Ransom J wrote:

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

You've made references to advertising  through this whole thread. Are you disagreeing with that?

Ransom J wrote:

If you honestly believe that these crap ass fashion shooters are SERIOUSLY tryng to sell a product or make a statement then I don't know what to say to you.

Glamour is honest.   It's T and A for the sake of T and A.  It's not hiding behind "art" or trying to "send a message"  it's crotch candy at it's most raw, and if you ask me is one of the HARDEST genere's to do well and be lauded for because it will often be called "cheap porn"  by elitists that are insecure with their own boner.

That's what I meant by advertising

Ransom J wrote:

As opposed to high brow junk that exploits women?

Is that why we are villified?  Because we do what everyone else does  except we HONESTLY cater to the lowest common denominater?



^^ Yeah this fashion is ALL about the shoes.  **rolls eyes**

Here's another one

Lynda D wrote:

That's what I meant by advertising

LMAO!! So you take ONE example of how I showed that fashion uses sex to advertise and some how you jump to that meaning that EVERYTHING is about porn?  are you serious??



WOW!

Lynda D wrote:

Here's another one

Do you deny that that is sex being used to sell fashion?  because I'm pretty sure I said NOTHING about it being porn.

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.

Here is one talking about people wanking to figure studies. Obviously I was being sarcastic and not quoting you word for word but I thought that was understood. Forgive me. I see nothing wrong with glamour or nude or whatever people want to do. But you suggested that every bikini mag and nude shoot was being used for jacking off and people are lying if they say it's for anything else. You don't remember that?

Paramour Productions wrote:
Just when I thought Brian and I were getting somewhere we get her.....

Notice she's the only one that DOESN'T understand.

Lynda D wrote:
Here is one talking about people wanking to figure studies. Obviously I was being sarcastic and not quoting you word for word but I thought that was understood. Forgive me. I see nothing wrong with glamour or nude or whatever people want to do. But you suggested that every bikini mag and nude shoot was being used for jacking off and people are lying if they say it's for anything else. You don't remember that?

They do.

Ask any art model they'll tell you they get weirdos telling them that all the time.  You've yet to prove a point.

I said SI and GLAMOUR  mags are made witht he sole purpose of being spank bank material.  I didn't say ALL bikini pics are.

Because sears swimwear catalogues are meant to sell swimsuits. 

But Sports Illustrated?  Who are they selling the bikini's too?  the 80 percent male readership?

Ransom J wrote:

Do you deny that that is sex being used to sell fashion?  because I'm pretty sure I said NOTHING about it being porn.

So you did talk about advertising.
Ofcourse sex sells but that doesn't mean all nudity should be considered sex (that goes back to my sarcastic nude beach comment). And since most purses sell to women I doubt that a naked Kate Moss is used to turn them on-unless you're saying most women are lesbians. So what can a woman wear that isn't about sex (that was the purpose of my other sarcastic comment) since according to you swim mags do the same?

Lynda D wrote:
But you suggested that every bikini mag and nude shoot was being used for jacking off and people are lying if they say it's for anything else. You don't remember that?

Most are.  Again to use the SI swimsuit issue as an example, that's exactly what it is for many and the models know that.  It gets joked about all the time on shoots.  Now that doesn't mean you're shooting FOR that, anymore than the guys who shot the lingerie section of the Sears Catalog shot FOR that - but everyone knows that that is one fairly frequent result with young males....

As for Europe, i also lived there and the sex object thing was FAR more prevalent.  Over there harass is still two words...

Brian Diaz wrote:

Thinking again about this one...

The target audience is not young, straight men.  Young, straight men don't buy Baby Phat shoes.  The target audience is not aroused by this photo.

This is more like the love scene in a movie.  Alone, it's just sex, but within the context of the story and the characters, it becomes more than just sex.

I would not call this a glamour image.

I would.  The target is young staright women that want to be this glamourous woman in the photograph.  You can sell female sexuality to females as well.  Look at the vitoria's secret catalouge.

Now  I will concede that neither VS or THIS image were intended to be spank bank material (though I never said either WAS), BUT it is selling sex.

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.

Lynda D wrote:
So you did talk about advertising.

You claimed that he made claims about every kind of advertising.  Very different from just mentioning some advertising.

Ransom J wrote:
BUT it is selling sex.

I think there's a difference between selling sex and using sexiness to sell clothes.

Ransom J wrote:

They do.

Ask any art model they'll tell you they get weirdos telling them that all the time.  You've yet to prove a point.

I said SI and GLAMOUR  mags are made witht he sole purpose of being spank bank material.  I didn't say ALL bikini pics are.

Because sears swimwear catalogues are meant to sell swimsuits. 

But Sports Illustrated?  Who are they selling the bikini's too?  the 80 percent male readership?

