Fear the Vagina?

[lens pirate]

I have noticed that over in the G&N forum the rule is " No close ups of genitals".

Yet posters go out of the way to make sure ZERO vagina is seen at all. I was wondering why?

Is it because they are not attractive in pictures? Does showing them take away from the art? I have seen some pretty awkward poses and contrived situations to avoid showing the models Vagina, IMHO detracting from the picture.

Or is it because the models themselves object to it? Seems to be a bit of false modesty to me but then again I don't pose naked so I can not say. Not that I would not be willing its just that I am old fat and male. Not in high demand.

Yes there is a bit of room for humor in this post but I mean it as a serious question. I ask because I have found a nice model with a very free spirit and a willingness to pose totally nude. I want to take full advantage of this and my only venue for sharing and critique will be the G@N forum. I have no desire to break or bend rules.

Can this path lead anywhere but to porn? I think so! I have a hero and web acquaintance named Oleg Volk that has done some graphic and shocking work.

I would really like to explore some of his ideas.

Thoughts?

[charlesu]

Art is in the eye of the beholder. Well most of the time. I have seen photos that some people called art that I thought were absolute crap. And I am fairly open minded (I think).

I think that most people don't really want to look at genitals (at least in too great a detail) when viewing fine-art. Porn is, apparently, another matter entirely. But I wouldn't really know.

[mattograph]

I would suggest that you fulfill your vision, and make your pictures. Send them to a mod for review -- I think Mark C does a this for folks.

Anyhoo -- in a nutshell, they'll let you know. Hopefully, we'll all get to enjoy!

[HSK]

Personally, I feel it should be there, instead of constricting or doing overly awkward poses. after all it is the human form. as long as its in context, and taste (something artistic, not something that could be considered pornographic in nature).

then again, what is pornographic? everyone would see things differently, and accept more, or less.

[arizona85224]

Hard to say really, follow their advise. Not against Virginia at all, but I know what it looks like, sort of don't need to see it spread all over the place here. Good luck

[hard12find]

I have seen some tastefully done nudes with vagina shown, here in G&N. I don't see the need for "porn style" spread.
JB

[weka2000]

I think POTN take a causious aproach. Remember anyone can see posts.
There nothing wrong with the human figue, but its how it is posed weither it is art or porn.

I browse Deivant art and I raise my eyebrows at what gets posted there at times.

[woodsters]

There's a difference of the a close up of the genitalia and a full nude with the genitalia showing. But there is also a difference in a full nude with genitalia showing and one with genitalia showing but hands or other objects acting in a sexual manner. Although any of these can be considered art (in the eye of the beholder), I think that there's a line they don't want crossed and for it to become a breeding ground for porn that is covered as art. By all means, tkae the pics, place them in your portfolio online and place the link in your signature. I'll go look. :)

[Mark_Cohran]

There are no rules against appropriately showing the genitals as part of a nude image. Some could make the argument that even close up shots of genitalia can be artistic, and indeed they can, but that's simply not allowed in this particular forum since it's a slippery slope that can lead to other less subtle images and arguments about why one was allowed and another was not.

There's no need to fear showing a full nude (genitalia and all) if done with taste and care.

[stathunter]

There's no need to fear showing a full nude (genitalia and all) if done with taste and care.

Well then. I will post photos of my genitalia and I am sure that everyone will understand why they should be kept off the forum.

[weka2000]

Well then. I will post photos of my genitalia and I am sure that everyone will understand why they should be kept off the forum.


Why not I did :lol:

[FeXL]

Funny you ask...

I attended a photography seminar in Florida back in September. One of the instructors was a female who has a successful seniors & glamour business.

At one point in her PP presentation she mentioned that she didn't have any slides with "naughty bits" showing.

Not completely understanding her I asked the question. Now I can, on occasion, be called a sh!t disturber but my question was legit. What did she mean by naughty bits?

As a professional among mostly professionals she could not even bring herself to say "breasts" & "vagina". Couldn't believe it. Her response? "The kind of things you'd see in Playboy." :eek:

I then asked a female attendee to my left if the whole "land of the free" (I'm Canadian) was this uptight. She responded that, sadly, many were.

Classy & tasteful nudity is what I strive for in our work. In a nude shoot a vagina is like a hand, a knee or an ear: nothing more, nothing less. If the composition works with the model's vagina showing then it's a fait accompli. At the same time, I've never seen the need to take a full frame image of an ear, either.

The kicker is subjectivity. One man's nudity may be another man's porn. Or, vice-versa.

