|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
When, if ever, is modeling "immoral"?
I haven't made much of a secret that I'm a conservative Christian yet do nude classroom figure modeling. (It's right in my profile.) I'm curious what others' take on this question is: When, if ever, does (legal!) modeling become "immoral"? Jun 29 17 03:38 pm Link JT99 wrote: "Immoral" is in the eye of the beholder. You currently have 3 cock shots in your portfolio; oh, that is in the eye of this beholder. Others might agree. Many might think they are immoral. Jun 29 17 03:44 pm Link Nor-Cal Photography wrote: Part of why I'm asking, honestly. That wasn't the intent with those shots but that's certainly the way they've been taken. Might be better to delete them and wait till I have better photos to replace them with. Jun 29 17 03:51 pm Link It's not immoral. It's not immodest, either. Jun 29 17 04:17 pm Link Modeling becomes "immoral" when done for immoral purposes. Jun 29 17 04:32 pm Link Fotopia wrote: Go on... Jun 29 17 04:34 pm Link Yes, I'm curious about that as well. Some of my motivation has been to get over my extreme shyness and modesty - to force myself out of my comfort zone, and to feel more relaxed in my own skin. (Of course, I also enjoy working with artists and being creative.) That doesn't seem particularly immoral to me, but it's also not too far from "likes to have other people see them naked"...which I think would be. Guess the point is that the motivation matters as much as, if not more than, the activity. Jun 29 17 04:41 pm Link Dea and the Beast wrote: Like the time I modelled as a hipster jumping off a cliff and it forced dozens of them to follow suit? Jun 29 17 05:23 pm Link It's when you look like Quasimoto, have no photos to show, and insist on getting paid $150.00 per hour for modeling. Jun 29 17 05:32 pm Link If you strive for this: JT99 wrote: but default to this: JT99 wrote: you might find that the realization of your goals is somewhat stifled, in my opinion. Jun 29 17 05:42 pm Link JT99 wrote: How do you feel about Rubens' models? Jun 29 17 05:46 pm Link Vector One Photography wrote: It's almost like finding sasquatch. People would pay for that shit. Jun 29 17 05:47 pm Link I suppose that's true - trying to judge the morality of one's actions based on what others think, is folly. What one thinks is inexcusable, another calls art. For now I've restored the "offensive" photos. Though I'd still like to replace them due to the low quality, I won't worry about them - as my intentions were legitimate. That's assuming viewing my body doesn't make anyone go blind, of course  Jun 29 17 05:56 pm Link   JK of course.Jun 29 17 06:05 pm Link LOL, that's awesome Jun 29 17 06:15 pm Link JT, I agree with what you are doing. You are keeping an open mind. You are exposing yourself to new and different ideas and points of view. It would be so great if more folks who say they are "conservative" would be like you. Keep doing what you are doing because you are doing it right. As an member of the ASA and later the AANR for over 30 years, I new active Christians who were practicing nudists. The nudist life did not seem to be in conflict with their beliefs. They still went to church on Sunday and they still taught their children to do unto others. Jun 29 17 06:30 pm Link Some old dude got his ass so drunk that he passed out butt naked in a public place. That could only be the fault of the poor guy who stumbled across the naked drunk guy. So Noah cursed Ham. How is that for morality? Jun 29 17 06:49 pm Link It's strictly a matter of everyone's personal values. What I might think is immoral (drinking alcohol, smoking, using drugs are the major things which I consider to be immoral and have zero tolerance for) might not offend someone else, but that person could easily be offended by the fact that I choose to model naked. Many people unfortunately equate being naked with being sexual, while nothing could be further from the truth. You can be naked alone or with other people, you can model naked, and enjoy recreational activities or whatever, without being the least bit sexual. Frank's earlier comment about naturist/nudist people who attend church is a good point. Many times I have gone to church on a Sunday morning and spent the afternoon naked at a resort or at a nude beach. I see no conflict between the two. When I was quite pregnant and near my due date, I went directly from church to a nudist resort where it was photo day, and that afternoon at least a couple hundred people took my photo while I was pregnant and naked. I know people from several Christian denominations and some from the Jewish faith who model naked and have for many years. I'm sure there are members of just about every religious belief that think it's OK and have done it. So that tells me it's not inherently immoral. I will go so far as to say that while modelling you can even do sensual, erotic, and fetish type work which all have strong sexual themes or suggest sexual activity without being immoral. Yes, of course if you cross the line into pornography, that's going to be thought of as immoral by quite a few people, but not everyone feels that way about it. We were all born naked, and are the only living creatures which choose to wear clothes. That tells me that the clothing is not necessary for any reasons other than if we need to keep warm, or want to make some sort of fashion statement in what we choose to wear. I spend a lot of time at home naked, and over the years have spent hundreds of hours naked in art classrooms, photo studios, and other locations where photographers and artists choose to work with models. If I thought it was in any way immoral, I wouldn't have chosen to do