CHAD ALAN wrote:
...
But I am deeply confused by what I see as a 'wanting it every way possible' attitude at work here. You want men to photograph you, you want them to pay you. You work to higher levels because you know that is what will part men from their money. You want to be admired. You want to be desired. And you want to exert such control over the responses of your male audience that hitting on you is to be regarded as practically a criminal act.

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
When did she ever say that? When did any model on this forum EVER say that? Sorry but if that's what you think motivates professional models you have a very skewed perception of us. I wouldn't be surprised if your perception of women in general was equally skewed based on this.

Please edit your post. I didn't say this

Here's where it came from:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st18948444

London Fog wrote:
Is this thread for real? C'mon honestly!

ROFL!!!

London Fog wrote:
Is this thread for real? C'mon honestly!

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
ROFL!!!

My thoughts exactly, or this photographer must be really really ugly and smelly. 

Ida Saint-Luc wrote:
It's like, yes, my gynecologist has sex with women, but I assume during exams sex is the furthest thing from his mind. Otherwise I'd never go.

I don't want to start a spinning argument about ulterior motives, but no, you don't want your photographer to have sex furthest from his mind.  If he does, you won't look sexy, or attractive, or in any way enticing.  The mindset of the photographer is exactly what he's communicating... it's almost impossible to communicate something that you're not thinking... and while for many of us it can be an act, or something we do akin to acting where we imagine it, but don't internalize it, we're not gynecologists anesthetically analyzing your labia majora for bumps.

Hyer Bon wrote:
If someone feels that you have intruded into their private space without being invited, it is going to cause friction.

Duly noted.

Conversely, when invited all the other alleged rules of engagement are waived.

James Jackson Fashion wrote:

I don't want to start a spinning argument about ulterior motives, but no, you don't want your photographer to have sex furthest from his mind.  If he does, you won't look sexy, or attractive, or in any way enticing.  The mindset of the photographer is exactly what he's communicating... it's almost impossible to communicate something that you're not thinking... and while for many of us it can be an act, or something we do akin to acting where we imagine it, but don't internalize it, we're not gynecologists anesthetically analyzing your labia majora for bumps.

I could shoot a woman nude and make her look smoking hot. I know what's sexy and I have a good aesthetic. I have no ulterior motives.

Why can't a man be such?

jesse paulk wrote:
so when are models getting their model only forum?

Unfortunately that never is honored.

Jules NYC wrote:
I could shoot a woman nude and make her look smoking hot. I know what's sexy and I have a good aesthetic. I have no ulterior motives.

Like I said... there's a spiraling argument about ulterior motives.  Do I have ulterior motives just because I think lustily about a model I'm shooting?  Is the shoot just because I have ulterior motives... etc etc etc... it's an insipid argument about nothing.

To your point though: No you can not photograph a woman and make her look smoking hot if you have no thought in your head that she is smoking hot.  If you know that she's attractive, that means... point in fact... that you are attracted to her.  If you are attracted to her, that means that you find her sexually appealing, otherwise you would have no idea what a sexually appealing woman looks like and would have no way to make her look sexually appealing.

Jules NYC wrote:
Why can't a man be such?

No one can be as such.  Not man, not woman... not man photographing man, nor woman photographing woman...  Sorry... it's just plain impossible.

James Jackson Fashion wrote:
Like I said... there's a spiraling argument about ulterior motives.  Do I have ulterior motives just because I think lustily about a model I'm shooting?  Is the shoot just because I have ulterior motives... etc etc etc... it's an insipid argument about nothing.

To your point though: No you can not photograph a woman and make her look smoking hot if you have no thought in your head that she is smoking hot.  If you know that she's attractive, that means... point in fact... that you are attracted to her.  If you are attracted to her, that means that you find her sexually appealing, otherwise you would have no idea what a sexually appealing woman looks like and would have no way to make her look sexually appealing.


No one can be as such.  Not man, not woman... not man photographing man, nor woman photographing woman...  Sorry... it's just plain impossible.

I disagree.

I can look at a woman and her sexuality without wanting to have sex with her.

plus I'm a straight woman so it's not going to happen anyway.