[woodsters]

amen fexl...just think..those who have foot fetishes aget really angry when we cut off the feet in a picture...hehe

[Ross McT.]

amen fexl...just think..those who have foot fetishes aget really angry when we cut off the feet in a picture...hehe

HAHA

I agree it's just another body part.
I how ever disagree if its the only focus of an image.

I went to a photo exposition that had a clearly aroused males anatomy casting a shadow on a wall and his profile shown as the focus.
That is a little more questionable in my opinion than a females delicate curves slightly showing.

My 2cents (Canadian)

[woodsters]

HAHA

I agree it's just another body part.
I how ever disagree if its the only focus of an image.

I went to a photo exposition that had a clearly aroused males anatomy casting a shadow on a wall and his profile shown as the focus.
That is a little more questionable in my opinion than a females delicate curves slightly showing.

My 2cents (Canadian)

I guess it still could be art..maybe to some women and some gay men...or maybe it would be more "soft" porn to them...lol

[weka2000]

How to make a young man blush.......stick him in a room of breast feeding mothers :lol:

Happened to a workmate of mine.

Yet this is a normal thing.

[mattograph]

How to make a young man blush.......stick him in a room of breast feeding mothers :lol:

Happened to a workmate of mine.

Yet this is a normal thing.

It only gets weird if the young man is hungry.


:shock:

[lens pirate]

It only gets weird if the young man is hungry.


:shock:

Its not that bad...tastes like chickenbw!

[mattograph]

Hooter's Chicken?

[Collin85]

More like Peking fried duck. Mmm..

[derky82]

I LOVE duck!

LOL speaking of that "slippery slope", can someone throw us a rope?

[12mnkys]

rope has been thrown....time to reel you boys back in! :D :D :D

[woodsters]

How to make a young man blush.......stick him in a room of breast feeding mothers :lol:

Happened to a workmate of mine.

Yet this is a normal thing.


Been there, but it was only one mom...never have and never will forget it...

[12mnkys]

i don't know about that...I guess I am just used to it....My wife breast-fed both y daughter and my son. I am so used to it now that it dosen't even phase me. My very best buddies wife is breast feeding their daughter and I think she feels more embarrassed than myself. See I was lucky...my wife wasn't afraid to plop down wherever and start feeding. It is just one of those things... :D

[bbulldog]

I think this makes the members of POTN in a class of thier own. Other boards i am a member of have pictures with full genital shots and most i think are just untastefull. We dont want a porno site but a site to look and learn


well thats my opinion

[woodsters]

bbulldog...can you give us a list of those other websites? lol

[lowrider]

I think this makes the members of POTN in a class of thier own. Other boards i am a member of have pictures with full genital shots and most i think are just untastefull. We dont want a porno site but a site to look and learn


well thats my opinion

I'll probably get a lot of heat from this, but I can't yet post in Glamour and Nude, however IMHO, the thread below, to me, is crap and not tasteful at all. Maybe I am a prude, but I don't think so, but for the life of me I see no redeeming value here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=590958

Lou

[andrew748]

I'll probably get a lot of heat from this, but I can't yet post in Glamour and Nude, however IMHO, the thread below, to me, is crap and not tasteful at all. Maybe I am a prude, but I don't think so, but for the life of me I see no redeeming value here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=590958

Lou

i like it, it has a last tango in paris feel to it.

i cant wait for the butter shot :p

[droberts]

There's a difference in a vagina in a natural pose being visible, as opposed to legs or ass in the air and a shot of a grinning monkey.
Usually you don't see the "naughty bits" in a natural pose. You may see the very top of the labia, or the "happy trail".

[derky82]

I'll probably get a lot of heat from this, but I can't yet post in Glamour and Nude, however IMHO, the thread below, to me, is crap and not tasteful at all. Maybe I am a prude, but I don't think so, but for the life of me I see no redeeming value here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=590958

Lou

This MIGHT not be the "constructve criticism" they tend to favor when granting access to the G&N forum. I'm also not a professional... but I'm not sure a nipple is considered a genital organ.

It may not be a flawless shot, but I don't think it's "irredeemable crap."

Just my $0.02

- Derek

[Mark_Cohran]

I'll probably get a lot of heat from this, but I can't yet post in Glamour and Nude, however IMHO, the thread below, to me, is crap and not tasteful at all. Maybe I am a prude, but I don't think so, but for the life of me I see no redeeming value here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=590958

Lou

So rather than label the image as crap with no redeeming value, which adds nothing to the conversation, why not tell us how you would improve on the image, which is really the point of a photography forum (besides being off topic for this thread).

The point of the G&N Talk forum is to discuss techniques, poses and methods that can apply to G&N photography, not to critique images in the G&N forum. That's reserved for the members who have shown the maturity and social skills to interact in that environment. To that end, the original topic is germane, but not critiques of images posted in the G&N forum.

