theda wrote:
I make it a policy never to do any work I can't show my parents.  So, to an extent, the reason I'm not out there doing softcore porn is because I don't want to hurt or alienate people important to me. Other than that, I'm not likely to make any concessions. 'Cause I'm a bitch.

i dont think you are a bitch theda...cranky, yes, bitch no.

Mayanlee wrote:
One of the more interesting concepts in today's society (or maybe it's roots really came from my generation and even a little earlier with the 60's) is the notion of only doing what makes us individually happy... all others must either a) heel, or b) screw off. I've often wondered whether it isn't the burgeoning prevalence of that attitude which hasn't seriously crippled society's feeling of community as a whole rather than a set of special interest groups.

I'm certainly grateful he defends and stands by me, but there's always that residual feeling that family is family; you stick together no matter what.  Perhaps it's cultural altho I certainly couldn't be said to toe the family line on anything, so who knows.

It comes down to issues of harm.  Are you avoiding doing that which makes you happy & fulfilled (and probably does good things for some others) because you might incite the dissaproval of others?  Or are you not doing it becuase it would HARM others?
The 60's & 70's revolutions weren't about doing whatever you want at the expense of others, they were about not limiting yourself due to the simple predjudices & biases of others.
They have at least as much responsibility to try & respect & understand you & your choices as you do theirs.  It all too often comes acorss one sided, which seems like the case with your BF's family.  Kudos to him for sticking to his guns.

SLE Photography wrote:
She responded that I was an artist, I never worked with the models alone (she was there assisting at that shoot, in fact), and there was nothing dirty about it.
The women responded that it didn't matter, I was with her & therefore shouldn't be looking at another woman naked, regardless of the reason, as it was basically the same thing as cheating.  One of them went so far as to say she'd divorce her husband if she caught him with a Playboy, because he should never think of any woman but her & if he looked at others he might be thinking of them when they made love.

Isn't it absolutely amazing how closed off and repressed so many people can be?

I think it's kind of norm in the States, unfortunately.  While I was visiting Germany, I was in this small town, and in a window display that faced a street, there was a exhibition of nudes done by a local photographer...they were really well done, absolutely beautiful...but you'd never see something like that in the U.S.  And if you did, it'd be surrounded by protesters. 

People should just let other people be themselves...
~Jer

T H Taylor wrote:
If i were your significant, i would be more angered and ashamed that my family did not trust or respect me enough to know that whom ever I chose to spend my life with.... would, of couse, be of outstanding character.
As an adult, families are an accessory, not a necessity.

Rspect, love and enjoy each other; eventually, the family will come around.  If they don't... F*ck 'em.

Well, yes, that's more of how he feels in this case, but I guess I empathize with how painful it was for him to have to deal with it at all.

Mayanlee wrote:
I'm certainly grateful he defends and stands by me, but there's always that residual feeling that family is family; you stick together no matter what.  Perhaps it's cultural altho I certainly couldn't be said to toe the family line on anything, so who knows.

I only agree with sticking by family to an extent.  Yes, your family is your family, and you should do what you can to help them, etc.  But when they become a detriment to you, they aren't acting as your family anymore, are they?  Whether it be domestic abuse, or something as simple as saying they dont' agree with your lifestyle...it's YOUR lifestyle, and so even though it may upset them, it's your choice to live that way, to make yourself happy.  Once they see that you aren't just being destructive to yourself, more than likely they will come around...and if they don't, then again, it's still your life.  They are still your family, but there is no rule that says they HAVE to agree with everything you do.

I'm pretty sure my parents would have had me shot if that was the case. 

~Jer

Mayanlee wrote:
One of the more interesting concepts in today's society (or maybe it's roots really came from my generation and even a little earlier with the 60's) is the notion of only doing what makes us individually happy... all others must either a) heel, or b) screw off. I've often wondered whether it isn't the burgeoning prevalence of that attitude which hasn't seriously crippled society's feeling of community as a whole rather than a set of special interest groups.

I'm certainly grateful he defends and stands by me, but there's always that residual feeling that family is family; you stick together no matter what.  Perhaps it's cultural altho I certainly couldn't be said to toe the family line on anything, so who knows.

I was born at the end of the "me" decade, but fortunately, I was born to parents who grew up during the depression living with their extended families, so I avoided that selfishness I see so much of in people around my age.  I really shudder to think what kind of selfish pricks my contemporaries are raising.

