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

[Ed Sukach]

And I agree about the body type thing, too.
Katharine

I agree - strongly - as well.

I just watched the American Women's Soccer Team defeat the Finnish Women's team. I really dislike stereotypical "Ideals", but I couldn't help but notice how attractive the players were.

Would that be "locker room talk"? - beyond the pale?

 

[BWGirl]

Well, Scott, since you brought me into this, I will tell you that you are spot on & so are Sly & Katherine. I mentioned this exact same "phenomenon" (ie 600 views to 5 comments sort of thing) back quite some time ago. Trust me... they aren't listening. :rolleyes:

That said, I hate to break it to you, but (as I once read on a Harley-Davidson shirt) "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand." :rolleyes:

In other words no matter how many times we say it, no matter how many times we se it, no matter how many times we rail against it, it still exists and there will still be people who say "it does not happen," or "so what if it does." Hence... if we have to explain (yet again), they still will not understand (yet again). :rolleyes:

 

[BWGirl]

I agree - strongly - as well.

I just watched the American Women's Soccer Team defeat the Finnish Women's team. I really dislike stereotypical "Ideals", but I couldn't help but notice how attractive the players were.

Would that be "locker room talk"? - beyond the pale?

Nah, Ed... it's ok for you to think someone of the gender you are attracted to is attractive.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I rarely view nudes in the gallery. I noticed the disproportionate viewing figures they receive some time ago, and decided not to add to them.

Me too.

Murray

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Publicly posting a shot of someone in the buff without consent is unthinkable, irrespective of how mature the response. It would be a gross betrayal of trust.

The wink wink nudge nudge I do not see as especially OTT. It is there once in a while, but not a major issue. I have seen lots of debates about nudes that have been very focused and none that have lost their way because of oggling, but maybe that is just my experience. Sure, we should not encourage oggling. But I also don't think we need to fix something if we don't have a serious problem. I just don't see one really.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

If other people look -thus inflating the figures - but don't make silly comments, where is the problem? Finding another person attractive is quite normal. Groping them is not.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Is being sexually attractive a bad thing? If so, I could see how someone's commenting about it would also be bad. But it's not bad. Other things that might sometimes go along with it can be bad, just as drunkenness sometimes accompanies alcohol consumption, but it doesn't follow that the thing in question, whether sexual attractiveness or alcohol consumption, is itself bad.

Now imagine if someone said to me "Boy, are you a hottie! I'd like to Roger you all day long!" Well, even if I find the suggestion extremely distasteful, perhaps because I find the speaker's appearance abhorrent, it is a compliment.

Nor is it clear that one should never be sophomoric. Are Animal House or Wedding Crashers funny movies? I think so. You find them distasteful? Then don't watch them.

I remember reading a quote by a very famous artist, namely "All art is sexual!" I'm not sure I agree, and I wish I could remember who said it, but in any case sex, or at least our sex drive is, is a huge part of our lives, and it only makes sense that much of our art and our discussion in general is about it.

 

[Anscojohn]

I am sure there are others of us here who view the Gallery regularly, and---like myself-- begin the viewing of the nude contributions by ogling the info on film and developer combo first, then the type of photo equipment used, then the type of print paper and print developer, if any.

 

[johnnywalker]

If one wants to ogle nudes, there are a lot "better" places to do it rather than APUG. I could try any of the other subjects mentioned earlier but I'm not likely ever to do nudes, and I'm mildly curious as to how they're done. Which is the main reason I look at them. On the other hand, I have nothing against a finely-turned ankle.
I've never noticed that most of the models are too thin. I thought there is quite a variety of body shapes.

 

[AZLF]

I don't know who made the statement that "all art is sexual" but Robert Heinlein made a similar observation when he opined that very few if any patents are held by eunuchs.

I recall the first female nude photo print I had ever seen. It was in Viet Nam of all places. I was 18 and assigned as a photographer/labman for the 25th Infantry Div. in Cu Chi, Viet Nam (1969/70). While I had pretty much unlimited access to the lab where I worked I sometimes went to the lab the base maintained for everyone to use to process film if my lab was too occupied by the normal work load.
One night I had just finished processing a B&W roll and was waiting for it to finish washing when I saw a guy holding an 11x14 print of a nude young Vietnamese woman standing by a window. I was young and VERY interested in the female form but as I got closer to the young man and the print I was at once taken in by the stunning beauty of the PRINT.