On that note – look at the list of photographs that I find appealing. Most of them are gorgeous women.

I believe some attitudes toward sexuality and beauty is so mangled and that people can't see the forest for the trees.

Jules NYC wrote:
I disagree.

I can look at a woman and her sexuality without wanting to have sex with her.

plus I'm a straight woman so it's not going to happen anyway.

I didn't say you had to want sex with her... I said you found her sexually attractive.  Some people can break that link, some people can't.

Jules NYC wrote:
On that note – look at the list of photographs that I find appealing. Most of them are gorgeous women.

Which furthers my point... you think those women are "gorgeous" that means you feel them to be sexually attractive.  Just because you don't want to have sex with them doesn't mean you can't find them sexy.

Human brains are funny little things.  We can not externalize... we can not think in abstract reality...  We like to think we can, but the actual process for any human is the same, we take the viewpoint that we're trying to be abstract about, make it our own, process it as if its our own, and then do something with the result.  Some people can take that result, compartmentalize it, and then act on it without the viewpoint ever becoming our "own" but some can not... regardless at the point of thinking through a problem we must make the view that we're trying to asses our own.

London Fog wrote:
Is this thread for real? C'mon honestly!

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
ROFL!!!

Connor Photography wrote:
My thoughts exactly, or this photographer must be really really ugly and smelly. 

This is a really unpleasant exchange.

James Jackson Fashion wrote:

I didn't say you had to want sex with her... I said you found her sexually attractive.  Some people can break that link, some people can't.

I can look at a woman and find her sexually attractive but not be sexually attracted to her.
Same with a man.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

London Fog wrote:
Is this thread for real? C'mon honestly!

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
ROFL!!!

This is a really unpleasant exchange.

I concur.

Jules NYC wrote:

I can look at a woman and find her sexually attractive but not be sexually attracted to her.
Same with a man.

No you can't... in the moment you find him/her sexually attractive, your brain is calculating their attractiveness by all the modifiers your brain calculates its need to eat, sleep, find shelter, or breed.  If you find another person sexually attractive, in that moment, your brain wants to have sex with them.  Whether you internalize and act on that desire is a different story.

Like I said, some people can compartmentalize it, say "Ok, I've analyzed that person, figured out there are these criteria that make me want to have sex with them, but I don't want to have sex with them for the following reasons: x, y, z.  Now I can communicate their sexual attractiveness and not be aroused by them."  Some people can not do this.  It's a high level skill.

MartaBrixton wrote:
Tim Griffiths

I'm not going to reply to everything what you have written because others have already done it but let me just say that your mentality really disgust me. I'm so happy that majority of photographers don't share your opinion and don't think it's ok to ask for sex just because we take our clothes off or being sexy.

Oh goody, another creepy photographer thread combined with "the rape culture".

How do you handle it? Say no. If it becomes a problem then CAM.

I do think it is naive to think this wouldn't happen but I do not think it is part of a "rape culture" other than someone being human and getting turned on by a female form which is natural. It becomes a problem if force and manipulation are used. I don't see anyone advocating that is OK.

James Jackson Fashion wrote:

No you can't... in the moment you find him/her sexually attractive, your brain is calculating their attractiveness by all the modifiers your brain calculates its need to eat, sleep, find shelter, or breed.  If you find another person sexually attractive, in that moment, your brain wants to have sex with them.  Whether you internalize and act on that desire is a different story.

Like I said, some people can compartmentalize it, say "Ok, I've analyzed that person, figured out there are these criteria that make me want to have sex with them, but I don't want to have sex with them for the following reasons: x, y, z.  Now I can communicate their sexual attractiveness and not be aroused by them."  Some people can not do this.  It's a high level skill.

I disagree.

I am surrounded by beautiful, talented people all the time and I can see who has an 'it factor' but it may not be the factor for me.

Jules NYC wrote:
I disagree.

I am surrounded by beautiful, talented people all the time and I can see who has an 'it factor' but it may not be the factor for me.

Disagree all you want, but the human mind can not think in abstracts... that much has been scientifically proven.  If you find an "it" factor then you're finding it with the same thought process everyone else that finds that "it" factor uses to find it.

jesse paulk wrote:
so when are models getting their model only forum?

