Missy Suicide on Pornography

[SmarterthanU]

... and why SG isn't porn.

"In traditional pornography, they carry out the photographer's vision or the client's - but rarely the model's..."

Say what you want, but I consider this to be quite profound.

 

[Icycle]

... and why SG isn't porn.

"In traditional pornography, they carry out the photographer's vision or the client's - but rarely the model's..."

Say what you want, but I consider this to be quite profound.

I suppose it really depends on your philosophy of art. Is the final artifact the only thing that matters? Or should the artist's intentions inform the appreciation of the piece as well?

Even if SG photos are produced by empowered, sex-positive females, the end result doesn't look all that different from traditional porn produced by men motivated by nothing more than money.

 

[tcklft]

Er, okay....

 

[Jackpot$]

WTF?? Who is Missy Suicide and why would Star Gate be considered porn?!

 

[chicago]

Suicide Girls are pretty cool, but still porn. I mean, most guys aren't going there to admire the photography skills.

I go there to look at the tattoos mostly, but whatevs.

I submitted a few photos and got accepted. Too bad I'm not comfortable being naked.

 

[SlaverTickler]

... and why SG isn't porn.

"In traditional pornography, they carry out the photographer's vision or the client's - but rarely the model's..."

Say what you want, but I consider this to be quite profound.

What about when the model is involved in the production side of things as well. I mean Jenna Jameson has her own production company (Club Jenna). Besides you could argue that in all modeling or acting it is the Photographer/Directore and clients vition not the Actress/Models. It's about marketing.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

What about when the model is involved in the production side of things as well. I mean Jenna Jameson has her own production company (Club Jenna). Besides you could argue that in all modeling or acting it is the Photographer/Directore and clients vition not the Actress/Models. It's about marketing.

not always true. the model has as much say in a shoot. what she'd like to do, what color jacket she'd rather wear, tips, etc. it depends on the photographer/director as to how well he/she takes the ideas or whatever.

 

[SlaverTickler]

not always true. the model has as much say in a shoot. what she'd like to do, what color jacket she'd rather wear, tips, etc. it depends on the photographer/director as to how well he/she takes the ideas or whatever.

I think that depends on where you are in the pecking order. If you are a big star you can be more picky about things, if your starting out you may have to eat it for a while as you work your way up. Then again I've heard about girls having to put out a 14 to ensure they get modeling gigs, their are some sick fucks out there.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

I think that depends on where you are in the pecking order. If you are a big star you can be more picky about things, if your starting out you may have to eat it for a while as you work your way up. Then again I've heard about girls having to put out a 14 to ensure they get modeling gigs, their are some sick fucks out there.

er...not sure what a "14" is, but you're still not right on the dot. like i said, it all depends on if the people involved in the mechanics of the shoot are receptive.

one of my best girlfriends, Jeordi, is a local model. she does mostly fashion and goth type shoots, with the occasional "average" shoot. she's often told me about one shoot or another, her photographer (and if he was a complete dick), and how she's able to get a lot of her ideas across. she isn't massively mainstream, nor is she a big name model (yet 🙂). and she has even been invited by other Suicide Girls to get involved in their projects, but she refused. mostly because she was not comfortable with how personal the shoots can get.

it does not matter who you are in the pecking order. if you got a good idea that can make something work better, more often than not it's taken.

 

[SmarterthanU]

What about when the model is involved in the production side of things as well. I mean Jenna Jameson has her own production company (Club Jenna). Besides you could argue that in all modeling or acting it is the Photographer/Directore and clients vition not the Actress/Models. It's about marketing.

Re-read the original quotation. It doesn't make any difference what gender the producer is. What matters is whether is person in front of the camera is driving the vision.

 

[SmarterthanU]

Too bad I'm not comfortable being naked.

Why on earth would you submit photos to SG if you aren't comfortable being naked? What would be the purpose of that?

 

[SmarterthanU]

Even if SG photos are produced by empowered, sex-positive females, the end result doesn't look all that different from traditional porn produced by men motivated by nothing more than money.

It looks very different to me... Anyway, I think the statement itself has real value.

 

[chicago]

Why on earth would you submit photos to SG if you aren't comfortable being naked? What would be the purpose of that?

It was a few years ago. I had added the site's myspace page to my friends and since they don't show nudity on myspace, I wasn't aware it was porn.

I was dumb.

 

[innocentsexcat]

I'm totally lost here, I thought you were talking about suicide being shown somehow on the internet or in porn clips. Kitty sighs.

 

[SmarterthanU]

It was a few years ago. I had added the site's myspace page to my friends and since they don't show nudity on myspace, I wasn't aware it was porn.

I was dumb.

Well, I'm not sure it really is porn. Anyway, it's certainly nudity, so it is too bad that you aren't comfortable naked. I'm sure I speak for a lot of people here when I say I think you'd have made a kick-ass suicide girl.

 

[SmarterthanU]

I'm totally lost here, I thought you were talking about suicide being shown somehow on the internet or in porn clips. Kitty sighs.

I certainly hope you aren't too disappointed!

 

[innocentsexcat]

I certainly hope you aren't too disappointed!

What kind of person do you take Kitty for??????

 

[SmarterthanU]

What kind of person do you take Kitty for??????

LOL Just teasin' the kitty.

 

[Icycle]

It looks very different to me... Anyway, I think the statement itself has real value.

