Snow bunny

[ndwgolf]

Shot with the X2D II 90v in Hokkaido at minus -21 degrees. Both camera and model survived.

 

[koraks]

Thanks for posting these technically competent images of your fiancee in the snow. I think most will agree that she's a physically attractive woman who seems to have withstood the sub-zero temperatures during this (brief?) session admirably well.

These photos and others that you've posted of her before raise a some questions with me that I'm genuinely interested in. Perhaps you feel at liberty to comment, if you will. I'll try to explain.

The photos you and your fiancee make seem to me like a playful exercise in sexuality - by which I mean that the undertone is clearly (to me at least) sexual, perhaps in a kind of role-playing fashion, or at least seem to play with that concept. I find them cheerful and gleeful and I have the impression that your partner is very much at ease in front of your camera, and insofar as I can tell from the photos, there's a certain authenticity in how the two of you execute the concept. The fact that these photos are made in the context of your long-standing relationship (I recall you've been engaged to her for quite some time already?) sets them apart from visually similar images that often (but not always) have been the result of a more transactional relationship (i.e. a photographer or company hiring a model).

Now, photography in which 'playful sexuality' is exercised between partners is very common; millions of couples have engaged in it. But again, your case is different from many, in the sense that most couples do not seek to widely publish the results - often even the contrary; they want to painstakingly avoid such photos to end up in the public domain.

This raises the question with me what the role of the audience and wide-scale publication is in this photographic format for the both of you, and more specifically, what motivations you and her have for engaging a global audience in this? I imagine that those motivations/interests overlap to a certain extent, but I assume that the overlap is not complete and that some considerations are unique to either her or you. As an (amateur) photographer, I can make a reasonable guess as to what your motivations might be (although I'd still like to know since such a guess would be inherently unreliable) - on the other hand, your partner's motivations are less intuitive for me to grasp, so I'd be interested in hearing about her side of the story as well.

 

[ndwgolf]

Seems like a really big story for just a couple of photographs. That’s all they are just a couple of photos.

 

[pentaxuser]

I was expecting to see a white rabbit in the snow

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

"Baby, it's cold out here."

 

[loccdor]

I can make a reasonable guess as to what your motivations might be (although I'd still like to know since such a guess would be inherently unreliable) - on the other hand, your partner's motivations are less intuitive for me to grasp, so I'd be interested in hearing about her side of the story as well.

Though people who enjoy showing their bare or mostly-bare body are rarer than those who don't, they certainly do exist and have throughout history. And I think the one group has always been hard to understand by the other. And some just don't care - my friend knew a girl who would just change all her clothes in front of you without thinking twice because I suppose she grew up without ever learning that she should feel certain parts must be hidden. It wasn't sexual for her. I guess it's just about what you're used to, including how you expect people in your culture to interact.

 

[koraks]

Seems like a really big story for just a couple of photographs. That’s all they are just a couple of photos.

Okay, shorter story - why do you guys feel compelled to share your photos? Genuinely interested.

And I think the one group has always been hard to understand by the other.

I'm not saying I don't understand. I know a whole host of possible reasons that can apply to either or both sides of the camera. I'm interested in theirs, that's all.

my friend knew a girl who would just change all her clothes in front of you without thinking twice because I suppose she grew up without ever learning that she should feel certain parts must be hidden. It wasn't sexual for her.

Goes to show - there's a massive difference between being A-OK with being naked in front of people and engaging in photography that's clearly erotic/sexual in intent. I'm not judging; just pointing out there's a difference. The former I find kind of obvious and uncomplicated; we're all naked under our clothes, big deal, who cares. We go to the sauna/spa a lot, that's naked around here. It has nothing to do with sex etc. It's just naked because it works better that way. The latter, i.e. creating & sharing photography with a personal sexual dimension, I find interesting because there's an inherent social tension and (for some) taboo involving sexuality, so I find it interesting when people challenge that status quo esp. if it somehow relates to their own relationship and private lives. That's a dimension that generally doesn't underlie the center folds.

Besides, I'm part of the audience. As such, I play a role in this exchange. Can I ask questions from that perspective? I sure hope so.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The photos you and your fiancee make seem to me like a playful exercise in sexuality - by which I mean that the undertone is clearly (to me at least) sexual

being A-OK with being naked in front of people and engaging in photography that's clearly erotic/sexual in intent

Good thing you put in "to me at least," as I don't see it. Yes, these photos are playful, but there is — to me at least — nothing sexual or erotic in them, certainly not "clearly" (which kind of negates your nuanced "to me at least"). If it's the sight of flesh — yes, much of it — that makes you think that, then wouldn't all nude photography, for you at least, be erotic/sexual in intent?

Honestly, had @ndwgolf not stated on his website that he was in a relationship with this woman, I could have easily seen the photos as advertisement either for the bikini or for the boots, and the playfulness as the natural trust between photographer and model.

I'm with OP on this: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[koraks]

there is — to me at least — nothing sexual or erotic in them

ooooookay.

If it's the sight of flesh — yes, much of it — that makes you think that, then wouldn't all nude photography, for you at least, be erotic/sexual in intent?

Of course not.

Please help me to interpret what @ndwgolf said here in his other thread:

My personal style leans toward suggestion rather than exposure. I prefer to have everything technically covered, while leaving just enough unseen to invite the viewer’s imagination to do some of the work. Shadows, angles, fabric, and framing often say more than full reveal ever could.

What kind of suggestion are we talking here, would you say? Fortuitous axle placement on roller suitcases? Effective color combinations of reeds and string bikinis?

You're not telling me you're interpreting this as an "artistic exercise in the human form", do you?

