Pinup Arch

I must admit that I do find this photo to be uniquely attractive- I can't find words to explain it. I actually think the tattoos on her arm add to its character, too.

Great film as well- TXP 320 IMO was the perfect material for this photo. Too bad it's only available in sheets now :-(

"Re: Pinup Arch
Oh, this is too good to pass up, I know I said I'm done, but one more.

If you believe I called you an asshole by claiming you comment like one, then you must concede that you called my model a slut by claiming she dresses like one. Commenting that my model is a slut in a semi-public forum establishes your assholiness as a fact and cements your position as a troll. Believe it or not, the word "slut" is a moral judgment and for that matter one that seeks to castigate women for behaviors celebrated in men.

I'll give you the last words seeing as to how you always seem to prove my point. And with that I must bid you adieu. "

I concede nothing to you.
"the word "slut" is a moral judgement" and so the use of scare quotes that you clearly fail to understand.
Your whole objection here rests on claiming that I was derogatory toward the model, yet in your opening response to me you state - " I know you didn't directly call her a slut, just that her attire was that of a stereotypical slut," (jmxphoto above). You are using this as a smoke screen to avoid coming to terms with the fact that an image you made and publicly posted could be interpreted in this way. It hints at a facet of your personality and this is causing you problems. You could have simply said that my comments were invalid or something of that nature and left it at that, but you had to launch a personal and offensive attack on me because you felt threatened. You show that you are irrational and self -contradictory. So indicating that there must have been some truth in my original comment.
I have touched a nerve with you and it will take some time to wear off but I hope you have gained something from our discussion, whatever that may be.

I wish I could quit, really I do. I'm going to try to bury the hatchet with you.

The things I put into this image were fun, flirty, sexy, coy, an interesting angle and architecture that frames the model.

You come along and see a victim, a willing victim (suicidal), ritual sacrifice (violence, murder), a giant erect penis, and a slut (hate).

Generally my pinup work aims to scrape the shame of female sexuality. I'm guessing you'd think this is a bad thing. I have no rational explanation why you see violence and hate in this image. I can only suppose you have an irrational negative reaction to female sexuality. This is a negative attitude towards women. All of the negativity you see in this image is your baggage, not mine. Maybe you are treating this more like conceptual art than it is meant to be. All of the negativity you see in this image is a stretch. You have to try to see a victim, a slut, an erection, and ritual sacrifice. It is not prima facia, it's not intended, and you're the only person who's said that's what they see. You are an anomaly. Honestly if you see a woman being sexy and unashamed and you impulsively feel negatively about it, or see negativity in it, I will gladly and completely disregard your opinions. Claiming that the negativity was placed there by me is inaccurate. I can not control what you bring to my piece, and you can not fault me for your own ideology or need to over analyze. It is far easier to see negative moral judgment in your comment than it is to see human sacrifice in this picture.

As far as the slut thing goes, yes you hit a nerve. I participate on modeling sites where that comment alone would have gotten you banned from the board. Intentionally or not you walked up to a line in the sand and spit over it. I did the same in return by calling your comment asshole-ish and saying your negative attitude was despicable. You didn't like it either. Either we can agree that spitting over the line in the sand is the same as crossing it, in which case we're both wrong, or hold that it indeed isn't crossing the line in which case no harm, no foul. It wasn't a smoke screen, it was a tactic to show you how it feels to be on the receiving end of "close doesn't count". Perhaps you meant "archetypal siren" which I would have had no problems with and actually agreed upon. However, you said "stereotypical slut" which is insulting (to whom or what ever) and it's meant to be insulting. Look it up, it's a pejorative term and offensive when applied to ones work regardless of the context. You never answered my question "How do you think the model would feel if she read your comment?"

I wasn't using scare quotes, I was using quotes to clarify I was talking about the word itself. Like when you say the letter "A", the word "bicycle", or the number "7". It's a MLA approved use of quotations.

Initially I did think you were trolling (trying to get a reaction out of me), but I now see that we may simply hold apposing ideologies, in which case there's not much point in further discussion, however I will apologize for that conclusion if it was inaccurate.

jmxphoto said:

I wish I could quit, really I do. I'm going to try to bury the hatchet with you.

The things I put into this image were fun, flirty, sexy, coy, an interesting angle and architecture that frames the model.

You come along and see a victim, a willing victim (suicidal), ritual sacrifice (violence, murder), a giant erect penis, and a slut (hate).

