"'Lascivious' But Not Truly 'Sexual'"

This photo to me depicts the difference between lasciviousness and true

sexuality, for there is more than enough of the former and to me

absolutely none of the latter, thought the charade portrayed by the

participants and subjects may suggest otherwise. Though taken at the

world's best attended 'porn convention' in "sin city' (Las Vegas) there is

actually more flesh shown at many of Las Vegas's shows, as here bare

breasts, especially aureoles and nipples were forbidden as were other

female 'parts', leaving only 'suggestion' (as here) and not anything 'real'

which totally befits an extravaganza devoted to fantasy. Your ratings

are invited and most welcome. As are your critiques. I invite

constructive and helpful comments. Thanks for sharing your

photographic (and social) knowledge! Enjoy (or at least be edified) John

(not posted under 'nude' because no nudity depicted - as best I can

determine, though Administration is free to change the category as it

sees fit) jc

Maybe it was this woman 'actress' or another who screamed 'he touched me' at the top of her lungs when a man posed like this, as men were not supposed to 'touch' in any way, belying the 'sexuality' of what was purportedly being depicted (thus demonstrating my point about lasciviousness vs. sexuality, I think).

Whether this woman, or another, I don't recall, but I do recall having had a 'full view of the affected area and the man when I was there and the woman screamed and questioning the particular woman, as there was no apparent 'contact'.  I had wondered if that woman who screamed was being just a little 'dramatic' (no stretch for an actress, looking for attention, who will do this for men who line up for a long time for a short time chance to pose like this for 'actresses' who are like this for a brief time, then go off to 'other pursuits' and don't do this for long periods -- a half hour or an hour at most.

If this is bizarre, remember this is one of the most attended conventions in Las Vegas, next door to the Consumer Electronics Show, its twin, which is held simultaneously.  This show started as a booth at the former and now has almost outgrown the former and its ticket prices are 'sky high' though there is much more 'flesh' at many 'Strip' shows, though most men attendees (and a few women) do not recognize that, or are drawn to its tawdriness . . . . or which it has plenty.

Tawdry?  Yes, in plenitude.

Sexuality?  Depends on your attitude -- to me, none.

john

John (Crosley)

This truly is a 'gem' isn't it?

I've been looking at it for a long time, overlooking its wonderfulness, slightly besotted by its tawdriness and not wanting to be associated as 'the photographer who takes tawdry photos'.

But as a photographer of 'documentary/street' with 'tawdry' or 'lascivious' as a subject, I'm finally OK with that.

In fact, I'd take a whole portfolio or show or such photos if I now had to reshoot such an extravaganza and may in fact do just that.

Thanks for letting me know your high estimation of this photo.

john

John (Crosley)

His arms and hands are braced so he absolutely CANNOT get too close, though he certainly can get very close.

Notice also his tongue.

His face was kept dark so his tongue (and the parallel line of the bottom of his right nostril) would be emphasized -- both come from overhead 'stage' lighting).

Otherwise, I might have dodged and burned this photo, but when a 'tongue' sticking out is the subject, and it is so prominent in an unworked photo such as this, why play with something so good?

Same with the darker-portrayed man in sunglasses slightly to the left and rearward.

Maybe he wants to be 'cool' or 'not recognized' or both, but I like keeping him 'dark' and just a bit 'sinister'.  Try seeing this not only 'large' but double clicking on this to see if my choices look better as the photo shows larger.

john

John (Crosley)

This is an excellent "documentary/street" shot, John ... Regards.

It took me 2-1/2 years to get over my own prejudice against this, my own photo, but now I see it for its own true worth, and see it as you do, my friend.

Sometimes for me it takes some time to 'get wisdom', so I understand those who do not get 'street' or arenot  willing to rate highly something depicting 'tawdriness'.

But you are absolutely right, in my, belated view, arrived at after a lightning bolt of retrospect one night.

'What a great photo' I said to myself after looking at this'; 'it tells a great story!' but one I guess I didn't want to be 'known for'.

I can leave all pretense behind.   A really good photo is a really good photo.

And I understand the low raters, but must now leave them and let this cream rise.

Thanks for helping me realize my choice was correct.

john

John (Crosley)

This is porno. It's sick. I'm shocked to find this on photo.net.  I'm suprised Josh did not pull this.

It is a charade.

It is not porno.

It derives from porno, but really nothing 'porno' is happening.

It just appears so to those sensitive

It is my commentary on the ridiculousness of such happenings as 'porno extravaganzas' such as the AVN (Adult Video News) convention annually, which I find completely anti-sexy.

