Rae01 wrote:
...si is not porn!  it's an annual swimsuit publication featuring the world's top models!

But it's published by a magazine that caters largely to men who do not buy such swimsuits.

Don't many of those men use the SI Swimsuit Issue to pleasure themselves?  Why else would Sports Illustrated publish it?

Rae01 wrote:
...si is not porn!  it's an annual swimsuit publication featuring the world's top models!

Ok...

So then what makes porn, porn?  I can assure you that most men use the SI swimsuit issue the same way they use a playboy, and if you think SI doesn't know this and cater to that fact, you're dreaming.

So again, is it porn if it's used as such or is it not porn because you like it? 

Rae01 wrote:
i'm so sorry but i can't let this one pass; it was asked in reference to the si swimsuit edition....

"Question though.  Is fashion porn better than glamour porn?"

...asks the person lacking the ability to differentiate!!!!

Did it strike a nerve?  you don't WANT to believe that 80 percent of the readers of the SI swimuit edition are NOT buying it as a catalouge of designer swimwear?

You don't ever question WHY it's the highest selling issue annually for SI?

It is porn.  It's just packaged different.  It's done  to let 15 year old boys jerk one off.  It's done so that 40 year old husbands can have eye candy sitting on the coffe table without looking like a pervert.  But make no mistake about it, NOTHING about it has anything to do with fashion, art, or sports.

Paramour Productions wrote:
My dear the only difference is taste....

That doesn't mean other images aren't better photographs, but what some guy decides to pleasure himself to is simply a matter of taste...

Brian, what do you think servicemen were doing with all those 40's pinups??

And no, not all glamour is porn.  In today's world though a certain amount of what some consider softcore porn is.  Do you consider playboy to be porn?  I don't.  Other's do.  It's a subjective term.  But this holier than thou attitude is really quite hysterical...

See the problem is that many of you are taking porn and  making it automatically negative, and or assuming it means hard core of tasteless.

What i and i'm quite sure Brian are equating to porn, is anything that was made with the sole intent of sexual arousal.

In that much, glamour in it's current incarnation IS very much porn.

Ransom J wrote:
It is porn.  It's just packaged different.  It's done  to let 15 year old boys jerk one off.  It's done so that 40 year old husbands can have eye candy sitting on the coffe table without looking like a pervert.  But make no mistake about it, NOTHING about it has anything to do with fashion, art, or sports.

I absolutely agree with you.

Where we differ is in who else we believe agrees with us.  You think most people agree.  I think few people agree.

In this thread, I'm seeing glamour photographers and glamour models disagreeing with us...

Brian Diaz wrote:
How many of the girls here actually want to be the catylist for so many ejaculations?
http://www.maximonline.com/hotties/hottievoting.aspx

Having shot many girls like that I can tell you that they all know exactly what they're doing and that they enjoy it.  What is so hard to understand about that?  Not everyone sees the world the way you do, some girls want to be eye candy, they want to be sex symbols.  This has been true since the dawn of time and will continue to be so until we are extinct as a species.  And if you think you are somehow pursuing a high calling because you are taking sexy photos of a different sort that cater to men and women with different taste, you're nuts.

It is all the same thing.

Ransom J wrote:
In that much, glamour in it's current incarnation IS very much porn.

Yes and it always has been this way.  However there was always hard core pornographic material as well.  Even in the 20s  you could get silent hardcore stag films.  Glamour may be porn but it is very softcore and if you study it, has certain attributes that porn does not have to have.  It's kind of like squares and rectangles.  All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares....

Paramour Productions wrote:

Having shot many girls like that I can tell you that they all know exactly what they're doing and that they enjoy it.  What is so hard to understand about that?  Not everyone sees the world the way you do, some girls want to be eye candy, they want to be sex symbols.  This has been true since the dawn of time and will continue to be so until we are extinct as a species.  And if you think you are somehow pursuing a high calling because you are taking sexy photos of a different sort that cater to men and women with different taste, you're nuts.

It is all the same thing.

In a nutshell.


I'm only rallying against those that masterbate with their pinky extended.  no more no less.

Paramour Productions wrote:

Yes and it always has been this way.  However there was always hard core pornographic material as well.  Even in the 20s  you could get silent hardcore stag films.  Glamour may be porn but it is very softcore and if you study it, has certain attributes that porn does not have to have.  It's kind of like squares and rectangles.  All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares....

chopping up porn into sections and subsections clouds the issue.  it is what it is regardelss.

Brian Diaz wrote:

I absolutely agree with you.

Where we differ is in who else we believe agrees with us.  You think most people agree.  I think few people agree.

In this thread, I'm seeing glamour photographers and glamour models disagreeing with us...

We are talking about two entirely different things.  Usage and image style.  Refer to my above rectangles/squares analogy.  You're talking about how the resulting images may or may not be used.  No argument there.  I'm talking about the level of production values that differentiate one from the other...

Brian Diaz wrote:

I absolutely agree with you.

Where we differ is in who else we believe agrees with us.  You think most people agree.  I think few people agree.

In this thread, I'm seeing glamour photographers and glamour models disagreeing with us...

No i think that the buyers know why they buy.

