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

[TheFlyingCamera]

LOL I wish more women were like her <--bad boy, must keep juvenile straight man locker room thoughts to myself ...

I am going to assume it would be OK to make sophmoric remarks vis a vis a men's locker room too? Or is that not OK but staring/ogling is?*

Not quite sure what you mean by that.

Hmmm ... thinking about this a bit more. So then, if it's deemed OK to stare/ogle in this situation, then why is not OK to stare/ogle in the APUG gallery?*

Stare all you want. Ogle all you want. Just don't leave 'wink-wink nudge-nudge' comments in the galleries.

Isn't the complaint is usually about whether they are allowed to leave the house with said clothing (or lack thereof); whether that is offensive to others. The 'community standards' thing. Usually not from the person leaving the house. And not from those staring/ogling either, but the one's worried about those staring/ogling. I think it was Roger's option 1d.

Regards, Art.

That's a whole other kettle of fish. The whole 'community standards' thing. If society permits people to wander the street buck naked, or in a strange faux-floral costume that leaves little to the imagination, or whatever unusual attire they choose to that makes them stand out from the crowd, they should feel free to do so, but they should also expect that they will draw attention to themselves. Posing nude for a photographer here should not subject a model to catcalls or sexual commentary, providing that the intent of the image was not titillation; and the nature of the image should convey that distinction clearly. As a website devoted to the practice of traditional wet-process photography, I would expect that photographers posting images here would aspire to more than B&B shots.

And before anyone here hauls off and accuses me of having some kind of double standard, I would find just as disappointing/offensive the typical beefcake shots you see of male models on ModelMayhem where the guy is snapping the waistband to his Calvins, to show just a little bush. And I would be just as critical about the lack of creativity in said image.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm pondering whether maturity dictates some sort of appreciation of nude photography that is somehow blind to the relative beauty of the subject of the photograph.

It seems absurd to me.

I don't see how the one follows the other at all. You don't have to be blind to beauty in any way - but maturity would dictate that you CAN separate sexuality from beauty.

 

[jstraw]

I'm not getting what you mean, Micheal, could you elaborate a bit?

Take any nude...good...bad...whatever. Let's say it's an exceptional artistic statement and an amazing display of craft. It seems as there might be those that respond to any consideration of the work beyond those attributes as somehow crass, vulgar or immature. As if it's possible to take no notice of whether the subject is, subjectively (insert adjective here). And any mention made of one's response to the subject of the photograph, as distinct from the photography triggers a negative reaction in some.

It begs the question...if this is so, then why is it uniquely so for nudes. I can't imagine anyone getting blasted for calling a rose in a photograph "pretty." No one blinks when someone mentions the bridge, car, valley or cloud in a photograph, failing to only address the qualities of the photograph itself.

I surmise that it's our own issues with sexuality, nudity, gender roles, equity, power, etc., that make applying adjectives to the subjects of photographs of people, not just nudes, a hot button.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Mike- I think it's a question of aesthetics - there's a difference between a picture of a pretty rose, and a beautiful photograph of a rose. The same is true for nudes, but they're more emotionally charged than roses. The first has much greater potential to drift into cliche. The second does not rely upon the property of the subject to succeed. Therefore it is a superior aesthetic achievement.

 

[jstraw]

Mike- I think it's a question of aesthetics - there's a difference between a picture of a pretty rose, and a beautiful photograph of a rose. The same is true for nudes, but they're more emotionally charged than roses. The first has much greater potential to drift into cliche. The second does not rely upon the property of the subject to succeed. Therefore it is a superior aesthetic achievement.

I agree that a really good nude photograph is possible, independent from the attributes of the model and that transcending those inherent attributes is what elevates a 'picture' to a 'photograph.' I also agree about the emotional charge.

All that said, I think some people are uncomfortable with any comment regarding the subject, distinct from the work of the photographer. I understand that there's an emotional charge there that's absent with a cut flower but to expect one to react to only the work and to be silent about the subject seems unrealistic to me.

 

[Roger Hicks]

...you CAN separate sexuality from beauty.

Yes, but why bother? Nothing to do with maturity. One pic can be beautiful and erotic; another, erotic but not especially beautiful; a third, beautiful but not erotic; and of course there are Readers' Wives (almost invariably unbeautiful and unerotic). There's also a category of beautiful-but-erotically-a-turnoff: for me, some of Mapplethorpe is this way, but of course others feel differently.

If I understand anything from this thread -- and I'm not sure I do -- it's about trying to make aesthetic comments while ignoring/pretending to ignore/wishing you could ignore the erotic aspect.