Mayanlee wrote:
One of the more interesting concepts in today's society (or maybe it's roots really came from my generation and even a little earlier with the 60's) is the notion of only doing what makes us individually happy... all others must either a) heel, or b) screw off. I've often wondered whether it isn't the burgeoning prevalence of that attitude which hasn't seriously crippled society's feeling of community as a whole rather than a set of special interest groups.

I don't think the concept of pursuing individual happiness is the problem:  I think the corruption and subversion of that idea by people who use that concept as a cover for wrongs they would have perpetrated anyway [ie:  Charles Manson, Michael Milken].  The problem with society is that it consists largely of sheeple who follow whatever dog happens to be leading the pack at a given moment, without regard to the actual legitimacy of the lead dog's direction.

In fact, I would say that history has borne out that putting the needs of "society" before the individual rarely works out well either [ie:  Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, Stalin].  What is needed for society to function properly is a balance of genuine concern for the community and respect for the individual as well as oneself.  The question is whether this balance is something actually attainable or if it's still outside our current human hard-wiring.

In my own view, your SO refused to place the [wrong headed] wishes of his family group before his respect for you [which you've certainly earned] or his own right to choose you for a partner.  It's really not unlike the situations that people in homosexual relationships or interracial relationships face regularly.  There comes a point where the majority is just plain wrong and needs to be told to [b]sod off[/i]...Something we liberals enjoy doing anyway, so I hazard your SO isn't having nearly as rough a time as you might think.

Absinthe Photography wrote:

Isn't it absolutely amazing how closed off and repressed so many people can be?

I think it's kind of norm in the States, unfortunately.  While I was visiting Germany, I was in this small town, and in a window display that faced a street, there was a exhibition of nudes done by a local photographer...they were really well done, absolutely beautiful...but you'd never see something like that in the U.S.  And if you did, it'd be surrounded by protesters. 

People should just let other people be themselves...
~Jer

Yeah, there was a bit of a flap here recently because a recognized international artists had some of his photos at a local art musuem & there were nudes of both men & women and at the last minute the museum pulled all the MALE nudes.  The local weekly alternative ran one of them (a gay man, nude, holding the urn with his partner's ashes, part of a series on HIV/AIDS) and it caused a lot of people to just freak out.
Ugh.
Kills me.

Absinthe Photography wrote:

I only agree with sticking by family to an extent.  Yes, your family is your family, and you should do what you can to help them, etc.  But when they become a detriment to you, they aren't acting as your family anymore, are they?  Whether it be domestic abuse, or something as simple as saying they dont' agree with your lifestyle...it's YOUR lifestyle, and so even though it may upset them, it's your choice to live that way, to make yourself happy.  Once they see that you aren't just being destructive to yourself, more than likely they will come around...and if they don't, then again, it's still your life.  They are still your family, but there is no rule that says they HAVE to agree with everything you do.

I'm pretty sure my parents would have had me shot if that was the case. 

~Jer

I think this too is where some of us have come to the point of developing the families we CHOOSE out of the members of our "blood" family who we can actually stand and those people we meet who become family.  I'm an only child but I have acquired some brothers & sisters  :-D
The idea that you HAVE to stick with someone just becuase you share blood is damn silly.

theda wrote:
I was born at the end of the "me" decade, but fortunately, I was born to parents who grew up during the depression living with their extended families, so I avoided that selfishness I see so much of in people around my age.  I really shudder to think what kind of selfish pricks my contemporaries are raising.

As I said, I think there's a major difference in being selfish and only doing things for yourself (more of a late 70's in to the 80's thing) and the idea of being free to BE yourself with some sense of connection & responsibility to community & others.
The 2 aren't mutually exclusive.
It's one of those good ideas that gor perverted.
"Be yourself" got warped in to "be only FOR yourself."
Big difference.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
The problem with society is that it consists largely of sheeple who follow whatever dog happens to be leading the pack at a given moment, without regard to the actual legitimacy of the lead dog's direction.

old Eskimo saying:

For every one but the lead dog the view is pretty much the same.

LOL

Studio36

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I don't have to worry about my own family, due to my parents' total computer illiteracy and the fact that my siblings don't really respect me enough to consider me capable of anything relevant...In a way I'm fortunate to live in a sort of vaccum, free from the family strife that most of you might have to deal with pursuing my type of art.

