Snow bunny

[ndwgolf]

WOW

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Koraks isn't talking about his own imagination but a response he validly had to a series of photos. He's not seeing something that's not there. There's also nothing puritanical about admitting the sexuality of those photos - it's there to be seen.

Point has already been made in this thread that these photos may be seen as expressing sensual/sexual content, just as they may be seen — as were their intent, dixit the OP (whose opinion should count for something) — as playful and innocent gestures.

What's annoying the crap out of me is koraks' insistence not only that his view of these photos is the only possible way of viewing these photos, but also treating everybody who doesn't agree with his view as stuck-up, close-minded puritains who tremble at the thought of breaking a sacred taboo, prefering to live in some Freudian state of denial.

This accompanied by a personal insult at my expense (post #11), which I didn't bother to report, as the level of stupidity of it was beyond words.

Things is, there is an interesting conversation to have about these pictures, one which totally escapes koraks. Question is not, as he would have it, to all admit that there is sexual undertones in these photos, but to wonder why some people are immediately struck by that aspect — I do believe koraks when he states that others have written to him privately about it —, while others aren't. There is an ambiguity there that is immesely interesting. Interesting because it not only has to do with photography itself — and it's history, as these photos do indeed seem to be a throwback to another era (unconsciously, as the OP certainly didn't grow up looking at 60s pinups) — but it also testifies to very modern attitudes about how the female body is shown by women. As someone else said in this thread, go to any beach today, and that's what you'll see.

So there is a tension here, within the image. A lot can be said, a lot can be discussed, once the tempation to psychoanalyze other posters' repressed sexuality is gotten rid of .

 

[Don_ih]

Point has already been made in this thread that these photos may be seen as expressing sensual/sexual content, just as they may be seen — as were their intent, dixit the OP (whose opinion should count for something) — as playful and innocent gestures.

Perhaps. They can also be seen as both.

At any rate, it's not as simple as saying "Oh, there's nothing sexual about that. You see that at the beach all the time." Just like it's not as simple as saying, "Oh, that's sexually provocative alright. You see that at the beach all the time."

 

[Saganich]

The judgment in the form of "wanting to understand motivation" is clearly baiting the OP into a one sided discussion.

 

[pentaxuser]

I see girls wearing less going to the supermarket....what century is this forum in?

Even at minus 21 degrees centrigrade

pentaxuser

 

[Willy T]

To cheesecake or not to cheesecake - that is the question.

Don't approve of it? for reasons of taste? for reasons of personal ethics? to support members who are made uncomfortable? for the opinion that it is inappropriate and doesn't belong here?

Ignore the poster; don't look at it.

 

[pentaxuser]

In terms of the OP's motivation he may simply and only want to generate the kind of lively discussion it has caused but it may also be his desire to promote his work and site . He makes at least 3 references to his site and there's no doubt in my mind that he has chosen the most impactful of his photos to show us

There's valid arguments for both the above as motives and the rules of Photrio have always or for as long as I can recall allowed pictures of scantily clad females and males in the Gallery

The post and its accompanying one line description in its own right has clearly not broken any Photrio rules

pentaxuser

 

[ndwgolf]

He makes at least 3 references to his site and there's no doubt in my mind that he has chosen the most impactful of his photos to show us

These pictures are tame compared to other pictures we have taken……… naughty titillating comes to mind but not porn like someone mentioned………. It’s past my bed time so I will sleep on it before I post again in the morning.
Good night

 

[Dr. no]

What fascinating conversation...
I'm mostly with Koraks in this one. There is sexual content here, intentional from the beginning, or (I'm certain!) the pictures would be of a fully clad young woman smiling in the snow, or a scowling one in the same outfit as this. These are not casual portraits in the vein of "the light is nice, stop here for a moment". And naming the post "snow bunny" starts the conversation with a reference to a image popularized by Hugh Hefner.

The responses are triggered by various visceral and psychological reactions in conflict with each other (and very few are strictly a neutral "meh"). My own would be along the lines of (starting from clicking on the post) "is it a rabbit or the other kind of bunny?" moving to "can anyone else see my screen?" and "which forum am I in?" and ending with what is the technical photography issue here?"

There are tachistoscopic studies that show a normal male reaction to an attractive female form is to immediately look away, then return for a longer look. I think the key word there is attractive--not clothing/nude specific. I grew up (Africa/Europe) with clothing norms all other the place, so for me at least the degree of clothing attracts sustained attention (tautologically) by how attractive it is.

In many cultures the "look away" reflex has been sublimated into all kinds of other reflexes...from automatically equating different clothing norms to monetized sexual activity to saying "that's normal". (Ridiculous, both of them. But "normal"? Nothing normal here. Not since the extinction of the natives of Tierra del Fuego have humans walked around naked in a freezing climate.)

And the final reaction (for me), was "which vintage medium format camera was this?" and then disappointment...

 

[koraks]

My questions still stand; I'm still interested in the answer.

These pictures are tame compared to other pictures we have taken

I've photographed several women and men with and without clothes, in sexual and entirely non-sexual settings, in all combinations of those factors. I've also published some of those images online. Hence my genuine interest in how this works for you guys. It seems many people are bent on trying to make this into something it isn't. I'll try to ignore the noise they make.