Check out People Photography section of our forum.
Bob Carlos Clarke and the Vulva
Oct 3, 2018 08:45:02 #
RogStrix wrote:
It's owner, the courageous and beautiful 'Miss X', agreed to co-operate on the strict understanding that her identity would never be revealed.
In some states, one can have their sex ID changed on their birth certificate.
How would the vagina photo be received if the title was: "MR X" ?
Oct 4, 2018 10:22:28 #
Stephan G wrote:
A serious aside. It is very difficult, even downright impossible, to generate photographic images of the vagina without very expensive camera equipment.
Huh?
Oct 4, 2018 10:43:38 #
Rab-Eye wrote:
Huh?
It involves the technical/medical and legal descriptions regarding the subject matter.
Check out The Pampered Pets Corner section of our forum.
Oct 4, 2018 11:14:21 #
travelwp wrote:
In some states, one can have their sex ID changed on their birth certificate.
How would the vagina photo be received if the title was: "MR X" ?
How would the vagina photo be received if the title was: "MR X" ?
Wouldn't that be interesting! Notice there is/are no examples that anyone has cited, of a similar exposure of male genitalia. That would probably shut down an exhibit instantly. There is this "double standard."
Oct 4, 2018 12:26:22 #
toxdoc42 wrote:
Wouldn't that be interesting! Notice there is/are no examples that anyone has cited, of a similar exposure of male genitalia. That would probably shut down an exhibit instantly. There is this "double standard."
The DMV gives all women an "F" grade in the SEX box.
Seriously, many decency laws fell apart because they could not describe what is indecent. Unlike women, the male "sexual" organ is out in the open, so to speak. But then comes the problem of stating at which point (double entendre intended
) it is considered to be indecent. I think that there are many jurisdictions wrestling with that even now. (How does one figure out at which point is the sex act being portrayed vs being actual in movies/pictures? The jury is still out on that question.)Back in the 60s-70s, I had to laugh at the panels designated to be on the decency board. The first row at the adult theaters was packed with the spouses of mayor, vice-mayor, a top and one down police chiefs, an assortment of preachers and other high muckety-mucks. Mind you that these self-worthies could not be seen at such events, hence their wives "volunteered" to do the surveys. And those gals ran 45 up to even one aged 81. This is what is coloring our present day codes. And of course this could generate a thread of itself regarding art and photography.
Oct 4, 2018 12:52:35 #
RogStrix
Loc: UK
Back in the mid twentieth century the UK censors decreed that sight of female pubic hair was not allowed. The photographer's simply got round this rule by either getting the model to shave it all of or by some judious painting during the printing stage. BCC alluded to this in Shooting Sex saying that many men were shocked when they first saw a live female body with hair after years of seeing books that always depicted them without...
Mar 7, 2019 09:51:13 #
RogStrix
Loc: UK
recently found this piece in an article about BCC in a 1993 UK magazine:
In your Styx exhibition you featured a graphic photo of female genitalia called 'Alpha'. Why?
Pompously speaking, Alpha’s about the famous legend associated with a river, birth, sex and death. But, in fact, it was included for other reasons — not least as a monumental tribute to the owner, the very beautiful lover of a thousand men or more. I like the idea of hapless men, doomed by desire to be ingested by gigantic female sex organs.
In your Styx exhibition you featured a graphic photo of female genitalia called 'Alpha'. Why?
Pompously speaking, Alpha’s about the famous legend associated with a river, birth, sex and death. But, in fact, it was included for other reasons — not least as a monumental tribute to the owner, the very beautiful lover of a thousand men or more. I like the idea of hapless men, doomed by desire to be ingested by gigantic female sex organs.
Check out Traditional Street and Architectural Photography section of our forum.
Mar 7, 2019 12:59:59 #
Mar 7, 2019 13:01:20 #
Mar 7, 2019 13:01:24 #
Mar 7, 2019 13:02:34 #
Check out Bridge Camera Show Case section of our forum.
Mar 7, 2019 13:05:13 #
Mar 7, 2019 13:44:53 #
toxdoc42 wrote:
Wouldn't that be interesting! Notice there is/are no examples that anyone has cited, of a similar exposure of male genitalia. That would probably shut down an exhibit instantly. There is this "double standard."
Amazon has it. The phallus the picture study of the male penis. It wasn’t hard to find on goggle.
Mar 7, 2019 14:19:19 #
Mar 7, 2019 21:28:57 #
usken65 wrote:
Like this
So, since the inception of this section of the hog, the various contributors have managed to tastefully tiptoe around (somewhat) such a blatant display of anatomy and you put up three photos (not yours by the way) and give us more than 100 vulvae. I want to see model releases for all these women, LOL.
As someone who has taken a few images that included similar content, I can tell you that without a devilish grin and a sparkling set of eyes, seeing this part of a woman does nothing for me. My friends and I call them "bits and pieces" shots. Breasts can be beautiful as a study of shape and shadow but include the model's face and expression and their revelation becomes more intimate and meaningful, the same goes for the vulva.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Digital Artistry section of our forum.