That's back to my comments about building a family of choice over a family of blood  :-D
I have a lot of friends who've been truer to me longer than most of my so-called relatives.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I don't think the concept of pursuing individual happiness is the problem:  I think the corruption and subversion of that idea by people who use that concept as a cover for wrongs they would have perpetrated anyway [ie:  Charles Manson, Michael Milken].  The problem with society is that it consists largely of sheeple who follow whatever dog happens to be leading the pack at a given moment, without regard to the actual legitimacy of the lead dog's direction.

*blink blink*
Are we related?
LOL
Sounds like we should have a drink & talk sometime.

Absinthe Photography wrote:
Isn't it absolutely amazing how closed off and repressed so many people can be?

I think it's kind of norm in the States, unfortunately.  While I was visiting Germany, I was in this small town, and in a window display that faced a street, there was a exhibition of nudes done by a local photographer...they were really well done, absolutely beautiful...but you'd never see something like that in the U.S.  And if you did, it'd be surrounded by protesters. 

People should just let other people be themselves...
~Jer

Hate to disappoint a common perception, but they ARE European... and seemingly open-minded (until this, of course).  Even my boyfriend, the epitome of Eurocharm, was rather taken aback by what is more commonly associated with American Puritanism. Which only confirms to me that people are people everywhere with the same hard-wired knee-jerk reactions as anywhere else.

SLE Photography wrote:

*blink blink*
Are we related?
LOL
Sounds like we should have a drink & talk sometime.

LOL... Yeah... you should... you'll find Melvin to be a wonderful conversationalist.

Mayanlee wrote:

LOL... Yeah... you should... you'll find Melvin to be a wonderful conversationalist.

That's just her diplomatic way of saying that I talk too much.

Mayanlee wrote:
LOL... Yeah... you should... you'll find Melvin to be a wonderful conversationalist.

See?  I talk so fast that the server assumed I said twice as much as I did.

Mayanlee wrote:
One of the more interesting concepts in today's society (or maybe it's roots really came from my generation and even a little earlier with the 60's) is the notion of only doing what makes us individually happy... all others must either a) heel, or b) screw off. I've often wondered whether it isn't the burgeoning prevalence of that attitude which hasn't seriously crippled society's feeling of community as a whole rather than a set of special interest groups.

I'm certainly grateful he defends and stands by me, but there's always that residual feeling that family is family; you stick together no matter what.  Perhaps it's cultural altho I certainly couldn't be said to toe the family line on anything, so who knows.

I think that, for many, the "what's best for me" approach is used as an excuse to be completely self-centered and callous.  However, I don't think that the idea itself necessarily promotes that way of thinking, if only because one of the best thing for one's existence is to do as little harm as possible to those you care about.

It seems these days, for some at least, that friends and contemporaries have taken the place of the position reserved for family in years past.  It may even be a better idea, socially speaking, as you're more likely (one hopes) to choose friends that complement (and not just compliment) you and are beneficial to your self-image.  One of the biggest problems with family is that most negative stereotypes, prejudices, etc come from them, and before you're old enough to be able to think for yourself.

I've never been unfortunate enough to have too much familial disapproval, but I also hold myself to the "no regret" rule, which basically says, "don't do anything you're going to regret later."  I think you almost always know in advance.

For me it comes down to this: You get in trouble in life when you break your own rules.  Maybe those rules come from your family, maybe from society, maybe just from you, but it holds true regardless of their point of origin.

Mayanlee wrote:

Hate to disappoint a common perception, but they ARE European... and seemingly open-minded (until this, of course).  Even my boyfriend, the epitome of Eurocharm, was rather taken aback by what is more commonly associated with American Puritanism. Which only confirms to me that people are people everywhere with the same hard-wired knee-jerk reactions as anywhere else.

Might be that they were perfectly tolerant until it was someone in THEIR family.
That's a sticking point for a lot of folks.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

That's just her diplomatic way of saying that I talk too much.

I've been accused of that once or twice too.

Mayanlee wrote:
One of the more interesting concepts in today's society (or maybe it's roots really came from my generation and even a little earlier with the 60's) is the notion of only doing what makes us individually happy... all others must either a) heel, or b) screw off. I've often wondered whether it isn't the burgeoning prevalence of that attitude which hasn't seriously crippled society's feeling of community as a whole rather than a set of special interest groups.

