Boudoir photography - exploitation or expression?

Steve

Steve

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,685
Name
.... Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I will start by admitting I don't like boudoir photography, and don't understand why it, and burlesque, seem to be acceptable when to me they are demeaning to women, reinforce the woman as an object view and are essentially a form of soft porn from the 1960s that is titillating but not too much to get past the censors in that era.

Then I read a passionate defence of boudoir by Kate Hopewell Smith in a magazine in response to a man on Facebook making a similar comment to me. To her boudoir photography was an intimate, empowering, positive self affirming form of expression.

Maybe boudoir can fall into both camps? Done badly is it a short step from soft porn, but done well it is everything KHS claims?
 
Steve said:
Maybe boudoir can fall into both camps? Done badly is it a short step from soft porn, but done well it is everything KHS claims?
Click to expand...

Exactly that Steve!

When I have undertaken boudoir sessions there have been many reasons why the client has wanted those photographs - most usually it is to produce a beautiful handmade album to present to their husband/partner on a birthday or anniversary. The photographs are elegant and sensitive, sometimes with a hint of humour or irony, but very often about confidence. Mine do not fall within the realms of 'glamour'. I have also had ladies request these photographs simply to celebrate their own personal milestone, be it hitting 40 or 50 (as a celebration of maturity and worldliness) or recovery from illness such as breast cancer or other surgeries. It's such a broad subject to be honest, but boudoir photography as I know it would never ever be demeaning. It's often much misunderstood, and sometimes confused with other kind of mood or semi nude photography.
 
Hmm.. it's one of those grey areas where viewers may differ in their interpretations but will be able to look at an image and say, "That's boudoir", or, "That's pornography", or, "That's cutting it fine between boudoir and pornography". Most importantly, you have to look closely at the discussion the motivation behind the image.

If a client has commissioned the shot and the purpose is to present the client in a manner that makes them feel good about themselves, the location and styling imply an overtly romantic-sexuality and there is an element of semi-nudity, nudity or implied nudity, then I think that meets the requirements of a boudoir shot as distinct from a pornography shot. Model shoots specifically in this style for the purposes of training/experience or marketing this style of shot to clients also fall into this category. The most important distinction is that the over-riding purpose is to leave the subject feeling good about how they look in the image. Pleasing anyone else is a secondary consideration. I think this agrees with the response you've read on Facebook.

Anything else that isn't primarily about how the subject feels about the image is pornography disguised as "glamour" or "artistic nude" - this would include most paid model nude photography. On the few occasions I've had a look at the contents of the dirty old men's tits'n'ass section of this forum, pornography pretty much sums up most of the contents.
 
Both camps. To be honest I don't mind what the hell I shoot as long as it pays the bills! I love boudoir as it's always good to get an insight from the women as to why they are doing it. Most of the time it's actually an opener in terms of having women cry in front of you out of joy or happiness because they feel sexy, a lot of my customers in the past felt naive and needed to spice things up at home etc and for some this is a way of doing it. Each to their own I guess but it's honestly down to what the customer wants, if she wants raunchy photos etc then let her do it. Who am I to tell a woman what to do ;)
 
One telephone enquiry I had went like this.

"Hi, I'd like to book a shoot with you'
'Sure, what sort of style would you like?'
'Well, I have a tattoo and I'd like it to a feature of some of the pictures'
'OK, where is the tattoo?'
'On my thigh....at the top'
'Ah, so it would be like a lingerie shoot'
'Sort of....I'd like some with clothes on....but mainly not...is that OK?'
'No problem'

We spent a couple of hours in the studio, mostly with her naked, save for a pair of heels. Why? Because she wanted to. I still couldn't categorise the style of shoot we did....black and white low key, some would call it 'art nude'. It definitely wasn't glamour and it wasn't boudoir but either it was a naked lady and it was what she wanted.
I can't see how it would be demeaning to her as it was all at her initiative. That said, the way she haggled over the price and what I ended uo giving her, I did feel a tad exploited......
 
Last edited:
From Wikipedia
Exploitation is the use of someone or something in an unjust or cruel manner.

Most often, the word exploitation is used to refer to economic exploitation; that is, the act of using another person's labor without offering them an adequate compensation.
Click to expand...

So if I am being paid to do the photography by the client I could be the one exploited

Have you seen how much models charge? What, I am not being paid? exploited again

Mike
 
I have never done anything remotely like boudoir photography, but see it as an enduring art form, because it has been around since photography began. In my opinion it is totally different to pornography, because the subject is not exploited and is totally in control of the surroundings.
 
Alastair said:
Anything else that isn't primarily about how the subject feels about the image is pornography disguised as "glamour" or "artistic nude" - this would include most paid model nude photography. On the few occasions I've had a look at the contents of the dirty old men's tits'n'ass section of this forum, pornography pretty much sums up most of the contents.
Click to expand...