[SlowBlink]

I'll probably get a lot of heat from this, but I can't yet post in Glamour and Nude, however IMHO, the thread below, to me, is crap and not tasteful at all. Maybe I am a prude, but I don't think so, but for the life of me I see no redeeming value here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=590958

Lou

I don't see anything distasteful about it. I think the lighting could be better but it looks like a tricky shot to get right. It does have a 9 1/2 weeks feel to it but the first thing I thought about it when I saw it was 'reaction'. Perception is a big part of it.

[weka2000]

I'll probably get a lot of heat from this, but I can't yet post in Glamour and Nude, however IMHO, the thread below, to me, is crap and not tasteful at all. Maybe I am a prude, but I don't think so, but for the life of me I see no redeeming value here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=590958

Lou


How do you know the above post is not the result of a lot of work. We all have had to start somewhere.

It may have taken him months to convice the model to pose and allow to post.
He may have only had a camera for 1 week.

Looking foward to seeing your work when you hit 500 posts.

[lowrider]

I knew I'd be taking heat for this, but again, IMHO, the subject matter is just not tasteful, and not tastefully done. I should not have used the word "crap". I apologize for that.

IMHO, the female human body is a beautiful thing, and should be portrayed as such. Most of what I see in Glamour and Nudes is exactly that. This shot uses the human nipple as an object in which to let an ice cube drip. I'm sorry, but I'm a guy and want no ice cube next to my nipple. Maybe I'm stupid, maybe I don't understand art, but the whole idea about the shot is repugnant to me.

Lou

[weka2000]

Lou dont sweat the small stuff. Theres heaps of stuff thats gets posted all the time that I dont either understand or like ............. but thats art.

Any way back to vaginas ............... why are they all posted shaved?

[Mark_Cohran]

I knew I'd be taking heat for this, but again, IMHO, the subject matter is just not tasteful, and not tastefully done. I should not have used the word "crap". I apologize for that.

IMHO, the female human body is a beautiful thing, and should be portrayed as such. Most of what I see in Glamour and Nudes is exactly that. This shot uses the human nipple as an object in which to let an ice cube drip. I'm sorry, but I'm a guy and want no ice cube next to my nipple. Maybe I'm stupid, maybe I don't understand art, but the whole idea about the shot is repugnant to me.

Lou

Once again, this is not the place to be critiquing images in the G&N forum. 2nd and last warning.

[SlowBlink]

Any way back to vaginas ............... why are they all posted shaved?

That's a good question, and are they more difficult to shoot sans fun fur?
I remember some really good landscape style images from the 70's with close trimmed body hair that wouldn't have had the same texture with a brazilian.

I think it would be harder to compose certain shots with the hairless variety.

[mattograph]

And, I say this with all seriousness....

Post processing razor burn is a bitch.

[Collin85]

Post processing razor burn is a bitch.

YES. :lol:

[weka2000]

Yes I always wondered how the photos came out so silky smooth.
Be a lot of healing tool and cloning I guess

[mattograph]

Yes I always wondered how the photos came out so silky smooth.
Be a lot of healing tool and cloning I guess

Never has the "healing" tool been so appropriately named!

[weka2000]

Never has the "healing" tool been so appropriately named!

LOL :lol:

[Flo]

Hard to say really, follow their advise. Not against Virginia at all, but I know what it looks like, sort of don't need to see it spread all over the place here. Good luck
This had me laughing outloud.:lol: Hilarious.

[400dabuser]

I have noticed that over in the G&N forum the rule is " No close ups of genitals".

Yet posters go out of the way to make sure ZERO vagina is seen at all. I was wondering why?

Is it because they are not attractive in pictures? Does showing them take away from the art? I have seen some pretty awkward poses and contrived situations to avoid showing the models Vagina, IMHO detracting from the picture.

Or is it because the models themselves object to it? Seems to be a bit of false modesty to me but then again I don't pose naked so I can not say. Not that I would not be willing its just that I am old fat and male. Not in high demand.

Yes there is a bit of room for humor in this post but I mean it as a serious question. I ask because I have found a nice model with a very free spirit and a willingness to pose totally nude. I want to take full advantage of this and my only venue for sharing and critique will be the G@N forum. I have no desire to break or bend rules.

Can this path lead anywhere but to porn? I think so! I have a hero and web acquaintance named Oleg Volk that has done some graphic and shocking work.

I would really like to explore some of his ideas.

Thoughts?


It is not that, art doesn't really focus on the genitalia, because that would really be regarded as porn, rather it focuses on the human body as an art form

[Flo]

Lorek had an amazing artistic photo of the genitals of the female.he did post, but it was warranted the "slippery slope" title. it was an interesting form to say the least,I didn't find it remotely offensive, as opposed to some of what I see in G&N .

