[Ash]

A recent thread was closed due to some taking offence to a thread featuring images of 'beautiful girls'. It was created to be exclusive, like flower photography or architecture photography, but some members took offence to the notion of women being considered 'objects of beauty'. It astounds me what images or topics are considered acceptable and what collection of images on a thread like this people protest against.

This forum is about photography; a large portion of the industry includes glamour photography, especially women. Whether viewers have issues with it due to a perceived objectification of any group of people or otherwise is their problem, not that of the photographs.

If you are offended by any images on the forum, you may choose not to view them. The moderation team will decide what is or is not acceptable for it to keep the forum and its discussions civil. Thank you all.

[DeadJohn]

I don't think the images were what people objected to, but rather the context in which they were being requested. Cultural differences may have contributed.

It's similar to the street photography debate. Photos of the homeless are less likely to offend than is a thread requesting photos of "mentally ill bums".

[Ratmagiclady]

I did not see any of this, but context may matter. (If you'd ever been looked over like your were somewhere to be a model rather than a photog, perhaps you'd get it.) While I don't think there's anything wrong with people liking people's bodies, there's still and always a certain element of certain gentlemen photo hobbyists being in it for the peeping. (There would not have been so many home darkrooms for us to buy on Ebay some years ago if this hadn't been a significant proportion of popular amatuer photography before the internet, but the change of media hasn't necessarily changed things for women. If anything recent Puritanical tensions in public life have kind of made people even more sensitive about boundaries. I can see requests of 'Post photos of 'beautiful' women here' being seen for someone just looking for 'eye candy' rather than photography.)

Only so much that can be said here, but certainly here in the American South things are getting weird about womens' boundaries that we used to think were over. I'm hardly model material now, but there's kind of a thing with men feeling entitled lately by thinking it's 'reverse sexism' if they don't get their way. Had two incidents myself just lately, which I won't detail, but one involved police and another me just getting to worry if the dude comes back. (What I get for trying to be just-friendly.)

Not a great time for some things, let's say. There's been certain developments where a lot of people have been losing politically about some social issues and trying to recast basic courtesy as 'reverse oppression.' Result? Certain men thinking it's 'virtuous' to push boundaries of others. There's been two recent stories where men were beaten down for standing up to other men who were harassing women, and that's just among straights.

I mean, *I* for one don't appreciate some dudes acting all b-hurt over abstractions when in reality things seem to be back to me trying to fix my car and some dude thinking my poverty entitles him to fondle and make demands of me based on asking over and over, 'Are you married? Where's your boyfriend' expecting either a different answer than he got or taking 'There is none' for permission for I-said-no-dude.'

I would not expect ancient Greece out of claims for pure aesthetic motivations right now.

[SpecialK]

They are women, not girls. Do we call men boys? Just askin'.

I can see requests of 'Post photos of 'beautiful' women here' being seen for someone just looking for 'eye candy' rather than photography.)

Certainly better candy can be found elsewhere if that is really what you are looking for.

[fgaudet]

Oh look, a can of worms on the edge of a slippery slope

[crewl1]

A recent thread was closed due to some taking offence to a thread featuring images of 'beautiful girls'. It was created to be exclusive, like flower photography or architecture photography, but some members took offence to the notion of women being considered 'objects of beauty'. It astounds me what images or topics are considered acceptable and what collection of images on a thread like this people protest against.

This forum is about photography; a large portion of the industry includes glamour photography, especially women. Whether viewers have issues with it due to a perceived objectification of any group of people or otherwise is their problem, not that of the photographs.

If you are offended by any images on the forum, you may choose not to view them. The moderation team will decide what is or is not acceptable for it to keep the forum and its discussions civil. Thank you all.

Your assessment is not accurate.

The offense was not to the images but rather the request that was made and the exclusions that it requested in what seemed a bigoted manner.
(There is a possibility the misunderstanding was due to a language translation problem.)

The OP was not happy with an obvious response, and what was also a lighthearted protest he did not take well.

Overall the thread requirements and tone were not in line with the friendly standards that our forum has displayed in the past.

All types of photographs are welcome here in my view.

Additionally, the OP requested that the thread be closed as well.

[maltfalc]

They are women, not girls. Do we call men boys? Just askin'.

ummm, yes! all the freakin' time.

[Ratmagiclady]

ummm, yes! all the freakin' time.

Admittedly, that's kind of regional. I didn't know Winnipeg was included, but in some places that's just kind of a chummy way of saying it.

This would not apply to asking for certain kinds of photos of either, though.

Also it most distinctly does not apply in national or international media. Where I'm from they would call veterans 'the boys' and my great aunts were 'the girls' ...but in the South? Forget about it.

(A lot of that was kind of a world-war-two thing. Down here, being called 'boy' or 'gal' was part of the local apartheid, though. I'm not personally sensitive to the word 'girls' cause where I'm from that'd possibly refer to you and other female Marines, ....even so, 'I want photos of beautiful girls' still means what it means. )

Also, Ash, as per-usual in your general claims of 'put-upon righteous masculine virtue' of certain kinds, you *still* seem to think the rest of the world thinks the worst thing that can happen to you is 'being offended.' That's not what this is about. Not for the rest of us.

