Anything Goes in Boudoir Photography. Or is it Pornography That Should Be Censored?

Anything Goes in Boudoir Photography. Or is it Pornography That Should Be Censored?

It’s possibly the most challenging topic to discuss in photography. As photographers, do we have a responsibility to maintain specific standards, or should we accept that if we can photograph it, we should?

Cole Porter’s 1934 song declares that good authors now only use four-letter words and how the smart set intrudes on nudist parties. It was written when risqué films and scandals in the movie business shocked the world. At that time, the film industry implemented a self-imposed set of moral values.

Although not enforceable by law, the Hays Code required filmmakers to obey rules that themselves seem offensive when measured by today’s generally accepted standards. The depiction of miscegenation, extra-marital sexual relations, and homosexuality were all banned. Crime could never be depicted sympathetically and had to be punished. Furthermore, authority figures could not be shown as anything but benevolent.

Of course, not every filmmaker agreed with that self-imposed censorship. But they had no other option than to abide by it as cinemas would not show films that were unrated by the newly formed Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors of America censor board. Perceived offenders would also lose financial backing from sponsors.

Although the Hays code has long since expired, there are those with financial and political power that, in effect, censor what we see. For example, the actor Sam Elliott is reported to say that he thought the Catholic Church had scared off New Line Cinema from making sequels to the 2008 film The Golden Compass, based on the His Dark Materials books by Philip Pullman. Fourteen years later, the final TV serial of the story is due for imminent release by New Line and the BBC. Times change quickly.

Reading this, you probably sit on one side of the fence or the other regarding censorship. Maybe you think that parts of the Hays Code were right and salacious movies with profanity, suggestive nudity, graphic violence, different sexual persuasions, and rape shouldn’t be allowed. Maybe, you believe that fictional criticism of any religious organization is wrong. Or, possibly, you view these ideas as puritanical and think, like in Cole Porter’s song, believe that anything goes.

I'm not a studio photographer and have never dabbled in boudoir photography - I would rather be shooting a seascape at sunrise - but the debate about the topic fascinates me.

Today in the photographic world, we are torn by similar arguments. We are restricted not only by self-imposed censorship, but by made-up rules that dictate what is and isn’t acceptable. Those boundaries are forever shifting.

When I was about nine or ten, my school collected wastepaper for fundraising. What surprised the teachers was that some of my schoolmates, who would be described today as “colorful characters,” volunteered to keep the storeroom tidy during their lunch break. As I remember, they even received a reward for it.

The teachers didn’t catch on to why these usually disruptive boys were so keen to help. The real reason was that occasionally they would find a pornographic magazine. More often, though, among the tons of discarded papers and magazines were many copies of a low-grade sensationalist tabloid newspaper. It was famous here in the UK for having a photograph of a topless woman on the third page.

A campaign objecting to the newspapers’ depiction of semi-naked women on Page 3 started in 2012 and finally saw the demise of those photographs a handful of years later. Despite gaining the support of Members of Parliament, charities, universities, and advocacy groups, the campaign’s final success was primarily due to the protestors persuading advertisers to abandon the newspaper. Like the application of the Hays Code in cinema, the power of money swayed the paper to ditch the practice.

However, concurrent with the demise of the “Page 3 Girls” photos, what some argue is another form of soft pornography became normalized. There are pictures of naked and semi-naked women abound in the popular genre of boudoir photography. Many of these pictures are far more suggestive than the models in that newspaper.

Boudoir photographers object to the description of their work as soft pornography, claiming it is an art form and not obscene. However, the counterargument is that the models depicted in such photos are almost always young and attractive women, and the images sexualize them. Furthermore, the people who comment positively about the pictures are mostly men. Boudoir photographers also argue that their models choose to be photographed this way. That then brings in the debate of whether women are forced, coerced, or pressured into posing for pictures, as they often are in the pornographic industry. Additionally, others will argue that they are demeaning to women, while the photographers and models say they are celebrating the human form as art.

Is boudoir photography pornography? It’s a difficult call to make. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said of obscenity in the Jacobellis v Ohio case 1964:

...I know it when I see it.”

That is suggestive of a subjective point of view.

The test for obscenity in the USA was defined as the following:

Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest.

I think the important words there are “contemporary community standards.” Standards change over time, and different communities within individual countries can have very different values from one another. Perhaps, by the Western standards of today, a majority won’t consider boudoir photography as pornography, but there will be some that do. Some sections of our societies will view the images as obscene. Other countries’ cultures certainly would too. Of course, there are some cultures where nudity is considered the norm.

Possibly not artistically or academically challenging, but a sunrise seascape is unlikely to cause psychological damage, and possibly do the opposite. Do we as photographers have a responsibility to society to uphold standards so not to cause harm to others?

