[[Template core/front/global/favico is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]] Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Oh, I understand the conflicted business. I'm on the D side of D/s and there isn't a day I don't feel some discomfort over that, but never enough to drown out the "Oh..my.god..." I have, fortunately,

Well, to be honest, I sometimes feel uncomfortable when women choose to highlight only their sexuality. Not because they are not sexual, or should not depict themselves as sexual beings, but because t

All the talk about prostitution aside, my main problem was the title of this thread and a couple others the OPer has on the forum.  The words he uses to describe...suburban housewife (is this the 1950

Posted Images

Miou is an avatar that I made with a Maitreya mesh body + classic skin + bom.  This is no SL resident. Please note: All avatars which I build are meant to be considered as cartoon or comic characters. They have nothing in common with real humans. So if they look exxagerated in any way that is on purpose and part of the idea I want to express. However, I don't expect polite or diplomatic comments. I rather want to hear what viewers really think. 😊

miouredbootsforum.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Doc Carling said:

I rather want to hear what viewers really think.

I quite like a number of your pics (although I'm not really myself into "comic book art"). This one, I think, has a very "pinup" quality and look to it, even aside from the subject matter; I think it's a really good pic. I like it.

I don't object, per se, to pics of "sexy" avatars -- and, again, I like this one -- but one query I might have of you is this: pretty much all of your images seem to focus upon a highly sexualized female figure, or at least include one prominently. And that sort of includes the younger "school girls" in some of your pics.

Again, I'm not suggesting that there is not a place for "sexy" in pics -- but can you not vary it by depicting women in other ways as well? As it stands, what I'm seeing is a male photography who seems a bit obsessed with women as sexual entities, and can't think of a way to depict them in their many other possible roles (roles that are also featured in comic book art).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doc Carling said:

Miou is an avatar that I made with a Maitreya mesh body + classic skin + bom.  This is no SL resident. Please note: All avatars which I build are meant to be considered as cartoon or comic characters. They have nothing in common with real humans. So if they look exxagerated in any way that is on purpose and part of the idea I want to express. However, I don't expect polite or diplomatic comments. I rather want to hear what viewers really think. 😊

miouredbootsforum.jpg

Comic book art is cool 'cause these are characters with a story, and that's one of the things I usually look for - a kind of story about who the character is or something. This pic is a nice shot but since she's just doing a pose in a blank background, I can't help but feel there's something missing. Nothing's really happening in it and it almost feels a bit empty if that makes any sense? She's totally cute though!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Again, I'm not suggesting that there is not a place for "sexy" in pics -- but can you not vary it by depicting women in other ways as well? As it stands, what I'm seeing is a male photography who seems a bit obsessed with women as sexual entities, and can't think of a way to depict them in their many other possible roles (roles that are also featured in comic book art).

Thanks for your detailed reply. 😊Well, if you start to create pictures then you have to make a decision what you want to display. I could have choosen for example the niche "role of women in the modern society". Doubtless an interesting field. OR I could have haven choosen "women in erotic comics and cartoons". I say OR. In my opinion you cannot mix both.  So when I was in the situation to decide I choose the second because you are right when you say, I'm a little obsessed with women as sexual entities. I can't find anything wrong with that. Actually I'm in good company. Just take look at some very famous graphic artist. Armando Huerta for example; Louis Royo, Dorian Cleavenger and many, many other. I don't say onyone if these is my idol. Their work just represents the style that I like. Anyway, sexualtiy and erotic is a facette of the human nature, female or male. I choose to paint this facette. :) But this says nothing about my "real" perception of women.

The situation is different, when I photograph SL Ladies. They decide how they look and what they wear and if the like a pose or not. Actually many of the ladies work in the SL sex business and use my pictures to promote their services.  Well, I'm not their slave. But  I assure the outcome of a shootings is mainly a result of their wishes.

Edited by Doc Carling
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AdminGirl said:

Nothing's really happening in it and it almost feels a bit empty if that makes any sense? She's totally cute though!

