Would you pose nude

born2drum

Yea but give me 4 more months

ruth3698

I don't know about playgirl, I like suicide girls style more. I so would do it if I had the body for it and it was ok with my partner.

southerndream24

For a publication like Playboy. Nope, never because my career is far too important to me. That would kill it.

I'd heavily consider something like a tastefully done fashion spread that is done nude, but the focus isn't that I'm nude. Such as something one would see in a Vogue spread. Then again who am I kidding, I'd never have the opportunity to shoot something like that ever lol. A girl can still dream though.

Jerrypeoples

Nope it goes with objectifying women when they are published in those magazines.

Outside of that (purpose was not for Playboy) absolutely no qualms!

The lady above me ^^^^ FAF so yes!

i dont really think it objectifies women any more than any woman who puts on makeup or dresses to the nines to impress their date or just cause they want to look nice.

i took a quick peek at your pictures. there really isnt that much difference between your pics and playboys other than the playboy model girls get paid a few bucks to pose whereas yours are free.


just my $.02

zipnguyen

would not, but I have posed in a bodybuilding competition in posing trunks (aka thong)

nonstopper

lol yea! If the money is right LOL

lithezebra

No. Prostitution in whatever form is wrong. It demeans all parties.

Sad that people see posing nude as prostitution...I've modeled for art class, in no way shape or form am I a prostitute. I am comfortable with my body, and have no hangups regarding other people's bodies.

You cannot compare posing for art class as the same as posing for Playboy.

Why is photography not art? Last time I checked it was. So is the use of an airbrush. Even if I don't agree with the use of airbrush or Photoshop on nudes. Either way its art. As an artist I must defend art, and your insinuation that nude models are *kitten* is a direct attack on artists and their subjects. For every great work of art that is created there are thousands of pieces of mindless garbage not worth the paper its printed on. Without that smut, trash, or whatever other label you wanna put on it. We would never get the diamonds in the rough that are know as our collective great works of art.

Belittling art in any form, belittles all art in all forms.

Robt Mapplethorpe & his brethren belittled art. He was especially one nasty piece of work. Throwing feces on a wall or exhibiting a crucifix in a jar of urine is not art. It is an attack on others and meant to be offensive.

Seems you are expanding on the definition of art. Many deviants have hid their objectionable proclivities behind the veil of art.

Ive found that the truth is simple & when lot of words or complex explanations is involved, one is entering the area of dishonesty.

BTW - I think Playboy photos are beautiful, but let's be honest about what it really is and the intent. It is what it is and I dont owe anyone an explanation nor need to camouflage.

So tell; What is the difference between the marketing of sexual gratification and creating art?

Get your artists right before you call anyone a "nasty piece of work." Mappelthorpe was an accomplished fine art photographer, often of erotic subject matter, occasionally of highly graphic sexual subject matter, and made those subjects formally beautiful. When and where did he throw poop?

lorenzovonmatterhorn7549

Doodlewhopper

No. Prostitution in whatever form is wrong. It demeans all parties.

Sad that people see posing nude as prostitution...I've modeled for art class, in no way shape or form am I a prostitute. I am comfortable with my body, and have no hangups regarding other people's bodies.

You cannot compare posing for art class as the same as posing for Playboy.

Why is photography not art? Last time I checked it was. So is the use of an airbrush. Even if I don't agree with the use of airbrush or Photoshop on nudes. Either way its art. As an artist I must defend art, and your insinuation that nude models are *kitten* is a direct attack on artists and their subjects. For every great work of art that is created there are thousands of pieces of mindless garbage not worth the paper its printed on. Without that smut, trash, or whatever other label you wanna put on it. We would never get the diamonds in the rough that are know as our collective great works of art.

Belittling art in any form, belittles all art in all forms.

Robt Mapplethorpe & his brethren belittled art. He was especially one nasty piece of work. Throwing feces on a wall or exhibiting a crucifix in a jar of urine is not art. It is an attack on others and meant to be offensive.

Seems you are expanding on the definition of art. Many deviants have hid their objectionable proclivities behind the veil of art.

Ive found that the truth is simple & when lot of words or complex explanations is involved, one is entering the area of dishonesty.

BTW - I think Playboy photos are beautiful, but let's be honest about what it really is and the intent. It is what it is and I dont owe anyone an explanation nor need to camouflage.

So tell; What is the difference between the marketing of sexual gratification and creating art?

Get your artists right before you call anyone a "nasty piece of work." Mappelthorpe was an accomplished fine art photographer, often of erotic subject matter, occasionally of highly graphic sexual subject matter, and made those subjects formally beautiful. When and where did he throw poop?