[weka2000]

Hmetal ( I think thats his POTN name) got a LOT of flack over 1 he did as well.

[Flo]

I don;t think Lorek got flack, but the photo did come down..he has it on his site now. Amazing portfolio.

[weka2000]

Its all how it is presented. Compare Playboy with Penthouse.

[mattograph]

I don;t think Lorek got flack, but the photo did come down..he has it on his site now. Amazing portfolio.

It is indeed. Quite a talented photographer.

Its all how it is presented. Compare Playboy with Penthouse.

Playboy's articles are longer?

[Flo]

It is indeed. Quite a talented photographer.



Playboy's articles are longer?

LOL.you read?:p

[weka2000]

Playboy's articles are longer?

Playboy dont go for the spread leg approach ...... what articles :rolleyes:

[Flo]

In both the female and male nudes.I suppose I am old fashioned, but I like not seeing everything , the mind is a fertile place, and imagining is sometimes better than reality.

For Art's sake.fabulous..for gratuitous photos.not for me.

[400dabuser]

Lorek had an amazing artistic photo of the genitals of the female.he did post, but it was warranted the "slippery slope" title. it was an interesting form to say the least,I didn't find it remotely offensive, as opposed to some of what I see in G&N .


I haven't seen any genitalia in G&N, thought that was case for glamour and nudity, not to focus solely on the genitals

[mattograph]

LOL.you read?:p

Yes, but only porn.

[Flo]

I haven't seen any genitalia in G&N, thought that was case for glamour and nudity, not to focus solely on the genitals

Look further perhaps;)

[WillMass]

Hard to say really, follow their advise. Not against Virginia at all, but I know what it looks like, sort of don't need to see it spread all over the place here. Good luck

Virginia??

Now that's funny coming from Arizona!:lol::lol::lol:

[tkfoto]

Any way back to vaginas ............... why are they all posted shaved?

Dunno where you've been...I've seen a lot of shaved pubes...but I don't think I've ever seen a shaved vagina. The very thought scares me.

And if it doesn't scare you...you need an anatomy lesson. :p

[PlayersZ28]

I think if everything is in plain sight then it leaves nothing to the imagination and the viewers interpretation of the "art" is taken away. Go too far and it becomes porn where nothing is left to the imagination. I don't mind a hint of vagina in the pics but if I want "open" shots I'll go to a porn site, not POTN. There have been a few (freddycr posted one recently) where vagina is visible but doesn't overwhelm the intent of the photo.

[PlayersZ28]

Dunno where you've been...I've seen a lot of shaved pubes...but I don't think I've ever seen a shaved vagina. The very thought scares me.

And if it doesn't scare you...you need an anatomy lesson. :p

Are you referring to a shaved mons or a completely shaved nether region?

[Roy Mathers]

I don't think it matters whether tkfoto means, I would have thought that it was impossible to shave a vagina. If anybody thinks otherwise, perhaps as tkfoto says, they need an anatomy lesson.

[PlayersZ28]

I thought he was being more generic in his reference as I expect weka2000 was also, my mistake. Obviously you can't shave flesh.

[tkfoto]

OK, I guess the anatomy lesson is needed.

Vaginas are internal. It's like saying you saw a shaved esophagus.

[JimmyJam]

While we're on the subject, kind of , I have a question about the use of the so-called "hand bra". I may be in the minority, but I think it's a rather silly convention. If you want the breast to appear, then shoot it - if you don't want it to appear, then hide it. But shooting with a hand over the breast seems counter-productive. The curves are generally hidden, the hand is an awkward replacement, and overall it just seems ridiculous.

I'd much rather see an article of clothing or lingerie, or even a piece of fabric draped over the 'offending' flesh, over a model's hand.

Am I missing something? What are the professional's thoughts? Is the use of the hand-bra something the MODEL usually requests? or the photographer?

[advaitin]

You only need take a trip through some of the European museums to see that vaginas do not detract from art, There is a rather nice painting in the D'Orsay in Paris, I think it is called "the source" but my memory ain't what it was. In any event, the vagina is the central object.

[RandyMN]

Art is POTN's primary intent, and idea's of glamour and art change through different cultures and history.

I think it is acceptable art in today's society to focus on form and beauty and most of the time this does not need to concentrate on hiding certain parts of the female anatomy.

In my opinion, showing certain poses or angles that reflect sexual positions becomes the point where art becomes lost in porn.

Other things are also unacceptable within the POTN crowd, that is that glamour concentrates on female only, and I hope we never start accepting male genetalia so we can debate art verses porn there...