That's one opinion. Other's mileage may vary
 
Last edited:
One man's (or one woman's) 'pornography' is not necessarily another man's (or woman's) 'pornography'.

Probably the most truthful way to define what is and what isn't 'porn' is to say that if no bare genitals or pubic hair is displayed, nor coitus, then it isn't porn and is just a sensuous celebration of the human form and character of the individual subject.

Women (or men) aren't exploited - They mostly do it for their own personal reasons which deserve to be respected.

Many moons ago before I was married (and subsequently divorced) I had a stereotypically long blonde haired (natural) Californian girlfriend living with me who, when she ran out of money (she was travelling Europe when we met), did a few Page Three sessions for The Sun totally of her own decision. Who was exploiting who?

[No, I don't still have any copies of the photos to post]
 
Last edited:
IMHO any image that has the objective to titillate is pornography. Where the objective is not to titillate it isn't porn. The lines can be blurred when the objective is the later but the execution is poor.
 
RedRobin said:
Women (or men) aren't exploited - They mostly do it for their own personal reasons which deserve to be respected.
Click to expand...

I would not disrespect the reasons for the model to participate in such photography.

It's the motivations of the photographer and the viewer that are suspect.

And I would query the absolute assertion that no one is ever exploited, which would appear to be a very naive belief. And in the example of your former girlfriend (whose natural or otherwise blonde status adds nothing but titillation to the discussion),would she have posed topless if she wasn't hard-up and in urgent need of cash?
 
BBR said:
IMHO any image that has the objective to titillate is pornography. Where the objective is not to titillate it isn't porn. The lines can be blurred when the objective is the later but the execution is poor.
Click to expand...

....But how do you know what a photographer's "objective" is? - I suggest it's all in the eye (and mind) of the beholder. Obviously relatively hardcore porn sets out to titillate sexually and without it the hyperinterwebbynet doubtless wouldn't exist (apparently but very credibly).

Titillate doesn't always mean in a sexual way but rather in a stimulating or exciting way. For example, some photos of some high performance cars 'titillate' me, as does a simple shot of an attractive female in jeans and T-shirt - It doesn't have to be a wet T-shirt with aroused nipples (which I don't judge as porn anyway).

It's in our genes to be aroused, to different degrees depending on the individual, to the sight of the opposite sex (or same sex if you're gay, I suppose - Whether being gay is in someone's genes or not is another ballgame, or should I say subject, and a can of worms to start that discussion). It doesn't make any difference if the stimulating sight is in real life or a 2-dimensional image such as a photo - It still happens involuntarily.
 
RedRobin said:
....But how do you know what a photographer's "objective" is? - I suggest it's all in the eye (and mind) of the beholder. Obviously relatively hardcore porn sets out to titillate sexually and without it the hyperinterwebbynet doubtless wouldn't exist (apparently but very credibly).

Titillate doesn't always mean in a sexual way but rather in a stimulating or exciting way. For example, some photos of some high performance cars 'titillate' me, as does a simple shot of an attractive female in jeans and T-shirt - It doesn't have to be a wet T-shirt with aroused nipples (which I don't judge as porn anyway).

It's in our genes to be aroused, to different degrees depending on the individual, to the sight of the opposite sex (or same sex if you're gay, I suppose - Whether being gay is in someone's genes or not is another ballgame, or should I say subject, and a can of worms to start that discussion). It doesn't make any difference if the stimulating sight is in real life or a 2-dimensional image such as a photo - It still happens involuntarily.
Click to expand...

Yes, good point. However most of us can probably tell the difference between 'tacky' and 'tasteful'.
 
Alastair said:
I would not disrespect the reasons for the model to participate in such photography.

It's the motivations of the photographer and the viewer that are suspect.

And I would query the absolute assertion that no one is ever exploited, which would appear to be a very naive belief. And in the example of your former girlfriend (whose natural or otherwise blonde status adds nothing but titillation to the discussion),would she have posed topless if she wasn't hard-up and in urgent need of cash?
Click to expand...

....Very soon after posting my Reply #10 I edited it to say "They mostly do it for their own personal reasons" rather than all.

No problem if you feel titillated by my description of her blonde Californian status etc, it was merely to illustrate that many typical (why I used the word "stereotypical") girlies in that era (1970s) were very open minded and thought nothing of nudity. Happy hippy days. To answer your question she wouldn't have posed topless if she didn't want the money but she was totally happy to do so to make some easy money and consequently she exploited The Sun and not vica-versa < That was my point in response to earlier "exploitation" comments in this discussion.

But another girl, a close friend but not a girlfriend, asked me to take some test shots so she could get some soft porn stills work. She got onto Page Three as well.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be suggesting or saying that it's wrong for a photographer or viewer to have motivations which are of a sensual/sexually stimulating nature.
 