Thank you. I see what you mean. Normally the headline of the post should tell the story. I wanted to present  sexy looking "daddy's darling" characters without particular action. The options to do that would be also limited and perhaps something for an adult forum.  Well, I admit this thread is perhaps something rather for guys eyes. Most of us love sexy posing ladies. lol But I understand. Seen with a eyes of a lady it might look boring.

Edited by Doc Carling
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Again, I'm not suggesting that there is not a place for "sexy" in pics -- but can you not vary it by depicting women in other ways as well? As it stands, what I'm seeing is a male photography who seems a bit obsessed with women as sexual entities, and can't think of a way to depict them in their many other possible roles (roles that are also featured in comic book art).

I feel a bit conflicted about this. Obviously part of me agrees because as a female, of course I'd like for men to portray us in ways other than sexually. However, many women exclusively express and portray themselves sexually here on sl and we're ok with that. We even champion it. But when a man does it, we wag our fingers. Just feels like a double standard or even hyprocritical.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, AdminGirl said:

I feel a bit conflicted about this. Obviously part of me agrees because as a female, of course I'd like for men to portray us in ways other than sexually. However, many women exclusively express and portray themselves sexually here on sl and we're ok with that. We even champion it. But when a man does it, we wag our fingers. Just feels like a double standard or even hyprocritical.

Yes, in my opinion sex is over-represented in SL. So if a female resident wants to catch attention, she has to trespass some limits. For example it frequently happens that very tiny and young looking ladies apply for a sexy photo shooting. They assure that they adult in real life and I don't doubt that. But when I say, hey, please dress a little bit more to change the size of the avatar, they get pretty fast mad with me.

Edited by Doc Carling
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, AdminGirl said:

I feel a bit conflicted about this. Obviously part of me agrees because as a female, of course I'd like for men to portray us in ways other than sexually. However, many women exclusively express and portray themselves sexually here on sl and we're ok with that. We even champion it. But when a man does it, we wag our fingers. Just feels like a double standard or even hyprocritical.

Well, to be honest, I sometimes feel uncomfortable when women choose to highlight only their sexuality. Not because they are not sexual, or should not depict themselves as sexual beings, but because they are selling themselves short, and possibly contributing to a still-prevalent view that women are of value primarily as sexual objects. A woman's sexuality is a vital component, in most cases, of who she is: absolutely one should be able to express that. But it's only a facet, one part, of her identity. Focusing solely on that, to the exclusion of everything else, is doing herself, and women as a gender, a disservice.

But there's a more important principle here. A woman who chooses to represent herself sexually is doing just that: she's representing herself. SHE is the one who is making the determination about how she wants to be seen, SHE is the one defining herself.

When a man does so, he is imposing his notion of who she is upon an identity to which he does not belong, and which he has, probably, no authority to define.

One of the most important pillars of racism, sexism, and homophobia has been this issue: who gets to speak for "us"? For centuries, blacks were defined in popular culture by white writers, artists, and film makers. Gays have been the subject of stereotypes because, for a long time, their identities in our culture were being inscribed by straights. And women have suffered for literally millennia because "femininity" -- what it means to be a woman -- was being determined by men.

That's why there is a vital difference between a woman who chooses to represent herself as a sexual being, and a man who chooses to depict her thusly. The first is speaking for herself, and insisting upon the authority of her own voice in determining who and what she is. That's why we "champion" this: it's a woman finding her own voice, and using it to tell her own story, something that was almost impossible for a woman to do for a very long time.

The second represents women being told who they are by someone who is, simply put, not a woman.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Doc Carling said:

Thanks for your detailed reply. 😊Well, if you start to create pictures then you have to make a decision what you want to display. I could have choosen for example the niche "role of women in the modern society". Doubtless an interesting field. OR I could have haven choosen "women in erotic comics and cartoons". I say OR. In my opinion you cannot mix both.  So when I was in the situation to decide I choose the second because you are right when you say, I'm a little obsessed with women as sexual entities. I can't find anything wrong with that. Actually I'm in good company. Just take look at some very famous graphic artist. Armando Huerta for example; Louis Royo, Dorian Cleavenger and many, many other. I don't say onyone if these is my idol. Their work just represents the style that I like. Anyway, sexualtiy and erotic is a facette of the human nature, female or male. I choose to paint this facette. :) But this says nothing about my "real" perception of women.

