Commenting on nudes: When is it "ogling" and what are its consequences?

Thread starter TheFlyingCamera
Start date Aug 24, 2007

Andy K

Member

Aug 31, 2007

#276

JBrunner said:
I believe that the idea that prudishness on APUG is somehow a US phenomena is somewhat misplaced. If you do the math, the vocal minority of any sub group here will be largely US, because US members make up the majority of the membership. It is wonderful that APUG is an international community, but by impression, one might also assume that all wet plate photographers are US as well.

If that 'American prudishness' was only evident on APUG I might agree.

JBrunner

Moderator

Moderator

Aug 31, 2007

#277

Andy K said:
If that 'American prudishness' was only evident on APUG I might agree.

Come party at my house some time.

jd callow

Moderator

Moderator

Aug 31, 2007

#278

I have followed this thread from the start. No one has said that we shouldn't post nudes or that nudes are evil and yet the prude American declaration keeps poping up -- it doesn't fit this discussion and is in fact a bit of an ad hominum tactic.

American Prudishness is a subject for the soapbox. As JB said the US and specifically the most conservative and religious region's therein are the biggest consumers of sexually explicate materials. (there's your fodder for a typical soapbox adventure)

gr82bart

Member

Aug 31, 2007

#279

Dave Wooten said:
Since a lot of us are visual learners maye someone could post some new illustrative examples supporting the various views and arguments of this thread. :confused:

OK Dave, here ya go ...

Regards, Art.

Attachments

OP

OP

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Advertiser

Aug 31, 2007

#280

Art, you're a hoot. Insane, but a hoot.

catem

Member

Aug 31, 2007

#281

But where are the women photographers & posters to the thread, Art? Can't be in with the 'pigs' or 'dogs' (obviously not, but we're not all on the 'righteous council' either! )

You've left us out. Nothing new there, LOL

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 31, 2007

Katharine Thayer

Member

Aug 31, 2007

#282

jstraw said:
I'll going on record that anyone that might quit this site over the sight of a penis has my blessing. Please go.

I agree, and I frankly don't understand the furor over Scott's photo. I wasn't here at the time, but I've seen so much comment about it that I was curious; I couldn't understand why people would be so offended by a male sexual organ, when every part of a female nude body is shown here without people leaving the site over it. It didn't make sense to me, so I found the photo so I could see for myself what was offensive about it, and I still don't get it.

My SO, when I shared some of this discussion with him, said he suspects that both the inordinate reaction to Scott's photo and the inappropriate comments about female nude photos may be a reflection of male insecurity rather than anything in the photos themselves. I don't really care to dig into underlying causes; my point is that whatever the motivation for the reactions and comments, I think the site would be a better place without them.

kt

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 31, 2007

bill schwab

Advertiser

Advertiser

Aug 31, 2007

#283

TheFlyingCamera said:
...are you saying that the totality of three comments in the one thread (one of which I would argue you have misconstrued) are equal to the totality of commentary on the flipside?

Scott, You have failed to give much in the way of examples of the activity you lead us to believe there is a preponderance of on this site. At the same time you attempt to defend your apparent hypocrisy by saying it was done under "duress". These comments of yours were posted early in the discussion and I see nothing there to cause duress leading up to your questionable posts. No attacks... no "death threats". It seems as if you are simply joining in with the good 'ole boys and making sexual reference jokes. It was my understanding of your penis post that it was done to make a point... posted to induce the controversy that put you in a position of "duress". You even boast about this later in the discussion of said photograph.

"Now at 632. Wow. certainly a personal best. Even the previous controversial photo I posted only managed about 350 in several weeks. I'm at 632 in about 14 hours."

What am I missing? How can you say you are not guilty of the same behavior of which you accuse others?

gr82bart

Member

Aug 31, 2007

#284

catem said:
You've left us out. Nothing new there, LOL

You mean you gals aren't the models?

Regards, Art (Runs very fast, very far ... and is now very afraid to return to this thread!)

Dave Wooten

Member

Aug 31, 2007

#285

gr82bart said:
OK Dave, here ya go ...

Regards, Art.

Thanks Art you da man!

OP

OP

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Advertiser

Aug 31, 2007

#286

Bill- the moderators deleted said death threat. Wisely so. There was also much heated discourse in PM and in discussion threads started vis-a-vis the photo. I believe the thread was put in the Soap Box, and I don't know if it is still there or not.