Alastair said:
I would not disrespect the reasons for the model to participate in such photography.

It's the motivations of the photographer and the viewer that are suspect.

And I would query the absolute assertion that no one is ever exploited, which would appear to be a very naive belief. And in the example of your former girlfriend (whose natural or otherwise blonde status adds nothing but titillation to the discussion),would she have posed topless if she wasn't hard-up and in urgent need of cash?
Click to expand...

When I was 'hard-up and in urgent need of cash', I sold my skills as an electrician to anyone who would pay me for my knowledge, that was all I had to sell. So, if this lady didn't have electrical knowledge to sell, but she did have looks that were appreciated by others, so she sold them, no one forced her (or me) to take this course of action, it was voluntary, so what I ask is the problem, and was I exploited by selling my knowledge and skills?
 
Trev4 said:
When I was 'hard-up and in urgent need of cash', I sold my skills as an electrician to anyone who would pay me for my knowledge, that was all I had to sell. So, if this lady didn't have electrical knowledge to sell, but she did have looks that were appreciated by others, so she sold them, no one forced her (or me) to take this course of action, it was voluntary, so what I ask is the problem, and was I exploited by selling my knowledge and skills?
Click to expand...

....Exactly! We ALL in a sense "exploit" ourselves in that we make full use of and benefit from whatever assets/skills we have and surely that's the way it should be.

Unfortunately, the Feminists (waits for Charlotte to join in!) have hi-jacked the word "exploit" to claim that womankind is somehow demeaned by images of females which are titillating. It doesn't make them a sex object and nothing more. In reality, most women love to titillate men and let's not stop them doing so!
 
BBR said:
Yes, good point. However most of us can probably tell the difference between 'tacky' and 'tasteful'.
Click to expand...
This has to go down as the most naive comment ever on the subject.

(Unless it's clearly ironic and I've lost my sense of humour).
 
Yes we are all exploited. This is capitalism.

But as a father of two teenage daughters, I am horrified by the social pressures they are subjected to, to conform to a stereotype that the exploitation of women and demeaning reduction of them to objects has created. Just look at the consternation felt my by many of the selfies without makeup for cancer charity.

My original point was aimed at my perception of boudoir as being part of the problem, but as some have posted here maybe it is part of the solution for some who find it good to affirm their self image. But if women were not treated as sexual objects, would there be a need for boudoir photography as maybe poor self image among women would not be such a problem?
 
Steve said:
Yes we are all exploited. This is capitalism.

But as a father of two teenage daughters, I am horrified by the social pressures they are subjected to, to conform to a stereotype that the exploitation of women and demeaning reduction of them to objects has created.
Click to expand...

Personally I blame the parents, for it is the parents that have allowed our society to develop the way it has i.e. the world your daughters live in is the one that you and your parents have voted for, allowed to develop and have taken no action against.

Mike
 
mike weeks said:
Really simple, we all have our own values and standards so what for some is art is for others pornography and what for many is tacky is for others the ultimate in good taste.

Mike
Click to expand...

I take your point , however there are so many weirdos around that you could equally argue that any image, whatever it's subject, is going to be pornography to someone.
 
BBR said:
I take your point , however there are so many weirdos around that you could equally argue that any image, whatever it's subject, is going to be pornography to someone.
Click to expand...

Why is someone with different taste to you a weirdo or am I reading your comment wrong ?
 
mike weeks said:
Personally I blame the parents, for it is the parents that have allowed our society to develop the way it has i.e. the world your daughters live in is the one that you and your parents have voted for, allowed to develop and have taken no action against.

Mike
Click to expand...

That really is such a simplistic answer I don't know where to begin.

As a parent I am not blameless in the attitudes of my children. As an individual I am not blameless in the way our society has developed. But other than that you know nothing about my voting and/or actions and what I have or haven't done.

I voice my opinions but often seem to be a minority view, so it might take me a while to personally dismantle capitalism.
 
Steve said:
That really is such a simplistic answer I don't know where to begin.

As a parent I am not blameless in the attitudes of my children. As an individual I am not blameless in the way our society has developed. But other than that you know nothing about my voting and/or actions and what I have or haven't done.

I voice my opinions but often seem to be a minority view, so it might take me a while to personally dismantle capitalism.
Click to expand...

Actually it is a very complex answer which many fail to understand, as to your personal politics they are of no interest - what is of interest is what you can do about it and that I fear is an extremely difficult one to answer and one that each new generation often finds itself asking and that is why it is not a simplistic answer.