[Mark_Cohran]

I'd much rather see an article of clothing or lingerie, or even a piece of fabric draped over the 'offending' flesh, over a model's hand.

Is the use of the hand-bra something the MODEL usually requests? or the photographer?


The hand bra seems to be a contrivance to me as well. The same effect (hiding the nipple) can be easily achieved with a more natural effect by a well placed arm or with a item of clothing, a prop, or part of the scene. I've had models do the hand bra pose as part of their normal posing repertoire, but I don't think I've ever used the images for anything.

Art is POTN's primary intent, and idea's of glamour and art change through different cultures and history.

...I hope we never start accepting male genetalia so we can debate art verses porn there...

Male genitalia is acceptable in G&N and there have been a few examples of those images from time to time, though the female form is certainly the predominate theme in the G&N forum.

I really don't understand your last comment, though. The male form is no more pornographic as art than the female form and the male body has been depicted nude in art throughout history.

[nuffi]

It is not that, art doesn't really focus on the genitalia, because that would really be regarded as porn, rather it focuses on the human body as an art form

I disagree vehemently. There have been some amazing and artistic photos over the history of photography that focus entirely on genitalia as an art form.

Typically these images have stirred up the same storm that has begun here, but there are many artists who believe that genitalia (both male & female) is beautiful in its own right.

I'd really like it if POTN would give a little wiggle room in this policy because I often feel that the methods poeple usually use to 'protect modesty' in nudes are graceless and contrived, and serve to ruin otherwise lovely photos.

Also, I am sure that in future I am going to want C & C of images I take that may contravene this rule. I'd be very keen to support a move where forum members were allowed to link to such images after appropriate warnings (with perhaps a hazard image!) was put in front of the link.

Having said that, I do want to point out that I fully support the POTN folk. I am here by their good graces and very happy to toe whatever line they choose to draw. This place is awesome and that is down to them.

[Luminarex]

What if somebody posts photos of animal pickles and tacos? Is that objectionable or can that be considered art?

I'd like to put out a book titled: "Vagina" and show the vaginas of creatures from all over the world, including the human vagina only as one among many. Maybe it would be a hit and people would finally stop making such a big ordeal out of skin. Doubt it though.

[If you like that idea and want to do it, feel free to steal it. I don't mind, got other things I'm working on.]

[Luminarex]

"Art" is just a word. When we create something we call it art. It's not art, it's just crap we create. People take themselves and their creations way too seriously. Do we consider a Spider Web a "work of art"? Let's see a human being draw a perfect circle freehand with the intricacy of a spider's web.

"Art" is just another label we've created to make ourselves feel superior to the other animals roaming this rock.

[stevo8]

"Art" is just a word. When we create something we call it art. It's not art, it's just crap we create. People take themselves and their creations way too seriously. Do we consider a Spider Web a "work of art"? Let's see a human being draw a perfect circle freehand with the intricacy of a spider's web.

"Art" is just another label we've created to make ourselves feel superior to the other animals roaming this rock.


For the most part I agree, but I think that art is a bit more then a label. Or at least it can be. A spider makes its web for a purpose and is a byproduct for almost every type of spider. I see art(with photography) as something that not everyone can do. Sure anyone can pick up a camera and capture a moment, but it takes a lot more then that to create something appealing with it. I think anytime someone has to dedicate themselves to something in order to get results, those results are an art form.

[lens pirate]

I think anytime someone has to dedicate themselves to something in order to get results, those results are an art form.

Oh yeah? Explain rap music then. :)

[lowrider]

What if somebody posts photos of animal pickles and tacos? Is that objectionable or can that be considered art?


No more Pickles and Mexican Food for me:mrgreen: Where did you get that simile:??? First time I've ever heard it:o

Lou

[form]

You may be able to separate genitalia from pornography, but I don't think you can separate genitalia from sexuality. It's both implicit and explicit, and every human being has the natural instinct to procreate, so every one of us gives, without our control, an added type of significance to male and female private parts than just as a bit of "differently shaped" skin.

Sure, you can take artistic photos showing or even highlighting genitals, but the viewer is going to make a subconscious sexual association, no matter how we look at it. And, the photographer who takes such photos will clearly be eccentric and/or at least partially sexually motivated.

[stevo8]

Oh yeah? Explain rap music then. :)

that's not art IMO. That's entertainment. Now some rappers are artist, the guys that can free style really well are artists IMO.

[Luminarex]

For the most part I agree, but I think that art is a bit more then a label. Or at least it can be. A spider makes its web for a purpose and is a byproduct for almost every type of spider. I see art(with photography) as something that not everyone can do. Sure anyone can pick up a camera and capture a moment, but it takes a lot more then that to create something appealing with it. I think anytime someone has to dedicate themselves to something in order to get results, those results are an art form.