Yes, when I posted it I expected some controversy, but only because the first image I had posted had drawn a degree of controversy. I also find it ironic that you're trying to hang me for a single incident of what you have decided is locker-room language, when I was speaking of a long-term pattern. I also find it interesting that you keep moving your target - now I'm also subject to criticism not for inappropriate language, but for expressing surprise at the number of views the image received in a short period of time?

I'm not denying that I said what you quoted. I said it. You can twist it or spin it any way you want to. I could understand your getting this spun up over this thread if I had accused you specifically, or made accusations of specific misdeeds at specific individuals. I have at no point in this process "called anyone out". I have simply asked for people to be more thoughtful when posting. So I don't see why you get so bent out of shape over this request, and why you keep harping on one single incident as constituting proof that I'm running around drooling sexually offensive remarks at every turn. Again, I toss the question back to you - is my remark in that one thread so much more offensive to you because it is not a heterosexual sentiment? And how is stating that I wished I were thinner and more naturally graced anatomically, in response to a (blatantly stupid) question "Is that yours?" a sexually offensive remark?

Ed Sukach

Member

Aug 31, 2007

#287

DrPablo said:
...
This is filed right next to another study from the CDC showing the majority of Americans despise people so lacking in social skills that their sole response to others' social intuition is a childlike demand for published evidence.

Well - an update:

I've Googled "CDC" and have indeed accessed the Center for Disease Control. I at one time, considered myself to be a fair-to-middlin' researcher of data like that. This time ... I've tried every category I could think of - from "Sexual Harassment" through "Ammonia" - up and down. So far, nothing about "Locker Room Comments" or "APUG". Nada. Zilch. Three hours of time I do not have (intermittently) down the drain.

I need to know if I am slipping. Just WHERE are they?

If this supports "So lacking in social skills so that their sole response to other's social intuition (Note 1) is a childlike demand for published evidence"... I think this is a serious indictment of the entire Scientific community.

Note 1: "Social intuition". - I've been mulling that one over ... half "mulled" it to death. Is that anything like, "A wild guess, arrived at from a discussion with three of four guys I've only met recently at the local Bar"?

Ed Sukach

Member

Aug 31, 2007

#288

TheFlyingCamera said:
...And how is stating that I wished I were thinner and more naturally graced anatomically, in response to a (blatantly stupid) question "Is that yours?" a sexually offensive remark?

No - I do not consider it to be a sexually offensive remark. I could see where others, operating within the tacit parameters suggested, might take it to be so.

Can we raise a veil of immunity here? - and get specific. What are examples of the ubiquitous sexual remarks we seem to be permeated with?

DrPablo

Member

Aug 31, 2007

#289

Ed,

1) I was being sarcastic in both of my responses, a point you might find disappointing in your earnest lifelong quest for truth and knowledge.

Note 1 -- that was also sarcastic.

2) This thread should illustrate that context is everything. It's ok to demand evidence in a scientific meeting. But if your barber tells you that he thinks it's going to rain today, then you'd have to be an asshole to challenge him to provide you with barometric data and satellite images. My point: cut the crap. Try and be a good conversationalist.

Note 2 -- social intuition is what people develop when they don't spend their lives clapping with one hand on internet forums.

Ed Sukach

Member

Aug 31, 2007

#290

TheFlyingCamera said:
...And how is stating that I wished I were thinner and more naturally graced anatomically, in response to a (blatantly stupid) question "Is that yours?" a sexually offensive remark?

No - I do not consider it to be a sexually offensive remark. I could see where others, operating within the tacit parameters suggested, might take it to be so.

Can we raise a veil of immunity here? - and get specific. What are examples of the ubiquitous sexual remarks we seem to be permeated with?

Ed Sukach

Member

Aug 31, 2007

#291

DrPablo said:
Ed,

1) I was being sarcastic in both of my responses, a point you might find disappointing in your earnest lifelong quest for truth and knowledge.

Sarcasm? Three hours - gone - because I did not recognize sarcasm... ?

You did sound VERY serious - and authorative when you cited a report from the Center for Disease Control.

.... But if your barber tells you that he thinks it's going to rain today, then you'd have to be an asshole to challenge him to provide you with barometric data and satellite images.

My barber - actually a VERY attractive Hairdresser who does both my hair and my wife's - has "Weather Underground" on her PC - as I do. We have a few Fishermen here and in Gloucester, MA (origin of "The Perfect Storm). They have largely abandoned their intuition (which was, all in all, surprisingly accurate) for satellite and NOA.

Science is Golden.

Ed Sukach

Member

Aug 31, 2007

#292

gr82bart said:
You mean you gals aren't the models?

Regards, Art (Runs very fast, very far ... and is now very afraid to return to this thread!)

