That might be a reasonable but conservative observation some years back, but in case you did not notice the date of 2020 you perhaps may want to get with the times. This is what we moderns call 'erotic'. Also to assist you in a more meaningful understanding of 'porn' or 'pornography', that is a commercial enterprise, and I don't traffic in the mass sale nor distribution of that commercial activity. That would be insulting to The Hog.

By the by, your 'handle' of Gasman, sadly it has already been taken may years ago in Gunter Gras book The Tin Drum, it is a reference to Hitler being The Gasman who murdered so many in the concentration camps of WW II. You may want to re-think you 'name'.

In reference to 'Gasman', there was a sprint car driver who raced in Phoenix and was one of the winningest drivers around here. Richard 'The Gasman' Griffin. I guess you'd suggest he change his moniker, as well.

However, more to the point, you seem to spend as much time defending your "artistic" posts than most. There has to be a reason for that. As pointed out more than once, your snapshots border on porn. This post is no different, a series of snapshots and rather mediocre at that. The few that you did post somewhat recently were complimented quite nicely. Then, you post some diatribe that brought that thread right to the basement.

Your casting aspersions and denigrations at so many others might cause one to question whether or not you might be out of step instead of the numerous others. But not you. You steadfastly forge right ahead.

Another minor aspect is this "one a day" theme. I've found that placing requirements of 'one a day', 'one a week', etc. to inspire one to take photographs can lead to simply taking photos for the sake of meeting a commitment and not for the purpose of doing quality work. If I were to be searching for evidence of this theory addressing the "so many/unit of time", I'd consider your work exemplary.
--Bob

I am new to the HOG and usually view its contents for areas of my interest and similar activity. I've not done any nude work and have viewed this site with the idea of studying different poses, facial expressions and the various amount of "exposures" from the very modest to the third shot above. I have to say the comments over the months are consistent, those offended and those with an honest critique of the work. So I've asked myself are the artists here really being honest with themselves as to motive??? I notice all males shooting =/-, why is that? I notice 99% women models, why is that? I notice the "studios" to very informal indoors or out, there is lots of "teasing" language used in intro's. So let's be really honest, if this were just about lines, contrasts, curves, and tone there would be no need to show any of the commonly agreed sexual/genital anatomy. Tastefully draped nudes, lighting and perspective would the keynote parameters.

Like many of you, I'm just an amateur, old retired guy enjoying the art of photography, looking at the different venues. Sure, I enjoy a little "tease" of nudity because its nudity and we men are by nature, voyeurs. Trying to define the boundaries of this realm is difficult at best. So it seems to me, lets be honest. Define the limits of exposure. No boobs, or no genitals, or no pubic hair, no sexually erotic poses, hands on genitals, or what ever, then abide by them. Someone will always be offended and they own that response by coming on the site under what ever rules are decided.

This:
"However, more to the point, you seem to spend as much time defending your "artistic" posts than most. There has to be a reason for that. As pointed out more than once, your snapshots border on porn. This post is no different, a series of snapshots and rather mediocre at that. The few that you did post somewhat recently were complimented quite nicely. Then, you post some diatribe that brought that thread right to the basement. "

It's not a basement, it's my Cedar Closet, but instead of basement just call it "underground' like so many others. But that would only encourage me, Underground Man, aka Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky.

There not "artistic", they are artistic, I got the credentials to confirm that position. Your assertion of 'snapshot', well that is cover as well, and dear Bob, your a boob speaking out of the side of your mindless mouth, these are not the derogatory termed snap shot, but why bother, you just sling your silly personal agenda all about you so...by, by Bob, there is no point in reading our responding to your endless drivel.