does open leg = pornography? Herman Surkis wrote: +1 Nov 09 14 09:21 am Link I think that part of a woman's body is prettier with the legs closed--a neat, simple shape. The inside is generally a visual mess. And, no, I am not gay. I had a friend challenge me to make an aesthetically pleasing drawing of a close-up of hers. Even though I abstracted it a lot, I don't think it was very successful. Nov 09 14 09:49 am Link ms-photo wrote: I don't know if I should start another thread or take a potentially tangential diversion/digression but since the concept was raised here, let me use it as a starting point to address a question I've long had on how to structure a nude shoot--without detracting too much from the original intent of the thread. It's been a year to the day since the last post so I think it's safe to say that 5' 11" has extracted most of the value already and I can safely switch gears without distracting. Nov 09 15 02:04 am Link FFantastique wrote: I recommend you start another thread unless you want your question ignored by those who have no interest in the original post or you want to read another batch of replies to all the posts before your question. Nov 09 15 03:11 am Link FFantastique wrote: Better for whom ??? Nov 09 15 09:25 am Link This was a fun thread to revisit. Like Jen, I'm not sure you'll get many reading your resuscitation post, but I did. FFantastique wrote: If I hire for a nude shoot, my model will start and end the shoot nude. I don't have time to dilly dally. Nov 09 15 11:33 am Link Garry k wrote: Lol Nov 09 15 11:34 am Link I'm surprised that I didn't reply to this thread before. What is "porn" is subjective to opinion. I'm going to say that there is an actual difference between pornography and erotica! I know that my opinion will not be in agreement with most others, but here goes! I define "pornography" as images or film of sexual activity or simulated sexual activity happening in those very images or film (video) ... otherwise I define images that stimulate the mind in a sexual manner as erotica. I can visualize that nude art can also be erotica, although no sexual activity is occurring. Human beings can find many visions to be erotic however, as in close ups of feet, and also the human face can be erotic. Clothed or nude, the human body can be highly erotic. I understand that the court of law in various governments does not see it the way I do. Therefore, it is important to follow the 2257 laws in the USA, etc ... and be aware that factors such as nudity and age of the model can be a major issue depending on the image and where you are located. I enjoy high art and erotica. The model who started this thread, 5'11" is quite amazing looking! She is talented & wonderful for modeling. Perfect as a high art or erotica model. Don't know if I've provided food for thought, but hope so! Nov 09 15 01:37 pm Link FFantastique wrote: I suggest you don't do the "strip" down unless you want lines from panties, bra, jeans, socks, etc. The model CANNOT be nude on the way to the shoot so avoiding every mark is indeed impossible. I have gotten marks from shoes and even a seatbelt;) Say you wear a tank dress and no lingerie underneath. You can still get a wrinkle or two underneath you and get a pressure mark. Nov 09 15 01:59 pm Link nudeXposed wrote: The term is NOT "hoo-ha." Please do not listen to this clown. Nov 09 15 02:52 pm Link [Deleted duplicate post] Nov 09 15 02:53 pm Link Not to derail the thread, but I recently had an encounter with a photographer who REALLY wanted to do an open-leg shoot with me. The intent was artistic (though he really lacked the skill to execute it properly), but I will only do shots like that if either my crotch area OR my face is not visible. An example of the former being this image in my portfolio: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/36613155 My legs are splayed waaaaay apart but the lighting is such that you can't see any detail. Incidentally, you also can't see my face. So, my agreement with this photographer [clarification: NOT the one who took the linked picture - the one I'm referring to in this story, who shall not be named due to rules on outing] was that I would be comfortable with the spread leg shot IF AND ONLY IF my face was not visible. I explained my limits and my rationale behind them in great detail. He claimed he understood and agreed to obscure my features with a piece of black cloth. Day of the shoot comes, we take the spread leg shot, and then several other poses of me in various states of undress around the same chair. Nothing more was said about the matter. Lo and behold, a few days later, a Photoshopped version of the shot appears on his portfolio with the other poses of me superimposed into the spread leg shot - face clearly visible, CREDITED (gee thanks!), the works. The photographer had said nothing to me about this. I removed the credit and texted him telling him to take it down immediately. The photo came down but I never got a reply or an apology. Live and learn I guess. Nov 09 15 02:53 pm Link It's only porn if it's a lousy shot. That said, photographers should respect model's limits and should NOT claim to be shooting art and then crop the photo so the vulva takes up most of photo's area. Nov 09 15 06:42 pm Link Pixie Galore wrote: I hope people take note who the guy is . Classy way to ... The sob. Nov 09 15 06:48 pm Link You CAN get away with it if it's done right I think. There is a fine line between porn and art. So, that being said I would assume if it's not raunchy looking it's not pornographic. Nov 09 15 07:05 pm Link D a v i d s o n wrote: I do not believe the photographer she is referring to is the same one in the link she posted. Nov 09 15 07:30 pm Link Eye of the World wrote: Oh sheet my apologies, Nov 09 15 08:03 pm Link The apology above reminds me of a wedding toast that seems to be so appropro here, "May all your ups and downs be between sheets!" :-) Nov 09 15 08:06 pm Link |