I was shooting primarily with a Yashica Mat 124 and was very pleased with what I was getting. The print of the young lady was shot using a Hassy and was simply the finest B&W representation I had seen with my own eyes to date. The exposure had been spot on. The focus crisp on her face and the tones of the print were creamy and seemingly grainless. Rich tonality from a very deep black of the shadows to the almost pure white in the eyes. My memory of that photo is one of the standards I use to grade my own photo's and IMO I rarely achieve that level of quality of work.

I don't shoot nudes myself. I see no need. I doubt there is a single pose, position or setting that has not been done many, many, many times so I don't see any point in shooting them again. Other here still find the subject worthy of study. Still other like to view these photo's.

So what? To each his dagnab blue eyed own.

Another APUG member continually posts photo's that look to me like what I generally throw into the trash bin as wasted film. And still others seem to find beauty in what I consider to be bush league crap.

APUG is a big tent. How about we all shoot more and post more images and talk less? Especially about BS like this.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

........
APUG is a big tent. How about we all shoot more and post more images and talk less? Especially about BS like this.

This would be a great post if you had not raised so many issues worthy of further dissection and debate. So, do you need to have an interest in photography to visit this site?

Spot on. I get rather fed up when things become 'precious'. I would rather like to think it represented real diversity; warts and all. I dont want it to be a model environment of politeness, etiquette and treading on egg shells. what sort of fertile environment would that be?

Perhaps we ought to have a psych evaluation page for new members to weed out those with on-donformist views? I could not give a rats if some members here are members of the KKK, as long as I don't hear about it.....

 

[noseoil]

Punching the Tar Baby, again

While I find this an interesting discussion, I also find it somewhat amusing. Human nature is certainly a fascinating and complex study. Good vs. evil, porn vs. titillation, art vs.commerce are all aspects of the same thing, humanity. The fact that someone is looking for an affirmation and validation in their life does come out in the type of work being done. That others don't "see" as well, as clearly or as correctly can be debated, but the bottom line is that we are all similar in our differences. Here are two aspects of the same thing. Warning, pornographic content may be in the eye of the beholder. Best, tim

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Please read comments.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Please see image and read comments.

 

[gr82bart]

Ummm ... I think I have mentioned in threads similar to this one. It's a site filled with men. MEN. What astounds me are the men taking / viewing the images not 'fessing up. Post a couple girlie shots and the MEN will oogle. So what's new? I don't care if all these men intellectualize their girlie shots. Let's face it, the men viewing them will see them as girlie shots.

I take girlie shots. Lots of them. I make no bones about it and sure, I think they have artistic or commercial merit. Intentionally and all. But, I know the men that look at my girlie images, for the most part couldn't give a rat's ass about my artistic intent.

Seriously someone tell me the difference between nudes in the APUG gallery and these sites:

• http://www.communityzoe.com
• Dead Link Removed
• http://www.playboy.com

(Straight) Men will be boys. Lets just admit it and move on shall we boys?

Regards, Art.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Ummm ... I think I have mentioned in threads similar to this one. It's a site filled with men. MEN. What astounds me are the men taking the images not 'fessing up. Post a couple girlie shots and the MEN will oogle. So what's new? I don't care if all these men intellectualize their girlie shots. Let's face it, the men viewing them will see them as girlie shots.

I take girlie shots. Lots of them. I make no bones about it and sure, I think some of them have artistic merit. Intentionally and all. But, I know the men that look at my girlie images, for the most part couldn't give a rat's ass about my artistic intent.

(Straight) Men will be boys. Lets just admit it and move on shall we boys?

Regards, Art.

Art- the difference in admitting it and doing something about it is in deciding do we want to keep APUG a straight white (for the most part) middle-aged male club, or do we want it to be someplace where non-male, non-straight, non-white folks feel comfortable contributing? To keep this post on-topic, I won't begin to touch on ethnic diversity. There is a modest female contingent here, but nowhere near the representation of women photographers in general. I certainly know that I do not want to see nudes banned from the site, and I don't think that most women would either. It comes down to a question of the appropriateness of the situation for making certain comments. Just as I wouldn't say "F*ck" in a nationally televised interview, it's not appropriate to post jocular comments in a public forum about PHOTOGRAPHY. If you want to tell someone their model is HOT, and congratulate them for bagging such a stunning number, by all means, say so - in a PM to the photographer. Or in a letter to Penthouse Forum. Or go to Hooters and have some hot wings.

 

[Dinesh]

Scott, have there really been that many inappropriate remarks?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Dinesh-

As I said earlier, I'd have to sift through more than 15,000 images in the gallery to give you a count. I don't know. Most of the comments are pretty on-topic as of late. This may well have calmed down since Sanders removed his nudes, as they attracted much more commentary, appropriate, hostile, and/or tacky alike.