Why exactly do models need a model only forum again?

CHAD ALAN wrote:
Please edit your post. I didn't say this

Here's where it came from:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st18948444

Woops, sorry!

James Jackson Fashion wrote:

I don't want to start a spinning argument about ulterior motives, but no, you don't want your photographer to have sex furthest from his mind.  If he does, you won't look sexy, or attractive, or in any way enticing.  The mindset of the photographer is exactly what he's communicating... it's almost impossible to communicate something that you're not thinking... and while for many of us it can be an act, or something we do akin to acting where we imagine it, but don't internalize it, we're not gynecologists anesthetically analyzing your labia majora for bumps.

Who ever said that all photographs of women had to be "sexy, attractive, or in any way enticing"?

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:

Who ever said that all photographs of women had to be "sexy, attractive, or in any way enticing"?

Nobody has said that in the history of humankind.  Ever.  Especially on this thread.  I mean, look at lifestyle photos.  Can there be anything less sexy?

James Jackson Fashion wrote:

Disagree all you want, but the human mind can not think in abstracts... that much has been scientifically proven.  If you find an "it" factor then you're finding it with the same thought process everyone else that finds that "it" factor uses to find it.

Of course I will disagree; it is my own mind and I am in control of it.

James Jackson Fashion wrote:
by the way... "it factor" is just non-scientific shorthand for a pleasing ratio of measurements to the face and body

An 'It factor' is purely subjective.

Blaire_ wrote:
Nobody has said that in the history of humankind.  Ever.  Especially on this thread.  I mean, look at lifestyle photos.  Can there be anything less sexy?

Christie makes lifestyle images look sexy.

Jules NYC wrote:

I could shoot a woman nude and make her look smoking hot. I know what's sexy and I have a good aesthetic. I have no ulterior motives.

Why can't a man be such?

Because women fail to realize that men and women aren't wired the same way.

Jules NYC wrote:

An 'It factor' is purely subjective.

No it's not... if it was subjective then it couldn't be quantified and measured. Modern science is an amazing thing... science has pretty well categorized and analyzed what we always refer to as "it factor" and created reproducable reliable metrics that can tell objectively if a person will be seen as having that quality.

Danielle Reid wrote:

Because women fail to realize that men and women aren't wired the same way.

True but I believe an evolved person (men included) can see what beauty is without wanting to slay or objectify it.

Jules NYC wrote:

True but I believe an evolved person (men included) can see what beauty is without wanting to slay or objectify it.

Eh, I believe if a woman is purposely posing to be sexy then she is wanting to be objectified.

Danielle Reid wrote:
Eh, I believe if a woman is purposely posing to be sexy then she is wanting to be objectified.

If one wants to be sexy and to be looked at as such, that's one thing.
To create a beautiful image can be many things, sexy, beautiful, artful, etc.

A conservative image can be sexy and again it is subjective.

I don't think it is fair to say that women doing say glamour images are looking for the low-brow, spankbank reaction...

Unless you're Lil' Kim singing 'How Many Licks'.

It's all relative - circumstance/intent, etc.

Danielle Reid wrote:

Eh, I believe if a woman is purposely posing to be sexy then she is wanting to be objectified.

Do you believe there is a difference between being objectified in the finished result (for instance, a photograph) and being objectified in person by your coworkers?

Blaire_ wrote:
I have a very unpopular opinion on this.  I think for a sexy shot, it only helps if there is some sort of chemistry between photographer and model.  If I have the inclination, and I happen to get physically turned on during a shoot, all the better!  It makes it so much easier to be convincing with those bedroom eyes!

I have been offered sex during/after a shoot.  Did it offend me horribly?  No, it's flattering.  All I had to say was, 'thanks but no thanks.'  Was I in danger at any moment?  Not in the least.  Would I shoot with that photographer again?  Most definitely.

No need to be all uptight about this shit.

I'm not saying that everyone would be comfortable with what you stated, but it is refreshing to hear that it didn't change your outlook and you weren't weirded out by it.

Great chemistry doesn't have to be sexual in nature, but I think chemistry of any sort will help a shoot as long as the boundary lines of both parties are drawn at the same place in the sand.