Western cultures are becoming less stuffy, and there is a change in attitude to the human body. But the widespread distribution of unrestricted hard pornography on the internet has watered down the idea of whether images we call boudoir are pornographic. Moreover, the concept of the porn star, once considered a degrading occupation, has become an accepted part of popular culture.

We have little control over the depiction of nudity within the photographic industry. We have the Not Suitable For Work (NSFW) label, but the idea of what is obscene has become diluted by modern culture. Search engines penalize websites that publish such material without the NSFW tag, but there is little other restriction. However, in some countries, the UK included, governments are examining ways to restrict viewing adult content so it is not easily accessible by minors.

Lucy-Anne Holmes, who started the No More Page 3 campaign, did so because she said the photos she was exposed to had adversely affected her body image when she was just 11 years old. Some believe that the self-image of young women and girls is damaged by the depiction of naked, slim women. Those that claim this – there is evidence to back up their claims – want tighter controls. Those who shoot and post nude images will undoubtedly believe self-regulation is sufficient.

Is the former group fighting a losing battle? In most democratic countries, nudity in photography is considered normal, so by contemporary community standards, is not regarded as obscene. Politically, the censorship of images is seen to go against human rights. Currently, that only leaves financial pressure, which is harder to inflict on individuals.

There are other moral debates in photography too, such as whether it is okay to photograph the homeless?

What do you think? Should photographers be free to photograph whatever they like, or should we try to uphold some moral standard? Is your point of view an arbitrary one? Or is it backed up with empirical evidence? Do you think we set subjective standards influenced by our culture and the times we live in?

I hope I’ve managed to discuss this evenly and show both sides of the argument. I am not a boudoir photographer, hence the lack of boudoir images to illustrate the article. It is a sensitive and emotive topic. So, in the comments, please be respectful to others whose opinions may differ from yours.

Ivor Rackham's picture

A professional photographer, website developer, and writer, Ivor lives in the North East of England. His main work is training others in photography. He has a special interest in supporting people with their mental well-being. In 2023 he accepted becoming a brand ambassador for the OM System.

Log in or register to post comments
54 Comments

As one that has glamour/boudoir work as an extensive part of my works I think I do have a personal moral standard imposed that guides me as to how far (daring) I am willing to go subject to clients own desires or needs. Artistic creativity hits us all in different ways.

That's a good point, Glen. It's interesting to hear how people apply their personal moral attitudes. How do you decide what is right or wrong? Do you just apply the laws of the land in which you live, or take guidance from another source that is more restrictive?

Moral compass guides mostly and self comfort, ultimately my client(s) satisfaction is key and so together pre-shoot we mood-board ideas but there will always be add-ins and sometimes spouses or mates may also toss in their take during if present so we go with the flow.
Given age for me must be 19+ laws and or government has no place in my set/studio.

Similarly to writing, you have to know the rules before you break them. In photography, that translates into being able to create a high quality photo first, then "break the rules" and create a photo that shows nudity. Otherwise, I think you're just creating masturbation material.

Hi Christian, It's a good point. The difficulty is knowing which rules to apply. We have societal rules that apply to all of us as well as our personal code. One's own personal code may be more lax or much tighter than those of society, but I am a great believer in democratic societies choosing a good compromise between different viewpoints.

In my mind one of the things that separates boudoir from other forms of photography that contain nudity or sexually suggestive content is that the person or persons being photographed are not models. They are clients. They are the one(s) requesting (And paying for) the images to be made. They are also often made for private, not public consumption.

So, you're a man, writing about a female dominated genre,and with the eyes of a man.You're not a boudoir photographer, not spoke with any boudoir photographers about this subject, nor done extensive research apart from relating it to porn. A bit biased aren't you?

Boudoir is an experience,and it's more about female empowerment than sexual proclivity. Women are still sexual creatures, just like men. However, what we define as sexy, or sensual, is VERY different then what men define as sexy or sensual. Especially given that the vast majority of boudoir is meant for one's self, or for a partner, so they never see the light of day apart from the eyes of those intended. It is meant for the client, not model, and no not all of them are young and attractive as you so put it. Again, you're lacking research in that regard.

I assume, based on this article, that you're confusing boudoir with glamour. Glamour and boudoir are two very different genres. What men think boudoir is, is actually glamour. What women see as boudoir, is not glamour, it again, is about self love, beauty and an experience. You can shoot boudoir, and it never result in nude or semi-nude imagery. Boudoir is about empowerment and beauty of and *for the subject*. Porn is meant for sexual gratification *for the viewer*.

Hi Seraphine,

Thank you for signing up to comment on this article.

I am just writing two sides of a debate, making no judgment either way. I have my own views, but I have tried not to express them here. Just like yours, my personal viewpoint is a human construct and of little individual value, which is why I didn't express what I think in the article. It's down to whole societies to decide what is right and wrong and the article is primarily talking about changes in attitude over time and where current attitudes will lead us.