The situation is different, when I photograph SL Ladies. They decide how they look and what they wear and if the like a pose or not. Actually many of the ladies work in the SL sex business and use my pictures to promote their services.  Well, I'm not their slave. But  I assure the outcome of a shootings is mainly a result of their wishes.

I'll just begin by noting that I don't think "consent" is really an issue here. I'm sure that they women you photograph have consented to being depicted as you have chosen to depict them.

And, again, on the whole I'm fine with depicting women as sexual beings -- remembering, as I noted to AdminGirl above, that, as a man, you are not in a position to speak with any authority on what it means to be a woman.

What I am sort of suggesting is that an inability or unwillingness to represent women in any other way represents, if not a limitation to your understanding of women, at the very least a rather narrow and restricted artistic imagination.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'll just begin by noting that I don't think "consent" is really an issue here. I'm sure that they women you photograph have consented to being depicted as you have chosen to depict them.

And, again, on the whole I'm fine with depicting women as sexual beings -- remembering, as I noted to AdminGirl above, that, as a man, you are not in a position to speak with any authority on what it means to be a woman.

What I am sort of suggesting is that an inability or unwillingness to represent women in any other way represents, if not a limitation to your understanding of women, at the very least a rather narrow and restricted artistic imagination.

What bothered me about this whole thread was that HE was making these avatars.

He said.....The situation is different, when I photograph SL Ladies. They decide how they look and what they wear and if the like a pose or not. Actually many of the ladies work in the SL sex business and use my pictures to promote their services.  Well, I'm not their slave. But  I assure the outcome of a shootings is mainly a result of their wishes.

He's said himself that they were avatars HE made.  The whole Daddy's Girl title makes it even worse IMHO.  Tad on the creeper side.

I have him blocked so I only see his responses in your post Scylla.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, to be honest, I sometimes feel uncomfortable when women choose to highlight only their sexuality. Not because they are not sexual, or should not depict themselves as sexual beings, but because they are selling themselves short, and possibly contributing to a still-prevalent view that women are of value primarily as sexual objects. A woman's sexuality is a vital component, in most cases, of who she is: absolutely one should be able to express that. But it's only a facet, one part, of her identity. Focusing solely on that, to the exclusion of everything else, is doing herself, and women as a gender, a disservice.

But there's a more important principle here. A woman who chooses to represent herself sexually is doing just that: she's representing herself. SHE is the one who is making the determination about how she wants to be seen, SHE is the one defining herself.

When a man does so, he is imposing his notion of who she is upon an identity to which he does not belong, and which he has, probably, no authority to define.

One of the most important pillars of racism, sexism, and homophobia has been this issue: who gets to speak for "us"? For centuries, blacks were defined in popular culture by white writers, artists, and film makers. Gays have been the subject of stereotypes because, for a long time, their identities in our culture were being inscribed by straights. And women have suffered for literally millennia because "femininity" -- what it means to be a woman -- was being determined by men.

That's why there is a vital difference between a woman who chooses to represent herself as a sexual being, and a man who chooses to depict her thusly. The first is speaking for herself, and insisting upon the authority of her own voice in determining who and what she is. That's why we "champion" this: it's a woman finding her own voice, and using it to tell her own story, something that was almost impossible for a woman to do for a very long time.

The second represents women being told who they are by someone who is, simply put, not a woman.

 

I think all the above are very fair points …but I still get slightly (or sometimes more than slightly) annoyed about the way it seems that, to put it bluntly, it's always the women who take their clothes of. Sure, sexuality is a powerful force, and it shouldn't be denied and all that… but I'd feel happier about that discourse if there were more naked men around (it is better than it used to be, I'll admit). Why is it always the women getting their kit off? Yes, I'm sure they do it because it makes them feel powerful, but it feels terribly unbalanced.