You know my work well, and I do not post pornography.

It is my comment on pornography of the most lascivious kind, though, and done with 'camp', too.

As a photographer of nudes, I understand you always surely were 'serious' with them. 

These guys are 'having fun', and I was viewing it critically which may be outside your viewpoint, but please allow for differing viewpoints.

Your views are always respected, and one such at least was always expected/others viewed it as documentary, also not as porn (I never viewed it as porn, which may be from one's own personal arousal level, not from the depiction anyway?)

If you look at ratings, it does have some 6's, 5's, 4's, and a 3 not an expected rating range for 'porn', but one I find usual for well done 'street' which this is.

I respect your opinion, Meier, and welcome it as I do all others.

Thank you for sharing it.

john

John (Crosley)

This is in actuality a PARODY OF PORN.

Even if they are not in on the joke.

Look how pierced they are by the camera's all-seeing eye and just how anti-arousal this photo really is.

These guys and this woman may be pandering to 'prurient interests' but this photo is definitely not; it is a microscope under which we examine that business and see how it looks by those who are not driven to lust of those who were not really lustful at the time, but only wanted a depiction for later (usually to 'show the guys at work' or 'at the bar' for bragging rights and the lassitude and participation of the worker -- and my commentary on her/others' 'permissions')

I hope this helps this with 'visceral reactions' to understand that this is intended as 'art' and not to pander to prurient interests at all, as I find it not pandering at all and really nothing prurient here at all; just a depiction of a charade of how one does so by those not really truly involved in prurience -- just lasciviousness (there is a big difference even though the two come close).

To put it another way:  If this depicts 'sickness' that does not make this very serious work 'sick' in itself or 'porno' because it depicts others attempting to replicate a staged version of mostly-clothed adults acting out for their friends' cameras.

I'm the messenger, not the message.

john

John (Crosley)

This is obnoxious.

John, You’re a senior photographer and a really good photographer. We don’t expect this from you.

OMG! your kidding me. As a woman I object to this. I was browsing street photos.  I am saddened by this and what`s worse, a small girl was with me when I happened upon it.  Totally not appropriate.

C Hall

so i dont quite understand  how naked women became the subject of  blatent belittling and disrespect? naked woman are not humerous and shouldnt be portrayed in such manner, and john not so becoming from a mature man as yourself... somewhat distasteful,,,  i think it would be more suited in nudes..... but even then????  samme

john thanks for your explaination it isnt porn, and that isnt a tongue and that isnt some young womans naked ass ... its all just a big joke.. so who is laughing?

 This picture is still here? f you want to see photos of this caliber, there are plenty in the porn sites.  I don`t feel this is representative of `street photography`  My vision of street photography is not ridicule and shame and simulated or otherwise acts of  pornography. You might visit Henri - Cartier Bresson to refresh that concept.  Several hours later, my opinion on this photo has not changed.

Hi John,

I find the criticism of your photo quiet bizzare.  It is certainly not porn and not offensive.  Had you set the shot up with models and made an image of something unreal to represent your image, maybe it becomes porn.  But this image to me is a representation of life, of human behaviour.  I cannot understand how anyone can say it degrades women, when the woman in the photo chose to be there and invited those around her to view her as such.

I find it an interesting depiction of human behaviour and speaks volumes about the people in the photo and their attitudes to themselves and to others.  I make no comment about whether I agree with their attitudes and/or actions.

Thanks for sharing, as a newbie to photography I fully embrace the notion that photography should record all of our human behaviour, attitudes and actions.

PDE

This image is relevent, you are documenting a sub culture, it is the culture that objectives women, not the photo.  If you took a photo of someone being murdered (in war or what have you) you wouldn't say "hey this guy portrays a seen of murder well he must encourage people to kill one another." in fact I would assume the opposite, this image speaks out against the objectification of women, just as war photographers document the horror of war as a warning for the next generation.  John, I know you have a great photo here because there are many commenters who hate it, the image is powerful enough to bring about emotion in several veiwers, that is a good sign.  Thank you for not being afraid to share a powerful image that may offend some people, great work Sir.

It has been stated in numerous posts by Administration (perhaps the previous Administration) that this is an 'adult site' and that the photography here is for adult viewing, and only after an adult has perused and vetted the photos here should a child be allowed to view the site.

When I recommend or represent the site to another, and that includes ANY OTHER PERSON, I first inquire about their cultural, moral and religious values, warn them that there are nudes on this site, warn them that their employer may have set up screenings far away in case they view this site 'at work' for purposes of employment discipline promptly or maybe even as an excuse at a later date, when someone wants a reason to fire them, so best to view it at home.  I tell them they may see depictions by others of sexual deviancy.