You should read the "Art" post that I put on my blog yesterday. It's a word referring to creations that we consider meaningful in some way or another. Nothing is meaningful aside from this moment. Art can never point people toward what is meaningful in life because art is always of the past and life is always in the spontaneous fleeting moment.

I hate that word. It's been defiled by the Starbucks type and the hordes of talentless using its name to justify their perversions (kinda like the word "God"). Do you consider that bondage bull**** "art"? Honestly? Can't seem to find a German Fine Arts photographer who doesn't wanna put a gas mask on a naked woman and chain her to a wall heater.

[Luminarex]

No more Pickles and Mexican Food for me:mrgreen: Where did you get that simile:??? First time I've ever heard it:o

Lou

Ummm, took pickle from the phrase "pickle tickle" and taco I picked up somewhere along the way and put them together. I believe I'm the first to put the two together, but with 6 Billion people walking the earth it's difficult to be certain.

[stevo8]

You should read the "Art" post that I put on my blog yesterday. It's a word referring to creations that we consider meaningful in some way or another. Nothing is meaningful aside from this moment. Art can never point people toward what is meaningful in life because art is always of the past and life is always in the spontaneous fleeting moment.

I hate that word. It's been defiled by the Starbucks type and the hordes of talentless using its name to justify their perversions (kinda like the word "God"). Do you consider that bondage bull**** "art"? Honestly? Can't seem to find a German Fine Arts photographer who doesn't wanna put a gas mask on a naked woman and chain her to a wall heater.

LOL no I don't consider that art. Nicely worded example btw.

[Luminarex]

Yeah, I'm gonna back off this conversation because what I'm saying is leading the threat away from the topic (vagina shots).

My personal view on vagina shots is that it's a body part. If we can photograph hands and feet and breasts, lips and ears and eyes and other body parts . . . why not the vagina and penis as well? It's just skin to me. The problem is that some people online (ok, a lot of people online) can be really immature and as somebody else mentioned it is a slippery slope. What starts off as innocent shots of the vagina or penis could quickly evolve into porn (shots intended to turn people on).

[tkfoto]

I highly doubt there's even 1 picture on this site that shows vagina. I'll be downright surprised.

[AxxisPhoto]

There are no rules against appropriately showing the genitals as part of a nude image. Some could make the argument that even close up shots of genitalia can be artistic, and indeed they can, but that's simply not allowed in this particular forum since it's a slippery slope that can lead to other less subtle images and arguments about why one was allowed and another was not.

There's no need to fear showing a full nude (genitalia and all) if done with taste and care.

Could not say it better myself!

[Longwatcher]

I highly doubt there's even 1 picture on this site that shows vagina. I'll be downright surprised.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=317181&highlight=longwatcher%2C+nude
Closest I get that is one this site.

[Old Fart]

I'm getting forgetful in my old age, but I seem to recall someone (Frank Doorhof ?? ) once posting an image that was removed that was nothing but.....

It caused quiet a stir due it's almost perfect lighting and depiction as to whether it belonged on POTN.

[tkfoto]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=317181&highlight=longwatcher%2C+nude
Closest I get that is one this site.

Not even remotely close.

Before you click on the following in an inappropriate location, note that it does show quite a bit of nudity.

But not even Freddy's work (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=619764) is showing vag.

(Yes, I'm being a bit of a technical prig, but I feel for a valid reason.)

[dashotgun]

technically it is the introitus or the labia if( inner, outer)

[britco]

i take nude pictures of the wife but nothing graphic just nudes

[lowrider]

technically it is the introitus or the labia if( inner, outer)

Never heard of the introitus before:rolleyes: Looked it up in Wikipedia for a definition. Their definition:

Introitus is another name for the vaginal orifice.

Looks like a vagina to me. IOW - If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck - it must be a duck:o

Lou

[dashotgun]

Never heard of the introitus before:rolleyes: Looked it up in Wikipedia for a definition. Their definition:

Introitus is another name for the vaginal orifice.

Looks like a vagina to me. IOW - If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck - it must be a duck:o

Lou there is a difference as I said if your are viewing a gynocologic interpretation then it is the introitus and some other bits your are seeing mostly in artistic photos we see the labia and at that mostly the labia majora Sorry I am a physcian in my spare time and thought we should be more precise.take a look at freddy's wrok ,mentioned in the post above it is a mixed bag in that photo a little of both :p

[hawk911]

Not even remotely close.

Before you click on the following in an inappropriate location, note that it does show quite a bit of nudity.