Post a picture in public and you'll get comments that are good and bad, useful and useless, clever and stupid, parse them as you will. So? What is the actual dispute here?

 

[gr82bart]

What is the actual dispute here?

I got lost many pages ago, but I like contributing to it.

Rgards, Art.

 

[Dave Wooten]

"Why bother" That's it Roger....where did the premise come from that beauty stops where eroticism begins...

 

[Síle]

Our greatest strength as a human race is our ability to acknowledge our differences,
Our greatest weakness is our failure to embrace them...

 

[DrPablo]

Maturity can give people the skill of self-censorship.

My 3 year old nephew recently informed me that he had a penis, and then immediately surmised that I have one as well (without empirical knowledge of the matter). Those of us who have trained in pediatrics know that it's a 3-year old developmental milestone to understand the difference between a male and female, and to identify themselves and others as such.

And the rest of your life after age 3 is spent learning the social contexts and appropriateness of your observations, behavior, and words.

Men in particular are sexually very visual, and it's not exactly our neocortex that casts our eyes upon the bodacious ta-tas across the street. And this doesn't seem to change much with age. I've taken care of delirius 90 year old men in the ICU who once they get off the ventilator can't stop telling the nurse to climb into the bed with them.

But under normal circumstances, it's only the 14 year olds who act like Beavis and Butthead, because the self-censorship comes later than the sexual awareness.

So I agree with the above -- ogle if you desire, but keep the comments to yourself. And in public, tame the ogling so you're not making women feel like meat. For f**k's sake, we do have control over that.

 

[copake_ham]

......



Stare all you want. Ogle all you want. Just don't leave 'wink-wink nudge-nudge' comments in the galleries.



......

So am I to understand:

1) Freedom of Expression here permits the display of nude photos, some of which may be perceived as having elements of sexuality or even eroticism; but

2) Censorship is required for those who would subsequently choose to comment with a "wink-wink nudge-nudge"?

Is the censorship of "wink-wink nudge-nudge" comments to nude postings in the Gallery now APUG policy?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

No, it's not APUG policy, but it is good taste and common sense.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

George- I've said all along, and this is merely my PERSONAL opinion, that if you want to slap the other 'tog a high-five for a great titty shot, by all means do so- just don't do it in public. What if your mother came along and was looking at APUG and saw it? Would you want to have to explain to her why you felt so moved to say something like that in public on the internet, where it will forever and always be associated with your name?

 

[copake_ham]

No, it's not APUG policy, but it is good taste and common sense.

George- I've said all along, and this is merely my PERSONAL opinion, that if you want to slap the other 'tog a high-five for a great titty shot, by all means do so- just don't do it in public. What if your mother came along and was looking at APUG and saw it? Would you want to have to explain to her why you felt so moved to say something like that in public on the internet, where it will forever and always be associated with your name?

My point is that we've gone through about 23 pages now of what is already a derivative thread based on the subjective notion of "good taste"!

Quite frankly, since I don't peruse the Gallery much at all, I am at a loss to understand whether the commentary regarding photos of nude females is rife with locker room talk. But if it is, so what?

If you're not prepared to censor the commentary, then accept the fact that people will exercise their free speech in ways that you may or may not like.

To me, it is somewhat bizarre that there was a near civil war here not even a year ago about the propriety of posting provocative male nude shots. And now there is this angst about the commentary some may make regarding female nude shots!

If the site wants the shots without the commentary - then it should remove the ability to comment on any photo, regardless of subject matter. Conversely, if only certain commentary is to be acceptable, the site should establish a censorship policy that is clear and objective.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Not everything requires a policy decision or a rule. As I've mentioned before, we generally try not to create too many rules and usually make subjective case-by-case decisions about moderator action and usually rely on consensus among the moderators, and now we may add to that the advice of the Membership Council.

In this case, I think the discussion is useful, or we would have put an end to it long ago. Not everyone who engages in this kind of commentary necessarily realizes that it makes others uncomfortable and effectively silences them, because they think that their views will meet with harsh criticism or because they feel they don't quite fit in. If this thread raises awareness, then it's a good thing. If people think about how others will react before they post, that's preferable to censorship.

 

[copake_ham]

Not everything requires a policy decision or a rule. As I've mentioned before, we generally try not to create too many rules and usually make subjective case-by-case decisions about moderator action and usually rely on consensus among the moderators, and now we may add to that the advice of the Membership Council.