You then also consider Larry Flynt as an "accomplished" purveyor of "fine art". LOL

#1 Mappelthorpe was not an artist, he was a pornographer and most certainly a very nasty piece of work. Also a total waste of humanity....and you considering a photo of a bullwhip inserted in a guy's pooper as "fine art" & "beautiful" speaks volumes. (really? beautiful? Bizzare.)
#2 I never stated that Mappelthorpe threw feces on the wall nor that he did the urine filled jar. I merely stated that body waste was not art.

But as is to be expected, you direct the argument towards semantics & choose to focus on the trivial.

So, are you able to answer - What is the difference between the marketing of sexual gratification and creating art?

ohpiper

Absolutely. I'd love it. Love being naked. Gasp!

lithezebra

No. Prostitution in whatever form is wrong. It demeans all parties.

Sad that people see posing nude as prostitution...I've modeled for art class, in no way shape or form am I a prostitute. I am comfortable with my body, and have no hangups regarding other people's bodies.

You cannot compare posing for art class as the same as posing for Playboy.

Why is photography not art? Last time I checked it was. So is the use of an airbrush. Even if I don't agree with the use of airbrush or Photoshop on nudes. Either way its art. As an artist I must defend art, and your insinuation that nude models are *kitten* is a direct attack on artists and their subjects. For every great work of art that is created there are thousands of pieces of mindless garbage not worth the paper its printed on. Without that smut, trash, or whatever other label you wanna put on it. We would never get the diamonds in the rough that are know as our collective great works of art.

Belittling art in any form, belittles all art in all forms.

Robt Mapplethorpe & his brethren belittled art. He was especially one nasty piece of work. Throwing feces on a wall or exhibiting a crucifix in a jar of urine is not art. It is an attack on others and meant to be offensive.

Seems you are expanding on the definition of art. Many deviants have hid their objectionable proclivities behind the veil of art.

Ive found that the truth is simple & when lot of words or complex explanations is involved, one is entering the area of dishonesty.

BTW - I think Playboy photos are beautiful, but let's be honest about what it really is and the intent. It is what it is and I dont owe anyone an explanation nor need to camouflage.

So tell; What is the difference between the marketing of sexual gratification and creating art?

Get your artists right before you call anyone a "nasty piece of work." Mappelthorpe was an accomplished fine art photographer, often of erotic subject matter, occasionally of highly graphic sexual subject matter, and made those subjects formally beautiful. When and where did he throw poop?

You then also consider Larry Flynt as an "accomplished" purveyor of "fine art". LOL

#1 Mappelthorpe was not an artist, he was a pornographer and most certainly a very nasty piece of work. Also a total waste of humanity....and you considering a photo of a bullwhip inserted in a guy's pooper as "fine art" & "beautiful" speaks volumes. (really? beautiful? Bizzare.)
#2 I never stated that Mappelthorpe threw feces on the wall nor that he did the urine filled jar. I merely stated that body waste was not art.

But as is to be expected, you direct the argument towards semantics & choose to focus on the trivial.

So, are you able to answer - What is the difference between the marketing of sexual gratification and creating art?

Mapplethorpe did nudes, some of which were sexually explicit. A few S/M images doesn't make all of his work pornographic. Even the infamous bullwhip image was posed in a classically aesthetic manner, and didn't show the kind of anatomical detail that one sees in porn. For the most part, his work consisted of classic nudes, portraits and still lifes. Take a look: http://www.mapplethorpe.org/portfolios/

http://www.mapplethorpe.org/portfolios/

I think that your question is off base. There is no comparison between marketing sexual gratification and making art. Why do you think that they're the same? When I draw, I'm observing the subject and my drawing. I'm not marketing. I'm not even thinking about what people like. You can make art that is sexually explicit, that also has other reasons to exist. The bullwhip image was a self portrait of Mapplethorpe as a gay man, for example.You can make art that has nothing to do with sex. You can make porn with no purpose except to be sexually explicit. Ultimately gratification is in the hands of the beholder.

Doodlewhopper

No. Prostitution in whatever form is wrong. It demeans all parties.

Sad that people see posing nude as prostitution...I've modeled for art class, in no way shape or form am I a prostitute. I am comfortable with my body, and have no hangups regarding other people's bodies.

You cannot compare posing for art class as the same as posing for Playboy.