Wise choice, Art.

Ed Sukach

Member

Aug 31, 2007

#293

JBrunner said:
The US is the worlds largest producer of porn, and our previous president, well, we all know what went down there, so the notion that the majority in the US is prudish, is mistaken.

I wouldn't say "prudish". More like "ambiguous" at best; "hypocrtical" at worst.

From Freud: "It is necessary that everything deemed `taboo' is at first, desired."

Ian Leake

Subscriber

Aug 31, 2007

#294

BWGirl said:
Ian... I've been here long enough to see those exact comments in print here, in the Critique section of the Gallery. I will repeat that... I (and many others here) have seen those exact comments posted in the Critique section of the Gallery.
Go back to one of Scott's first posts... you'll notice that he references me. He does that for a really good reason... I brought up this EXACT same point back then.
It's not your fault for not knowing that. You'd have had to have been here.

OK, I'll accept that you saw these comments. And I agree they would be excessive and inappropriate for a well mannered community. But your last statement, "It's not your fault for not knowing that. You'd have had to have been here.", either means that the comments were made more than two and half years ago, or was just plain rude.

Either way I don't particularly care because believe it or not I actually agree with you Jeanette that comments of this type are unwelcome. But surely these are the exception rather than the rule - most comments are trivial in nature. And for Scott to declare that the exchange between Art and me was excessive is political correctness gone mad. If that's the level at which banter becomes unwelcome then we may as well ban all discussion related to gender or sexuality, block the joke thread immediately, and all go back to taking photos of swans and sunsets.

bill schwab

Advertiser

Advertiser

Aug 31, 2007

#295

TheFlyingCamera said:
I also find it ironic that you're trying to hang me for a single incident of what you have decided is locker-room language

Not trying to hang you at all Scott. I have always had a great deal of respect for you and your postings. I just find this to be a pretty weak charge you are making and beneath your usual contributions. Almost troll like if you will forgive me.

As for redirecting my target. This came from re-reading that old train wreck and remembering that you were not some innocent victim of controversy. Maybe with the first controversial shot you posted... yes, but you had a pretty good idea what you were going to get with the second one and chose to post it with that knowledge. I back you 100% on your right to do that, but don't go crying "duress" and using such as an excuse to display the same thing you are now decrying. Your posts taken at face value, without the knowledge of the previous controversy or any PMs you received look just like any good 'ole boy comments that may or may not have been made about female nudes.

As for "the "one single incident" thing. I would like to see more evidence than your one single incident as well. I, for one would like to see more of the comments that you are addressing with this thread if I am to take this as a legitimate complaint. Until then, this seems to be a whole lot about a whole lot of nothing.

Ian Leake

Subscriber

Aug 31, 2007

#296

...and if I remember correctly, wasn't there a comment on one of Sanders' nudes that one of our members posted that said something along the lines of the model needing a square breakfast. As posts complimenting models appear to be banned then are posts which are rude about models also banned now?

jd callow

Moderator

Moderator

Aug 31, 2007

#297

Ian no one is banning anything and yes attacking a model is just as bad as typeing with your dick.

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Moderator

Aug 31, 2007

#298

Even if Scott were making objectifying remarks (in the context of his portrait of Felipe, I regard them as intentionally ironic), that doesn't negate the general concern about whether some of the commentary creates an unfriendly atmosphere for some members, but would only suggest that perhaps Scott needs to think about the effect of his comments before making them as much as anyone else.

Rolleiflexible

Member

Aug 31, 2007

#299

jd callow said:
Ian no one is banning anything and yes attacking a model is just as bad as typeing with your dick.

I shoot models but I also shoot a lot of people who are not models.
The status of the individual in the photograph doesn't matter. They
are people, they are not present to defend themselves, and they
ought not be subject to snide comments that no one would have the
gall to say to their face, were they present in the conversation.

People can complain all they want about my photography. Attacks
on the people I photograph will rouse me to a fight. Aggie (remember
Aggie?) once laid into one of my subjects with a harangue (untrue)
that she had breast implants, and she, Aggie, knew this for a fact
because she, Aggie, had been shopping for a pair and knew them
when she saw them. Too much.

Sanders

Ian Leake

Subscriber

Aug 31, 2007

#300

jd callow said:
Ian no one is banning anything and yes attacking a model is just as bad as typeing with your dick.

Thanks for reconfirming this. And I'm now going to try really hard to ignore this thread and forget everything that was said in it. There are too many really bad things happening in the world right now to want to add another worry about trivialities.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share:

Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email