But then I come from an age and a culture where the naked female body was used to sell everything…cars, yoghurt, whatever. That's not an expression of female sexuality, and it definitely coloured my perception of sexualised female representation, whether done by a man or a woman.

OK, all this didn't have much to do with the original intent of the thread, but I was drawn in by @Scylla Rhiadra thoughtful responses.

(And I agree with @RowanMinx - creepy topic title.)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Arquet said:

(And I agree with @RowanMinx - creepy topic title.)

Well, I admit I choosed the title to attract a male audience. Perhaps not the best choice. Again in my opinion erotic is much overrepresented in Second Life. Actually there is only a minor chance that you get attention with sensitive titles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Doc Carling said:

Well, I admit I choosed the title to attract a male audience. Perhaps not the best choice. Again in my opinion erotic is much overrepresented in Second Life. Actually there is only a minor chance that you get attention with sensitive titles.

In retrospect, that's actually quite obvious... 😁

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Doc Carling said:

Well, I admit I choosed the title to attract a male audience. Perhaps not the best choice.

It's not just that it's a title that imposes a male perspective on its subject. It's one that implies male dominance.

I haven't said anything about the title because, to be honest, I didn't quite understand your use of it in the context of your first pic. But what it does do is literally infantilize women; what you seem to be doing, in the larger context of your overall focus upon sexualized women, is promising men a parade of subordinated and sexually available women.

I get that the whole "Daddy's Little Girl" is a pretty popular kink in SL. As a kink, circumscribed by the rules of BDSM, it's inscription within a "scene," and the power exchange of the contract between Dom and sub, it represents nothing more than the self-conscious playing out of a consensual fantasy. I find it icky as hell, but that's just me.

Without the context of "kink," however, it is a kind of perpetuation of a imbalanced power dynamic that women have laboured under for centuries, and that we are only now throwing off.

It is also, to be honest, a trivialization of the very real horror of domestic sexual abuse.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, RowanMinx said:

He's said himself that they were avatars HE made.

I agree with what you say, Rowan.

This is always a problem here, isn't it? The issue of representation, I mean. The power and creativity of SL resides in large measure in our being able to represent ourselves in ways that are new and different and impossible in RL. I think, most often, those who represent as something "different" than they are in RL are expressing a side of themselves that is suppressed, for whatever reason.

It becomes more problematic when people create alts, "sockpuppets" or "dolls" who do not represent something that they feel is integral about themselves, but which are rather playthings and, most often, caricatures, of the real article.

Most of the men I have known who represent women in SL have either gained a great deal of perspective from that experience, or already had it coming in. But I've also certainly run across men who use female alts as expressions of their own distorted views of women.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

What I am sort of suggesting is that an inability or unwillingness to represent women in any other way represents, if not a limitation to your understanding of women, at the very least a rather narrow and restricted artistic imagination.

No, sorry. I cannot agree to that. What you call "rather narrow and restricted artistic imagination" is just focussing on a certain aspect or facette of a theme. That is the way the world of art works. Yes, some might consider this or that aspect as disturbing. But art is allowed to disturb and to be nasty also. And it is allowed to entertain. That's what I do like countless other on field of erotic art.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the theme of his threads...we're either suburban housewives, princesses or daddy's girls just rubs me the wrong way.  And mostly with his own creations as models does give one an insight into how someone may see women in general.  Maybe I'm reading too much into it all but that's how I see it.

8 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I agree with what you say, Rowan.

This is always a problem here, isn't it? The issue of representation, I mean. The power and creativity of SL resides in large measure in our being able to represent ourselves in ways that are new and different and impossible in RL. I think, most often, those who represent as something "different" than they are in RL are expressing a side of themselves that is suppressed, for whatever reason.

It becomes more problematic when people create alts, "sockpuppets" or "dolls" who do not represent something that they feel is integral about themselves, but which are rather playthings and, most often, caricatures, of the real article.