Furthermore, I don't believe that any debate should be closed down and not be open to discussion by anyone, male or female. Not being a boudoir photographer, I hope, gave me an objective approach to the subject. You will see from the comments below from boudoir photographers that theirs isn't a balanced point of view, but one would not expect them to be.

You are also suggesting, without evidence, that I did not do any research in this article and didn't speak to boudoir photographers. I did. Just as I spoke with women who held similar and opposing views to you, and read around the subject in both art and psychology-based academic papers. If you reread the article, it is asking questions and not siding with any of the different corners of the debate.

I am not confusing the genres, I just didn't want to expand the article into semantics. The article is about discussing the changes in societal attitudes over time and allowing a debate about where they are going in the future. What is acceptable and what isn't is up to society to decide. I would hope that whichever land you live in believes in informed debate, openness, and acceptance of different views and that it allows discussion of topics without resorting to accusations.

Thanks again for commenting and expressing your point of view.

I absolutely agree with you what you say about sexuality and the differences between men and women.

If you check the boudoir photographers who have commented here and then look at their galleries and the comments made there, it's virtually all men. As a child, I delivered newspapers for a local newsagent shop to earn pocket money. The magazines that were placed out of reach of children on the top shelf were only bought by men.

I am sure that you are right about who the pictures are made for, but there are over twenty million displayed online, and in photographers' galleries.

--- "If you check the boudoir photographers who have commented here and then look at their galleries and the comments made there, it's virtually all men."

That goes for pretty much all articles on this site. I'm pretty sure you are not blind...you can see commenters are primarily men no matter the topic.

Sir, with all due respect, I didn't sign up just to comment on this article. I actually was a member here long ago, but left due to the toxicity from male photographers. I had a handful of POTDs as well. I re-signed up in April of this year.

"I am just writing two sides of a debate, making no judgment either way"

The issue with this is that you did not offer two sides. You implied one side without citations,and then provided a rebuttal as to why boudoir might be seen as 'bad' while relating it to porn; a subject that has nothing to do with boudoir. Boudoir is not porn.You wrote this article under the guise of talking about moral failures, in-actions and how society is shifting.

Your implications on the subject, and lack of research is abundantly clear given the way you've written this article. In no where in this article did you cite sources apart from the anti-porn one. In no where in this article did you cite boudoir photographers you've supposedly interviewed that have given their opinion. Relying on commentary, especially MALE boudoir photographers comments, to add to the discussion is not only biased, it downright diminishes the women photographers who make up the vast majority of boudoir photography. Women rule this genre, not men. As I stated, men and women see boudoir two very separate things.

"Furthermore, I don't believe that any debate should be closed down and not be open to discussion by anyone, male or female"

Except that it actually matters as I stated. Men see glamour as boudoir, women do not. Women want something entirely different from sensual photography than that of a man. Yes, men and women should have an open debate about subjects. However, you yourself are not a boudoir photographer, and are a man, that is discussing a FEMALE dominated genre without ANY female photographers in your article offering their views on the subject. That, Sir, is an issue, and why a lot of women are tired of men discussing women's issues.

"I am not confusing the genres, I just didn't want to expand the article into semantics."

Absolutely absurd. The fact that you're combining two separate genres is pure laziness, and further adds to the stigmatization of boudoir photography. The two are separate, and they need to stay separate. Your inability to discern between the two in this article is bad journalism, full stop. Again, it shows a biased view on the subject.

To discuss the societal, political and moral ethics in regards to human sexuality you need to have both points of view, with ample first and secondary sources. You failed in that regard. You're not opening a dialog that is unbiased when it is already leaning to one side. An open dialog is one of the fundamentals of Humanities, and is excellent for society itself. However, when an article, that is meant to open said dialog, is skewing the narrative it sets a precedent for opinions based off little to no resources, misinformation, and biases. If you wanted a good open dialog you would have included information on the positives of boudoir, interviews with photographers that shoot the genre, cite sources on both the positives and negatives, and perhaps information from clients that have hired boudoir photographers- that includes ones that had horrible experiences. But you didn't, and now we're here.

I thought I remembered you commenting on and supporting my article about misogyny a long while ago. But, when I checked your profile, you had no comments against your name, hence the welcome.

Now you clarify it, I think I understand your point. If I am correct, you are saying that my article was written about what many people claim is boudoir photography, but by you are saying that it isn't boudoir. You are saying that glamour photography is being misrepresented as boudoir.

I accept that argument. If you look at most galleries that claim to be boudoir photography, they overlap into glamour a long way.

