[photolady95]

The thread was deleted per a request by the original poster.

---

Last edited by photolady95; 08-15-2014 at 11:08 AM. Reason: misspelled word

[gmans]

The bread was deleted per a request by the original poster.

The bread was deleted haha, offensive bread.Most of that mass produced bread we get off supermarket shelves should be classed as offensive.

[crewl1]

The bread was deleted haha, offensive bread.Most of that mass produced bread we get off supermarket shelves should be classed as offensive.

Hey now, I went through withdrawals until Twinkies came back so I take a fence to that comment.

[NicoleC]

Also spoken as someone who's posted their fair share (and more!) of pretty young females, mostly within the context of a street theme like 'scrambling in a rainshower', Comic Con, parades and festivals, etc. Am I bad? Judging from the likes and comments, no. But perhaps the female contingent believe I'm (and probably several others) an unrepentant troglodyte?

Speaking as one of the female contingent, I have no issue with photographers taking pictures of pretty women and enjoying those pictures, as long as all is above board and consensual. For example, a gal in a cosplay outfit at a convention is reasonably giving consent to having pictures taken of her and her costume no matter how skimpy it is. (She's not, however, giving consent to being sexually harassed as so many male convention goers seem to think.)


Of course, some of those pics will be a little risqué for PF, and people are going to disagree where the line is and that's where the report button and the mods come in.


What's offensive and creepy to me is someone using the forum to create their own personal peep show. Photographers obviously felt the women and girls in their pictures WERE pretty. Dismissing those subjects as not good enough isn't about photography anymore, it's about personal gratification.






P.S. The sexism and objectification in glamour and fashion photography is a whole 'nother thread. Know what the difference between Maxim and Cosmo? The models in Cosmo are skinnier and wear less.

[gmans]

Hey now, I went through withdrawals until Twinkies came back so I take a fence to that comment.

Yeah sorry, never meant to barded comment a fence.

[severalsnakes]

Well, we've been around the block with a few detours on this thread, but overall, I have to agree with the advice of 'Report, but don't add to the problem'.
Spoken as someone who is quick to tap the yellow triangle when I'm offended or feel the site is being misused. Family safe or NWS. No porn.
Also spoken as someone who's posted their fair share (and more!) of pretty young females, mostly within the context of a street theme like 'scrambling in a rainshower', Comic Con, parades and festivals, etc. Am I bad? Judging from the likes and comments, no. But perhaps the female contingent believe I'm (and probably several others) an unrepentant troglodyte?
Since I missed the thread in question, maybe my viewpoint isn't informed enough. Anyone got a link? Has it been deleted? I'd like to know if my past postings are acceptable within the standards described so far.
Just sayin'
Ron

Ron, I have no problem with women being perceived as pretty, sexy, glamorous, beautiful and the like. The problem I had with the thread was that the OP was requesting only pictures of "girl beauties" that wouldn't kill his boner. Yeah. Well, I guess I want a thread with just hunky dudes. Cut pecs and huge bulges, please. No pasty flabbies or gray-hairs. Where does the art of photography come in? If this is a forum for appreciating photography, I think gratuitous sexuality has very little to do with it.

When the OP asked for pictures of women, it was ridiculous to add the caveat that there should be no grannies or children. He was asking for a reaction. If the OP had just asked for "Portraits of Beautiful Women" he would have gotten the gamut of female beauty, including the preciousness of a child, the glamour of a young woman, and the maturity and grace of a female more experienced in life. I would have happily viewed a thread with all of those images and appreciated each image for its photographic technique and portrayal of the subject of female beauty. That would have been awesome. But it was a gross, shallow request for superficial "beauty" and that is why I was offended.

Your street photography is something different (as long as you're not a peeping tom); there is certainly artistry to it. Comicon/cosplay likely is more of a snapshot style, but it still has production value in most cases.

I really think there is enough blatant sexualization of women on the internet that we don't really need a thread for it on PentaxForums. I'm a member until I get the boot and until then, I get to voice my opinion.

