James Jackson wrote:

Ransom J wrote:
But as such you probably don't go to the strip club.  And you probably catch hard on's playing chess and reading chaucer with your lady love.

Hence YOU are weird by most standards.

Heh... cute.. but no... I get my hard ons from much more direct assaults on my sexuality.  Glamour doesn't even come close to triggering me.


I disagree... and mind you I'm just talking it out here these aren't set in stone ideas... just what I'm thinking right now.

I think the problem with Glamour is it *TRIES* to have the message: "Hey guy, i bet you want me!" but it doesn't try hard enough.  It's sophomoric porn.

The glamour from the 20's and 30's *did* have the message: "Hey guy, i bet you want me!" but almost seemingly without trying.

I'm not scandalized by glam... It just does nothing for me.

No it doesn't try and fail.  It tries and fails with YOU.  And we've already come to the conclusion that you (by your own admission) are an anomolly.

And knowing this, I would think you would know that glamour has every right to take itself serious.  Being that in MOST cases it succeeds in what it attempts.

Pollock was a hack to many.  A savant to many, and a nutcase to many.  But overall he succeeded more than he failed in convincing the word that what I consider paint puke, to be fine art.  As a result, no matter how much I disdain his work, I can't deny him his title.

Paramour Productions wrote:
Obviously you didn't get the humor...

Of course there is no subtext - it's a glamour shot!  What don't  you get?  What is the subtext of your avatar.  I could write something equally droll about that image.  You don't like the shot, you don't like seeing women portrayed in that fashion.  And you apparently have a problem with young men masturbating (perhaps you didn't do enough of it back in the day?).  You want to take meaningful photos?  Fine.  Put down the bear, and you and I will go to Darfur, THEN you will get something that is meaningful...

If I missed the humor it's because I've heard too many people try to justify glamour in a similar manner.  I apologize.

I have no problem with porn or masturbation.  I have a problem with people making porn and claiming it is something else.

And for a bit on what the bear might mean to me, check out this, which I wrote as I was trying to figure out something about myself.
http://pretzelfork.blogspot.com/2006/02 … rtist.html

Ransom J wrote:
I don't think we fail too often.

They fail with YOU.  But you were never part of the equation.

But aren't I?

I mean... the ultimate goal of any task is to do it perfectly.   If you were to create the perfect sexualized image it would turn *anyone* on.  If as a glamour photographer your goal is to "take pics of hot chicks" then wouldn't your goal also be to make me see those girls as hot... no matter who *me* is?

Besides, with a little bit of effort and the barest of changes to style, you go from glamtography to KM's avatar.

myndzeye Photography wrote:
LOL!  Did anyone notice that Mr. Rowland seems to be MIA?  While I generally kick myself for entering threads that have two polar sides involved, this is quite interesting!  To address the OP statement about villifying glamour, I'm not sure it is really so, or at least I haven't seen too much of it here.  I see opinions and only a handful of minor put-downs here.  I, for one don't mind seeing glamour shots and certainly would not put down the abilty of those that shoot it because it isn't technically easy be any means!  Personally the idea of shooting it bores me because in the end the final result doesn't hold my interest for long and by my own (very persoanal) definition isn't creative to me.  It's that simple for me.  Ironically, the mention of fashion, FHM or Maxim styles have the same affect.  It's a personal choice-not a bash on those that shoot those styles.

For those that do shoot a certain genre for their daily bread, they should do it well and take pride in it and shake off the critics.  For those (like me) that shoot for completely different reasons...well...they should do the same.  It's all a matter of opinion after all, isn't it?  BTW, Ransom and JJ, I like both of your bodies of work for completely different reasons!

thank you much sir!

I'm not taking the criticism to heart.  I'm enjoying a very GOOD discussion with my contemporaries in different genres of photography. 

I applaud you all for maintaining civility and expressing yourselves with open minds.

Brian Diaz wrote:

If I missed the humor it's because I've heard too many people try to justify glamour in a similar manner.  I apologize.

I have no problem with porn or masturbation.  I have a problem with people making porn and claiming it is something else.

And for a bit on what the bear might mean to me, check out this, which I wrote as I was trying to figure out something about myself.
http://pretzelfork.blogspot.com/2006/02 … rtist.html

I think part of the disconnect here is that not everyone sees this in such black and white terms.  I don't see anything as black and white and this is no exception.  I do not consider my avatar to be porn.  I don't know anyone other than you who does.  The mere fact that some 15 year old might jerk off to it, doesn't make it so.  I knew kids who used National Geographic and the Sears Catalog for that purpose, does that make those images porn?