I think most REAL glamour models know what the purpose of the shot is and most REAL glamour photographers know what they are shooting to accomplish.

Sure there are many disillusioned wannabes that fool themselves into believing something different, but many art models honestly think that people don't wank to their figure studies.   looney if you ask me.

Jayne Jones wrote:
Thanks for giving me the speech to give my dad when he sees your photos of me.  I almost love u for that.

Brian Diaz wrote:
Just to understand, you're going to going to tell your dad that you're doing porn?
. . .

W.G. Rowland wrote:
Why is such a popular form of photography work so villified?

W/o having to read however many pages of this entire thread...

Its villified because glamour is trying to skirt the line between acceptable mainstream clothed work & Playboy-style porn. By being so concerned about having to skirt that line, I don't think glamour effectively does either very well nor to establish itself in a respected genre in its own right.

Just my opinion &/or observations.

Jayne Jones wrote:
Pretty much. . .in the exact terms that Ransom put them.  The intent is to have it viewed in the same light as a love scene in a movie.  To me. . .the same thing. . .only difference is in movies people are actually moving, pictures are more still.  lol

I don't think that's what Ransom said at all.

In a movie, you have the context of a story and characters that drive the intent of the love-scene.  Glamour photography has the intent of making boys orgasm driving it.

Unless the movie is on Skinemax.

KM von Seidl wrote:
So, has anyone come up with an answer?

because it sucks.

James Jackson wrote:

because it sucks.

you don't like ANY glamour????

KM von Seidl wrote:
So, has anyone come up with an answer?

you missed my post?
hehe

KM von Seidl wrote:

you don't like ANY glamour????

not that I can recall

oldguysrule wrote:

you missed my post?
hehe

HA!

Yours sounded a bit like mine, if I do say so myself.   

oldguysrule wrote:
Great glamour is rare - and rightfully so, as so is great anything. The problem is that good glamour is also rare. This is not the fault of the genre, but the fault of the practitioners and the publishers.

yes

KM von Seidl wrote:
So, has anyone come up with an answer?

I've written pages on the subject, apparently to no avail...

KM von Seidl wrote:
So, has anyone come up with an answer?

Because it makes high brow aristocrats uncomfortable that they have a boner.

Paramour Productions wrote:

I've written pages on the subject, apparently to no avail...

you scare them off with multiple paragraphs

Ransom J wrote:

Because it makes high brow aristocrats uncomfortable that they have a boner.

Hey!  I am *ALWAYS* comfortable with my boner.

James Jackson wrote:

not that I can recall

There  isn't a genre of photography I can say I hate*.  If the particular work is good, I like.
And I don't dislike the concept of a photo being about the girl because sometimes girls intrigue me.   


*there probably is one but it's just not coming to me right now.

Brian Diaz wrote:

I don't think that's what Ransom said at all.

In a movie, you have the context of a story and characters that drive the intent of the love-scene.  Glamour photography has the intent of making boys orgasm driving it.

Unless the movie is on Skinemax.

My terms are that glamour is meant to excite, evoke lust, and carnal desire.

In bar terms it's meant to give you a woody.


Take it for what it's worth

James Jackson wrote:

Hey!  I am *ALWAYS* comfortable with my boner.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuureee you are

KM von Seidl wrote:

There  isn't a genre of photography I can say I hate*.  If the particular work is good, I like.
And I don't dislike the concept of a photo being about the girl because sometimes girls intrigue me.   


*there probably is one but it's just not coming to me right now.

I can think of styles i hate, but that doesn't mean they suck...

KM von Seidl wrote:

There  isn't a genre of photography I can say I hate*.  If the particular work is good, I like.
And I don't dislike the concept of a photo being about the girl because sometimes girls intrigue me.   


*there probably is one but it's just not coming to me right now.

I honestly can't explain it.  What I call "glamour" photography... glamtography... is the over sexualized, over plagiarized, over commercialized, and over worked crap that I see a lot of people do.  I know glamour photography has real roots in a history of great photography, but much of that is not what glamour photographers aspire towards.

Ransom J wrote:

Suuuuuuuuuuuuureee you are

I am, but honestly glamour doesn't make me get a boner... it makes me want to hurl

Paramour Productions wrote:
I can think of styles i hate, but that doesn't mean they suck...

True.  I'm not really a fan of most shit people call "art".  To me it has as little point to it as a lot of people see in glamour.  Most "art" is contrived and tries waaaaaaaaaaayyy to fucking hard to be about something without being about anything at all.

but I still reconize a good photo when i see it.  Even if i say "wow that's a nice technical photo.  What the fuck is the point though?"

James Jackson wrote:

I am, but honestly glamour doesn't make me get a boner... it makes me want to hurl

Well then you take this shit way too serious.

KM von Seidl wrote:

Your post suffered from William Saffire addressed in his MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) theory.

The soundbite generation....  This is what happens when you stop providing children with a proper classical education...

Ransom J wrote:

Well then you take this shit way too serious.

Don't you know?  James is an Arteest. 

Paramour Productions wrote:

Don't you know?  James is an Arteest. 

Ahh that explains it.  Take the easel out of your ass James.  You'll walk much better lol!

**let's make it clear it's a joke**