Would you pose nude

1246789

Replies

  • jaggerhawks
    jaggerhawks Posts: 187 Member
    Yes I would..



    ...for 100,000 grand :)

    Give me a call if you do.
  • blytheandbonnie
    blytheandbonnie Posts: 3,275 Member

    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?".
    Oh, for fooks sake, I am not stupid. Yes, art has always been made to titillate. The difference is the total abandon of any feeling other than desire and said satisfaction of desire. It seem to me that our only goal is the satisfaction of carnal need. Surely there must be higher goals than this to strive for. My dissatisfaction is that we seem to concentrate only on sexual desire.
  • chubaway
    chubaway Posts: 1,645 Member
    I promised my mom that as long as she was alive I wouldn't, but not she's gone, so yes.
  • nixivixxCHANGED
    nixivixxCHANGED Posts: 34
    I model nude already, so yeah :)
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • blytheandbonnie
    blytheandbonnie Posts: 3,275 Member

    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?".
    Oh, for fooks sake, I am not stupid. Yes, art has always been made to titillate. The difference is the total abandon of any feeling other than desire and said satisfaction of desire. It seem to me that our only goal is the satisfaction of carnal need. Surely there must be higher goals than this to strive for. My dissatisfaction is that we seem to concentrate only on sexual desire.

    It is a very strong desire, no? It is a primal desire.

    But, to step back for a moment, there are some facts missing. The sexual revolution and porn actually empowered women, not demeaned and belittled women. As a whole, it gave women power and control. People over look that a lot because they get wrapped up in their emotion about it all.
    I disagree. The only thing that women have gained is to be more forward in their sexual presentation to men. True they are free to be more sexual, but so what? They still bear the children and the men are still free to not acknowledge the same. We have gained exactly what men desire. Easy access.
  • lithezebra
    lithezebra Posts: 3,670 Member

    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?".
    Oh, for fooks sake, I am not stupid. Yes, art has always been made to titillate. The difference is the total abandon of any feeling other than desire and said satisfaction of desire. It seem to me that our only goal is the satisfaction of carnal need. Surely there must be higher goals than this to strive for. My dissatisfaction is that we seem to concentrate only on sexual desire.

    I find art more titillating, not less, when it is about something other than a display of body parts for the sole purpose of sexual gratification. Not to demean anyone else's titillation - that's just my personal taste.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Synapze
    Synapze Posts: 499
    Been there...twice ;)
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    I will admit right now that I am prude. But even there, you cannot compare a nude by Rubens to a spread by Playboy?!

    I'm sure there were prudes like you in the 1600s that called what Rubens did pornography. The fact that his models would have likely been prostitutes just adds a bit of irony to your comment.
  • lithezebra
    lithezebra Posts: 3,670 Member

    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?".
    Oh, for fooks sake, I am not stupid. Yes, art has always been made to titillate. The difference is the total abandon of any feeling other than desire and said satisfaction of desire. It seem to me that our only goal is the satisfaction of carnal need. Surely there must be higher goals than this to strive for. My dissatisfaction is that we seem to concentrate only on sexual desire.

    It is a very strong desire, no? It is a primal desire.

    But, to step back for a moment, there are some facts missing. The sexual revolution and porn actually empowered women, not demeaned and belittled women. As a whole, it gave women power and control. People over look that a lot because they get wrapped up in their emotion about it all.
    I disagree. The only thing that women have gained is to be more forward in their sexual presentation to men. True they are free to be more sexual, but so what? They still bear the children and the men are still free to not acknowledge the same. We have gained exactly what men desire. Easy access.

    Those women are promptly disempowered when they cease to be sexually attractive, and who wants that? It's better to have power that lasts.
  • icandowhateveriputmymindto
    icandowhateveriputmymindto Posts: 602 Member
    I would never sell my body for money in any way.
  • Tonnina
    Tonnina Posts: 979 Member
    Not for Playboy, but I'd do it for an art class!
  • catrinaHwechanged
    catrinaHwechanged Posts: 4,907 Member

    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?".
    Oh, for fooks sake, I am not stupid. Yes, art has always been made to titillate. The difference is the total abandon of any feeling other than desire and said satisfaction of desire. It seem to me that our only goal is the satisfaction of carnal need. Surely there must be higher goals than this to strive for. My dissatisfaction is that we seem to concentrate only on sexual desire.