[chimpwithagun]

It's easy to forget that forums, like this one, are still private property. Freedom of speech and expression do not exist here, it is up to the discretion of the owner and his assigns. If people complain, the forum owner can choose to ignore or cater to those complaints.
What offends one can be wonderful to another, but communities, like water, need to settle to a medium level in order to survive - it's just nature. Those that wish to push those boundaries must accept that some will be offended and push back.
And, to those who have had content deleted, flagged, or otherwise hated - take it instead as a compliment. Provoking an emotional response is one part of what makes a great photograph, regardless of what that response is, the greater the emotion felt, the more successful the image was.

[OregonJim]

I'm a member until I get the boot and until then, I get to voice my opinion.

That's what I thought, too - but apparently, voicing my opinion is taboo now.

[stevebrot]

Yeah, I did report the thread as offensive. I thought the thread was offensive. I reported it. I thought that's what the function was for. My bad.

Just to let you know you are not alone, I was tempted to do the same based on the original post. The thread title also just sounded a little sicko to me, though I figured it might have been a matter of language difference. I would have had the same reaction had the thread been targeted to "Fat Older Guys (shirtless)".


Steve

---------- Post added 08-15-14 at 12:19 PM ----------

What's offensive and creepy to me is someone using the forum to create their own personal peep show. Photographers obviously felt the women and girls in their pictures WERE pretty. Dismissing those subjects as not good enough isn't about photography anymore, it's about personal gratification.

Yes, this forum is not the place. There are groups on Flickr and other places that cater to these various subcategories and genres.


Steve

---------- Post added 08-15-14 at 12:22 PM ----------

but communities, like water, need to settle to a medium level in order to survive

Water settles to the lowest level and communities should strive for something a little higher.


Steve

[MPrince]

Well, I guess I want a thread with just hunky dudes. Cut pecs and huge bulges, please. No pasty flabbies or gray-hairs.

Well, that disqualifies me!

[6BQ5]

Holy cow! I log in to read a few lens reviews and this pops up? Wow! Now I feel like I missed out.

Wait ... what's this forum for to begin with? Should I have been using the Google Image search for lens reviews and PF for the "girl beauties"? Now that's kind of confusing to me especially when this forum is called Pentax Forums.

[Ash]

Imageman, your take on the matter is very strong, even damning for those who do not have many years of portraiture experience. One has to practice portraits with many failed attempts before he/she can master it. But that was not the issue here.

severalsnakes, yes, you reported it, and that is what the reporting function is designed for. It then should be left to the mods to clean up the problem. And indeed, there is an entire category on the forum that features chiefly nude women labelled Not Safe for Workplace. Those images can be more offensive to some people without having to say or write a word. But it is considered a form of artistry and photography. We just have to accept that.

DeadJohn, the mod team discourages public attacking or commenting on moderator action as it is both unnecessary and not in the nature of civil discussion. I'm sure you're aware of this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/29-welcomes-introductions/1-welcome-forum-rules.html, please refer to it to guide replies to posts. The mod team endeavours to be fair and inform members what is appropriate for the forum.

rbefly, the thread was deleted on the request of the OP.

[monochrome]

I guess I missed all the fun.

IMHO the Mods do a pretty darned good job behind the scenes of keeping things here friendly, positive and civil. They do such a good job, in fact, that we really don't even know they're here most of the time, which is as it should be. In the very few times I have inadvertently ventured too near the bounds of good taste or good behavior I'm amazed at the effective, corrective power a gentle message has had - and the little otherwise-hidden reminder that appears for a short time.

In my older years I've come to learn that though I may have the right to speak it often isn't necessarily best to speak. Frequently there is a more efficacious and pleasant option available to achieve the same end. The Yellow Triangle is one of those options.

[Schraubstock]

This is addressed to those idiots

Do I qualify ?

---------- Post added 17-08-14 at 06:06 PM ----------

OP of that thread had just requested "Portraits of Beautiful Women"...

... or "glamorous" women, as this would have cast a wider net - so to say.

[Imageman]

Depends schraubstock what is the purpose of this image was it a portrait for the sitter, or was it a scene with her as the subject.
whats your motivation