These are center folds. This is flesh with the intent to sell and the mode of selling is eroticism. And in principle I find there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I see two people who are evidently comfortable in engaging a large audience in this sexual innuendo that's apparently a staple within their relationship (this is not @ndwgolf's first thread featuring his fiancee) and I think that's refreshing, and something worth talking about. What I don't get is the immediate denial that follows to the question. What's the big deal?

These are sexual images. They're from a couple who want to show this to the world. That's cool. How does that work for you guys? Not an odd question, I'd say.

PS:

I could have easily seen the photos as advertisement either for the bikini or for the boots

OK, so you have grown accustomed, like virtually all of us, to the fact that women are sexualized at a wide scale in advertising. Without passing judgement on this practice per se: your reasoning here is literally ass-backward. Since you see this in ads, it's apparently not sexual. What the heck! It's the other way around - those ads leverage sexuality as a means to sell. Sex sells. We've known this forever. That's why ad agencies and brands often seek the very limits to what society will tolerate in terms of sexualization of female models - and sometimes inch over it so they end up withdrawing campaigns.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

and something worth talking about

It is, but I can't tell if we're talking about the photos or if we're talking about you .

I see two people who are evidently comfortable in engaging a large audience in this sexual innuendo

You and I clearly do not have the same definition of "sexual innuendo". "Woman throwing snow in the air" is not in any playbook I know .

At any rate, either they are "engaging in this sexual innuendo," or these are simply the photos of a man who finds his girlfriend beautiful and wants to celebrate that beauty through his camera lens. Which is which, in terms of intent, should be @ndwgolf to say, not any of us.

 

[koraks]

I can't tell if we're talking about the photos or if we're talking about you

Oh, real classy, that one. Do you think I'm the only one to recognize that dimension in these photos?
Who would be appealed by these photos, would you say? And what's in them that might constitute that appeal? Hasselblad aficionados, perhaps?

You and I clearly do not have the same definition of "sexual innuendo". "Woman throwing snow in the air" is not in any playbook I know .

There's evidently a lot you don't know and therefore must be missing out on when it comes to the richness of the human sexual experience. Although I have to say that I personally find snow too cold to frolic around in, so perhaps there's one thing we have in common and it's that 'woman throwing snow in the air' rocks neither of our boats.

these are simply the photos of a man who finds his girlfriend beautiful and wants to celebrate that beauty through his camera lens.

That's how I've always interpreted his images. I think that's kind of endearing in a way. But it doesn't answer the question what's in it for her, which is the main one I wanted to ask. That's what interests me. You don't accidentally seek out an audience to flirt with while wearing clothes that are intended to keep one's genitalia "technically covered, while leaving just enough unseen to invite the viewer’s imagination to do some of the work." (how the heck is that not intended sexually, ffs). A related question is why this particular audience here on Photrio is apparently the selected one (or one of them at least) for this purpose.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

There's evidently a lot you don't know and therefore must be missing out on when it comes to the richness of the human sexual experience.

Wow.

Just. Wow.

Do you think I'm the only one to recognize that dimension in these photos?

OK, let's backtrack a little, shall we? You wrote that "at least for you" these photos were clearly sexual/erotic. Now "at least for you" implies that you acknowledge that "at least for one other person or more" these photos have very little sexual/erotic meaning. In other words, by "at least for me" you are acknowledging that we're in the domain of interpretation, and acknowledging that another person —i.e., me, in this case—can have a different interpretation that is as valid.

So it's not a numbers game, and you can't have it both ways. Either we're dealing with "at least for you" (and who cares how many other yous) these photos are sexual/erotic, or we're dealing with the universal truth of the sexual/erotic intent/meaning of these photos.

Seems like a really big story for just a couple of photographs. That’s all they are just a couple of photos.

That should have been the end of it.

At least for me.

 

[loccdor]

I can kind of see it both ways. The clothing style would normally be intended for titillation, but nothing about the poses conveys anything sexual to me. I get the feeling he's going for the classic pinup look, which other than showing a lot of skin, is often not very lewd, at least by today's standards. The facial expression is also just a normal smile rather than a conveyance of arousal.

 

[koraks]

That should have been the end of it.

At least for me.

Good for you. It's not the end for me though. I think there are numerous issues going on here, some of which are potentially concerning, and some of which are potentially interesting in an entirely positive way. I imagine that if someone posts their scantily clad fiancee on a forum, they're willing to answer a few questions about it. Let's hope this is the case and we can at least determine that everything is ethically A-OK here and that for the rest, it's up to a (hopefully by that time, consenting audience*) to take it or leave as they please.

nothing about the poses conveys anything sexual to me

Photo #3 is just a comfortable pose?
In the stewardess series, #5 is just someone thinking really hard of a name they forgot?

Why keep ignoring what OP has stated himself about his photography, which boils down to it being about teasing?

Why keep sidetracking the potentially relevant discussion into the non-issue whether 100% of the people deem this "sexual", "erotic", "sexually charged", "suggestive", "quasi-but-not-quite erotic", "only 35% sexual but certainly not more" - or whatever deterministic qualification we need to attribute to it? It doesn't matter! Lots of people will read something sexual/erotic/soft-pornographic in these photos. And that brings certain questions - some of them nice ones, some of them confrontational ones.

If someone feels the liberty to post their woman's T&A, they can stand up for what they show just as well. So let's see if OP will show the cojones he wants his images to appeal to.

* realize very well that there are people who rather do not see this on a general-interest photography forum. Some of them choose to remain silent because they'd rather not deal with the backlash of speaking up.