Generally my pinup work aims to scrape the shame of female sexuality. I'm guessing you'd think this is a bad thing. I have no rational explanation why you see violence and hate in this image. I can only suppose you have an irrational negative reaction to female sexuality. This is a negative attitude towards women. All of the negativity you see in this image is your baggage, not mine. Maybe you are treating this more like conceptual art than it is meant to be. All of the negativity you see in this image is a stretch. You have to try to see a victim, a slut, an erection, and ritual sacrifice. It is not prima facia, it's not intended, and you're the only person who's said that's what they see. You are an anomaly. Honestly if you see a woman being sexy and unashamed and you impulsively feel negatively about it, or see negativity in it, I will gladly and completely disregard your opinions. Claiming that the negativity was placed there by me is inaccurate. I can not control what you bring to my piece, and you can not fault me for your own ideology or need to over analyze. It is far easier to see negative moral judgment in your comment than it is to see human sacrifice in this picture.

As far as the slut thing goes, yes you hit a nerve. I participate on modeling sites where that comment alone would have gotten you banned from the board. Intentionally or not you walked up to a line in the sand and spit over it. I did the same in return by calling your comment asshole-ish and saying your negative attitude was despicable. You didn't like it either. Either we can agree that spitting over the line in the sand is the same as crossing it, in which case we're both wrong, or hold that it indeed isn't crossing the line in which case no harm, no foul. It wasn't a smoke screen, it was a tactic to show you how it feels to be on the receiving end of "close doesn't count". Perhaps you meant "archetypal siren" which I would have had no problems with and actually agreed upon. However, you said "stereotypical slut" which is insulting (to whom or what ever) and it's meant to be insulting. Look it up, it's a pejorative term and offensive when applied to ones work regardless of the context. You never answered my question "How do you think the model would feel if she read your comment?"

I wasn't using scare quotes, I was using quotes to clarify I was talking about the word itself. Like when you say the letter "A", the word "bicycle", or the number "7". It's a MLA approved use of quotations.

Initially I did think you were trolling (trying to get a reaction out of me), but I now see that we may simply hold apposing ideologies, in which case there's not much point in further discussion, however I will apologize for that conclusion if it was inaccurate.

Click to expand...

Good too see you admit your mistakes but you still make several more about me. You tend to postulate an opinion about me and move forward on the basis that it is true.
You cannot deny that the short analysis I gave on your image was pertinent to it whether you like it or not. I am sure that you may now be aware how your work can be construed or misconstrued. In order to know what negativity to the female sex is you have to be able to spot it and that is what I see in your work despite your attempts to defend it. If you want to see it as something that "aims to scrape the shame of female sexuality" so be it, then I see it as re-enforcing the "the shame of female sexuality" although you really would need to qualify this term. I am quite sure that many share my analysis but may not want to say it.
You admit to making a smoke screen and now you are fanning the flames more.

"How do you think the model would feel if she read your comment?" - Ask her, I am sure she is able to account for her own actions and it is more testament to your male chauvinism to deny her that opportunity. I assume that she would be aware that she was working, modelling, playing a part . I am either right, partly right or wrong. Whatever, I can handle it.

However, this is probably the closest to an apology that I am likely to get from you.

Sorry, that should have been "to scrape the shame off female sexuality." My typo.

"You cannot deny that the short analysis I gave on your image was pertinent to it whether you like it or not."
Sure I can. Occam's razor; your thesis that this image is about ritual, violence, hate, and erect phalluses makes literally crazy assumptions and offers no explanatory benefit over the explanation that it's a pinup framed in an arch.

You want to see the image in a way it simply isn't. You have to add elements to the image that aren't there to make your case. The image is obviously set in a time period centuries after human sacrifice was popular with Europids. Willing human sacrifice is especially rare and confined mostly to South America. There are no religious symbols or overtones of any kind. No devices to carry out the sacrifice are depicted and neither are any other participants or an audience. There are no depictions that indicate violence much less murder. The subject has also been placed on a higher plane than the viewer imbuing power and authority to her. You also have to assume that most women that wear waist cinchers are sluts or that stereotypically sluts wear waist cinchers, neither of which is an established fact. Most people would find the phrase "basque of a stereotypical slut" to be a reprehensible generalization. Walmart, a store that won't carry music with explicit lyrics has a variety of waist cinchers and thigh highs for sale. Even your claim that the arch is a phallus is a stretch. In the image the arch's height is less than 50% greater than its width at the base. It's just as easy to choose to see the arch a a yonic symbol as it has a hole with a perforated covering over it. What do all your additive assumptions gain us in explanation? That I have some nefarious covert or subconscious agenda? Pish! A pretty pinup in an arch assumes much less and explains the image perfectly by comparison.

