Would you pose nude

vienna_h

never for playboy or any sort of pornography

but tasteful nude photography, yes absolutely

to me there is a difference.

one "sells" sex, its purpose is purely sexual arousal. the other is the beauty of the human body without the intent just make money, but to provoke thought, emotions, to use proper composition, lighting, etc. I'm not saying pornography is inherently wrong or anything, to each their own, but I would not want to be depicted this way, personally. I've worked in the sex-working industry (not as a sex-worker though!) and so I've seen the really ugly side of it, and I want no part of it. but im quite comfortable with my body, and I like the play of light and positions and how to makes my body look. True nude photography is so beautiful.

bubblygoldfish

OP: you were just asking if we would or would not, correct? Whats up with the philisophical debate about where porn and art meet? Whoa!

Pose for a magazine= no, i'm not that brave!
Pose for a lover= yes, done that!

firstsip

I'm sure Hustler will gain an prominent slot in the 'important art'. segment.

Wow...look behind you...you see that thing that just whizzed by you...that's what's called "the point"

But that is just the point. Where does the line get drawn? I am saddened everyday by the debasement of the human condition. When do we focus on higher goals. Sex and all it's trappings consume way too much of our time.

Funny, the rejection and imposed shame of critical elements of nature, like sexuality and the human body, seems more central to the 'debasement' of humanity.

blytheandbonnie

I will admit right now that I am prude. But even there, you cannot compare a nude by Rubens to a spread by Playboy?!

jaynalawayna

I posed nude before weight loss for a friend working on a photographic nudes series. Art is art.

sub10orbust

depends

Unknown

This content has been removed.

firstsip

I will admit right now that I am prude. But even there, you cannot compare a nude by Rubens to a spread by Playboy?!

Well, we're done here.

the_dude00

OP: you were just asking if we would or would not, correct? Whats up with the philisophical debate about where porn and art meet? Whoa!

Pose for a magazine= no, i'm not that brave!
Pose for a lover= yes, done that!

Agree, I think the original post was not made to start a moral debate...

And the above should do pose, lol

Nicolee_2014

I probably would if I had the body for it

vienna_h

I will admit right now that I am prude. But even there, you cannot compare a nude by Rubens to a spread by Playboy?!

no ****...

blytheandbonnie

I will admit right now that I am prude. But even there, you cannot compare a nude by Rubens to a spread by Playboy?!

Well, we're done here.

Why?

AmandaDurkin

OP: you were just asking if we would or would not, correct? Whats up with the philisophical debate about where porn and art meet? Whoa!

Pose for a magazine= no, i'm not that brave!
Pose for a lover= yes, done that!

Because some people decided to judge those of us who say yes as "Sluts" lol had to make a case. But its getting exhausting.

colortheworld

yes. i did a suicide girls photo shoot once. it's art!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

lithezebra

I'm sure Hustler will gain an prominent slot in the 'important art'. segment.

Wow...look behind you...you see that thing that just whizzed by you...that's what's called "the point"

But that is just the point. Where does the line get drawn? I am saddened everyday by the debasement of the human condition. When do we focus on higher goals. Sex and all it's trappings consume way too much of our time.

Sexuality is part of the human condition, not a debasement of it. Being human in no way excludes one from higher goals. In the 19th century, for example, many fine art models truly were prostitutes, and many artists consorted with prostitutes, and still made art that was sublime.

AmandaDurkin

yes. i did a suicide girls photo shoot once. it's art!

That's so awesome! I'm envious!

blytheandbonnie

OP: you were just asking if we would or would not, correct? Whats up with the philisophical debate about where porn and art meet? Whoa!

Pose for a magazine= no, i'm not that brave!
Pose for a lover= yes, done that!

Because some people decided to judge those of us who say yes as "Sluts" lol had to make a case. But its getting exhausting.

I do not automatically label people who pose nude as sluts. I have done many things in my life I am not proud of. But I believe that forums such as Playboy or Hustler do not promote a healthy depiction of sexuality and I will never accept them as art.

kissofsun

yes. i did a suicide girls photo shoot once. it's art!

love the spreads by suicide girls! i dunno if i could pose for playboy/girl but suicide girls absolutely!

lithezebra

I will admit right now that I am prude. But even there, you cannot compare a nude by Rubens to a spread by Playboy?!

no ****...

You can, and it has been done, not literally as far as I know, however the Western pictorial tradition has been demonstrated to be alive and well in advertising and porn.

jaggerhawks

Been there done that.

For a good sum of money, why not?

Achrya

Damn right I would. Why not? I find the human body beautiful and the female form in particular something that should be celebrated in various mediums, up to and including erotica. I mean why not? Is the body not meant to be erotic and invoke feelings of passion and desire in other humans? So how is doing that in a magazine or in a video a bad thing?

catrinaHwechanged

Sure!! I have done a couple boudoir shots and finished them feeling very self confident. They were a great experience and I love the photographs. I am pretty liberal though and have no issues with nudity.

Otterluv

I will admit right now that I am prude. But even there, you cannot compare a nude by Rubens to a spread by Playboy?!

Sure you can. Have you studied art history? Most nudes were painted to titilate, the same reason that Playboy shoots nudes. Human sexuality is nothing new, and as a result neither is the continuing depiction of the nude form. What has changed is the invention of photography, that's all. It's just another art medium.

I don't go in for those pointless discussions of "what is art?".

FredBloggs60

Yes.

Would anyone want to look - No! :laugh:

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Warchortle

No and No

ggxx100

Yes I would..



...for 100,000 grand

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Wilhellmina

I have, several years ago for a painter.