I also agree that most of the photographers that do that are men, although the models are women. So I think you are saying the accepted definition in general use of what a boudoir photograph is has changed. You don't accept that is okay. I agree. It would be better if they had remained separate. But definitions in the English language change all the time. You are welcome to work towards changing it back and I will support that, and I am sure your comments here help.

Contrary to your assertion, I did research numerous resources, both news reports and academic papers. Unless you are claiming to have hacked my computer, I am not sure how you can justify that assertion that I didn't. I always research my articles before writing them. Nevertheless, this is a short discussion article on a popular photography community site, which does not include citations in its articles as one would in an academic arena. Similarly, you have not added citations in your comments. Sorry if it didn't expand further into areas as far as you would have liked it to have done, but in around 1000-1300 words there are inevitably limitations in what we can include.

I intended the article to mainly be a discussion about censorship, where it has been in the past, where it is now, and where it might go in the future. I found it interesting that historical censorship, and pressure from activists, had changed attitudes one way and they have swung a long way back again. Using boudoir photography and what it has become illustrated where it is now.

It is tagged as an opinion piece, and we are all entitled to opinions and it's a good thing that we are allowed to differ in those opinions. I thought I had managed to balance the two points of view between censorship and freedom of expression as most of the article was given over to that. Clearly, you disagree that I managed to do so. I accept that.

It's interesting that you claim to disagree with me, although I didn't state what I thought in the article. So too do some male boudoir photographers whose work is mainly glamor that appears under the title of boudoir, and I think your opinion differs from theirs.

If you would like to expand your comments to express your opinions about the issues with boudoir photography, and back those up with empirical evidence and citations, please do feel free. I will read them with great interest, as will others. If you would like to message me with arguments and supporting evidence that would make an interesting photography-based article, we can look at doing an interview if you like.

My reply above to this has, for some reason appeared out of order. I wanted to add to what I said.

Contrary to your assertion, the article is not actually about human sexuality, it is about the evolution of censorship. That has nothing to do solely with women's issue, it is to do with entire societies and how public opinion and censorship is swayed by power. You chose to change it into a debate with me about something different, and then suggest I cannot talk about it because I am a man. I do find that either illogical or autocratic.

You didn't previously object to me writing about misogyny in the photography industry. That is a woman's issue.

You are incorrect in something else you claimed. I used the four examples (not one) to illustrate censorship: the Hays code (censorship brought in by men, and enforced by the use of money), the campaign against Page 3, (run by a woman, supported mainly by women, and enforced by financial pressures), His Dark Materials filming (allegedly enforced by financial pressure from a religious body), and boudoir photography in its current form, which includes images that overlap into glamour and pornography (no censorship other than the NSFW tag.) You object to the overlap, others here think that "anything goes". To me, they are both just opinions and therefore open to discussion.

What gets included under a genre's title is part of the philosophy of semantics. It wasn't what the article was about.

If you must differentiate between what you understand as boudoir, and what is happening in the genre currently, let's call this wider definition neo-boudoir. It is a form that is dominated, rightly or wrongly, by male photographers, with subjects that are mostly, but not entirely, women. It is dominated by sexually provocative images.

A question I ask is whether women freely choose to be photographed in that sexual way or are coerced by peer pressure. Is it something they truly want? It would be interesting to hear the opinions of those who model for the shots, especially those that are displayed publically on the internet. You suggest that women do not see glamour as boudoir, but the young women who go to boudoir photographers to be photographed in a sexual way clearly do. If you quantify your statements they will be less open to denial.

Although I agree that there are differences between men and women, that again is an entirely blurred area. It is wrong to imply that all men lack sensuality and women lack sexuality. In my teenage years, I knew three women who had a rows of pornographic VHS tapes on their shelves. Maybe the differences are sometimes not that great.

If you think that men should be excluded from this discussion, then that is another form of censorship, which you clearly agree with.

Actually, one of the motivators for me to include boudoir photography in this article about censorship was an email from a gay photographer whose images were entirely of men, and included NSFW photos.

--------------------------------

I haven't answered whether think there should be censorship of any form of photography. As with all such decisions, for me it depends upon the answer to these questions: Is there evidence to show that neo-boudoir photography is harmful? If so, does the harm outweigh the good? It will be interesting to find peer-reviewed papers that answer those questions. Interestingly, nobody has given that information in the comments, only personal opinions. Feel free to share any evidence you might have.

The conversation needs to begin with asking why we automatically cast sexuality as a negative, much less nudity.
I photograph people who are nude regularly. Whatever they choose to express and for whatever reason is relevant and valuable. If we choose to share it, via my platform or theirs, it is relevant and valuable.
This article has so many instances of bias and the author simultaneously ignores and exists in the culture of presumption and negativity that never allows conversations to begin in earnest when it comes to work like this.
I invariably click on articles like this in the hope that some sort of fresh view on the subject will be there, but it's just the same old talk that's best avoided if anyone wants to actually find out about other perspectives regarding work like this.
Also, as someone mentioned, why is this person, who appears to not have any professional experience in this genre, feeling the need to attempt to write what he sees as a balanced piece on it? This is like a chef who specializes in traditional French pastry speaking at length on the nuances of sushi and expecting anyone who knows or wishes to know anything about sushi to see it as necessary or informative.