Sure, the women there have dyed hair, tattoos, and piercings, but other than that it doesn't seem that different than other soft-core porn photography. What do you see as different about Suicide Girls?

 

[SmarterthanU]

Sure, the women there have dyed hair, tattoos, and piercings, but other than that it doesn't seem that different than other soft-core porn photography. What do you see as different about Suicide Girls?

Well, let's see. First, let's recognize that we're no longer talking about "traditional porn produced by men motivated by nothing more than money."

Your claim is that Suicide Girls is no different from any other soft-core photography. My claim is that it's different in a lot of ways.

1) You'd have to know something about Suicide Girls to know how it's done, but the quote from the founder, Missy Suicide, pretty much says it all. Each girl creates her own vision. The photographers shoot that vision. This is very different than the other way around.

2) Suicide Girls make a valid cultural statement. The original vision of Hugh Hefner and Playboy also made a valid cultural statement, as did the eventual feminist reaction to it. It may look like nothing more than T&A to the casual viewer, but there's a lot more to it than that. To the casual viewer, Man Ray's The Gift http://fiveblueroses.com/dada/artists/pages/ray_gift_jpg.htm may look like nothing more than an iron with nails on the bottom, but there's a lot more to it than that. If you prefer a closer analogy, Robert Mapplethorpe's photography might look, to the casual viewer, like nothing more than radical homosexual porn www.winternet.com/~redright/graffix/ff_art/image2.htm. It is in fact much more than that - at least, to most serious art critics. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/courses/knowbody/f04/web2/dsosower.html

3) The salient difference between Mapplethorpe's work and Suicide Girls is vision. Mapplethorpe's models were photographed to convey Mapplethorpe's vision. Suicide Girls are photographed to convey their own vision, individually and collectively. It's true that there is an overarching vision which is that of Missy Suicide, and which the girls all share collectively. But this is why Suicide Girls is, essentially, an art collective. http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Arts/Content?oid=56782

 

[Scarlett Moon]

Missy Suicide on Pornography... and why SG isn't porn.

It is porn. All the talk about "art" and "vision" are simply marketing ploys. Porn isn't defined by who's "vision" (a laughable concept at best when dealing with material for monkey spanking 🙄 ) sets the camera in motion. It's defined by content.

Say what you want, but I consider this to be quite profound.

It's profoundly absurd and I'm profoundly amazed that any adult would fall for such a transparent marketing ploy. You're thinking with your penis and not your brain, which is exactly by design. Pancake makeup, badly died hair, and seedy tattoos don't qualify as vision in my book. If you really think it isn't porn, then I invite you to display in your office cubicle and when the director of HR asks you about it, tell HER how profound you think it is.

 

[chicago]

It's profoundly absurd and I'm profoundly amazed that any adult would fall for such a transparent marketing ploy. You're thinking with your penis and not your brain, which is exactly by design. Pancake makeup, badly died hair, and seedy tattoos don't qualify as vision in my book. If you really think it isn't porn, then I invite you to display in your office cubicle and when the director of HR asks you about it, tell HER how profound you think it is.

A lot of the girls definitely look gross on there, but I think you might be going a bit too far.

This one's pretty hot. Very Bettie-Page-ish:

you can't see her chest piece but it's awesome

 

[SlaverTickler]

It's profoundly absurd and I'm profoundly amazed that any adult would fall for such a transparent marketing ploy. You're thinking with your penis and not your brain, which is exactly by design. Pancake makeup, badly died hair, and seedy tattoos don't qualify as vision in my book. If you really think it isn't porn, then I invite you to display in your office cubicle and when the director of HR asks you about it, tell HER how profound you think it is.

Porn is suposed to be a turn on, pancake makeup, badly died hair and seedy tattoos do nothing for me. I'm not sure, but I thought the law stated their was more then just nudity to make something Pornography. Can't something be sexy with out being Pornography... is Playboy pornography or is it just sexy nude photo's... well I mean the older stuff from the very early 1990's back. Penthouse and hustler is porn for sure, but I don't consider Playboy to be.

 

[Icycle]

Porn is suposed to be a turn on, pancake makeup, badly died hair and seedy tattoos do nothing for me. I'm not sure, but I thought the law stated their was more then just nudity to make something Pornography.

At least in America, I don't think there are any legal definitions of "pornography". You are probably thinking of the legal definition of "obscenity". Obscene materials are denied First Amendment free speech protections.

According to Miller v. California, in 1973, obscenity is defined as:

• (a) whether the 'average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
  
• (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
  
• (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Can't something be sexy with out being Pornography... is Playboy pornography or is it just sexy nude photo's... well I mean the older stuff from the very early 1990's back. Penthouse and hustler is porn for sure, but I don't consider Playboy to be.

Once again, it really depends on what your definition of pronography is. Is in the content of the photos? The context in which they are displayed? The intent of the creator? I personally think all of these are important.

 

[SlaverTickler]

Once again, it really depends on what your definition of pronography is. Is in the content of the photos? The context in which they are displayed? The intent of the creator? I personally think all of these are important.

Hmm, well I don't think Hef was out to creat a porn mag. I think their is alot more to Playboy then people think. It's like Time magazine with a centerfold. I'll admit I don't buy it for the articles, but I can tell you my father did, he's just not the type to drop coin on a magazine just to look at the picture. Finally does that make this web site a porn site because, like playboy, the Forum has content that is both of an erotic and none erotic nature. If so, then why are those who are anti porn even here?