Just about all of us are self-centered (if we want to admit it or not.)  It's human nature to want what's best for "me, myself and I".  I think our "sense of community" in being human ended once we stopped being chased and killed by other predators.  The "good old days", and the accoutrements thereof, are illusory.  I don't think they ever existed.

Mayanlee wrote:
I'm certainly grateful he defends and stands by me, but there's always that residual feeling that family is family; you stick together no matter what.  Perhaps it's cultural altho I certainly couldn't be said to toe the family line on anything, so who knows.

I don't know you or the situation beyond what you've related in this thread but I suspect your SO's family has other issues.  Have they seen your work?  Have they asked you about it?  How serious is your relationship?  Has he dated models before?  I'm sure there's more to the story - elements that probably have very little to do with you personally.

Wait until you've got inlaws to deal with.  Then the real fun begins.  My inlaws hate what I do.  Hell, they hate me.  *grin*

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I don't think the concept of pursuing individual happiness is the problem:  I think the corruption and subversion of that idea by people who use that concept as a cover for wrongs they would have perpetrated anyway [ie:  Charles Manson, Michael Milken].  The problem with society is that it consists largely of sheeple who follow whatever dog happens to be leading the pack at a given moment, without regard to the actual legitimacy of the lead dog's direction.

In fact, I would say that history has borne out that putting the needs of "society" before the individual rarely works out well either [ie:  Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, Stalin].  What is needed for society to function properly is a balance of genuine concern for the community and respect for the individual as well as oneself.  The question is whether this balance is something actually attainable or if it's still outside our current human hard-wiring.

In my own view, your SO refused to place the [wrong headed] wishes of his family group before his respect for you [which you've certainly earned] or his own right to choose you for a partner.  It's really not unlike the situations that people in homosexual relationships or interracial relationships face regularly.  There comes a point where the majority is just plain wrong and needs to be told to [b]sod off[/i]...Something we liberals enjoy doing anyway, so I hazard your SO isn't having nearly as rough a time as you might think.

Gads... that's why we get along so well... !  And yes, he's a keeper.  (I never did bother with catch and release when fishing...) 

Mayanlee wrote:

Gads... that's why we get along so well... !  And yes, he's a keeper.  (I never did bother with catch and release when fishing...) 

Not even if they were under the size limit?  ;-)

William Kious wrote:
I don't know you or the situation beyond what you've related in this thread but I suspect your SO's family has other issues.  Have they seen your work?  Have they asked you about it?  How serious is your relationship?  Has he dated models before?  I'm sure there's more to the story - elements that probably have very little to do with you personally.

Wait until you've got inlaws to deal with.  Then the real fun begins.  My inlaws hate what I do.  Hell, they hate me.  *grin*

Pretty much all I know myself is that a family member did a little investigation as I appeared on the cover of a fairly popular Rolling-Stone-style music magazine in France. Story goes that unlike most people who would more likely keep to himself what he had learned until talking directly with the affected party, he apparently shared it with the rest of the family first.  Dunno that there's a right or wrong to this; just what happened. That they have other issues is self-evident. I have no control over any of those. If he dated models before, that is 1) not my concern, nor should it 2) have any bearing as what we're dealing with is the issue of whether an individual's character should have more significance in how a person is perceived in light of a profession.

And yeah, I have significant experience with in laws.. up to now, I've had better relationships with in laws than SOs!...

SLE Photography wrote:

Not even if they were under the size limit?  ;-)

O man... what a tee-up....

(resists the urge to swing)

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
There are never any good answers in these situations but you have my support.

My question though is; why does life have to be so complicated?

That was a rhetorical question, right, Alan...?

all others must either a) heel, or b) screw off. I've often wondered whether it isn't the burgeoning prevalence of that attitude which hasn't seriously crippled society's feeling of community as a whole rather than a set of special interest groups.

As you know, between the mixed bag of English, music, and photography, I got fundamentally twisted into surviving the family's recently deceased (the end of the song went something like, "Get a job but take me to chemo too") as well as institutional cultures (from whence came these fulltime schedules of part-time Englishy work?) and minimizing contact with the other two surviving brothers (whoever first told the Cinderalla story was a genius).  It turns out I have a girlfriend who adores me and, whaddayaknow--business! 

Finally.  In the end, you and your boyfriend own your lives -- and I, mine -- and no one else. 

Full steam ahead--all of us! sez I.