But not even Freddy's work (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=619764) is showing vag.

(Yes, I'm being a bit of a technical prig, but I feel for a valid reason.)

I can't see Freddy's images from work, but he has recently posted a more unobstructed view of the V. Tastefully done and not "in your face" so to speak.

[dashotgun]

tasteful yes but that is the vulva not the vagina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina

[stathunter]

tasteful yes but that is the vulva not the vagina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina

tasteful and vulva in the same sentence........... you guys are treading on the edge.

[dashotgun]

:oops: well it is all how you "look at it"

[forsakenme720]

I don't know if it's been said yet. I didn't read all seven pages, but I think art becomes porn when things start getting... spread open. Lol, seriously though.

[EmmaRose]

I have a vagina and whenever I see pictures showing too much, I just find them ugly. I think they should be hidden, they're not the prettiest things in the world :p

[tkfoto]

Well, the reason I was "getting technical" about it is something like this...

Yes, it is common to refer to just about any visible female genitalia as "vag" even if it isn't technically correct. A vagina is an entirely internal structure that you can't see/show without making some sincere effort at it. It's equivalent to looking at someone's face and suggesting you can see esophagus. To actually see esophagus, you have to pretty much get close and have 'em open up and say "aaaahhh"....which is substantially similar to what you have to do in order to actually see a vagina.

So...while I would agree that the overwhelming majority of shots that truly show actual "vagina" are in fact pornographic (because by necessity you pretty much need to have the externals spread apart and have strange/closeup camera and lighting angles to actually see inside...similarly the overwhelming majority of pictures where people SAY you can see "vag"...really aren't showing vag (just labia) and (usually) aren't pornographic. Even if you don't like to look at it. :P

[forsakenme720]

This conversation is getting scary... haha. And I would say that yes, they can be ugly, but they can also be pretty, lol.

[lowrider]

I have a vagina and whenever I see pictures showing too much, I just find them ugly. I think they should be hidden, they're not the prettiest things in the world :p

Ah, that's the point. To YOU they aren't the prettiest things in the world, the other half of the population, of which I find myself, may hold an entirely different opinion.

Well, the reason I was "getting technical" about it is something like this...

Yes, it is common to refer to just about any visible female genitalia as "vag" even if it isn't technically correct. A vagina is an entirely internal structure that you can't see/show without making some sincere effort at it. It's equivalent to looking at someone's face and suggesting you can see esophagus. To actually see esophagus, you have to pretty much get close and have 'em open up and say "aaaahhh"....which is substantially similar to what you have to do in order to actually see a vagina.

So...while I would agree that the overwhelming majority of shots that truly show actual "vagina" are in fact pornographic (because by necessity you pretty much need to have the externals spread apart and have strange/closeup camera and lighting angles to actually see inside...similarly the overwhelming majority of pictures where people SAY you can see "vag"...really aren't showing vag (just labia) and (usually) aren't pornographic. Even if you don't like to look at it. :P

What must be spread on a man? Or, is the criteria different? Your views please, I find them fascinating.

Lou

[dashotgun]

this is why the supreme court found it hard to define pornography one person's art is another's porno. Even people in the sex act can be photographed in such a way it does not appeal to your"prurient interest" I once saw a CT Scan of people who in the name of science had sex while the machine scanned them. Was it science art porno or just a tight fit in the machine. I don't know

[forsakenme720]

this is why the supreme court found it hard to define pornography one person's art is another's porno. Even people in the sex act can be photographed in such a way it does not appeal to your"prurient interest" I once saw a CT Scan of people who in the name of science had sex while the machine scanned them. Was it science art porno or just a tight fit in the machine. I don't know

For the first part, I would say that, honestly, there is a fine line, just like with anything else. It's up to each person's subjective viewpoint.

For the second part of your post, I would say that it's sex addicts looking for an excuse to "get it on." haha :)

[MDJAK]

One of our most prolific posters, Freddie, has most recently shown full female genetalia, and it was most tastefully done as are all his shots.

There's a fine line between fine-art nude and porn. I've never really seen anything distasteful on the G&N forum.

me

[tkfoto]

Ah, that's the point. To YOU they aren't the prettiest things in the world, the other half of the population, of which I find myself, may hold an entirely different opinion.



What must be spread on a man? Or, is the criteria different? Your views please, I find them fascinating.

Lou

a: I said spreading was necessary to show vagina.
b: I said that when you do that (a:) , it's very difficult for it not to be porn.
c: I said that I have seen neither an actual vagina (as opposed to vulva) here, and I haven't seen porn here. I never said they were equivalent.