I've said before and I'll say it again (and you still won't get it), you're analysis of this image is wrought with your baggage, not mine. It is not pertinent unless one carries similar baggage as well, which I do not. I do not and will not practice my craft tip toeing around your kind of crazy. I can not see that which is not there, a skill you seem to have mastered.

jmxphoto said:

Sorry, that should have been "to scrape the shame off female sexuality." My typo.

"You cannot deny that the short analysis I gave on your image was pertinent to it whether you like it or not."
Sure I can. Occam's razor; your thesis that this image is about ritual, violence, hate, and erect phalluses makes literally crazy assumptions and offers no explanatory benefit over the explanation that it's a pinup framed in an arch.

You want to see the image in a way it simply isn't. You have to add elements to the image that aren't there to make your case. The image is obviously set in a time period centuries after human sacrifice was popular with Europids. Willing human sacrifice is especially rare and confined mostly to South America. There are no religious symbols or overtones of any kind. No devices to carry out the sacrifice are depicted and neither are any other participants or an audience. There are no depictions that indicate violence much less murder. The subject has also been placed on a higher plane than the viewer imbuing power and authority to her. You also have to assume that most women that wear waist cinchers are sluts or that stereotypically sluts wear waist cinchers, neither of which is an established fact. Most people would find the phrase "basque of a stereotypical slut" to be a reprehensible generalization. Walmart, a store that won't carry music with explicit lyrics has a variety of waist cinchers and thigh highs for sale. Even your claim that the arch is a phallus is a stretch. In the image the arch's height is less than 50% greater than its width at the base. It's just as easy to choose to see the arch a a yonic symbol as it has a hole with a perforated covering over it. What do all your additive assumptions gain us in explanation? That I have some nefarious covert or subconscious agenda? Pish! A pretty pinup in an arch assumes much less and explains the image perfectly by comparison.

I've said before and I'll say it again (and you still won't get it), you're analysis of this image is wrought with your baggage, not mine. It is not pertinent unless one carries similar baggage as well, which I do not. I do not and will not practice my craft tip toeing around your kind of crazy. I can not see that which is not there, a skill you seem to have mastered.

Click to expand...

More personal attacks, patronising and diversionary tactics to move away from the true issue.
Occam's razor is irrelevant here.

"the explanation that it's a pinup framed in an arch."
Interesting that you don't say "a woman framed in an arch". You have depersonalised her by not focussing on her face and admit to focussing on her legs. Clearly showing where you mind was! Then you come up with some feeble excuse about equipment, place and time. Your whole style and manner of speech screams out male chauvinism. You want to defend it tooth and nail because you see it in your interest to do so, and you will do so by whatever means including intimidation and personal attack as you have shown here. I have no personal interest here, I really don't care what you do or post but just face up to it for what it is - not "fun, flirty, sexy, coy" or in some warped way sympathetic to feminism, but pornography intended to capitalise on female subjugation for financial or some other kind of gain. There is no deception more powerful than self-deception.

"Walmart, a store that won't carry music with explicit lyrics has a variety of waist cinchers and thigh highs for sale."
Pathetic comment, again has no place here. Walmart will sell anything they can get away with to make profit, plain and simple.

Sacrifice is obviously used in a metophorical sense but you choose to believe otherwise and go off on a tangent to further your attempts at intimidation again to detract from the issue. It won't work.

"I do not and will not practice my craft tip toeing around your kind of crazy. I can not see that which is not there, a skill you seem to have mastered".
More personal attacks in your feeble defence. You accuse me of being crazy and seeing "that which is not there". Show me the "shame of female sexuality" that you claim to be attempting to "scrape off". I refer to your image, what do you refer to?

I believe that you are not writing these responses unassisted. I hope that I am mistaken.

No doubt that you will again take parts of my reply here and use it out of context as you have done from the beginning of the discussion and try to discredit me and patronise me further by saying that "I just don't get it", or that I hold a different "ideology" from you. Why are you so bothered by a crazy man's comments if there is no substance to them?