James Jackson wrote:

But aren't I?

I mean... the ultimate goal of any task is to do it perfectly.   If you were to create the perfect sexualized image it would turn *anyone* on.  If as a glamour photographer your goal is to "take pics of hot chicks" then wouldn't your goal also be to make me see those girls as hot... no matter who *me* is?

Besides, with a little bit of effort and the barest of changes to style, you go from glamtography to KM's avatar.

There is no perfection.  If your attempt is to hit the basest instincts you do it at the basest levels.  Anything else and you miss the mark  with too many people.

You are an understood factor  when making any product.  That 15 percent that won't like what most people like.  So yeah you were never part of the equation.

And some of us aren't overly impressed with KM's avatar.  It's nice.  Great photography, but like I said earlier, it's (TO ME)  trying to say a lot while saying very little at all.  With a little bit of effort and a greasy oiled up ass she could have had MY avatar. lol.

Ransom J wrote:
thank you much sir!

I'm not taking the criticism to heart.  I'm enjoying a very GOOD discussion with my contemporaries in different genres of photography. 

I applaud you all for maintaining civility and expressing yourselves with open minds.

Welcome!  And the civility of this thread and meaningful comments is what is keeping me around so late!   It is very GOOD discussion!

Ransom J wrote:
With a little bit of effort and a greasy oiled up ass she could have had MY avatar. lol.

Turn of a head... few drops of oil... different color scheme and *BAM*

of course if I'd oiled up the big bad wolf we might be having a different conversation too.

James Jackson wrote:
Turn of a head... few drops of oil... different color scheme and *BAM*

of course if I'd oiled up the big bad wolf we might be having a different conversation too.

True.  you might be able to get THAT shot in Maxim! lol.

edit:

And just to enforce a point, that whole scene in your port (though well done) Could easily be featured on somebodies cosplay site and used for spank bank deposites.

James Jackson wrote:

But aren't I?

I mean... the ultimate goal of any task is to do it perfectly.   If you were to create the perfect sexualized image it would turn *anyone* on.  If as a glamour photographer your goal is to "take pics of hot chicks" then wouldn't your goal also be to make me see those girls as hot... no matter who *me* is?

Besides, with a little bit of effort and the barest of changes to style, you go from glamtography to KM's avatar.

Maybe, but I don't think so.  There are guys who buy King magazine and get turned on.  I myself cant stand to look at it.  I loved Vellum, it tanked. Some guys love playboy, others dig modern pin-up photography, some like hardcore porn.  For glamour to be commercially successful it usually caters to a niche. 

BUT, and this bring me back to some of my original points, there are many styles of glamour.  It is not all porn.  Any shot on the cover of Cosmo is glamour.  Most glossy magazine shots of the cast of Desperate Housewives is glamour.  Just because there is a lot if shitty glamour, does not mean glamour itself is bad.  And I spend about $200 a month on various fashion and beauty mags.  MANY of the images in them are heavily glamour influenced (not the fashion spreads)..

Paramour Productions wrote:

I think part of the disconnect here is that not everyone sees this in such black and white terms.  I don't see anything as black and white and this is no exception.  I do not consider my avatar to be porn.  I don't know anyone other than you who does.  The mere fact that some 15 year old might jerk off to it, doesn't make it so.  I knew kids who used National Geographic and the Sears Catalog for that purpose, does that make those images porn?

So again, if it's not to get anyone off, what is the purpose of this shot or any other "hot shot of a model"?  You answered jokingly before.  What is the serious answer?

Anne Riley wrote:
I think that we should allowed to choose to look however we want, whether it's in the realm of glamour or bag lady on the corner or hippie or conservative, whatever!!!!

You can.  Glamour doesn't force that on you any more than fashion forces you to be a certain way.  But look at the threads here....  I get TONS of emails every day from "models" whose sole ambition is to eventually get in Maxim or Playboy.  It's not for everyone, but that's what they're into.

Ransom J wrote:

True.  you might be able to get THAT shot in Maxim! lol.

edit:

And just to enforce a point, that whole scene in your port (though well done) Could easily be featured on somebodies cosplay site and used for spank bank deposites.

Heh...