[Tom S.]

They are women, not girls. Do we call men boys? Just askin'.

When you're my age, yes. But then I also call women my age girls too. They don't seem to mind.

I think some people read far too much into the original post than it merited. If someone has posted a similarly worded request only for pictures of handsome young men, it wouldn't have bothered me either - with the possible exception that I couldn't have posted pictures of myself since I am neither handsome, nor young.

[Nick Siebers]

It may have been lost in translation, but the wording of the request for pictures came across as gross. Better deleted/ closed.

[Imageman]

Attitudes are out of whack seriously. Insane people are in charge.


I was recently told I was hanging around near a young girl, I pointed out it was a train stop and I had a ticket for the train and I had to stand there because she was standing where the trains stop.


I am regularly viewed with suspicion simply because I have a camera in a public place like a town centre. The assumption is that a man with a camera is up to no good and the police should be called. Yes, the police were called when I made the mistake of taking some pictures of a fountain.


They were most upset when I proved I was doing nothing wrong.


I have been told that if im walking in a street and there is a lady in that street, the correct behaviour is to avoid going within 50 feet of her otherwise she will panic. I have to cross over to the other side of the street until im over 60 feet away from her and then im allowed to cross back onto her side.


I have been told many times that I am totally wrong when I see a lost or abandoned child and walk up to them and take them to a police officer so they can be taken to their parents. I have been told im asking for trouble, I should run away and abandon the child to their fate, because its far too risky if I help. I am likely to find myself in prison for child abuse if I go anywhere near them even if that means they are returned to their parents.


If the child is raped everyone is happier because the police can act and charge the criminal, but if I take his or her hand to lead them to the police, then the police have little option but to charge me with assault on a minor.


It really is that bad.


30 years ago I was told by a Garage owner who had caught a boy in the act of destroying several brand new automobiles that had just been delivered from Ford, they still had the manufacturers wax coating on the paint. only by then they didn't have any windows, the boy had put bricks through them.


The garage owner took the boy into his office and called the police so they could arrest him. The police told the owner to release the boy, because if they turned up the only person going to prison was the garage owner for assault on the boy.


A foreign tv company recently left a child actor in a city street looking lost, and filmed what happened to her, They expected to see adults stopping to help this lost child. In 8 hours, not one adult stopped they all walked quickly away abandoning this child to whatever criminal or evil person wanted her, or homelessness.


I was disgusted that nobody helped her. The tv company were also disgusted nobody helped. But you know society has created this situation.


More children than ever are at risk in my opinion because the only people willing to go near a lost 8 year old girl are the evil menace that society says it wants to protect her from.


Im going to keep trying to help people who need it, and not run away from doing the right thing, and I hope you guys will too.

[DeadJohn]

Let's not go too far off topic. People thought the other thread looked like a "no fatties" thread (the OP didn't use those words but that's what the context felt like) and posted accordingly. The negative response was targeted more at the text than at the images.

[LaurenOE]

Just for the record it wasn't me (who complained).
I pop into pretty much every thread that "grabs" my attention.

The defense "You don't like it, don't look at it" is one of my pet peeves.
Occasionally tasteful and artistic nudes are created here, but those are few and far between.
That thread when I saw it, had no nudes, but I got the point of the thread.
There seems to be no shortage of women allowing themselves to be exploited, and folks willing to do so.
When a woman is an adult, and is willing to be exploited, and knows better, then it's her right to do so.

Having a thread about "Pretty Girls" was creepy, and I was not disappointed in my expectation of the same.
I saw that thread, popped in, realized what it was, and left.

I'm glad that PF has members that *do* say things when they don't like things.
Although this time, it wasn't me - I didn't like it but I'm not going to cross folks like I used to.

Thanks.

[OregonJim]

A recent thread was closed due to some taking offence to a thread featuring images of 'beautiful girls'. It was created to be exclusive, like flower photography or architecture photography, but some members took offence to the notion of women being considered 'objects of beauty'. It astounds me what images or topics are considered acceptable and what collection of images on a thread like this people protest against.

You missed the point of the protests entirely. It had nothing to do with the images.


The OP wanted to collect pictures of "beautiful girls", and specifically excluded "children and grannies" (his words) in a very rude and condescending tone.

This kind of request is offensive on several levels. He is implying (almost explicitly) that children and older women are NOT beautiful. His samples were playing into the mass media definition of "beauty", something which has no basis in reality. His motives were clear from the context and certainly had nothing to do with photography.

Having said that, I would defend the OP's right to make such a request - however, I have an equal right to voice my objections to said request. That's what free speech is all about - things have a way of working themselves out when no one is strongarmed into keeping quiet or forced to be politically "correct".

[MD Optofonik]

I saw that thread. It was a "poor choice of words". My immediate impression was that it was was posted by someone who was rather young and immature who didn't have very sophisticated social skills or the most well rounded vocabulary. Offensive? Not really; just a bit juvenile.