And like I said many things can turn people on-they do not have to be nude or even half dressed. I get weirdos making comments while I'm in a sweat shirt. You don't think there can be other reasons for disliking it. You don't seem to be trying to see any other pov. You just keep saying it makes men hard and that makes them uncomfortable. Well I'm very comfortable with sex and porn and glamour and it bothers me for another reason. I would never shoot anyone down for it but it bothering me doesn't mean I'm uncomfortable with sex.

Brian Diaz wrote:

I think there's a difference between selling sex and using sexiness to sell clothes.

Exactly. Thak you for pointing that out.

Lynda D wrote:

So you did talk about advertising.
Ofcourse sex sells but that doesn't mean all nudity should be considered sex (that goes back to my sarcastic nude beach comment). And since most purses sell to women I doubt that a naked Kate Moss is used to turn them on-unless you're saying most women are lesbians. So what can a woman wear that isn't about sex (that was the purpose of my other sarcastic comment) since according to you swim mags do the same?

Yeah it is selling sex.  Victoria's secret sells sex to women.  Not spank bank sex, but fantasy sex **insert you here** sex.

I said Sports Illustrated SWIMSUIT edition  was wank material.  How isn't it?  It's aimed at an 80 percent male readership.  It doesn't clearly have names, or designers ANYWHERE in the book.  It's a bunch of pictures of scantily clad women that comes out once a year and is the highest selling issue they have.  They have DVD's and  big specials surrounding it.  You think that it's REALLY being used as a swimwear catalouge for Joe Beer's WIFE?

Brian Diaz wrote:

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.

You claimed that he made claims about every kind of advertising.  Very different from just mentioning some advertising.

THANK YOU.

Paramour Productions wrote:
What it is selling is the concept that if you buy and wear their line of apparel that you will be a walking spank bank....

Yup.

Lynda D wrote:

And like I said many things can turn people on-they do not have to be nude or even half dressed. I get weirdos making comments while I'm in a sweat shirt. You don't think there can be other reasons for disliking it. You don't seem to be trying to see any other pov. You just keep saying it makes men hard and that makes them uncomfortable. Well I'm very comfortable with sex and porn and glamour and it bothers me for another reason. I would never shoot anyone down for it but it bothering me doesn't mean I'm uncomfortable with sex.

So your problem is I said glamour makes aristocrats uncomfortable with their boners?

That's what's this is about?

Are you kidding me?  How come everybody else saw the tongue incheek nature of that statement  except YOU.  Nobody else took that as being absolute OR literal, but YOU who doesn't even have a boner did?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Brian Diaz wrote:

I think there's a difference between selling sex and using sexiness to sell clothes.

Meh.  I don't agree.  I think it's two sides of the same coin.  A way for people to justify doing something that they say they take issue with.

Ransom J wrote:

So your problem is I said glamour makes aristocrats uncomfortable with their boners?

That's what's this is about?

Are you kidding me?  How come everybody else saw the tongue incheek nature of that statement  except YOU.  Nobody else took that as being absolute OR literal, but YOU who doesn't even have a boner did?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

You took my comments about EVERY kind of advertising very literally as well. No that's not what this is about. It's about what I quoted the first time. Why is that hard to understand? And why is my sarcasm hard to understand but your "humor" isn't in your opinion?

Lynda D wrote:
You took my comments about EVERY kind of advertising very literally as well. No that's not what this is about. It's about what I quoted the first time. Why is that hard to understand? And why is my sarcasm hard to understand but your "humor" isn't in your opinion?

Well EVERYBODY took your sarcasm to be literal, yet only YOU took mine to be literal.  Seems like the disconnect is with you.

Also, if your problem is with the FIRST thing that you quoted then  good on you.

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.

I said that REAL glamour models know that shot is about being sexy and selling it and that most of their viewers are using it for that.  And i said the same about photographers.  What about that is incorrect?

Paramour Productions wrote:
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 sincerely doubt that the majority of glamour photographers (and consumers of glamour photography) are aesthetes.  Ransom's many answers are certainly evidence of that.

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 disagree.  Beautiful women are sometimes used in art for aesthetic reasons, but they are also used for social, emotional, symbolic reasons.  There's more going on in art than pure aesthetics.

There is a lack of upscale, fun, glamour that caters to, what might be called, a highbrow audience.

I think the highbrow audience derives its pleasure from more complex imagery.  Or they check out the cheap porn in private.  But good luck with creating yourself a market.

Ransom J wrote:

Meh.  I don't agree.  I think it's two sides of the same coin.  A way for people to justify doing something that they say they take issue with.

It's kind of like the difference between making gentle, sensual love to your wife and picking up a hooker down by the docks.

Two sides of the coin of sex...