At any rate... it all comes down to (at least for me) the same thing that it would come down to if I were a writer and you were a romance novelist...  Because it is easier to digest for the reader/viewer, it seems like it is somehow less difficult to create.  If you've also got dozens of art pieces in your portfolio, I can see how you actually are capable of doing that extra work, but with only "glam" shots (or in our writing example; only romance novellas) I can't tell what you're truly capable of.

KM von Seidl wrote:
Not to deter from oiled asses, but a few months back I started a glamour critique thread, as much to try and clarify in my mind what some considered central tenets to glamour photography.... it seemed that for many, direct eye contact (and preferably a come hither look) was a must.


Do people agree?  Or does that only speak to one variant of what we call glamour.

It's  a general rule in my mind.  The viewer needs to make a connection with the model to fufill the fantasy.  Eye contact is the easiest way to achieve this.  it can be done without eye contact, but as a rule that's what you'll see.

Anne Riley wrote:
Ohhh glamour. I think that it can be fun, inventive and eye-candy, at best. At worst - well, it can look like cheap porn, meaningless and most offensive of all to me, force women to stay in the box of what's "appropriate" and a very narrowly defined concept of "beauty". I'm sure someone has already said something along these lines above, so I won't go on, but that's my two cents.

I'm tired of women STILL being expected to look and act a certain way. Trust me, it's still there. I think that we should allowed to choose to look however we want, whether it's in the realm of glamour or bag lady on the corner or hippie or conservative, whatever!!!!

Hippie glamour sounds intriguing!

KM von Seidl wrote:
... it seemed that for many, direct eye contact (and preferably a come hither look) was a must.


Do people agree?  Or does that only speak to one variant of what we call glamour.

I think that could be considered one of the tenants yes...

connecting with the viewer is a key to glam.

James Jackson wrote:

Heh...

At any rate... it all comes down to (at least for me) the same thing that it would come down to if I were a writer and you were a romance novelist...  Because it is easier to digest for the reader/viewer, it seems like it is somehow less difficult to create.  If you've also got dozens of art pieces in your portfolio, I can see how you actually are capable of doing that extra work, but with only "glam" shots (or in our writing example; only romance novellas) I can't tell what you're truly capable of.

Says you, but truly many artists that I know, many fashion shooters, many people that are phenomenal photographers in other areas can't take a glamour pic to save their lives.  So it must not be as easy as you say it is.

Ransom J wrote:

Says you, but truly many artists that I know, many fashion shooters, many people that are phenomenal photographers in other areas can't take a glamour pic to save their lives.  So it must not be as easy as you say it is.

Oh no... Like I said: "Because it is easier to digest for the reader/viewer, it seems like it is somehow less difficult to create."

I don't think it actually is... but that is the initial gut reaction

James Jackson wrote:

I think that could be considered one of the tenants yes...

connecting with the viewer is a key to glam.

Yeah, see....that's where I have a problem.   I like the viewer to be a voyeur as much as if not more so than the typical "look raper."

Brian Diaz wrote:

So again, if it's not to get anyone off, what is the purpose of this shot or any other "hot shot of a model"?  You answered jokingly before.  What is the serious answer?

The serious answer is that some of us (perhaps snobbishly so) simply enjoy looking at beautiful women for the sake of looking at them.  I can think of nothing on this planet more striking than a beautiful woman.  I don't slobber on the photos, I don't jerk off to the material, but I appreciate looking at something I find visually pleasing.  Sometimes it's elegant, sometimes it's cheeky or campy (which is actually how I meant my avatar to be - the real intention was to create a glamour image with an "Old Navy" feel) sometimes it's erotic.  It is no different from most of the art you see of naked women.  Why did artists paint them so much?  Because some men derive pleasure from simply gazing upon a beautiful woman.

I don't want to see her playing with toys.  I don't want to see a fat oiled up ass.  Not that there's anything wrong with it, it's just not me.  I've had an untold number of conversations about this with my contemporaries, and most of the men I know feel the same way.  There is a lack of upscale, fun, glamour that caters to, what might be called, a highbrow audience.  That is the formula I'm trying to develop.  As I said, I'm not there, bikini work sells, but I'm working on it...

Ransom J wrote:

Says you, but truly many artists that I know, many fashion shooters, many people that are phenomenal photographers in other areas can't take a glamour pic to save their lives.  So it must not be as easy as you say it is.

I think it's knowing the formula.  And then having the discipline to follow it.   Kinda like pure porn.   Don't get too cute or arty.