Have you ever used a split prism with a wide angle lens to photograph a person? Her legs were a convenient vertical, it may be too much information, but I'm not a "leg man" as you infer. If I was a leg man she'd be wearing sheer or nude thigh highs instead of nearly opaque ones (which she supplied and chose). I had to sort of reverse engineer why I would have focused on her legs because I am so used to focusing on eyes and recomposing, having taken literally tens of thousands of images of people. If you look at this 5x7 crop of a 6x6 frame it's pretty easy to see that the features of her face would be too small in the view finder (there is no AF Bronica camera) to focus on using a split prism so I had to pick something else. Focusing on her hair or arm would have been difficult as the horizontal lines of the shelf would compete with the split prism and offer less contrast than her legs. Really you want to argue about the difficulties of manual focus with a wide angle lens? It's sufficiently documented. Heck, I might have even zone focused but I generally only do that with fisheye lenses. "Ooohhh, those LEGS!" was not the cause, I assure you. I met the model for the first time, verified her age, found the location to shoot (approx 40 photographers had two floors in the Leland Hotel to choose from), set up the lighting, took more than a full roll of 220 film (did a film change) and 65 digital images, and had the model release signed all within 1 hour.

If you view this as pornography then not only is your definition of pornography overly broad but it must irk you to open your eyes every day. Calling this image porn implies it is obscene which I would argue it's not. It does not fit the USC definition of obscenity and having seen Page 3 girls (women) I'm reasonably certain it doesn't fit the UK's definition of obscenity either. You are seeing the world with a wider view of what is obscene that what both of our populations have commonly agreed to and drawn up in law. It is perfectly within your rights to view the world this way but you should realize that in doing so you are a minority. Some people will agree with you, most do not. The people that are my friends and family come from a wide swath of backgrounds. From atheist liberals that love heavy metal to conservative, rural, born-again Christians, I've heard from each end of the spectrum that they like my pinup work. This leads me to think they don't see as obscene. Which further leads me to believe you are a minority within a minority. I will share with you a piece of advice I got from my pot smoking days in college that has served me well: If you suddenly notice that everyone around you is acting weird, they're not; you are.

You claim she's a victim and being subjugated, yet this was shot at event we *both* paid a nominal fee to attend (http://www.deacgroup.com/). Dressing in this attire, posing for these pictures is her idea of a fun weekend. In fact she's smiling, not a forced smile, she was enjoying herself and having a fun time. I said pinup instead of woman because it is a woman (pinups are not men, that's technically called "beefcake") dressed in pinup attire, in a pinup pose, with a pinup expression. Pinup is all about women, it is not depersonalizing.

Actually Walmart is know to be a conservative retailer that will not sell many profitable items it thinks conservative Americans might disagree with. This includes music with explicit language, movies that contain explicit scenes, Playboy magazine, etc. It's a barometer for conservative America and many progressives have issues with its "censorship." (that does deserve scare quotes)

My "tangent" as you call it, wasn't intimidation, I was just illustrating how you chose to see that metaphor, it is not self evident in the image. I called you crazy because to me you are. The response you gave to my image made me feel like I was taking part in some bizarre Rorschach test. I can not see violence and hate in this image. I can not imagine the distorted lens through which you view the world. It makes no sense to me. I can not comprehend why you would put forth the effort to inject negativity into places it does not natively reside. You are free to do so, but why? To what end?

"To scrape the shame of female sexuality" By this I mean depicting all types of women having fun, choosing to be attractive, and being in control or minimally an equal active participant. The media has narrowly and artificially defined what is attractive and generally seeks portray women as passive or disinterested in courtship. We are inundated with images of women being acted upon by men. I seek to counter balance this. No money is exchanged between the models and I (above we both pay the producers of the event), I only work with women who want to work with me. There is no incentive beyond what we create together for her. I do sell pinup images but have not yet turned a profit, and profit is not my primary motivation. I see beauty in women of many shapes, sizes, ethnicities, ages (over majority), cultures, and counter-cultures. I think there is positive value in depicting the beauty that mass media will not and in a way that does not make the woman "less than". I've found pinup to work well as a context for it though I am branching out into other genres.

"Occam's razor is irrelevant here." Occam's razor is always relevant.

Honestly, had the option been there (as it is on other photography sites), and I looked for it, I would have deleted your comment just for the misogynistic "slut" remark. In our society not responding is to concede. It also took me a little while to figure out you were crazy. You can say what you want, it no longer bothers me. It's curious, but that's about it.

All of the words here are my own and I've had no assistance writing them.