Mike
 
BBR said:
Really? Please explain.
Click to expand...
I don't have to, you did!
BBR said:
I take your point , however there are so many weirdos around that you could equally argue that any image, whatever it's subject, is going to be pornography to someone.
Click to expand...
There is no universal line on what's tacky or tasteful, and the suggestion is ridiculous, as you've realised without any further prompting.
 
mike weeks said:
Personally I blame the parents, for it is the parents that have allowed our society to develop the way it has i.e. the world your daughters live in is the one that you and your parents have voted for, allowed to develop and have taken no action against.

Mike
Click to expand...
mike weeks said:
Actually it is a very complex answer which many fail to understand, as to your personal politics they are of no interest - what is of interest is what you can do about it and that I fear is an extremely difficult one to answer and one that each new generation often finds itself asking and that is why it is not a simplistic answer.

Mike
Click to expand...

I agree with your second post above that it is complex issue with no simple answer. However, your original post was 'I blame the parents' which is simplistic.
 
While each individual will have their own parameters of what constitutes good or bad taste, titillation or art, surely there is a generally held consensus view? If there isn't why do we need such things as NSFW markers on some posts, the obscene publications act or U or 18 film classifications? How would anyone decide
 
BBR said:
While each individual will have their own parameters of what constitutes good or bad taste, titillation or art, surely there is a generally held consensus view? If there isn't why do we need such things as NSFW markers on some posts, the obscene publications act or U or 18 film classifications? How would anyone decide
Click to expand...

How do they decide ? well the ' Mull of Kintyre Test ' was allegedly one way, The Wiki page is safe for work....
 
BBR said:
While each individual will have their own parameters of what constitutes good or bad taste, titillation or art, surely there is a generally held consensus view? If there isn't why do we need such things as NSFW markers on some posts, the obscene publications act or U or 18 film classifications? How would anyone decide
Click to expand...
Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean I won't find it tacky? Or indeed of it's sold as pornography doesn't mean I'd find it either shocking or arousing.

Simply, we're all built different and whilst there are legal guidelines, there aren't taste guidelines (which is what your initial post implied).

I find TOWIE exceedingly distasteful and if I had young teenagers I wouldn't let them see it. But legally it's completely harmless. Vegans may find some of Damien Hirsts work extremely distasteful, most people just see it as a waste of money. Some people see it as art.
There is no line we can all agree on.
 
Well Phil I agree with you on TOWIE and I agree with you on Damien Hirst, maybe we are forming a consensus!

I think you would also agree that if you were shooting a wedding and the bride, wearing a low cut dress, bent over and exposed herself you wouldn't take the photo and include it in her album.

All I am saying is that although there are no hard and fast rules that everyone agrees on, there is a general consensus.
 
At my photography evening class this week, we covered self portraits and the works of Robert Mapplethorpe were discussed as he frequently used himself as a model. He certainly has left an interesting body of work but I find it hard to differentiate where something ceases to be art and becomes pornography with some of his images.
 
Steve said:
At my photography evening class this week, we covered self portraits and the works of Robert Mapplethorpe were discussed as he frequently used himself as a model. He certainly has left an interesting body of work but I find it hard to differentiate where something ceases to be art and becomes pornography with some of his images.
Click to expand...

Whilst there are laws these are open to the interpretation of the officer, often it is in the eye of the beholder, just look at the work of David Hamilton.

Mike
 
If some one commissions some boudoir photographs, they are not being exploited in any way, unless they are being over charged.
Why they want them is no business of the photographer.
Taste does not come into it, as it is always subjective.
Though I would suggest quite a few photographers would find such work both difficult and way outside their comfort zone.

As to the Sexual object suggestion... Perhaps she wants to portray herself as a sexual object, that is entirely her own choice.
 
BBR said:
Well Phil I agree with you on TOWIE and I agree with you on Damien Hirst, maybe we are forming a consensus!

I think you would also agree that if you were shooting a wedding and the bride, wearing a low cut dress, bent over and exposed herself you wouldn't take the photo and include it in her album.

All I am saying is that although there are no hard and fast rules that everyone agrees on, there is a general consensus.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is one of linguistics, your last sentence is a dichotomy. A consensus is something everyone agrees on.

How do you know what I think of Damien Hirst? I never said.
 
Last edited:
BBR said:
While each individual will have their own parameters of what constitutes good or bad taste, titillation or art, surely there is a generally held consensus view? If there isn't why do we need such things as NSFW markers on some posts, the obscene publications act or U or 18 film classifications? How would anyone decide
Click to expand...

....A consensus view can only be what a particular society feels as a whole is acceptable taste. So for example you could say that the French are GENERALLY very open minded and tolerant of anything risque but the Saudis are the opposite. I believe that each and both these examples are totally valid points of view and there is no right or wrong in this.

Unless someone is being forced against their will to be provocatively photographed, I think it's ridiculous to be fussed about it. Live and let live - People make up their own minds as individuals even though they live among the potential influences of their peer group (regardless of age).

It's a waste of time analysing and intellectualising about this too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top