James Jackson wrote:

Oh no... Like I said: "Because it is easier to digest for the reader/viewer, it seems like it is somehow less difficult to create."

I don't think it actually is... but that is the initial gut reaction

I can see how it would be.


The most commented pic in my port (on here) isn't a glam photo.  I wouldn't call it art.  There was an idea behind it, a feeling and energy and a story that i wanted to tell, but I don't call it art, yet people LOVE that pic.  So many have PM'ed me for prints and I've sold  a good number of them.  We aren't all one trick ponies but I'm sure it's easier to think we are since most of us aren't here trying to be recognized as artists.

James Jackson wrote:
Oh no... Like I said: "Because it is easier to digest for the reader/viewer, it seems like it is somehow less difficult to create."

I don't think it actually is... but that is the initial gut reaction

Ransom J wrote:
I can see how it would be.


The most commented pic in my port (on here) isn't a glam photo.  I wouldn't call it art.  There was an idea behind it, a feeling and energy and a story that i wanted to tell, but I don't call it art, yet people LOVE that pic.  So many have PM'ed me for prints and I've sold  a good number of them.  We aren't all one trick ponies but I'm sure it's easier to think we are since most of us aren't here trying to be recognized as artists.

So not to *GASP* get back on topic *OH NO THE HORROR* but, that *might* just be the answer to the original question...

Why does glam get such a bad rep?  Because it seems like it is somehow less difficult to create

KM von Seidl wrote:

I think it's knowing the formula.  And then having the discipline to follow it.   Kinda like pure porn.   Don't get too cute or arty.

it's like teaching. 

Like a high school math teacher that teaches Algerbra 1 might teach what many in academia consider rudimentary mathematics, but to be able to funnel  complex information into digestable packets for young unrefined minds, a teacher MUST have the complex knowledge of higher mathematics and know HOW to break it down into simple terms, lest you lose the student.

To shoot glamour for mass consumption (Joe Beer in the bar) you have to know how to shoot  without moving into genres that will go over their heads.  Feel me?

KM von Seidl wrote:

I think it's knowing the formula.  And then having the discipline to follow it.   Kinda like pure porn.   Don't get too cute or arty.

Yep, that is the formula, and you can make a good living sticking to it.  But it is a formula that appeals to the widest audience, the least common denominator if you will.  But you can stretch your legs with it.  Glamour can  be a bitch to pull off or it can be simple.  You want to light like you were shooting for a paysite?  You can knock it out in 20 minutes.  You want to light like it's going in Playboy, you'll be there for two days....

James Jackson wrote:

James Jackson wrote:
Oh no... Like I said: "Because it is easier to digest for the reader/viewer, it seems like it is somehow less difficult to create."

I don't think it actually is... but that is the initial gut reaction

So not to *GASP* get back on topic *OH NO THE HORROR* but, that *might* just be the answer to the original question...

Why does glam get such a bad rep?  Because it seems like it is somehow less difficult to create

That or the uncomfortable boner thing.

Ransom J wrote:

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.

This doesn't seem worth posting to. I honestly was having a good laugh at it but your posts get to me. By your "logic" everything is porn. We all think of different things as sexy and many different things turn many different people on. So everytime a guy sees a naked girl he should immediately take out his penis and go at it huh? Sounds like you're the one with the problem if you can't even look at a bikini mag without jacking off (this is what you yourself said). People use everything for porn unless they are in a turtleneck covered from head to toe!lol Those VS turtlenecks are pretty hot. That's what you're saying right. You answered the question about why people hate glamour but not the way you intended. It's because never once did you mention a guy taking off his clothes or a girl masturbating. So YOU assume it's just to objectify only women. That's a huge problem in our country. You want people to stop acting like prudes but you yourself say it's impossible to look at a sexy or half-dressed woman without getting a boner. I've lived in Europe and seen nude beaches and obviously if all American men are like you maybe the reason we can't have them here is because all heterosexual men would suddenly get a hard on, rip out their members and began jacking off uncontrollably in front of everyone! Get a grip. If you want to defend your genre of photography learn to do so without turning everything else in the world into that.  Maybe you're a glamour photgrapher because you choose to see everything in the world as porn. Your mentality is that every woman is seen as a sex object no matter what the situation is and every guy has a problem controlling themselves if they see a woman not dressed like an extra from little house on the prairie. I hope some counseling is in your future!