[forsakenme720]

Can we please kill this thread! Lol. It's gonna kill sex for me forever :confused:

[lowrider]

a: I said spreading was necessary to show vagina.
b: I said that when you do that (a:) , it's very difficult for it not to be porn.
c: I said that I have seen neither an actual vagina (as opposed to vulva) here, and I haven't seen porn here. I never said they were equivalent.

What must be spread on a man? Or, is the criteria different? Your views please, I find them fascinating.

Lou



You misread my question. I wanted your criteria for a man (male human species) of what was porn, in your view.

Lou

[notmydog]

a: I said spreading was necessary to show vagina.
b: I said that when you do that (a:) , it's very difficult for it not to be porn.
c: I said that I have seen neither an actual vagina (as opposed to vulva) here, and I haven't seen porn here. I never said they were equivalent.

I think you're splitting hairs here (pun half-intended). It really doesn't matter whether it's the vulva or the vagina, they are both part of the female external genitalia and that's what gets people into a flap.

[tkfoto]

Legally, pornography has less to do with WHAT is shown than HOW it is shown.

You can have complete nudity without porn, and you can have porn without any nudity.

[lens pirate]

I think you're splitting hairs here (pun half-intended). It really doesn't matter whether it's the vulva or the vagina, they are both part of the female external genitalia and that's what gets people into a flap.


LOL...was that on purpose... I love forplay. oops I mean word play.

[notmydog]

LOL...was that on purpose... I love forplay. oops I mean word play.


slip of the tongue..... :rolleyes:

[Mark_Cohran]

LOL...was that on purpose... I love forplay. oops I mean word play.


slip of the tongue.....


Hmmmm, perhaps it would be best to get back on topic, gents?

[notmydog]

Hmmmm, perhaps it would be best to get back on topic, gents?

Sorry, I thought this topic had been beaten to death 3 pages ago.

However, message understood.

[forsakenme720]

Sorry, I thought this topic had been beaten to death 3 pages ago.

However, message understood.

Exactly! Now kill this thread or I'm gonna start posting random stuff in here!

Grrr....

[kriddy]

As a vagina owner I have to say that I don't know why people are uncomfortable with looking at them. I have some shots of myself that I would love to post for your c & c but even my own boyfriend is uncofortable with it, even though you can't see my face... It's just a vag....

[lens pirate]

As a vagina owner I have to say that I don't know why people are uncomfortable with looking at them. I have some shots of myself that I would love to post for your c & c but even my own boyfriend is uncofortable with it, even though you can't see my face... It's just a vag....`

Well I for one think they are delightful.

[derky82]

As a vagina owner I have to say that I don't know why people are uncomfortable with looking at them. I have some shots of myself that I would love to post for your c & c but even my own boyfriend is uncofortable with it, even though you can't see my face... It's just a vag....

See... thats an unfortuante example of what society has done to us! It's taken our beautiful, natural bodies and made them something dirty and shameful! You are obviously proud of the body you've been given, but your boyfriend (who I'm ASSUMING has seen a fair portion of your body) is uncomfortable with you documenting it as an artistic work.

Sad indeed.

- Derek

[mattograph]

As a vagina owner I have to say that I don't know why people are uncomfortable with looking at them. I have some shots of myself that I would love to post for your c & c but even my own boyfriend is uncofortable with it, even though you can't see my face... It's just a vag....


An interesting viewpoint. I see what you are saying, but I think the reality is that the appeal of the vagina (and the penis) is what they represent. If you took either at face value, like any other body part, they would have very little to offer visually. A picture of genitalia is usually one of three things: documentary (medical text), art, or a ham fisted attempt at the first two. When its art, the sexuality/sensuality is VERY rarely separated from the image, unless its comedy. Saying "its just a vag" is kinda like saying "its just an elbow."

I guess what I am saying is that a picture of a vagina is either going to stimulate us sexually, or make us laugh. Most other photographic subjects offer us access to a much broader range of emotions.

[lowrider]

dirty and shameful! Sad indeed.

- Derek

Dirty and shameful it's not. But as has been said above, it most definitely is sexual and/or sensual, not IMHO, art.

Lou

[Mark_Cohran]

Dirty and shameful it's not. But as has been said above, it most definitely is sexual and/or sensual, not IMHO, art.

Lou

So, am I to surmise that art can't be either sexual or sensual? I'm sure that you don't mean that, but to say the female genitalia can't be depicted artistically draws a significant line.

[derky82]

i can certainly see what you are saying, but humans are sexual beings. Our sexuality has been portrayed artistically throughout history. Whether it be a direct documentation of that sexuality, or a symbolic representation (There have been paintings of flower that artists have described as erotic symbolism), it has been a prevalent subject since the beginning of time.

- Derek