Lee-Bonaventure1 wrote:
If it arouses you, it's porn.  If it arouses me, it's not. 
Is it my joke you are understanding?

It arouses me when girls wear red sneakers

MarkMarek wrote:

It arouses me when girls wear red sneakers

You and me both!

Apfel Photography wrote:
When isn't it?  In theory, you are using someones beauty, face, body to sell a product.

So essentially you are, by definition, exploiting someone every time they model for you.  Now, in realistic terms I would say it is anytime you use a model and have him or her do something that is against their own values, morals or comfort level.  Also, if you do it on a TFP basis and state that it will never be used for profit and then turn around a sell it.

Other than that….it is just as said above….subjective.  A model might feel exploited and 99% of everyone else might think they are nuts.  So…..who knows.

Because of our Purtitan culture, we often limit exploitation to sexual exploitation.  I also think of the woman working 11 to 7 at the convenience store deep in the city, or the guy working too hard on a farm or in a factory, wrecking his body a bit each day.

images by elahi wrote:
Nude. Artisitc nude. Porno or not. T and A. Hand in crotch. Booty in the air. AT what point is it no longer modeling?

If you're shooting something, but not making images, it's no longer modeling.

Lee-Bonaventure1 wrote:
I also think of the woman working 11 to 7 at the convenience store deep in the city, or the guy working too hard on a farm or in a factory, wrecking his body a bit each day.

Again, subjective.  A woman working an 8 hour day (11 to 7) to some who feel women should be at home acting as a good-wife and mother, would see that as exploiting.  Some might think making a woman sit at home being a wife and mother is exploiting.  As for farming, that is something totally different.  That falls into the big business versus small business issue.

But hey, I never mentioned sex here.  All I said is that you make a model do something outside their comfort level.  That could include sex, or ask them to kneel infront of a cross when they are jewish, or ask them to do a gothic scene when they don't really like leather and black eye-liner....etc.

images by elahi wrote:
Nude. Artisitc nude. Porno or not. T and A. Hand in crotch. Booty in the air. AT what point is it no longer modeling?

So, does that make Michaelangelo’s David porn?  What about Botticelli’s painting of Venus.  Man, I can name a dozen of the worls greatest pieces of artwork that also happen to hang in the Vatican including the drawing of Vitruvian Man which is one of their center pieces.  Are these all porn?  If so, does that mean that the Vatican endorses porn?

Do you feel that any works that have nudity, implied or obvious, is the same as porn? Or if not porn, as un "artistic" as porn?

They all had models for these works of art.  So that being said, where their models any less models?  They got paid and now, they are amongst some of the most recognized models in history, even if we don't know their name?

images by elahi wrote:
Nude. Artisitc nude. Porno or not. T and A. Hand in crotch. Booty in the air. AT what point is it no longer modeling?

Very good question, can we say at the point the image becomes usable as a sales tool and usable as a sexual aid?

images by elahi wrote:
Nude. Artisitc nude. Porno or not. T and A. Hand in crotch. Booty in the air. AT what point is it no longer modeling?

Just let's have no criticism of booty in the air shots.  OK?

Apfel Photography wrote:
When isn't it?  In theory, you are using someones beauty, face, body to sell a product.

So essentially you are, by definition, exploiting someone every time they model for you.  Now, in realistic terms I would say it is anytime you use a model and have him or her do something that is against their own values, morals or comfort level.  Also, if you do it on a TFP basis and state that it will never be used for profit and then turn around a sell it.

Other than that….it is just as said above….subjective.  A model might feel exploited and 99% of everyone else might think they are nuts.  So…..who knows.

good answer

Habenero Photography wrote:

If you're shooting something, but not making images, it's no longer modeling.

??????????????

Habenero Photography wrote:

If you're shooting something, but not making images, it's no longer modeling.

??????????????

trina wrote:
There seem to be 2 questions the OP is asking:

1. When does modeling become sexual exploitation?

When the model feels he/she is being exploited. For some that could happen in a lingerie shoot; for other, they can do hardcore porn and not feel exploited.

2. When does it become not modeling? If it is photos, it is always modeling, it just may be adult or erotic modeling. If it is video, then I guess it is acting, albeit it may be porn acting.

That leaves the discussion about what is porn, what is erotica, and what is art, but I didn't get the impression that was what the OP was asking.

it's okay to expand on the conversation.......please do

MusePhotographer wrote:
hmmm probably when photographer starts sweating profusely and uncontrollably during a shoot and perhaps cooing baby talk and moaning and making you do things in front of camera for private viewing of photographer? lol dunno just guessing... hahaha

lol

William Coleman wrote:

Just let's have no criticism of booty in the air shots.  OK?

LOL Youre always on point with the humour bud.......

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
This conversation strikes me as a little bit goofy.  I participate in my day job because I need to.  Without it I can't pay the bills.  Does that mean that these big bad architects are exploiting me? 

Until or unless modeling is to the active and continuing detriment of the model, I don't think it's exploitation.  Kiddie porn is exploitation.  Girls kidnapped and exported to work in brothels are exploited.  Grown-up models in America who work in adult entertainment and make good money doing so are hardly exploited.  Jenna doesn't seem very downtrodden to me. 