I was responding to Art's summation that the site is largely populated by straight men who like to look at girlie pics. I don't have a magic bullet solution to changing the perception by non-straight males that this is a site largely for straight males. The linchpin of this argument is if there is an interest in changing that perception, or in maintaining that perception.

I hate to use this example because I genuinely like all the parties involved in the discussion. I'm not going to name names because I don't want to tar the individuals involved with something I am consciously aware of to be not the case. To give you another example of the kind of thing that builds that perception, however,

In the comments thread on one photo of a female nude, one photographer here made comments about what a great model she was, and that he too had enjoyed using her. To someone not familiar with the two photographers in question, this could sound like a Kamera Klub "model"-swapping where the interest was other than professional.

I am fully aware this was not the case, as I know and like and respect both photographers. Someone who is not a long-term participant in this site and/or who has not met both folks in person, as I have, would not know this background. Of course we can't prove a negative like this because most folks who would be turned off by such a thing would leave without ever saying anything, thus providing no evidence that it was or was not a factor.

 

[Katharine Thayer]

Ummm ... I think I have mentioned in threads similar to this one. It's a site filled with men. MEN.
.........

Men will be boys. Lets just admit it and move on shall we boys?

Okay, I get it. This is a site for MEN. They really should spell that out on the entrance page somewhere so women don't join by mistake.

Katharine

 

[Dinesh]

"This is a site for MEN."

can you show me where was that written?

 

[Dinesh]

Scott, If you have to sort through 15000 images to find a few inappropriate comments, then I dont think that this is as rampant a problem as you may think.

 

[Andy K]

Cool, philogyny, misogyny, misandry, all in one thread...


:munch:

 

[Ian Leake]

Scott, If you have to sort through 15000 images to find a few inappropriate comments, then I dont think that this is as rampant a problem as you may think.

...and I'm not sure the exchange was as crude you recollect either Scott.

But now I'm unsubscribing from this thread because the dead horse has had its ritual flogging and really deserves to be left to rest for a while.

 

[Ian Leake]

Cool, philogyny, misogyny, misandry, all in one thread...

OK one more post, because it's not often that I have to resort to the dictionary to find out what's being said! Thanks Andy

 

[noseoil]

"the difference in admitting it and doing something about it is in deciding do we want to keep APUG a straight white (for the most part) middle-aged male club, or do we want it to be someplace where non-male, non-straight, non-white folks feel comfortable contributing?" Scott

Not meaning to put too fine a point on it, but I think the problem here is with one person's perception of reality, as it relates to their sexuality. As I said in my post, punching the "Tar Baby" is lots of fun. tim

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Scott, If you have to sort through 15000 images to find a few inappropriate comments, then I dont think that this is as rampant a problem as you may think.

Dinesh- I have to sort through 15,000 images to find the nudes. That is a much smaller population out of the total images in the gallery. Since we don't have a sort-and-query system for the gallery, it is a rather arduous process. However, in twenty minutes of looking, I was able to find two specific examples of the kind of commentary/behavior that give that impression, and there were more that I was aware of but those images and all their commentary have been taken down from the site. You'd be entirely justified in telling me I was flapping my gums to hear myself talk if I were the only person who's felt the vibe, but I'm not. There is a perception problem. If the perception is disproportionate to the cause, that's also something that needs to be addressed, but there is nonetheless a perception problem that exists.

 

[BWGirl]

Ummm ... I think I have mentioned in threads similar to this one. It's a site filled with men. MEN. What astounds me are the men taking / viewing the images not 'fessing up. Post a couple girlie shots and the MEN will oogle. So what's new? I don't care if all these men intellectualize their girlie shots. Let's face it, the men viewing them will see them as girlie shots.

I take girlie shots. Lots of them. I make no bones about it and sure, I think they have artistic or commercial merit. Intentionally and all. But, I know the men that look at my girlie images, for the most part couldn't give a rat's ass about my artistic intent.

Seriously someone tell me the difference between nudes in the APUG gallery and these sites:

• http://www.communityzoe.com
• Dead Link Removed
• http://www.playboy.com

(Straight) Men will be boys. Lets just admit it and move on shall we boys?

Regards, Art.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here, Art! They are 'girlie' shots and I agree that those 285 views with only 4 comments pretty much says it all! It's when you have to hear all the "oh... no... it's really "Art"... it's not just a girlie shot!" :rolleyes: It's then when I think of the immortal words of Judge Judy... "Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining."

Thanks for the bit of sanity, Art! And I do agree that it's ok... no, make that "normal" for people to "ogle" those of the gender that they find attractive. Heaven knows I do! I do manage not to drool though.