Hi Joe, it could be that if it had been written by a boudoir photographer then that balance would not have been there. Similarly, it could have been written by someone who objects to the genre.

It was written in the hope that the discussion would be opened, as a boudoir photographer, instead of just attempting to discredit the article you could proffer your side of the argument.

Let’s be clear that I’m not attempting to discredit the article, I feel as if you did that on your own.
If your desire is truly to have an objective conversation about the genre, then doing something other than consistently painting it in either a negative light or suggesting it is something to be constrained would be a good start.

.

Hi, Joe

I read the entire article, and I did not come away from it thinking that Ivor painted boudoir in a negative light.

As I read the article, I was trying to figure out how Ivor felt about boudoir, what his personal feelings and biases may be ..... and I could not tell. So in my view, he did a really good job of not casting it in a positive or a negative light. The article seemed entirely objective to me.

Now I suppose people will tell me how wrong or naive or stupid I am to have come away thinking that. Whatever.

.

For what it’s worth, I’m coming across this article almost a year after publication, and I agree. I’m a woman. And reading his article on face value and with a logical approach, he isn’t arguing one side or another. Sometimes I think people don’t know how to read objectively anymore….

--- "Is boudoir photography pornography? It’s a difficult call to make."

Actually, it's not difficult. It's not even the same thing. Consider doing some actual research on both of these distinct genres.

--- "What do you think? Should photographers be free to photograph whatever they like,"

Yes. so long the subject is of age and in consent.

--- "or should we try to uphold some moral standard?"

Hell, no. This type of over-reaching looney liberal high sense of morality needs to be flushed down the toilet. Just because hot sexy female bodies makes you uncomfortable, doesn't mean the rest of the industry should be suppressed.

Maybe you should stick to photographing and writing about brick walls, birds, and dogs. Leave the grown up stuff to the grown ups.

Thank you for expressing your point of view. As a boudoir photographer, it would actually be interesting if you explained not just your point of view but the reasoning behind it.

Actually, I read several academic studies on the topic before writing.

Moral standards, far from being liberal, are actually usually associated with conservatism. The removal of constraints is a liberal approach. Publically ask a conservative preacher in the deep South what they think of your images, and see what answer you get. Ask the same of a libertarian, especially one with neo-liberal views, and it will be the opposite. Your "Hell no" reply is a liberal one. Perhaps you are voting the wrong way!

As I mentioned before in another reply, moral standards are a human construct and my point of view, whichever way I sat in this debate, is irrelevant. It's down to your entire society to decide what is right and wrong and change those views over time, as happened with the Hays code. A grown-up argument would discuss the matter with respect and not just throw insults.

When I suggested you do research, I meant on the actual genres and what is involved. Not for you to read (have read) some study based on someone else's opinion. Don't over complicate it, because it's not complicated.

The main issue is you are blurring the lines between the two. Pornography has sex act (duh). Boudoir has none. It's basically just a lingerie shoot in a room. It's unfathomable that anyone would conflate the two…unless…unless, you were just trolling to stir and spice things up as you've admitted in the past you like to do. :)

And, no, my "Hell, no" reply is not liberal. It's on the side of reason, logic, and common sense. So, yeah, no.

Hey, Eddie

But does all photography fall neatly into defined genres? Or is there some photography that doesn't fall neatly into either boudoir or pornography, and kind of has some elements of each of them?

I mean, not everyone sets out to create photos that are classic bouodoir photos, nor does everyone set out to make images that are truly pornographic. Many photographers just set out to make the photos that are in their mind's eye, or that their client asks for, and sometimes the results are kind or riding the fence between two genres, or fall on both sides of the fence simultaneously.

Just because humans come up with categories doesn't mean that everything will fit neatly into a category.

By the way, my personal feelings are that there is nothing at all wrong with either boudoir photography or with pornography. I think that pornography is just as valid of a photographic genre as any other genre. So to me, when someone refers to something as being pornographic, that isn't a negative at all, because true pornography is just as artistic and viable and important and essential as any other genre is to the photographic community. It is wrong and shallow for anyone to look down at pornography, or to consider it to be beneath any other genre.

Wat up, Tom! :)

I think for the most the part, yes, photography falls neatly into a defined genre. For instance, one would not confuse boudoir to family portraits; wildlife to landscape; street photography to newborn; sexual acts to non-sexual acts; etc; etc. It's defined well enough.

