TOR

Interesting images.....

Looking over my collection of Popular Photographic Annuals (beginning with 1951), I didn't come across any vagina shots to speak of. There were plenty of nude art photos, some of selected body parts, but nothing I'd consider useful for your average gynecologists' textbook.

I'm sure what images my old magazines presented had something to do with the mores of society at that time and also previous generations. Back then, many nude photographic images were considered pornographic. Fortunately the times, they began a changing, and Adult (Men's) Magazines began, and became acceptable. Eventually. Well, for a teenager/young man, like me anyway...

Now to our present day. We claim we have a "privilege" to see everything we want on a body, whole and total, close up and personal. We see body parts alive and happily and/or erotically displayed. And we see bodies or body parts dead and blow all to hell by war and violence. We see whatever we want and whenever we want. We call the visions we see news, art, erotica, or whatever we want to call it . We say it is our right and freedom to do so. Provided, however, if we live in a country that gives us that freedom.

So, my opinion? I see these images in the manner in which they are presented, as works of artistic endeavors. It may take me awhile to wholeheartedly appreciate these views of the female body or seek a co-creator model/artist with like minded visions, but I expect that artistic predilution may happen, someday, if I live that long. :o)

Bill P

The old magazines you refer to were less the victim of mores(who were the first white immigrants to America? Puritans Think about that. remember Banned in Boston? We still live with their twisted attitudes.) than they were victim of the Post Office. Different states had different attitudes that were reflected in what could be sent in the mail. And of those here who find the photos vulgar, I think that says more about you than it says about the photos.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

The question is, would you frame them and hang them... like where your friends mom would see them? I think that is what this sub is about.

I'm not a prude in any way, and if you should come up with something clever or new, ok... but is it art? If so, art has a purpose/goal/accomplishment- tell us what your intent is, show us what talent you brought to bear, and we can decide on if you have been successful or not.

I personally think getting 7 pages of responses is its only intent... because you can shoot this with a willing subject and a flip phone... and you'll have to trust me- I'm not a prude, I don't mind looking, but don't blow smoke up my A55 snd tell me something it isn't.

peekaboo

Some of you are probably over the hill, and I bet some of you let your children learn about sex this way rather teaching them yourself.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

Why would you even bring this up again. We've already had a discussion on these same photos or have you forgotten. You seem to repost your photo's/posts repeatedly for some reason. Do you have nothing new to contribute? This comment is not about the genitals but more so of the composition or lack there of. If your idea of art is pornography then you've succeeded if it's about the art, composition and light of photography you haven't got it.

Sorry UHH community but this just frustrates the hell out of me. If I could filter LAS out of my view, I would.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

I think it's safe to say that no one here has sex with there children Mr Hip peekaboo.

peekaboo

I didn't say people were having sex with their children but said that's how a lot of children learn about sex via other means as some parents think they're to young to teach or learn about sex.

RightOnPhotography Loc: Quebec,QC

Except you can't see the vagina, it's inside the woman's body. What you see in this image is vulva.

Bill P

And how is this helpful to what has been a very tiresome discussion and a festival for puritans?

Bill P

"I'm sure what images my old magazines presented had something to do with the mores of society at that time and also previous generations. Back then, many nude photographic images were considered pornographic. Fortunately the times, they began a changing, and Adult (Men's) Magazines began, and became acceptable. Eventually. Well, for a teenager/young man, like me anyway"

As usual, this is a demonstration of amateur psychology and just plain overthinking without backup data. The reason your old magazines didn't carry certain images had very little to do with the days standards, and everything to do with the post office. There were regulations on what could be sent by mail, and these varied state by state. Again I will remind you of the days of "banned in Boston."

It may be that changing times relieved the post office of the job of censor, but that's why none of you old magazine collectors can find any photos of women's privates.

Emitchell8201 Loc: Middle Atlantic USA

I agree not my cup!!!!!!