Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
So...according to MM he was a GWC because he was trying to "get some" -- and I'm a GWC because I don't do this for money...so who isn't a GWC in the end?  Is a lesbian who photographs nudes still a GWC?  A gay man who photographs male nudes?

Basically anyone who enjoys looking at someone in a nude/erotic context [and don't even start that "there's no sexuality in fashion" nonsense] is a GWC...according to the strict interpretation of the term.

A Twisted Mind wrote:
So much for the utility of subjective, perjorative terms that can be thrown around as people see fit.

Well that's where I've been going all along with this.  "GWC" is just a way for some people to put down other people for shooting things they don't like for reasons they don't like.

Doug Sampson wrote:
True or false?

I know of a man that flies models to NY, puts them up in a hotel with all expenses plus pays them their model rates just because he enjoys it. Yes he does nudes.

I will bet he will never be accused of being a GWC and I'll bet most models would jump at the chance.

If I were a gazillionare, I'd totally do that. Doing photo shoots and not having to worry about expenses or budgets seems like a great life to me. I don't see how that would make me a GWC unless I tried to sleep with them, I've never made a pass at a model I've worked with before and have no reason to think I would if I were that rich.

Golden Light wrote:
If you have sex with an other person it is called natural. If you have sexual experiences with media like photographs or video it is called perverted. If you lust after a living person you are acting natural. If you lust after a mediated image you are a pervert. So isn’t it true that a photographer who lusts after a image is a pervert and a photographer who lusts after a live human is acting natural?

Interesting point. What some people would fail to take into consideration is that a man looking at the mediated image comes as a result of the natural lust for a living woman. It's an expression of that which was already within him.

Doug Jantz wrote:

Interesting.  I have always liked girls as my mom tells everyone, the stage that boys go through hating girls?  She says I skipped it.  I was even shooting girls at church camp in 6th grade and still have the pics to prove it!  LOL

I think I was in love with a girl when I was 5 years old... etc... I really meant that I started photography at an age 11/12 when I didn't have sex. I didn't have sex until I was 14 (or 13, could be the year I turned 14). But I didn't do people photography until much, much later in life.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Well that's where I've been going all along with this.  "GWC" is just a way for some people to put down other people for shooting things they don't like for reasons they don't like.

Exactly. I hate the term GWC for a multitude of reasons...the main one being that GWC is used as a derogatory term. My most loved photo was shot by a self-proclaimed GWC...he thinks I'm hot...he likes seeing me naked...that doesn't negate the fact that he is a fabulous, and very professional photographer. Who cares if you like hot chicks? If you're not going to rape me what does it matter if you find me sexually appealing?

UdoR wrote:

I think I was in love with a girl when I was 5 years old... etc... I really meant that I started photography at an age 11/12 when I didn't have sex. I didn't have sex until I was 14 (or 13, could be the year I turned 14). But I didn't do people photography until much, much later in life.

I guess I always enjoyed shooting people.  Since I was that young age, I was the one shooting family holidays, etc.  Of course, my parents were buying some of my film since I was working already.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
So...according to MM he was a GWC because he was trying to "get some" -- and I'm a GWC because I don't do this for money...so who isn't a GWC in the end?  Is a lesbian who photographs nudes still a GWC?  A gay man who photographs male nudes?

Basically anyone who enjoys looking at someone in a nude/erotic context [and don't even start that "there's no sexuality in fashion" nonsense] is a GWC...according to the strict interpretation of the term.

Well that's where I've been going all along with this.  "GWC" is just a way for some people to put down other people for shooting things they don't like for reasons they don't like.

Again, basically.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

Exactly. I hate the term GWC for a multitude of reasons...the main one being that GWC is used as a derogatory term. My most loved photo was shot by a self-proclaimed GWC...he thinks I'm hot...he likes seeing me naked...that doesn't negate the fact that he is a fabulous, and very professional photographer. Who cares if you like hot chicks? If you're not going to rape me what does it matter if you find me sexually appealing?

Cool My feelings as well.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

Exactly. I hate the term GWC for a multitude of reasons...the main one being that GWC is used as a derogatory term. My most loved photo was shot by a self-proclaimed GWC...he thinks I'm hot...he likes seeing me naked...that doesn't negate the fact that he is a fabulous, and very professional photographer. Who cares if you like hot chicks? If you're not going to rape me what does it matter if you find me sexually appealing?

I'd totally shoot you for the same reasons.  Unfortunately i have no money AND I'm old/fat/ugly, so that makes me a GWC by default.

Doug Sampson wrote:
True or false?

I know of a man that flies models to NY, puts them up in a hotel with all expenses plus pays them their model rates just because he enjoys it. Yes he does nudes.

I will bet he will never be accused of being a GWC and I'll bet most models would jump at the chance.

Well, the one GWC I worked with a while back does something along this line, and it doesn't make him any less of a GWC...  I've heard better things about him lately, so perhaps my complaints were heard by him and he's correcting his ways. One can only hope.

Golden Light wrote:
If you have sex with an other person it is called natural. If you have sexual experiences with media like photographs or video it is called perverted. If you lust after a living person you are acting natural. If you lust after a mediated image you are a pervert. So isn’t it true that a photographer who lusts after a image is a pervert and a photographer who lusts after a live human is acting natural?

So how is more perverted?