This I agree with - very well put, Sita. I think exploitation is about control, and when a model (or any other worker) is either forced or tricked into giving up control it becomes exploitive. Prostitutes who have the pimps that take their money in exchange for "protection" or drugs are being exploited. The ones working at brothels in Nevada are not being exploited. This may not be the best example, because prostitution is a touchy subject, but I used it on purpose to illustrate the point. People seem to automatically assign a label of "exploitation" when there is the perception of sex being involved. If the person is actually in control, such as the licensed (?) brothels in Nevanda, they are labeled as being "victims of society" and so are seen as being exploited. There are many people being exploited all the time that we hear nothing about.

  Hopefully this made some sort of sense... my brain never did fully turn on today.

  -P-

images by elahi wrote:
Nude. Artisitc nude. Porno or not. T and A. Hand in crotch. Booty in the air. AT what point is it no longer modeling?

Actually, that's all modeling - like it or not.

images by elahi wrote:
AT what point is it no longer modeling?

The moment you step away from the camera.  Otherwise you're modeling...

MarkMarek wrote:

It arouses me when girls wear red sneakers

I'm a bare foot and toes man myself. LOL

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Exploitation is when someone is being treated unfairly or taken advantage of. If I'm paying a model ($whatever) to do (whatever) and she's comfortable with the terms, there cannot be "exploitation" regardless of what she's doing. It becomes exploitation when you're taking advantage of someone - either because you've already got power over them, or because they are not in a position to say "no." That's why most laws about workplace sexual exploitation deal with situations in which a co-worker or supervisor is in a position to help or punish a co-worker or employee for not giving them what they want.

The term "sexual exploitation" got pretty severely hijacked during the political correctness fad of the early 80's so that it became "sexual 'exploitation'" when a male did anything with respect to a female just because she was a female. Unfortunately that doesn't make sense when you consider that in some cases females are able to "sexually exploit" helpless GWCs by getting money from them in return for a quick glimpse of a flap of skin or a blob of fatty tissue.

Like most politically charged terms "exploitation" has come to mean "whatever I say is bad" and has lost most of its value.

mjr.

Agreed

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Exploitation is when someone is being treated unfairly or taken advantage of. If I'm paying a model ($whatever) to do (whatever) and she's comfortable with the terms, there cannot be "exploitation" regardless of what she's doing. It becomes exploitation when you're taking advantage of someone - either because you've already got power over them, or because they are not in a position to say "no." That's why most laws about workplace sexual exploitation deal with situations in which a co-worker or supervisor is in a position to help or punish a co-worker or employee for not giving them what they want.

The term "sexual exploitation" got pretty severely hijacked during the political correctness fad of the early 80's so that it became "sexual 'exploitation'" when a male did anything with respect to a female just because she was a female. Unfortunately that doesn't make sense when you consider that in some cases females are able to "sexually exploit" helpless GWCs by getting money from them in return for a quick glimpse of a flap of skin or a blob of fatty tissue.

Like most politically charged terms "exploitation" has come to mean "whatever I say is bad" and has lost most of its value.

mjr.

some valid points

Second Glance wrote:
When the model is forced to do something against his/her will, including showing or exhibiting more than he/she wants displayed.

I agree. Where it gets tricky:
Model: "I won't pose nude!"
GWC: "Here's $500!"
Model: "I still won't pose nude!"
GWC: "How about $1000?"
Model: "OK!"
In the transaction above, who is being exploited, the GWC or the model?

Remember when Linda Lovelace, the star of "Deep Throat" came out and said she'd been exploited and that the whole porn industry was evil? What she really meant was that she'd acted in one of the top-grossing movies of all time and only negotiated a one-time payment of $1200 and she was pissed off that she didn't make more. So far, I don't see "exploitation" I see "poor negotiating skills." Then she claimed she was coerced by her husband, etc. That's where it gets interesting. Was she exploited or not?

During the early 80's Andrea Dworkin and other radical feminists offered up the view that all pornography is exploitation. Thanks to Ed Meese and the US Congress, that view has largely stuck.

Speaking of "exploitation" - Congress: Now That's exploitation

mjr.

saffron wrote:
when there is a lack of ownership of the body
when the person is uncomfortable in themselves with what they are doing
when it's not fun

Ah, but when they are enjoying themselves during the shoot, or even for a time afterwards, the feeling, the nestalga, the euphoria of having done the work and had appreciation and admiration for themselves and the work that was produced... but then to change thier mind a few days or weeks later.... when all was concentual, collaberated and agreed upon?

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
In the transaction above, who is being exploited, the GWC or the model?

Dude! I only do TFP!   $1000!?!?  Shoot, I don't even pay Angie (that's what I call Angelina Jolie now that we are buds) for posing. I mean I would except now she has stretch-marks.

So, yeah $1000 would be totally explitation and all.

GWC!

MarkMarek wrote:

It arouses me when girls wear red sneakers

That's a fetish