    It is a very strong desire, no? It is a primal desire.

    But, to step back for a moment, there are some facts missing. The sexual revolution and porn actually empowered women, not demeaned and belittled women. As a whole, it gave women power and control. People over look that a lot because they get wrapped up in their emotion about it all.
    I disagree. The only thing that women have gained is to be more forward in their sexual presentation to men. True they are free to be more sexual, but so what? They still bear the children and the men are still free to not acknowledge the same. We have gained exactly what men desire. Easy access.

    Those women are promptly disempowered when they cease to be sexually attractive, and who wants that? It's better to have power that lasts.

    Can a woman not have both??
  • protectmyballs
    protectmyballs Posts: 1
    For playboy / playgirl if offered?

    & would you like to see the person above in Playboy / Playgirl?

    I'd pose for playgirl, but after seeing my package, I'm pretty sure they'd back out of the deal.
  • blytheandbonnie
    blytheandbonnie Posts: 3,275 Member

    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?".
    Oh, for fooks sake, I am not stupid. Yes, art has always been made to titillate. The difference is the total abandon of any feeling other than desire and said satisfaction of desire. It seem to me that our only goal is the satisfaction of carnal need. Surely there must be higher goals than this to strive for. My dissatisfaction is that we seem to concentrate only on sexual desire.

    It is a very strong desire, no? It is a primal desire.

    But, to step back for a moment, there are some facts missing. The sexual revolution and porn actually empowered women, not demeaned and belittled women. As a whole, it gave women power and control. People over look that a lot because they get wrapped up in their emotion about it all.
    I disagree. The only thing that women have gained is to be more forward in their sexual presentation to men. True they are free to be more sexual, but so what? They still bear the children and the men are still free to not acknowledge the same. We have gained exactly what men desire. Easy access.

    Don't blame men that we don't get pregnant
    But that might be your only redeeming quality
  • herblackwings39
    herblackwings39 Posts: 3,930 Member
    the real question is when WOULDNT i pose naked

    -40 degrees, outside? That would be a bad time actually.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • blytheandbonnie
    blytheandbonnie Posts: 3,275 Member

    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?".
    Oh, for fooks sake, I am not stupid. Yes, art has always been made to titillate. The difference is the total abandon of any feeling other than desire and said satisfaction of desire. It seem to me that our only goal is the satisfaction of carnal need. Surely there must be higher goals than this to strive for. My dissatisfaction is that we seem to concentrate only on sexual desire.

    It is a very strong desire, no? It is a primal desire.

    But, to step back for a moment, there are some facts missing. The sexual revolution and porn actually empowered women, not demeaned and belittled women. As a whole, it gave women power and control. People over look that a lot because they get wrapped up in their emotion about it all.
    I disagree. The only thing that women have gained is to be more forward in their sexual presentation to men. True they are free to be more sexual, but so what? They still bear the children and the men are still free to not acknowledge the same. We have gained exactly what men desire. Easy access.

    Those women are promptly disempowered when they cease to be sexually attractive, and who wants that? It's better to have power that lasts.
    So you are saying that the only virtue women have is their ability to be attractive to men? .Damn me as I grow old
  • herblackwings39
    herblackwings39 Posts: 3,930 Member
    the real question is when WOULDNT i pose naked

    -40 degrees, outside? That would be a bad time actually.

    hard nipples baby

    I was thinking more along the lines of frost bite.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • herblackwings39
    herblackwings39 Posts: 3,930 Member
    the real question is when WOULDNT i pose naked

    -40 degrees, outside? That would be a bad time actually.

    hard nipples baby


    I was thinking more along the lines of frost bite.