Paramour Productions wrote:
Just when I thought Brian and I were getting somewhere we get her.....

Forgive me for interupting your 3 person conversation. I wanted to clear some things up about Ransom J's comments but since this isn't an open thread... Point I was trying to make is and only is nudity does not necessarily equal sex and sexuality can have nothing to do with nudity. Glamour is glamour he said that himself and is aimed at certain people for a certain purpose. Just because people think something is sexy doesn't mean that was the point as Ransom J said glamour is. And I don't see how VS, Baby Phat and SI help this argument what about the high fashion nudes selling to older upper class women-I'm sorry but I don't understand how that is selling sex. Also no one responded to my statement that you all only talked about naked GIRLS and boners.

Brian Diaz wrote:

It's kind of like the difference between making gentle, sensual love to your wife and picking up a hooker down by the docks.

Two sides of the coin of sex...

Oh I understand the difference, i just still say it's the same quarter.

Lynda D wrote:

Forgive me for interupting your 3 person conversation. I wanted to clear some things up about Ransom J's comments but since this isn't an open thread... Point I was trying to make is and only is nudity does not necessarily equal sex and sexuality can have nothing to do with nudity. Glamour is glamour he said that himself and is aimed at certain people for a certain purpose. Just because people think something is sexy doesn't mean that was the point as Ransom J said glamour is. And I don't see how VS, Baby Phat and SI help this argument what about the high fashion nudes selling to older upper class women-I'm sorry but I don't understand how that is selling sex. Also no one responded to my statement that you all only talked about naked GIRLS and boners.

I never said nudity equals sex.  I said that glamour is about sexuality.


You must not have read HOW SI came up if you don't understand why I brought it up.  Baby Phat was just to prove that using sex to sell a product (whether it be the model or a pair of shoes) isn't exclusive to glamour and therefore doesn't make another form of photography BETTER.  And I didn't bring up VS until just now when I was showing that SOME  sex isn't wank off material, it's just sex being used to move a product NOT aimed at the wanking public.  It's NOT that hard to follow.

Also nobody mentioned MEN because this thread is about glamour, and glamour is largely women.  Male glamour is called beefcake.  If you want a thread on beefckae then feel free to make one.

Ransom J wrote:

That's the thing.  Glamour ISN'T pretending.  It's wank material for teenage boys.  It's acceptable  knuckle fodder for husbands  to buy so that their wives don't get mad.  It's K-Mart porn.


We glamour shooters know this and we revel in it. We know that the tease, the raw sexuality and sensuality is done for the sole purpose of turning on the viewer.  We don't put a girl ass naked with a purse and say it was to try to sell the purse, we don't shoot a macro shot of a nipple and say it was a study of the human form, we shoot what we shoot with the intent of causing people to drool, be aroused and lust. 

That's honest.  If YOU want it all classified as porn then that's YOUR problem, but quiet frankly i don't see how much more honest we can get with it.

I've decided that Ramsom J is now my hero, until I say otherwise.

Ransom J wrote:

I never said nudity equals sex.  I said that glamour is about sexuality.


You must not have read HOW SI came up if you don't understand why I brought it up.  Baby Phat was just to prove that using sex to sell a product (whether it be the model or a pair of shoes) isn't exclusive to glamour and therefore doesn't make another form of photography BETTER.  And I didn't bring up VS until just now when I was showing that SOME  sex isn't wank off material, it's just sex being used to move a product NOT aimed at the wanking public.  It's NOT that hard to follow.

Also nobody mentioned MEN because this thread is about glamour, and glamour is largely women.  Male glamour is called beefcake.  If you want a thread on beefckae then feel free to make one.

I know all about SI. I was asking about higher end fashion still using nudity and do you think it's the same because it seemed like everything someone brought up you said-it's being used for sex and said they were trying to cover that up-since you say you were being an extreme smart ass when you said those things-thank you for clarifying that. 
Good night everybody
Take Care

Brian Diaz wrote:

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?

Thats sick.. And nowonder I get perved on enough, I don't want someone staring at my crotch playing with his member- grosses me out totally. Thats why I say if a photog is interested in me I send body shots to his email if he is a professional photographer. If not I am not putting out anything that can be used for masterbation purposes lol.. Wait I guess I better take down my clevage shots too haha..

Brian Diaz wrote:
Thank you all for the interesting conversation.  You've definitely challenged my views, and I hope I've done the same for you.  But now it's after 6am, and I do need some sleep...

But I will pose a parting question:

Do most (particularly new) glamour models understand the difference between being wanted and being used?

I don't think so. I think it makes them feel sexy, most of these girls have identity crisis for some reason or another. And hell now they can pose nude and be  sexy and hey your every boys/mens new fantasy lol.