Lynda D wrote:

This doesn't seem worth posting to. I honestly was having a good laugh at it but your posts get to me. By your "logic" everything is porn. We all think of different things as sexy and many different things turn many different people on. So everytime a guy sees a naked girl he should immediately take out his penis and go at it huh? Sounds like you're the one with the problem if you can't even look at a bikini mag without jacking off (this is what you yourself said). People use everything for porn unless they are in a turtleneck covered from head to toe!lol Those VS turtlenecks are pretty hot. That's what you're saying right. You answered the question about why people hate glamour but not the way you intended. It's because never once did you mention a guy taking off his clothes or a girl masturbating. So YOU assume it's just to objectify only women. That's a huge problem in our country. You want people to stop acting like prudes but you yourself say it's impossible to look at a sexy or half-dressed woman without getting a boner. I've lived in Europe and seen nude beaches and obviously if all American men are like you maybe the reason we can't have them here is because all heterosexual men would suddenly get a hard on, rip out their members and began jacking off uncontrollably in front of everyone! Get a grip. If you want to defend your genre of photography learn to do so without turning everything else in the world into that.  Maybe you're a glamour photgrapher because you choose to see everything in the world as porn. Your mentality is that every woman is seen as a sex object no matter what the situation is and every guy has a problem controlling themselves if they see a woman not dressed like an extra from little house on the prairie. I hope some counseling is in your future!

and here I was, thinking the thread had died.

Lynda D wrote:

This doesn't seem worth posting to. I honestly was having a good laugh at it but your posts get to me. By your "logic" everything is porn. We all think of different things as sexy and many different things turn many different people on. So everytime a guy sees a naked girl he should immediately take out his penis and go at it huh? Sounds like you're the one with the problem if you can't even look at a bikini mag without jacking off (this is what you yourself said). People use everything for porn unless they are in a turtleneck covered from head to toe!lol Those VS turtlenecks are pretty hot. That's what you're saying right. You answered the question about why people hate glamour but not the way you intended. It's because never once did you mention a guy taking off his clothes or a girl masturbating. So YOU assume it's just to objectify only women. That's a huge problem in our country. You want people to stop acting like prudes but you yourself say it's impossible to look at a sexy or half-dressed woman without getting a boner. I've lived in Europe and seen nude beaches and obviously if all American men are like you maybe the reason we can't have them here is because all heterosexual men would suddenly get a hard on, rip out their members and began jacking off uncontrollably in front of everyone! Get a grip. If you want to defend your genre of photography learn to do so without turning everything else in the world into that.  Maybe you're a glamour photgrapher because you choose to see everything in the world as porn. Your mentality is that every woman is seen as a sex object no matter what the situation is and every guy has a problem controlling themselves if they see a woman not dressed like an extra from little house on the prairie. I hope some counseling is in your future!

Number one.

Paragraphs are you friend.

Number two.

It's funny that you pick ME out of everyone here when over half the respondants agreed with my point or stated similar things.

Number three.

GLAMOUR is about sex.  It's about the TEASE.  It's about turning on the viewer.

AND BY THE DEFINITION OF PORNOGRAPHY:  Glamour is porn.  It's SOLE purpose is to arouse.  You focus too much on what YOU view as a negative view of the word PORN.  Say it ten times today, it'll make you feel better.  PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN. 

Number four.

I don't "pull out my dick and start jacking off" when I see a woman, but I do take pictures that cause some men to do that.

If you don't like it don't shoot with me.  Save you money and saves me time.  Outside of that, your post was riddled with half truths, assumptions and jumped conclusions.  READ the thread, and pick another person to wage war against.

KM von Seidl wrote:

and here I was, thinking the thread had died.

you know??

Ransom J wrote:
Number one.

Paragraphs are you friend.

Number two.

It's funny that you pick ME out of everyone here when over half the respondants agreed with my point or stated similar things.

Number three.

GLAMOUR is about sex.  It's about the TEASE.  It's about turning on the viewer.

AND BY THE DEFINITION OF PORNOGRAPHY:  Glamour is porn.  It's SOLE purpose is to arouse.  You focus too much on what YOU view as a negative view of the word PORN.  Say it ten times today, it'll make you feel better.  PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN. 

Number four.

I don't "pull out my dick and start jacking off" when I see a woman, but I do take pictures that cause some men to do that.