Why is photography not art? Last time I checked it was. So is the use of an airbrush. Even if I don't agree with the use of airbrush or Photoshop on nudes. Either way its art. As an artist I must defend art, and your insinuation that nude models are *kitten* is a direct attack on artists and their subjects. For every great work of art that is created there are thousands of pieces of mindless garbage not worth the paper its printed on. Without that smut, trash, or whatever other label you wanna put on it. We would never get the diamonds in the rough that are know as our collective great works of art.

Belittling art in any form, belittles all art in all forms.

Robt Mapplethorpe & his brethren belittled art. He was especially one nasty piece of work. Throwing feces on a wall or exhibiting a crucifix in a jar of urine is not art. It is an attack on others and meant to be offensive.

Seems you are expanding on the definition of art. Many deviants have hid their objectionable proclivities behind the veil of art.

Ive found that the truth is simple & when lot of words or complex explanations is involved, one is entering the area of dishonesty.

BTW - I think Playboy photos are beautiful, but let's be honest about what it really is and the intent. It is what it is and I dont owe anyone an explanation nor need to camouflage.

So tell; What is the difference between the marketing of sexual gratification and creating art?

Get your artists right before you call anyone a "nasty piece of work." Mappelthorpe was an accomplished fine art photographer, often of erotic subject matter, occasionally of highly graphic sexual subject matter, and made those subjects formally beautiful. When and where did he throw poop?

You then also consider Larry Flynt as an "accomplished" purveyor of "fine art". LOL

#1 Mappelthorpe was not an artist, he was a pornographer and most certainly a very nasty piece of work. Also a total waste of humanity....and you considering a photo of a bullwhip inserted in a guy's pooper as "fine art" & "beautiful" speaks volumes. (really? beautiful? Bizzare.)
#2 I never stated that Mappelthorpe threw feces on the wall nor that he did the urine filled jar. I merely stated that body waste was not art.

But as is to be expected, you direct the argument towards semantics & choose to focus on the trivial.

So, are you able to answer - What is the difference between the marketing of sexual gratification and creating art?

Mapplethorpe did nudes, some of which were sexually explicit. A few S/M images doesn't make all of his work pornographic. Even the infamous bullwhip image was posed in a classically aesthetic manner, and didn't show the kind of anatomical detail that one sees in porn. For the most part, his work consisted of classic nudes, portraits and still lifes. Take a look: http://www.mapplethorpe.org/portfolios/

http://www.mapplethorpe.org/portfolios/

I think that your question is off base. There is no comparison between marketing sexual gratification and making art. Why do you think that they're the same? When I draw, I'm observing the subject and my drawing. I'm not marketing. I'm not even thinking about what people like. You can make art that is sexually explicit, that also has other reasons to exist. The bullwhip image was a self portrait of Mapplethorpe as a gay man, for example.You can make art that has nothing to do with sex. You can make porn with no purpose except to be sexually explicit. Ultimately gratification is in the hands of the beholder.

My question is not off base just because you wish it were. It is credible and you wont address it. Truth is not your friend in this debate and all you have left is rhetoric and youre slinging as much as you can to obfuscate the issue.

The worse obscenity is that we the tax payers picked up the bill for many of his deviant indulgences.

Save the baloney for lunch.

Timshel_

Nude doesn't bother me. Done plenty. If someone was silly enough to pay me for it in a magazine, then that's cool.

As far as someone wanting to see it, oddly there have been some requests.

impudentputz

Nope it goes with objectifying women when they are published in those magazines.

A couple people have posted something like this...what about the men that are saying yes? Does it objectify men? And if it does, why is it that men have such a different take on this? Most men that have replied have said yes they would. (Granted, most want an absorbent amount of money for it) But still, yes was probably the most common answer.

alisha_1983

Yep...I absolutely would

ppl need to stop overanalyzing everything lol

RllyGudTweetr

Nope it goes with objectifying women when they are published in those magazines.

A couple people have posted something like this...what about the men that are saying yes? Does it objectify men? And if it does, why is it that men have such a different take on this? Most men that have replied have said yes they would. (Granted, most want an absorbent amount of money for it) But still, yes was probably the most common answer.

I could give you the answer I got in my (1990s) college class on feminism and sexuality, but it wouldn't help the thread in any way.

jboccio90

i would break my mama's heart but if the pay is right, sure

Geyser_Mountain_Dreamer

If my body were ripped and the angle dangle was right. Sure. Some level of artistic element is a must however.

Tresiel

Yep...I absolutely would

ppl need to stop overanalyzing everything lol

Yup I would too, pm me hbb nomsayin?

sijomial

Does Saga magazine do centrefolds?

Personally I'm at ease wandering along a nudist beach and don't really see what all the fuss is about nudity - just find it mildly inconvenient not to have any pockets.....