I specifically tell them it has a great number of nudes, some depicted in situations that to me are shocking or offensive, but others are just nudes, and that when they view my portfolio they may find few nudes (not many, but a few).

If they have moral, religious, or other grounds for not wanting to view the female form naked or are averse to viewing 'gritty' photography, I tell them the site and my photos probably are not for them.

I have had maybe three people say 'maybe your photos are something I should not view', and the rest (hundreds or maybe the low thousands . . . yes thousands) . . . seem anxious to view them and numbers . . . .e- mail   response and 'clicks' seem to indicate that they do indeed visit my photos.  The same people stop me on streets around the world to comment on their 'favorite photos' and NOT ONE has complained about anything that they found 'offensive' though other photos have other depictions not so dissimilar but just not so blatant.

My photos sometimes are sweet, sometimes are gritty and my viewers come to expect that, I have been told.  'Grittiness' is part of life, and I try to portray life -- of course not all of it, for I do not portray 'pornography'.

This is a commentary on those who make their living both creating it and consuming it, without actually specifically showing pornography.  It may seem a 'fine point' to some, but it's a very special point and an important one.

In the request for critique I noted that Administration, at their whim, was free to move the category (or do whatever else they chose) with this photo.  I am not wedded to the idea of shocking people, merely to depicting life in its many vagaries.  This is a private site, with private owner(s) and I always respect their right to determine as final arbiters what can and cannot be seen on their site, and have no quarrel with them if they choose to remove it, though I wish they do not.

I previously had overlooked this photo and did not post it merely because I had overlooked before that it truly in my mind could be a GREAT photo in the 'candid' genre that I know and treat as 'street' - an actual 'street' not being a requisite for a 'street' photograph to be so denominated.

That being said, any look at my comments above, which expressly  disassociate myself from any pandering should be self-explanatory.

I have no need to pander or to take pornography.  My entire portfolio taken as a whole speaks for itself.

This is not pornography in any event, though it is an attempt to take a photo of people trying to emulate events that appear to be a poor substitute for the real thing. 

Justice Potter Steward on looking at this would say I am sure 'I don't know how to define pornography, but it certainly is not this', and anyone who thinks this is, has never seen 'real pornography' I think, and for them, that's probably a good thing, as they wish to not see such things.

Real 'art' embraces all sorts of eroticism, (which this is not),  sexuality (which this is only tangentially) and social criticism (which this is in spades).

Indeed it is a depiction of lasciviousness' but 'lasciviousness' and 'pornography' are not equals.  One does not define the other, and a photo can be one without the other.  A pornographic photo needn't be lascivious, nor a lascivious photo (such as this) be pornographic.

Perhaps this photo is a bit shocking but not so much for the sexual content but for its depiction of its commercial and crass approach to sexuality . . . . there's nothing lovey dovey here . . . .it's all blatant, but really nothing 'sexually explicit' is taking place here . . . . to me it's a charade and a parody of sex and sexuality, and to me it's anti-sexual.

In the extreme.

For those who think otherwise, perhaps personal inventory is in order.

I for one am not and never suffered one moment of arousal at the entire 'extravaganza', and upon  talking with the vast majority of men who attended found that most were lured by the chance to visit and mingle with the people who make the hidden and forbidden, while still being  themselves, but a few shed their dignity, so they could show their friends, and it is those depicted here.

That is where my social commentary comes in.

Viz. Above.

john

John (Crosley)

(Photo.net has long advertised itself as a place that is adult and not 'kid friendly' and a place where children are not invited except under the watchful eyes of parents who first vet the site, so I cannot hear of any complaints from adults who do not heed these warnings, unless for some reason they have been rescinded and I have not learned of them. 

In any case, I have a long history of being very careful and watchful about what I post and being a photographer who posts photos for 'social commentary' and not to create personal attention for myself or to 'create a stir'.

In my opinion, this is one heck of a photo, street style, and I am proud of the photo; I have no such pride in the subject depicted except I did capture did it in an accurate and artful way, truthfully and faithfully.

jc

I don't find it shocking that some people confuse the depiction of people depicting lascivious behavior with pornography. 

Some people just are not good at discriminating thinking.