Most of the men I have known who represent women in SL have either gained a great deal of perspective from that experience, or already had it coming in. But I've also certainly run across men who use female alts as expressions of their own distorted views of women.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

get that the whole "Daddy's Little Girl" is a pretty popular kink in SL. As a kink, circumscribed by the rules of BDSM, it's inscription within a "scene," and the power exchange of the contract between Dom and sub, it represents nothing more than the self-conscious playing out of a consensual fantasy. I find it icky as hell, but that's just me.

Well, allow me to add. This forum isn't exclusively reserved for females. :) If it were, I wouldn't post threads and headlines like that. I can't say: Please close your eyes, Ladies. This post is meant to males. You would be even more mad with me.

Edited by Doc Carling
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Doc Carling said:

Well, allow me to add. This forum isn't exclusively reserved for females. :) If it were, I wouldn't post threads and headlines like that.

Oh Doc, NO ONE who has posted here more than a month or so is under any illusions about the forum being "exclusively reserved for females."

Wouldn't it be kind of nice, though, if it were exclusively reserved for people, irrespective of gender or biological sex, race, or sexual preference? Is it really vital that we have corners of it that are set aside for bro-talking locker room pals?

How about we invite everyone in to partake, rather than excluding certain segments through our use of title or subject matter?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Oh Doc, NO ONE who has posted here more than a month or so is under any illusions about the forum being "exclusively reserved for females."

Wouldn't it be kind of nice, though, if it were exclusively reserved for people, irrespective of gender or biological sex, race, or sexual preference? Is it really vital that we have corners of it that are set aside for bro-talking locker room pals?

How about we invite everyone in to partake, rather than excluding certain segments through our use of title or subject matter?

Without irony, Scylla would that not end in a life of uniform acting ants?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Doc Carling said:

Without irony, Scylla would that not end in a life of uniform acting ants?

Um, why?

Engaging with people who have perspectives different from mine is how I grow. It makes me smarter, stronger, and better.

Treating people as all of equal value doesn't require conformity.

It requires respect.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought on all the movies I saw about failing perfect worlds. And as a side note - I don't want to start a political discussion, but on a global scale - how can one demand respect from common people, when the leaders of their nations don't show any. I remember that the president of a leading nation called some other contries stinky holes. And he is only one example. Other leaders aren't better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arquet said:

 

I think all the above are very fair points …but I still get slightly (or sometimes more than slightly) annoyed about the way it seems that, to put it bluntly, it's always the women who take their clothes of. Sure, sexuality is a powerful force, and it shouldn't be denied and all that… but I'd feel happier about that discourse if there were more naked men around (it is better than it used to be, I'll admit). Why is it always the women getting their kit off? Yes, I'm sure they do it because it makes them feel powerful, but it feels terribly unbalanced.

But then I come from an age and a culture where the naked female body was used to sell everything…cars, yoghurt, whatever. That's not an expression of female sexuality, and it definitely coloured my perception of sexualised female representation, whether done by a man or a woman.

OK, all this didn't have much to do with the original intent of the thread, but I was drawn in by @Scylla Rhiadra thoughtful responses.

(And I agree with @RowanMinx - creepy topic title.)

Quoting this for truth, Arquet. Thank you.

3 hours ago, Arquet said:

But then I come from an age and a culture where the naked female body was used to sell everything…cars, yoghurt, whatever.

Because, of course, what is actually being sold is the woman's body. Drive this car! Eat this yoghurt! Wear this shirt! Look at the kind of women you will attract! Or, alternately, the kind of sexually powerful woman you will become!

You'll find women's bodies on the shelves of most box stores and groceries, right next to the shaving creams and razors. We've been commodified and for sale for a very, very long time.

3 hours ago, Arquet said:

Why is it always the women getting their kit off? Yes, I'm sure they do it because it makes them feel powerful, but it feels terribly unbalanced.

This in particular. I think you're right; women do tend to conform to this imbalance in large measure because it makes us feel "powerful." And the reason for that is, perhaps, that we've been denied for so long other means to power.