    frost bite nipples baby

    LOL fair point
  • TruckersWifeTruckersLife
    TruckersWifeTruckersLife Posts: 408 Member
    For my husband if he wanted photos or something but not for a magazine like that. You never know who looks at those things could be some kinda crazy stalkers who knows

    I agree with u sc_smiles I only pose for my hubby
  • blytheandbonnie
    blytheandbonnie Posts: 3,275 Member

    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?".
    Oh, for fooks sake, I am not stupid. Yes, art has always been made to titillate. The difference is the total abandon of any feeling other than desire and said satisfaction of desire. It seem to me that our only goal is the satisfaction of carnal need. Surely there must be higher goals than this to strive for. My dissatisfaction is that we seem to concentrate only on sexual desire.

    It is a very strong desire, no? It is a primal desire.

    But, to step back for a moment, there are some facts missing. The sexual revolution and porn actually empowered women, not demeaned and belittled women. As a whole, it gave women power and control. People over look that a lot because they get wrapped up in their emotion about it all.
    I disagree. The only thing that women have gained is to be more forward in their sexual presentation to men. True they are free to be more sexual, but so what? They still bear the children and the men are still free to not acknowledge the same. We have gained exactly what men desire. Easy access.

    Don't blame men that we don't get pregnant
    But that might be your only redeeming quality

    you expect men to respect women, but then you belittle men about everything. hardly seems fair, and you wonder why people don't take feminists seriously?
    I do not belittle men, my comment was in the general sense. The men in my life are very responsible. But don't pretend that that I am not fully aware of many men that do not live up to their filial responsibility.
  • lithezebra
    lithezebra Posts: 3,670 Member

    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?".
    Oh, for fooks sake, I am not stupid. Yes, art has always been made to titillate. The difference is the total abandon of any feeling other than desire and said satisfaction of desire. It seem to me that our only goal is the satisfaction of carnal need. Surely there must be higher goals than this to strive for. My dissatisfaction is that we seem to concentrate only on sexual desire.

    It is a very strong desire, no? It is a primal desire.

    But, to step back for a moment, there are some facts missing. The sexual revolution and porn actually empowered women, not demeaned and belittled women. As a whole, it gave women power and control. People over look that a lot because they get wrapped up in their emotion about it all.
    I disagree. The only thing that women have gained is to be more forward in their sexual presentation to men. True they are free to be more sexual, but so what? They still bear the children and the men are still free to not acknowledge the same. We have gained exactly what men desire. Easy access.

    Those women are promptly disempowered when they cease to be sexually attractive, and who wants that? It's better to have power that lasts.
    So you are saying that the only virtue women have is their ability to be attractive to men? .Damn me as I grow old

    Heck no. Women can have social, economic and political power, not just sexual power, and real power is more lasting.
  • catrinaHwechanged
    catrinaHwechanged Posts: 4,907 Member
    So you are saying that the only virtue women have is their ability to be attractive to men? .Damn me as I grow old

    Heck no. Women can have social, economic and political power, not just sexual power, and real power is more lasting.

    But the thing is that they are not mutually exclusive.
  • blytheandbonnie
    blytheandbonnie Posts: 3,275 Member
    So you are saying that the only virtue women have is their ability to be attractive to men? .Damn me as I grow old

    Heck no. Women can have social, economic and political power, not just sexual power, and real power is more lasting.

    But the thing is that they are not mutually exclusive.
    There is hope, then, for the old ladies. :laugh:
  • lithezebra
    lithezebra Posts: 3,670 Member
    So you are saying that the only virtue women have is their ability to be attractive to men? .Damn me as I grow old

    Heck no. Women can have social, economic and political power, not just sexual power, and real power is more lasting.

    But the thing is that they are not mutually exclusive.

    You have to work a lot harder at social, economic and political power, and not everyone has the unlimited resources to invest for the future while having a boob job, getting her nails done, and being waxed regularly in order to be the spitting image of porn. And now, I'm off to talk about less depressing topics.

Categories