--- "By the way, my personal feelings are that there is nothing at all wrong with either boudoir photography or with pornography."

I agree 1000%. However, even just by the title of the article, along with his ending questions, Ivor is attempting to paint them both with the same brush. Which would mean, for any laws/legislations controlling and restricting porn, that would now also be applied to boudoir as well. How stupid is that? What's next, skimpy swimsuits. Then any form of nudity. This guy is always pushing/peddling some leftist agenda.

Eddie,

I agree with you about agendas. I really want to maintain freedom for each individual to do whatever they want, even if it affects other people. Except, of course, for things with extreme effects that are both tangible and immediate, such as physical assault that results in serious injury, murder, and direct theft.

The individual should always be put before the collective. I matter far more than the human population as a whole. You matter far more than the human population as a whole, and Ivor matters far more than the human population as a whole. But the "other side" doesn't seem to see it that way.

Regarding genres, I think we disagree about that. I do not see all photos as fitting neatly into a specific genre. And that is what I love about photography - that we can each create whatever we feel compelled to create, even if it doesn't fit neatly into an established category.

"Moral standards, far from being liberal, are actually usually associated with conservatism. The removal of constraints is a liberal approach."

That's what conventional wisdom tells us, but in reality it's not really correct. Especially the cliched example of a conservative preacher in the deep South. Back in the 80s there was a huge push to censor rock and heavy metal music from the likes of Tipper Gore and other liberals. In today's world there is a huge push from the left side of the spectrum to marginalize glamour and boudoir imagery because it "objectifies" and sexualizes women and creates impossible standards to live up to; from their perspective. That's not to say that those of a so-called conservative approach aren't pushing for censorship as well. They do. But it comes from the left too. The main difference, I think, is that they do it for different reasons. In fact, observationally, it seems to be coming from the left much more in recent times.

Eddie, there is a huge difference difference between writing provocative articles that are there to stimulate discussion, and trolling.

I did say "usually", Daniel. There are, of course, isolated incidents where there are exceptions, like the whole Tipper Gore fiasco, which was reminiscent of the arguments that brought in the Hays Code. It was about a mother being offended by lyrics and was not backed up by actual empirical data.

On the whole though, extremist conservative views are about restricting progress and keeping to what are seen to be traditions with strictly imposed moral values. Those beliefs built around artificial constructs. Extreme liberalism is about removing state control altogether. Both are extremist views. Conservative and liberalism are not exclusively right and left wing, a big mistake that many people make. It is possible to be a left-wing conservative and a right-wing libertarian, although the latter are rare.

For example, Soviet Russia before Gorbachev was conservative in its values, and it is again now. In the Soviet times, it claimed to be economically left-wing, although that is debatable. Putin is de facto leader of United Russia, which is conservative and follows right-wing economic policies

Should people be allowed to do whatever they like without any restrictions? I believe there a difference between restricting a practice because it causes harm and restricting one because it goes against (unjustified) beliefs. When I say "cause harm" I don't mean causing offense.

The question posed by the article is whether the depictions in boudoir photography should be restricted. I think the answer to that depends upon whether it can be shown to cause harm, or if it only causes offense. The latter is just an opinion. Restrictions or freedoms based on opinions should only be implemented if it is what a majority in a democratic society believes should be.

Most importantly though, people should be able to discuss their opinions or statement of facts without being insulted or attacked because of them.

--- "people should be able to discuss their opinions or statement of facts without being insulted or attacked because of them."

True, however, when you attack a benign genre and try to paint it with a XXX light, you shouldn't be surprised if you get back-handed a little. By your ludicrous and asinine logic, even Victoria Secrets should fall under porn. Are you kiddin' me?

Your problem is, Eddie, that you are applying opinions to me that I haven't expressed or held. I hadn't stated what I believe and I am not attacking any genre. My article was an examination of the evolution of censorship, what's happened in the past, and where it might lead.

All I am doing is pointing out that there are differences in opinion between what should be allowed and what shouldn't. Those are just opinions and hold no power because they are not backed up by evidence. Opinions are open to examination and criticism because they are not facts.

If you want to know my personal opinion, it's that censorship should only be applied if it is shown, irrefutably and indisputably, that what is being censored causes harm, and that harm isn't outweighed by the good. I have no evidence that boudoir or glamour photography causes harm, but some claim that it does. Currently, it is a debate between two opinions, both equally valid and invalid. Of course, you are welcome to disagree with my opinion too because I also believe having a variety of opinions in the world is healthy.

So, when someone comes up with empirical, peer-reviewed evidence that demonstrates, one way or another, that the full frontal images or images of scantily clad young women, like those in your gallery, cause harm or good, I will reserve judgment.

--- "Your problem is, Eddie,…"

My problem? In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one that sees that way.