In this case, I think the discussion is useful, or we would have put an end to it long ago. Not everyone who engages in this kind of commentary necessarily realizes that it makes others uncomfortable and effectively silences them, because they think that their views will meet with harsh criticism or because they feel they don't quite fit in. If this thread raises awareness, then it's a good thing. If people think about how others will react before they post, that's preferable to censorship.

Yes, it's prefereable that one rule with a light hand. But as I understand it, comments to Gallery posts are not intended to be "interactive" in the same way that posts to threads such as this one are.

So, the comment of "ogler A" should not inhibit the comment of "artistic admirer B" etc.

And then, too, you get into the quagmire of who determines what is in "good taste"? Do we worry when the most sensitive of all is "effectively silenced"; or do we delay that determination until the most hard-hearted "sailor" is shocked?

And too, whose determination should this be? Should straight women determine when straight men have "strayed over the line" in their commentary regarding a nude female shot? Should lesbians determine when gay men have "strayed over the line" in their commentary regarding a nude male post? Etc. etc. - through all the permutations.

Seems to me that more than anything this thread demonstrates that we can never have a consensus on what is "appropriate" commentary when nudes are posted to the Gallery. Either you ban nude shots - something we've earlier agreed is not desirable; or you accept that allowing such posts may result in comments that may offend some, but not all, folk here. And, if there is indeed no desire on the part of management, moderator or council to "ban" commentary content then we should just put this whole thing to rest.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

We don't want a rule, but it would be good if people became more thoughtful. Discussion encourages thought. If you don't care for the discussion, you don't need to participate.

 

[copake_ham]

We don't want a rule, but it would be good if people became more thoughtful. Discussion encourages thought. If you don't care for the discussion, you don't need to participate.

As JGalli said on the related thread, this will likely get me banned but so be it:

Actually, I think I am discussing.

I realize that I may be raising awkward points in my posts - but these are points of discussion.

I think we actually agree more than disagree - but I don't think you can dictate "good taste". Trying to do so is a no win endeavor.

As I said on my earlier posts to this thread, I don't even look at the Gallery (except the MSA) to even know how many naughty nudie comments are posted. But given the fact that APUG is m/l a photographer's "senior citizen center" this whole thread is weird!

This thread started when you split it off from Scott's GLBT poll for Foto3 and remains dominated by him and HIS sensitivities.

To put it bluntly, why the heck does a gay guy posting nude male penis shots care if a bunch of aging straight guys make "wink wink nudge nudge" comments to Gallery posts of nude women?

Why does he care what someone's Mom (who may indeed no longer be alive) may think about what comment straight guys might post about a nudie shot shown on APUG?

Seems to me that Scott wants to be the libertine when it comes to his sexual orientation - but the prude when it comes to others! It's kind of a variation on the "neo-Victorianism" I've been reading about. Except in this case it's a gay guy trying to make straight guys conform to the gay concept of what is acceptable heterosexual behavior!

Simply put, I think most straight men, when looking at a nude photo of an attractive female have some degree of sexual arousal. If they don't, then they might as well be dead!

 

[DrPablo]

I think we actually agree more than disagree - but I don't think you can dictate "good taste". Trying to do so is a no win endeavor.

Flagrantly bad taste is obvious to most everyone. There is a gray area that is offensive to some reasonable people but not to others -- and this gray area is usually invisible to those who leave such comments. Why not make the gray area case-by-case just as David has said?

George, I think you're getting so tangled in the rules that you're forgetting the game.

The bottom line is everyone should be a mensch, and censor themselves instead of crossing the line and whining about free speech. It's fine to think with your dick, but that doesn't mean you have to type with it.

Simply put, I think most straight men, when looking at a nude photo of an attractive female have some degree of sexual arousal. If they don't, then they might as well be dead!

And simply put, most straight men really don't want to hear the carnal musings of other straight men who have "some degree of sexual arousal". And this pretty much holds true for everyone else as well.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

George-

I do not want to dictate anyones thoughts or behaviors. I'm asking for parity in temperament. If I were to post similarly expressive responses to my taste (which I wouldn't do anyway because it is a public forum), I would draw the ire of hordes of offended souls, and drive them away, as what happened when I posted ONE provocative nude. I'd be happy to show you multiple examples from the galleries of female nudes that are equally as provocative/suggestive as my one image, but draw NO negative commentary. I received a death threat after posting that one nude. A DEATH THREAT. I'm suggesting that people lose the hipocrisy about one kind of comment being "just the way it is" and saying we should just let people say what they want to say because they want to say it. I'm suggesting and asking that people moderate their own speech, because not everyone wants to listen to it.