Pornography is pandering and certainly if this woman were engaged in actual, true pornography, she would be pandering.  Here she is engaged in a depiction of how she might go about 'pandering' to set up a situation where men can fantasize about how she (with adequate clothing to pass as clothed) can depict themselves as 'having sex with her' without actually doing so, just so they can have a visual record by their own photographs and videos.  That's why she's there and why they paid over $60 to attend, though most attendees were not anywhere interested in such behavior but merely wanted to view as 'real people' the persons depicted in 'videos' and DVDs, rather than just as fantasy figures.

In fact, I had some rather interesting talks (some on a high intellectual level) with a few of the women who worked here, (others were definitely not on such a high intellectual plane of course).

This is a multi-billion dollar business and these women are the people who drive it; even if exploited at first, they soon realize they have the POWER to determine their futures and their own wages if they will do certain things and are attractive enough and 'eager enough'.

For a certain few, it's a multimillion dollar dream, for others it's a pipe dream.

For most it's a few hours of being taped then going on to a normal life, but those never end up being at an extravaganza like this.

For the most part, these people are just real people, with jobs, but those jobs are just not waitressing or selling clothes or working at desks.

In Amsterdam, I remember when the mayor of Amsterdam presented a special gift to the city's retiring 'oldest prostitute'.  She was seen as having special value for her long service to the city of Amsterdam.

That's a European and Dutch perspective on sexuality; at odds with our own home-grown American perspective.

And I know it's true, I saw the photos on the front page of a Dutch newspaper when I was there and spoke to people who knew the woman (in her late '50s).

Sex as a business thrives in parts of the world, including the United States.

Already police in certain areas are bemoaning that Craig's List now no longer publishes adult ads, and fear that will drive the sex industry into the streets and into organized crime -- the reverse of what the attorney generals had hoped for when they tried to drive erotic services from Craig's List.  Unintended Consequences?  We'll see.

I don't patronize.

I like lovey-dovey love, and this is antithetical to me.

But I'm a photographer, and some have asked me to turn my back on a good to great photo.

That I won't do.

If Administration wants to remove it, they are free to, but there have been many depictions on this site of sexual deviancy, and this is far from even being halfway as offensive as I have found some of those . . . . .

I think this is good, and I am proud to be its photographer.

I think I did a good job, though I realized that belatedly . . . .far too belatedly in fact. This should have been posted long ago.

I think it's a good idea to cause people to think, and this photo has done just that and just for that, Graeme, as you note, it's a success.

Two decades ago I spent a long time practicing law, and as such I also studied law to the cum laude Juris Doctor level.

I asked myself according to my extensive study of law and of pornography, 'is this pornography?' before I posted it, and by no definition could I find that this is pornographic.

Is their conduct in bad taste?

Of course.

That's what this photo is all about.

Crassness and commercialism and parody.

john

John (Crosley)

(thanks Graeme)

Thanks for your vote of confidence.  Some people who are not totally offended, insofar as that is true, need to speak out, less their speech and rights to view such images of social criticism be drowned out and conflated somehow.

john

John (Crosley)

Adam,

Sometimes and rarely I get a comment so well written that it is just not possible to add anything to it.

I recommend each and every person who reads this to go back and read and re-read Adam de Frang's comment above.

I find it exemplifies my thoughts and feelings absolutely.

Adam, thanks for such a trenchant analysis and also for the kind words.

john

John (Crosley)

Well said Adam.. a lot of these comments are basically "shoot the messenger".

Thanks.

I agree.

Piling on is forbidden in football and for good reason; it's antithetical to American values.

Open discourse is highly valued; not bookburning or censorship or images as this where there is no pornography and in this case not even any nuditym, though one critic claims this is a naked body, if I read correctly, which confused me greatly.  Skimpy clothing does not equal nudity, as any trip to the American beach will prove.  (it's different, totally different in Europe, where tops (and often bottoms too) come off, often immediately and in full view of everybody, kids, adults and everybody, and NOBODY seems discomfited.

Except me.

Who wants to see a naked 250 pound woman topless?

Because along with the slender, model-beautiful young things, come their mothers and their grandmothers, also topless, at some beaches I've visited.  Maybe the American way is better.  (my own personal musing)

john

John (Crosley)

   The "men' who have written here, and think this is great, are the problem, justifying this photo is in essence condoning what is going on here.  The only way it is 'powerful' is by the sensationalism it has caused. A photo of vomit would have done the same.  Does this make a good photo?  Nah. I've seen way better that do not have to sink to sensationalism to achieve attention. 

  I was browsing 'street photography' not nudes.  It would have been more appropriate placed in the nude section.  Obviously this photo was not taken in a public area. 

Catherine Hall