--- "If you want to know my personal opinion,…"

The next time you write an opinion piece, do what you just did, explicitly state your opinion.

--- "So, when someone comes up with empirical, peer-reviewed evidence…"

Images of full frontal and scantily clad young women have been around at least 500 years. Even older if you include statues. Us humans are fine. If YOU want to wait around for someone to tell you how you should think, knock yourself out. And, I suspect you'll be waiting for at least the next 500 years.

.

Ivor,

Overall, in a general sense, I suspect that you and I are on very different sides of the fence, politically and socially. However, I find myself agreeing with everything you have written here in this comment.

I see hope when people from opposing world views find some common ground!

.

.

I agree, Daniel.

Over-aggressive government-imposed regulations and censorship primarily comes from the left side, at least here in the United States. The conservatives are the ones who are closer to the Libertarian point of view, which strives for a minimum of government-imposed regulation on everything.

Of course, there are exceptions, but by and large, the left side seems to favor more rules and regulations and generally more control over the citizenry.

.

If a model is hiring a photographer and the photos are meant for sale, than maybe it is soft porn. Not that I see something particularly wrong with that. But if the photos are for personal use? And the client is not a model, but a regular person? I can go on with several similar scenarios. Which comes to show, that like most generalizations, an attempt to put a whole genre under the same umbrella is misguided.

There are always grey areas in any debate and attitudes within societies change over time. The main point of the article is about how our beliefs and standards change, and so the semantics, of terms like glamor or boudoir, I did not think was really applicable to the discussion.

If you look at the images that some of the boudoir photographers commenting here have publically posted, and self-censored using the NSFW tag, it would not have been that long ago when they would have been considered obscene, and in some societies they still are. Now they are considered acceptable in many cultures by many but not all. I find the ever-changing attitudes of societies as a whole fascinating.

.

Ivor Rackham asked,

"What do you think? Should photographers be free to photograph whatever they like, or should we try to uphold some moral standard?"

Ivor,

I believe that photographers should be free to photograph whatever they like, as long as they are not taking photos of subjects against their will.

But I make a very strong distinction between what a photographer has a right to photograph, and what the resultant photos can be used for. So while a photographer should be able to photograph anything he/she wants to, even if it is degrading to others, I do not necessarily believe that the photos should be permitted to be used or presented without limitations.

What a photographer is allowed to photograph should be completely independent of what the photos can be used for, or where they can appear.

I mean, if a couple wants to fake a brutal rape scene in which the husband appears to beat and rape and sodomize his wife (totally staged and totally consentual, of course), and wants to hire a photographer to photograph the action, the couple should be allowed to hire a photographer and the photographer should be allowed to photograph the pretend crime / victimization. But the images should not be allowed to be used in publications that are widely available to the public at large. Nor should the photos be allowed to be displayed in areas where they will be seen by the general public.

So, there should be no censorship at all over what is allowed to be photographed. But there should be a modicum of censorship over where the resultant images can appear.

.

Thank you for a great reply, as always, Tom. There are probably thousands of different scenarios that we personally would accept or object to. It's fascinating how different attitudes change over time and how different sectors of the same society can have very different points of view. I am a great believer in society as a whole making a decision about what is right and what is wrong, and that only happens if people can discuss topics like this openly.

Though there are outliers who view glamour and boudoir as "pornography" I think that most intellectually reasonable people do not.

I do not consider myself necessarily a boudoir or glamour photographer though the majority of my work is certainly implied to some degree and there is an obvious sensuality or edginess to it. There is a difference between imagery that has a sensual or slightly erotic vibe to it and imagery that is, in my view vulgar. I can't quantify it, but I know it when I see it.

For example there are many photos of mostly or completely clothed models that are vulgar--in my view--whereas there are images of implied nudity, or even partial nudity, that are far from vulgar; again, in my view.

Generally speaking, men and women have a different view of what is sexy or erotic. It's the difference between the cover of a men's magazine and a women's fashion magazine. When I'm photographing women I spend a lot of time getting them into the place of avoiding what they think is appealing to men and instead think in terms of what they like to see or what appeals to them.

That's a helpful addition to the discussion, Daniel. Thank you. It's great that you emphasize that it is your view, which implies an acceptance of others' views. I suspect that everyone will have different points of view on this matter and there is no right or wrong, just opinion.

Great article as always Ivor. As a boudoir photographer myself, I find that the most complex problem is not whether the art should be censored but rather how the rules of censorship are applied. Whether photos should be censored is not anything we have any say in. The rules are made by whatever platform hosts the photos. Twitter allows nudity, but Instagram does not. TikTok bans women for excessive cleavage. If I want to post a photo on Instagram to take advantage of that platform, then I have to go by their rules. But, I routinely get pictures taken down on Instagram because the algorithms scan the photos and make a judgment call on whether the woman in the photo is asking for sex based on how she is dressed. That's not right. Users also have the ability to turn on or off sensitive material that would be more NSFW. So, should it be censored? Sure, why not, it's not up to me, it's up to the platform. I would prefer to not have to censor my work, but it is what it is. But if the platform is going to censor anything beyond my self censoring of what I choose to post, it should be done in a fair way. Anyway, I'm writing it up now.