Thanks Crashbox, I almost missed that comment in all this mess!

jmxphoto said:

Have you ever used a split prism with a wide angle lens to photograph a person? Her legs were a convenient vertical, it may be too much information, but I'm not a "leg man" as you infer. If I was a leg man she'd be wearing sheer or nude thigh highs instead of nearly opaque ones (which she supplied and chose). I had to sort of reverse engineer why I would have focused on her legs because I am so used to focusing on eyes and recomposing, having taken literally tens of thousands of images of people. If you look at this 5x7 crop of a 6x6 frame it's pretty easy to see that the features of her face would be too small in the view finder (there is no AF Bronica camera) to focus on using a split prism so I had to pick something else. Focusing on her hair or arm would have been difficult as the horizontal lines of the shelf would compete with the split prism and offer less contrast than her legs. Really you want to argue about the difficulties of manual focus with a wide angle lens? It's sufficiently documented. Heck, I might have even zone focused but I generally only do that with fisheye lenses. "Ooohhh, those LEGS!" was not the cause, I assure you. I met the model for the first time, verified her age, found the location to shoot (approx 40 photographers had two floors in the Leland Hotel to choose from), set up the lighting, took more than a full roll of 220 film (did a film change) and 65 digital images, and had the model release signed all within 1 hour.

If you view this as pornography then not only is your definition of pornography overly broad but it must irk you to open your eyes every day. Calling this image porn implies it is obscene which I would argue it's not. It does not fit the USC definition of obscenity and having seen Page 3 girls (women) I'm reasonably certain it doesn't fit the UK's definition of obscenity either. You are seeing the world with a wider view of what is obscene that what both of our populations have commonly agreed to and drawn up in law. It is perfectly within your rights to view the world this way but you should realize that in doing so you are a minority. Some people will agree with you, most do not. The people that are my friends and family come from a wide swath of backgrounds. From atheist liberals that love heavy metal to conservative, rural, born-again Christians, I've heard from each end of the spectrum that they like my pinup work. This leads me to think they don't see as obscene. Which further leads me to believe you are a minority within a minority. I will share with you a piece of advice I got from my pot smoking days in college that has served me well: If you suddenly notice that everyone around you is acting weird, they're not; you are.

You claim she's a victim and being subjugated, yet this was shot at event we *both* paid a nominal fee to attend (http://www.deacgroup.com/). Dressing in this attire, posing for these pictures is her idea of a fun weekend. In fact she's smiling, not a forced smile, she was enjoying herself and having a fun time. I said pinup instead of woman because it is a woman (pinups are not men, that's technically called "beefcake") dressed in pinup attire, in a pinup pose, with a pinup expression. Pinup is all about women, it is not depersonalizing.

Actually Walmart is know to be a conservative retailer that will not sell many profitable items it thinks conservative Americans might disagree with. This includes music with explicit language, movies that contain explicit scenes, Playboy magazine, etc. It's a barometer for conservative America and many progressives have issues with its "censorship." (that does deserve scare quotes)

My "tangent" as you call it, wasn't intimidation, I was just illustrating how you chose to see that metaphor, it is not self evident in the image. I called you crazy because to me you are. The response you gave to my image made me feel like I was taking part in some bizarre Rorschach test. I can not see violence and hate in this image. I can not imagine the distorted lens through which you view the world. It makes no sense to me. I can not comprehend why you would put forth the effort to inject negativity into places it does not natively reside. You are free to do so, but why? To what end?

"To scrape the shame of female sexuality" By this I mean depicting all types of women having fun, choosing to be attractive, and being in control or minimally an equal active participant. The media has narrowly and artificially defined what is attractive and generally seeks portray women as passive or disinterested in courtship. We are inundated with images of women being acted upon by men. I seek to counter balance this. No money is exchanged between the models and I (above we both pay the producers of the event), I only work with women who want to work with me. There is no incentive beyond what we create together for her. I do sell pinup images but have not yet turned a profit, and profit is not my primary motivation. I see beauty in women of many shapes, sizes, ethnicities, ages (over majority), cultures, and counter-cultures. I think there is positive value in depicting the beauty that mass media will not and in a way that does not make the woman "less than". I've found pinup to work well as a context for it though I am branching out into other genres.

"Occam's razor is irrelevant here." Occam's razor is always relevant.

Honestly, had the option been there (as it is on other photography sites), and I looked for it, I would have deleted your comment just for the misogynistic "slut" remark. In our society not responding is to concede. It also took me a little while to figure out you were crazy. You can say what you want, it no longer bothers me. It's curious, but that's about it.

All of the words here are my own and I've had no assistance writing them.

Click to expand...