If you don't like it don't shoot with me.  Save you money and saves me time.  Outside of that, your post was riddled with half truths, assumptions and jumped conclusions.  READ the thread, and pick another person to wage war against.

While I certainly understand where you're coming from, I don't see your definition of glamour as being an absolute.  Maybe it's a matter of degree.  But i don't see a lot of glamour as needing to turn you on.  I think it is enough (actually I think it is more) to make you just want to stare at the model and admire her beauty.  But to each his own.  Once I was out of puberty, there were only two women I've ever seen that the mere sight of them turned me on.  One was Sofia Lauren and the other is my ex-girlfriend Wendy.  I love to look at women and do it all the time, but I'm not getting aroused over it.  Maybe, I'm strange or jaded?

Ransom J wrote:

Number one.

Paragraphs are you friend.

Number two.

It's funny that you pick ME out of everyone here when over half the respondants agreed with my point or stated similar things.

Number three.

GLAMOUR is about sex.  It's about the TEASE.  It's about turning on the viewer.

AND BY THE DEFINITION OF PORNOGRAPHY:  Glamour is porn.  It's SOLE purpose is to arouse.  You focus too much on what YOU view as a negative view of the word PORN.  Say it ten times today, it'll make you feel better.  PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN PORN. 

Number four.

I don't "pull out my dick and start jacking off" when I see a woman, but I do take pictures that cause some men to do that.

If you don't like it don't shoot with me.  Save you money and saves me time.  Outside of that, your post was riddled with half truths, assumptions and jumped conclusions.  READ the thread, and pick another person to wage war against.

Good one about the paragraphs. Almost intelligent but try looking up what a paragraph is. Now when did I say porn was bad or negative. I said everything is not porn and you took that to mean I think it's negative. Trying reading the sentence I wrote about different things turning people on. And I picked you because you are the one writing constantly and trying hard to push that every kind of advertising is used for boys jacking off. No one cares what you shoot and I never said that either. Oh I get it you need me to separate what I wirte into two or three entences so you can follow it? Try responding to what I actually did say.

Paramour Productions wrote:

While I certainly understand where you're coming from, I don't see your definition of glamour as being an absolute.  Maybe it's a matter of degree.  But i don't see a lot of glamour as needing to turn you on.  I think it is enough (actually I think it is more) to make you just want to stare at the model and admire her beauty.  But to each his own.  Once I was out of puberty, there were only two women I've ever seen that the mere sight of them turned me on.  One was Sofia Lauren and the other is my ex-girlfriend Wendy.  I love to look at women and do it all the time, but I'm not getting aroused over it.  Maybe, I'm strange or jaded?

Who knows.  I'm innundated with scattered ass daily.  I'm desensitived to the naked body at this point.  But I know what i'm supposed to be accomplishing when i shoot what i shoot.  I know this not just because I'm a "man" but due to who i shoot for as well.  The models with websites, the magazine editors, all of them are looking for the pic that will make the viewer lust after the subject. 

Whether or not someone drops trou and jerks the jerkin is up to them, but glamour is supposed to put feeling of arousal in you.  You all take the over simplified terms waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy too literal.

Lynda D wrote:
And I picked you because you are the one writing constantly and trying hard to push that every kind of advertising is used for boys jacking off.

He's not writing about advertising.  He's writing about glamour photography.

Lynda D wrote:

Good one about the paragraphs. Almost intelligent but try looking up what a paragraph is. Now when did I say porn was bad or negative. I said everything is not porn and you took that to mean I think it's negative. Trying reading the sentence I wrote about different things turning people on. And I picked you because you are the one writing constantly and trying hard to push that every kind of advertising is used for boys jacking off. No one cares what you shoot and I never said that either. Oh I get it you need me to separate what I wirte into two or three entences so you can follow it? Try responding to what I actually did say.

Lord you're an obstinate one aren't you?

I really think looking up a paragraph should be something YOU should do.

Also show me where I said that EVERYTHING was porn.  Or EVERYTHING was wank off material.  Show me. PLEASE show me. 

I said that Glamour was, in it's most basic form, porn by definition.  No more no less.  You seem to have a problem with that.  And if you DON'T have a problem with that, and what you TRULY have a problem with is this imaginary staement that you said I made about EVERYTHING being porn, well then I can't help the delusional.

Brian Diaz wrote:

He's not writing about advertising.  He's writing about glamour photography.

Don't tell her that, that's too much like reading.