Forever, I suspect, a woman's power (at least in the West) has resided in her ability to "attract a man." If she was "good enough," she attracted a powerful man, someone whose wealth or social position might provide her with at least some access to the means to achieve things, acquire things, live comfortably, or whatever.

And attracting a man has too often meant employing sexuality as a tool.

Our availability as sex objects is, however, no longer the only arrow in our quiver. It's really high time that our culture recognized that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, to be honest, I sometimes feel uncomfortable when women choose to highlight only their sexuality. Not because they are not sexual, or should not depict themselves as sexual beings, but because they are selling themselves short, and possibly contributing to a still-prevalent view that women are of value primarily as sexual objects. A woman's sexuality is a vital component, in most cases, of who she is: absolutely one should be able to express that. But it's only a facet, one part, of her identity. Focusing solely on that, to the exclusion of everything else, is doing herself, and women as a gender, a disservice.

But there's a more important principle here. A woman who chooses to represent herself sexually is doing just that: she's representing herself. SHE is the one who is making the determination about how she wants to be seen, SHE is the one defining herself.

When a man does so, he is imposing his notion of who she is upon an identity to which he does not belong, and which he has, probably, no authority to define.

One of the most important pillars of racism, sexism, and homophobia has been this issue: who gets to speak for "us"? For centuries, blacks were defined in popular culture by white writers, artists, and film makers. Gays have been the subject of stereotypes because, for a long time, their identities in our culture were being inscribed by straights. And women have suffered for literally millennia because "femininity" -- what it means to be a woman -- was being determined by men.

That's why there is a vital difference between a woman who chooses to represent herself as a sexual being, and a man who chooses to depict her thusly. The first is speaking for herself, and insisting upon the authority of her own voice in determining who and what she is. That's why we "champion" this: it's a woman finding her own voice, and using it to tell her own story, something that was almost impossible for a woman to do for a very long time.

The second represents women being told who they are by someone who is, simply put, not a woman.

In total agreement with this. I particularly feel that women need to take more responsibility for how we are viewed. Be the change we want to see sort of thing. Which is why when I encounter the women you describe, those who solely represent themselves sexually and nothing else, I feel they are damaging the progress made for us and perpetuating our objectification. The onus on us is larger than that on men. At least that's what I believe. If we can't make a better example, who are we to talk? We being women.

 

12 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I agree with what you say, Rowan.

This is always a problem here, isn't it? The issue of representation, I mean. The power and creativity of SL resides in large measure in our being able to represent ourselves in ways that are new and different and impossible in RL. I think, most often, those who represent as something "different" than they are in RL are expressing a side of themselves that is suppressed, for whatever reason.

It becomes more problematic when people create alts, "sockpuppets" or "dolls" who do not represent something that they feel is integral about themselves, but which are rather playthings and, most often, caricatures, of the real article.

Most of the men I have known who represent women in SL have either gained a great deal of perspective from that experience, or already had it coming in. But I've also certainly run across men who use female alts as expressions of their own distorted views of women.

And this part is one of the other reasons for my conflicted view. This is sl. We encourage people to live out their imagination. I've seen all sorts. So I'm a bit surprised at this objection. I always thought that people aim to not judge here. We don't judge non-human avs, we don't judge trans. But the moment we discover there's a straight man behind a scantily dressed female avatar, bring out the pitchforks. Should the photographer's gender even be relevant? Or should he have posted under a female alt to avoid this sort of reaction?

And while I do agree that seeing a bit more variety than the sexualized woman genre in his or anyone's art would be refreshing, artists often have a certain consistent style/theme. There are some who exclusively take landscapes and while it would be nice to see that artist try something different, I wouldn't expect it.

Of course I'd want men to stop focussing on women's sexuality. But when there is an artist whose style is in that alley, it's expected that all his pictures are of that flavor and I'm baffled that people would expect otherwise. It's like going to Anne Gedes "why are all your pictures focused on babies?".

On the other hand, he did ask for opinions so there's that.

Edited by AdminGirl
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...