Would you pose nude

Options
12357…13

Replies

  • jaggerhawks
    jaggerhawks Posts: 187 Member
    Options
    Been there done that.

    For a good sum of money, why not? ;)
  • Achrya
    Achrya Posts: 16,913 Member
    Options
    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
    catrinaHwechanged Posts: 4,907 Member
    Options
    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
    Otterluv Posts: 9,083 Member
    Options

    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
    FredBloggs60 Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    Yes.

    Would anyone want to look - No! :laugh:
  • Warchortle
    Warchortle Posts: 2,197 Member
    Options
    No and No
  • ggxx100
    ggxx100 Posts: 520 Member
    Options
    Yes I would..



    ...for 100,000 grand :)
  • Wilhellmina
    Wilhellmina Posts: 757 Member
    Options
    I have, several years ago for a painter.
  • jaggerhawks
    jaggerhawks Posts: 187 Member
    Options
    Yes I would..



    ...for 100,000 grand :)

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

    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    I model nude already, so yeah :)
  • blytheandbonnie
    blytheandbonnie Posts: 3,275 Member
    Options

    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
    Options

    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.
  • Synapze
    Synapze Posts: 499
    Options
    Been there...twice ;)

Categories