Is it pornographic?

Deadlie

I posted a photo on Facebook earlier and within an hour I had three separate people (albeit all linked to the one US baptist church) telling me that THIS PHOTO (NSFW - it's got nipples in it) was pornographic.

Which brought me to ask - what differentiates between the nude and pornography in photography? Obviously, the hardcore stuff is easy to spot - but where is the line drawn between the body and obscenity?

I like a bit of edgier work, and don't feel that this work is either pornographic or obscene (it's a body, like), but Facebook aren't known for being a laugh in this instance. Where do you stand on this?

challengemaster

Seems fine to me, even on the less saucier side of boudoir shoots that I've seen images of.

ps. I love your editing on some of the other pictures.

Deadlie

The more I'm talking to the people telling me to take it down (and thus making me want to keep it online), the more I realise it's all about this #freethenipple thing

frostyjacks

Good photo. Seems fairly harmless. A bit risqué, but certainly not pornographic. Puritanism seems to be making a comeback in America. You'll probably have people complaining about the thigh-gap as well.

eviltwin

I wouldn't have noticed the nipple myself, it's not that obvious. It's a nice picture, not overly sexual and definitely not pornographic.

kelly1

Quite erotic but not pornographic. I've been hearing a lot about people reporting FB images.

CabanSail

Have seen more revealing imagery on the news when they cover certain fashion events.

Then some (not all) religious types seems to have a problem with the way their God made their bodies. :rolleyes: (Personally I think we evolved)

D.S.

Deadlie - definitely don't think it's pornographic in the slightest. it's definitely on the erotic side. some cracking shots in your gallery btw

At the same time, and this is purely a personal view, I am not sure Facebook is the place for this type of photography. I think it's perfect for places like flickr / 500px where people will actively come to view this type of photography. Facebook, imo, has become more like a public street / cafe, there's only so much you'll normally show people and they'd normally expect to see there. Invite them to a gallery though, and it's all fair game. I can sort of see why some of the more prudish would object (in a world where families share laptops / tablets, would you want your 3 year old looking at it). Your shot is borderline though, so it's on the harsh side for me.

Now - a more interesting question is whether the above is right or wrong. Personally - if more arty / risqué shots (e.g. semi nudes, nudes) were on Facebook, I wouldn't necessarily mind (i would just change my usage habits when around my own kid). But just thought I would throw out there what might be the other side of the coin..

Silva360

Deadlie wrote: »

I had three separate people (albeit all linked to the one US baptist church) telling me that

Ignore that puritanical nonsense, it is not in the slightest way pornographic. It's a nicely posed and well executed semi-nude photograph of a beautiful woman. These people would probably want to smash Michelangelo sculptures.

amdgilmore

It's pretty minor, but in all honesty, the see-through top was the first thing I noticed when I saw it on Flickr earlier.

I don't think it's pornographic, but I also don't think Facebook is the place for it. You need to take into account the use cases of the people following your stream - they might be at work or with family. It's probably also not 'expected content' from your feed - which might have caught people off guard.

Deadlie

Thanks for the input everyone. I think the only thing that broke my stubbornness to take it down was this:

amdgilmore wrote: »

It's probably also not 'expected content' from your feed - which might have caught people off guard.

I can imagine browsing FB with the missus looking in over my shoulder - and seeing something like that might be a bit awkward. I shared it on Fstoppers and Strobist pages and that's where I got the most vocal opposition to it - it must be a nightmare to share anything slightly risqué there regularly if this is the reaction!

Ben D Bus

Certainly not pornographic. I'm pretty sure I hit the like button when I saw it earlier. Gave it a like on Flickr just now too. Considering asking the model if she's interested in shooting with me

amdgilmore wrote: »

I don't think it's pornographic, but I also don't think Facebook is the place for it.

I think this is the only issue. People visit Facebook with certain expectations based on Facebook's rules. So whether those rules are reasonable or not (I don't like them), I think it's only fair to observe their rules.

A post on Facebook linking to the image on Flickr or 500px (with a NSFW warning) would be OK imo.

Myksyk

These shots are obviously a study of sensuality, beauty and sexuality. I found this and the head shot of the same model to be captivating. Unfortunately, some people will always see anything which explores our sexuality to be pornographic.

AnimalRights

Not a chance of an erection here for that shot so it is harmless enough

kelly1

AnimalRights wrote: »

Not a chance of an erection here for that shot so it is harmless enough

What!? I haven't been able to stand up since I clapped eyes on the shot!

the_monkey

Facebook - Murders, executions, decapitations ... OK

- Slight exposure of female nipple - EVIL EVIL EVIL !!! Dangerous to young minds !!!

RDM_83 again

I'd say its (soft-core) pornographic but I'd also argue that its not obscene if that makes sense. It reminds me of the sort of thing you might see in FHM or the first photo in a Playboy spread (particularly the 2nd one but that might be the denim jacket white bra combination).
If you were sitting in an office looking at the picture it probably wouldn't be considered appropriate.
IMO mild and inoffensive and nicely shot but I do have to say it really does strike me as soft-core (way its shot the poses etc not just the nudity or lack thereof)
ps obviously I don't have a problem with it !

Lao Lao

100% not pornographic.