I saw your posted image that in my judgement could possibly be regarded as deragotary toward women and gave an analysis of it trying to indicate why such a claim could be feasible. I did not say that these were my personal opinions on the matter. It was objective comment and couched in the relevant terms with appropriate use of language. You were not content to agree or disagree but had to launch into a series of personal attacks on me, deliberately using terms out of context, patronising me, name calling and intimidatory tactics - that you have confessed to- that bore little or no relevance to the image. This has been your continued tactic to attempt to show that I may be wrong by trying to discredit and ridicule me. I have argued that you have strong male chauvinistic traits that you actually have not denied. I argue that your image could be construed as pornography.

" If you view this as pornography then not only is your definition of pornography overly broad but it must irk you to open your eyes every day".

Pornography - books, magazines, films, etc. dealing with or depicting sexual acts, in a more or less explicit way, intended to arouse sexual excitement; description or portrayal of prostitutes and prostitution.( Chambers English dictionary, 11th. edition)

"Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction." Wikipedia.

Not my definitions as you can see. To me your image meets some of these criteria. To you it may not. The statement "it must irk you to open your eyes every day" - just more personal attack and completely irrelevant to the image.


"Calling this image porn implies it is obscene which I would argue it's not."

So you say that it's not obscene but you don't deny that it may be porn?
I don't disagree that porn may imply obscenity but a jury normally decides these matters and I have not used "obscene", you have. Not all porn is considered obscene. But you then equate "pornographic" with "obscenity" as if they are interchangeable terms and rant on about it with no other purpose than to construct a completely illogical argument that concludes with the fact that I am "Wierd". Simply more personal attack and again completely irrelevant to the image. But another example of you deciding what you want to use to produce what is in your opinion logical argument simply for your own purposes. I won't go throught all your response it becomes wearisome to identify all the ad hominem propositions you use.

You say that you are engaged in work involved with female emancipation. You use Pinups for this purpose, fine. Nevertheless, the image in question can still possibly regarded as pornographic. It is presented here as a stand alone piece of work. It's useage does not detract form my observations on it as you seem to want to say. In fact we find that the image was made under the auspices of The Detroit Erotic Arts Colloborative, which is "A Fine Art Nude, Fettish and Pinup Photography Group". The link you gave to their website carries a warning about the sexual content of the site and that in some countries legal issues may be involved for those found using it. In other words some may define the site as containing pornographic or obscene images or both. You and the model are involved with this group, as you admit, and the group considers itself as providing adult entertainment. Usually referred to as porn. You may disagree but let others make up their owm minds about it. The site depicts images of explicit sexual content including bondage and whatever fettish subscribers may want to engage in. You clearly find that this environment provides you with opportunity to make the images you require. It is certainly not out of place to dress in clothing usually regarded as sexually provocative as is normally associated with prostitutes, sluts, sirens, streetwalkers, dominatrices, and in fact to engage in any fettish or fancy to suit any whim. I haven't looked through all the site but what I have seen is mainly limited to procatively dressed or nude females. This, you have stated, is what you and the model regard as having fun.

To return to my analysis of your image.
A provocatively dressed female, we know now she chose to dress like this to act out some kind of undisclosed fettish or fantasy but possibly a whore, slut, victim etc., lying on her back with her legs upright in the air resting against a wall, face out of focus, on a raised ornate platform with high arched alcoves and windows and plain walls possibly suggestive of a religious establishment. I have claimed that the archway may possibly be described as in the shape of an erect phallus, to which you have agreed by saying that you can see them anywhere and you later added the adjective "giant" to show that you understood my reference.
It appears that my analysis of the image, and indeed about you, may not be far from the mark. Let others make up their own minds.

Finally, this is interesting from you:-
" Honestly, had the option been there (as it is on other photography sites), and I looked for it, I would have deleted your comment just for the misogynistic "slut" remark".

Misogynist - woman hater. More unfounded slander on my character trying to indicate that I am morally corrupt and so have no noteworthy ethical opinions. Just as I am, as you claim, crazy.
I could similarly use such low tacticts against a self-confessed pothead, as an example, but this bears no validity to my argument. This is not difficult to do, in your case it is desperation showing through.

"Honestly" - Attempting to get me or anyone reading this discussion to believe that you are morally upright juxtaposed to me. Tricks, tricks and more tricks. I trust some will see through your ploys.
You have declared your involvement with the porn industry, you now nothing of my involvement other than apug. Let others draw their own conclusions.

Go peddle your crazy somewhere else, I'm not buying it.