it. Jun 29 17 09:05 pm Link You said you were a conservative Christian , so if you are baptist based ( the old Puritans) you already know the answer to that. It is considered immoral. If you are Roman Catholic the answer is slightly different ( and there is a huge quantity of nudity in religious art). Pope John Paul II said it was a question of modesty and immodesty. The pope went on to say that you could be nude, and be modest and you can be totally clothed and be immodest. A lot of this has to do with the intent of the artist and also the intent of the model. I am a Christian who has wrestled with this as a photographer. Of course you could always ask your pastor, or the elders of your church, or even your Christian friends. The truth is you probably won't like what they have to say on the topic. Best of luck navigating these waters. Jun 29 17 09:35 pm Link Thanks, all, for taking time to record your thoughts. Gave me something to mull over. Jun 30 17 10:27 am Link JT99 wrote: If you're Amish. Jun 30 17 11:38 am Link How do you justify being a Conservative Christian and nudity. What does the Bible say? Doesn't it say women and men should be modest. Oops... that's only for women so you're all good. Jun 30 17 12:05 pm Link SayCheeZ! wrote: Yes, because the Amish do not believe in having their pictures taken at all. However, I was at the Reading Terminal one day and a tourist type person asked a young Amish woman if she could take her picture. The young Amish woman agreed and the tourist woman snapped away. I asked the Amish woman why she consented since it is against her religion, and she said it would have been rude not permit her to take the picture. Jun 30 17 12:37 pm Link This is a really good and thought provoking question! "immorality" or "morality" to me, is beyond judgment toward self and others. For example, I will not pose for photos in which alcohol is involved, explicitly or implied. But I see many beautiful images, including commercial ones, where models are advertising it or it's used as a prop and I think the images are amazing and have absolutely no negative judgment about it at all. I do not judge other people's use of alcohol, it is a legal beverage that many adults enjoy safely and even some kinds have health benefits! I however, will not consume it or advertise it personally. That is a me limit and issue, not one I'd expect from others in the least, as I'd find that entirely unreasonable. So, even if we deem something as "immoral" for ourselves, doesn't mean we see others choices as immoral at all. At least, I hope not. Jun 30 17 01:16 pm Link Tony Lawrence wrote: I know that you are intentional being facetious, but the Bible does not prohibit nudity. Adam and Eve were both naked without sinning, and most prohibitions requiring modesty (don't expose yourself when you walk up to an altar, for example) were actually prohibitions of pagan practices. (Same thing on the oft-misunderstood "women will keep their hair long and heads covered" passage - that was because women worshipping pagan gods at the time would cut their hair short to indicate their devotion.). Song of Solomon and other sections, meanwhile, celebrate both the female and male bodies as good and complementary. Jun 30 17 01:42 pm Link We are well into Soapbox territory, so it goes. The Bible says we were created in God's image. I see the shame of Adam an Eve after being cast out of Eden as part of a one time punishment, not some eternal cross we must bear. How could there be shame? That would indicate that you are ashamed of God. Now, if you were to model (clothed or unclothed) for propaganda posters for an evil cause then that might be getting into a range of questionable morality. Still a huge gray area. Jul 01 17 12:11 pm Link Hunter GWPB wrote: Bwhahahahaha!!!!! Jul 01 17 12:29 pm Link JT99 wrote: I imagine there were not many ways to cure syphilis at the time of Bible's writing. Staying loyal is a practical advice about how to avoid spreading of STDs. Jul 01 17 04:51 pm Link JT99 wrote: Since you're a Christian, I'll apply the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you are modeling in such a way that you are treating others with the consideration that you would want them to treat you if the roles were reversed, then your modeling is moral. If not, then it's not. That's the only moral consideration I find relevant to modeling. Jul 01 17 05:41 pm Link Hunter GWPB wrote: I curse you Ham! CURSE CURSE! Jul 01 17 10:44 pm Link JT99 wrote: I think this is the scripture most applicable to your question. Jul 02 17 12:32 am Link Thats all folks... The OP is history ? Jul 02 17 02:57 am Link Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote: Maybe someone from his church saw this thread. Jul 02 17 03:47 am Link Time line: 6/29 3:38pm Posted question 6/29 3:51pm Removed two images 6/29 5:56pm Restored the images 6/30 1:42pm Last of several posts 7/02 2:57am OP is gone I have no comment. Jul 02 17 06:44 am Link Mark Salo wrote: Do you think it was something we said? Jul 02 17 06:56 am Link Ditto! Jul 02 17 08:11 am Link He comes and goes. It wasn't this thread he is concerned about, I bet. Jul 02 17 08:14 am Link Fotopia wrote: My first thought is similar, for example the models used in propaganda posters for the third Reich etc. If you can't convince yourself that it's only a job and you're only following orders the line is crossed. As Shakespeare put it, "Every subject's duty is the king's; but every subject's soul is his own." Jul 02 17 11:04 am Link I guess as a conservative Christian he was able to answer his question. Jul 02 17 10:51 pm Link Yes. When this happens https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immoral Jul 03 17 01:33 am Link |