I don't think I'd even entertain anything anybody linked with the Baptist Church says to be honest

Really nice pic!

nc19

Deadlie wrote:

I posted a photo on Facebook earlier and within an hour I had three separate people (albeit all linked to the one US baptist church) telling me that

They live their lives to please an imaginary man in the sky.....They should not be listened to

LUZ

just followed u on flickr, love your portraits that image is definitely not pornographic! good boudoir, sexy, hot, thats all, this nipple **** is turning people crazy!!

Dr_Bill

I fear you have enraged the wrath of the pitch fork wielding Southern Bible Belt, all sorts of fire and brimstone will befall you... or for this side of the pond "Down with this sort of thing"

It's a good photo too but pornographic? No.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The question isn't "is it pornographic?", the question is "does it infringe on the T&C?"

If it does, then it doesn;t really mtter whether it's porn or not. As far as I know, it doesn't have to be - it just has to be deemed offensive, which it must have been. EDIT - see below.

That said, I've posted bodypainting pictures I've made and there's never been a problem - possibly because it;s more likely to be considered art and possibly because I have no religious friends who are likely to report it.

We remove photographs of people displaying genitals or focusing in on fully exposed buttocks. We also restrict some images of female breasts if they include the nipple, but we always allow photos of women actively engaged in breastfeeding or showing breasts with post-mastectomy scarring. We also allow photographs of paintings, sculptures, and other art that depicts nude figures. Restrictions on the display of both nudity and sexual activity also apply to digitally created content unless the content is posted for educational, humorous, or satirical purposes. Explicit images of sexual intercourse are prohibited. Descriptions of sexual acts that go into vivid detail may also be removed.

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards

LeoB

I think its a bit risqué but not pornographic. She is a beautiful looking woman and I think you have done a good job.

Why not post them over a print? Seriously!!

The Black Oil

The first thing I noticed was her pose, as in, above her chest.

There was something floating around social media today. I think it was a book cover or graphic novel that was pulled as it had a prominent bosom. It would tie in with the terms and conditions linked by PCB above. Just can't recall who tweeted it.

The Black Oil

Found it.

http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/facebook-bans-molly-malone-book-cover-2219447-Jul2015/

Deadlie

I'm at work here - but I had a good chat with the lad accusing me of 'pornifying the youth of today'. I made some pretty reasoned arguments, admitted I shouldn't have posted them in a FB group, but he still said I was essentially an abhorration.

So I photoshopped hairy male nipples onto the picture and sent him screenshots of famous movie nipple scene - like the Titanic bit, with captions like 'Boats n Hoes' - a pornographic slutty ship short.

If I'm gonna be a sinner, I'm gonna do it well.

South Tipperary Arts Centre

in a word 'NO'

The J Stands for Jay

I saw the picture on flickr a few days ago. Didn't remotely cross mynmibd that it was pornographic. You'd need to be looking for the nipples in order to see them. Maybe it's those God-botherers who are the deviants.

Wabbit Ears

The image is clearly in breach of facebooks T&Cs, even if you or anyone on here disagrees with those T&C's ( I know I do).


To answer the OP
Its not pornographic, Its erotic, but many don't care about the difference.

Mister Vain

I've seen a lot more risqué stuff even on facebook. On Irish Models Blackbook at the moment there's a fully exposed nipple on it, fully exposed I tells ya.

Ben D Bus

Mister Vain wrote: »

On Irish Models Blackbook at the moment there's a fully exposed nipple on it, fully exposed I tells ya.

Just the one?

It might be a carefully photoshopped male nipple, in which case it's perfectly OK and nothing to worry about.

magicbastarder

the whole male nipple vs. female nipple thing raises an interesting debate in itself - i.e. in that there seems to be a whole lot more interest in general in photographing the female form than the male form in photographic circles, what does that say about photography and those who choose to practice it?

Ben D Bus

magicbastarder wrote: »

the whole male nipple vs. female nipple thing raises an interesting debate in itself - i.e. in that there seems to be a whole lot more interest in general in photographing the female form than the male form in photographic circles, what does that say about photography and those who choose to practice it?

Many photographers choose to photograph beauty, be it landscapes, man made things, or people.

As beauty goes, women are pretty high up there

trishw78

Deadlie wrote: »

I posted a photo on Facebook earlier and within an hour I had three separate people (albeit all linked to the one US baptist church) telling me that THIS PHOTO (NSFW - it's got nipples in it) was pornographic.

Which brought me to ask - what differentiates between the nude and pornography in photography? Obviously, the hardcore stuff is easy to spot - but where is the line drawn between the body and obscenity?

I like a bit of edgier work, and don't feel that this work is either pornographic or obscene (it's a body, like), but Facebook aren't known for being a laugh in this instance. Where do you stand on this?

I've reported quite a few photos in the past that I've found quite tasteless this I find as an image very pleasant to look at. My eyes weren't drawn to her nipples initially as they're not that noticeably.

Keep up the good work.

OT Hello everyone I'm still here:D

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

the whole male nipple vs. female nipple thing raises an interesting debate in itself - i.e. in that there seems to be a whole lot more interest in general in photographing the female form than the male form in photographic circles, what does that say about photography and those who choose to practice it?

i have only a hazy memory of posting this. i think the timestamp may help explain.