To put it bluntly, why the heck does a gay guy posting nude male penis shots care if a bunch of aging straight guys make "wink wink nudge nudge" comments to Gallery posts of nude women?

To put it bluntly, if you bothered to read this thread, I may have started this thread, but I'm far from the only person who has stated that they have observed the same tendency here, and have found it not to their liking either, which has resulted in them becoming less active in their contributions, either temporarily or long-term. So please don't try to push this off on me as "just Scott's opinion".

I don't want censorship in any form - but don't ask me to endure a double-standard of what is and is not acceptable. I'm not going to post 'wink-wink nudge-nudge' comments in the gallery regardless, but don't even TRY to sit there and tell me after you just said what you did that a similar comment from me would be met with the same degree of acceptance and support and defense from the likes of you.

 

[Ed Sukach]

And simply put, most straight men really don't want to hear the carnal musings of other straight men who have "some degree of sexual arousal". And this pretty much holds true for everyone else as well.

To agree with this...

What do you base...

Oh, damnit ... NO, I disagree.

That statement requires an acceptance comple... nearly completely, contrary to my experience. How did you reach that conclusion? Do you have any support for that statement - survey results, analyses of of written opinions ... "Kinsey" - type reports ...? What?

That is one tremendous example of a sweeping generality. I disagree, but it would be an enormous task to offer anything even remotely acceptable as a support for MY view, and I will suggest you would have the same burden. "Everyone else" - are you referring to the 20K+ participants in APUG, North American USAens, the population of the entire Earth...?

Of COURSE everyone would LIKE to see "standards of good taste" observed here - and everywhere else. If were to assume the necessity for such a "Rule" it would have to be something other that "everyone knows" - a written rule. What, exactly IS "good taste"?

Be my guest - try to write one.

The only other alteranative, In MY humble opinion, is to read/ listen to the
disappropriate" comments - hopefully truthful disappropriate comments - and have at least one finger poised over the "delete" key, should the occasion require.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Discussions like this one often do cause changes in attitudes over time.

I recall one APUG member telling me a funny story offline about how many years ago he was reading a _Playboy_ magazine on a plane, when a nun sat down in the seat next to him, and he furtively folded it up and put it away. This was probably the era before deregulation when people still dressed up to go on a plane. I don't think it very likely that I would see someone reading _Playboy_ on an airplane today, even though air travel is much less formal than it used to be. It would just be inappropriate.

I was recently speaking with a writer about how in the 1960s, it wasn't unusual for a mainstream bookstore like B. Dalton's to have an "adult" book section for straightforwardly pornographic fiction. Today we might have a modest shelf of high-brow "erotica" and historic pornography, like the works of the Marquis de Sade, in a mainstream bookstore, but somewhere in the 1970s or 80s, low-brow pornography was relegated to adult bookstores.

On the one hand, Americans are more prudish than they used to be, but they're also more sensitive. At one time it wouldn't have occurred to men who might have read "men's magazines" in the office, that women might feel uncomfortable about that, and now it's pretty much the norm not to read such things in the workplace. In part this is because there are rules and required sensitivity training (yes, I've done it) driven by fear of liability, but I think the rules weren't really in place until the culture had changed sufficiently to make them more or less unnecessary.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I'd be happy to show you multiple examples from the galleries of female nudes that are equally as provocative/suggestive as my one image, but draw NO negative commentary. I received a death threat after posting that one nude. A DEATH THREAT.

Scott, apart from the public comments posted to my nudes, I received more than a few outrageous PMs from some especially strident APUG detractors, aimed at my wife as well as me, for my having photographed naked women, and my wife for having posed in some of them. No death threats, but unbelievably demeaning remarks. It's not a gender issue -- or, at least, not entirely a gender issue. Sanders

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

This is an international forum. The U.S. Constitution has no special status, and in any case, it only dictates what the government can or can't regulate. APUG is not the government.

We're also not talking about changing any rules here. We're talking about changing attitudes and the vibe. If the vibe makes some people feel like they shouldn't be active on forums like APUG because it's not worth the hassle, or because they feel excluded, or because they find some sophomoric comments tedious, then it would benefit all of us to think about how we might change the vibe.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Scott, apart from the public comments posted to my nudes, I received more than a few outrageous PMs from some especially strident APUG detractors, aimed at my wife as well as me, for my having photographed naked women, and my wife for having posed in some of them. No death threats, but unbelievably demeaning remarks. It's not a gender issue -- or, at least, not entirely a gender issue. Sanders

Sanders, that's awful! I hope that your reported them and that they were banned from APUG!