Does a nude photo become sexual/porn if the model is posing with legs open even with no sexual activity and nothing sexual implied?
This would include nude poses where the model poses with legs open in a sitting, laying and squatting position... along with bending over and raising legs up where the genitalia is clearly visible and even appearing to be intentionally shown to the camera with no sexual activity and nothing sexual implied.
- AleshaLv 77 months ago
Depends on who you talk to. At the very least all nudes are considered adult models, to try and keep them away from minors. The photo below makes my point to a T. It wasn't planned or posed, the photographer literally caught me while I was messing with my hair like every girl on the planet does. But is it sexy, I would argue it most definitely is. Is it pornographic, depends on who you talk too. There are those in our society that would argue that any photo of an attractive girl topless is by definition pornographic.
- JeffLv 68 months ago
No there's nothing wrong with it at all, people need to stop being such prudes.
- Elaine MLv 79 months ago
Exposure of that area - yes, it can be classified as porn.
- soLv 69 months ago
Some people consider bikini modeling porn. Others think that topless photos are porn. The word porn means very little. Why is it when people find a part of the body they don't like, they call it "junk?" There is nothing wrong with photographing genitals. Why would sexual activity be seen as low class? "Porn" is meant as an insult word. Not everyone has the same tastes.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- John PLv 79 months ago
Not absolutely necessarily porn, but very likely porn. It would depend partly on the props visible in the photo, and any "intention" which might be assumed from the general style of the photo.
Photos of naked women for "artistic" purposes rarely show full frontal open-leg poses - that pose has no beauty.
- keerokLv 79 months ago
A nude photo is just that, a nude photo. Put it in an art studio and they call it art. Publish it in a smut magazine and it becomes porn. Then again, a nude photo in an art studio that elicits sexual reactions becomes porn and one in a smut magazine that doesn't elicit any sexual arousal is just art. Porn is all in the mind. It's highly based on opinion. With poses like that, what opinion do you think you'll get?
- FrankLv 79 months ago
It most certainly can and because the genitalia is visible, it is very likely that it would be considered porn.
Ultimately, it's the viewer that determines whether or not a nude photo is porn. If the viewer thinks that it's porn, then to them it is. More than likely if genitalia is visible, most people would consider it porn. A judge once said "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."
There have been a lot of nude photography over the last century and a half; most of it in black & white, and almost none of it showed genitalia. It's a matter of being classy. Showing a woman's junk is not being classy.
- Anonymous9 months ago
IMO, no. Most likely, there will be some who would say yes. Nudity has been used in art throughout the ages. Artistic nudes can be erotic without being pornographic.
- JohnLv 79 months ago
Searching for "nude photography porn definition" brought up some discussions about that. It's not something I occupy my time worrying about.