Thank you, Jeff. I agree absolutely. Censorship decisions are usually arbitrary and based on belief and opinion rather than verifiable evidence of whether it causes harm or not. Sadly, a lot of people today consider their opinions to be solid and irrefutable, as opposed to being open to discussion or examination.

Also, a lot of people are applying opinions to me that I don't hold just because I raised the topic. Looking forward to seeing the article!

I feel like I'm knowingly stepping on a beehive here... but Ivor when I read the article, I felt like it was written from a place of opening a touchy subject for discussion in an attempt to be unbiased and ask questions. As writers, it's not always easy to do that because you have to gird yourself for the inevitable criticisms and/or attacks from each side of the fence. To answer your question, "Can we photograph it, should we?". I think we should have the freedom to photograph whatever we want. Society had been held back and censored in so many ways over the centuries. The rule breakers always made history and opened doors that needed to be opened. I also agreed with some of the comments by Seraphine Blackwell with the differentiation between an experience in female empowerment and sexual gratification for the male viewer. There's a whole range of imagery that could be thrown under the banner of "boudoir". Personally, I don't shoot sexual work. I feel, like the Guerilla Girls would bemoan, that women being nude or sexualized in art and imagery has been the unbalanced representation of women in the art world. I prefer to shoot athletes making history- last week for example I photographed the FIRST EVER woman in history to play for the US Polo team in a World Championship. That's my passion. Woman changing the world, not women being sexy. (Although changing the world is very sexy). I don't create Boudoir or sexualized work. I don't follow it. But I do believe it has the right to be created and I'm thankful that we live in a society where we have the freedom to create it.

Ivor's willingness to engage with his readership is what sets him apart - and above - most of the other writers on Fstoppers. When I leave comments for Ivor, I usually (not always) get a response from him. That is the main reason I keep reading his articles and commenting on them. Some of the other Fstopper writers rarely enter the discussion in the comment section of their articles, and I have started to avoid reading the articles that those writers post.

Jon. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of a troll is "​[intransitive, transitive] troll (somebody/something) to write false or offensive messages on the internet in order to make other people angry. Someone keeps posting snide comments on the forum, trolling for a reaction."

There is nothing I have written here that is false, and certainly not offensive. I've stated an opinion, and marked the article as opinion. Discussing a topic and having an opposing opinion isn't trolling.

If you don't like what I have written, then write a counter-argument and I will listen with interest. Just to fire off an insult sort of fits you into that dictionary definition, doesn't it? Especially as you created an account under a false persona to do so.

Thanks for your comment Jon. I hope you can find help with that and get better soon.

We do not, and should not, censor adult pornography in the United States.

We most certainly do. Where pornography can be displayed, where it is available for sale, etc., are all under strict censorship, not only by governmental bodies, but also by private entities. For instance, my corner grocery store censors adult pornography by not permitting it to be sold on their newsstand. And my state government censors it by not allowing it to be displayed publicly, where the public at large may see it unexpectedly.

Quibbles. One may legally produce and distribute adult pornography in all U.S. states and territories.

Yes, of course, but doing so is regulated. "Censored" means regulated, or limited. It doesn't mean "entirely forbidden." I feel that perhaps you were using the word in a way that isn't entirely consistent with its actual definition.

Would you then say that the fact that automobile dealerships don’t sell “Good Housekeeping” magazine is a form of censorship? Government authorities do not regulate adult pornography in print or virtual form. The fact that greengrocers don’t sell it is not censorship.

.

David,

Censorship is when decisions or policies are made based on moral, religious, political, or ethical concerns ... or based on strong, heated emotions that can arise from whatever it is that is being censored.

When the grocery store decides not to sell pornography, that decision is made in part because of the moral concerns of the customer base and the strong feelings that many customers have about sexually explicit material being so readily available in a place that they want to think of as a 'safe place" where they don't want to have to face ideals that are different from their own.

When a car dealership doesn't sell Good Housekeeping magazine, that is not based on moral, religious, or ethical concerns, nor is it based on wanting to avoid strong, heated emotional responses to the magazine. In fact, many car dealerships have magazines set out on coffee tables for customers to read while waiting, and I have no doubt that in many cases, Good Housekeeping is among the magazines placed there.

You were wrong in the way you worded your initial comment. Just admit that you worded it incorrectly, instead of doubling down on your mistake and arguing with me. The further you go, the deeper the hole you are digging yourself into.

.

More comments