I Appreciate Erotic Photography

I realize that the appreciation of the view of females, males, or together is personal. We all have preferences. What I am putting forth here is expressing only my likes and dislikes. I don’t mean that other view or preferences are wrong in any way. I am sure that most of us would have some of these in common. There is a partial overlap in preferences. For example, most of us like to see the female form whether we are male, female, heterosexual, or other. I would like to have included samples of photography to illustrate my point. Alas, I have none that I own, and I rarely use existing photos without permission. I am sure that you can find many that would suffice for your satisfaction. It would be fun.

I like to see a female form in mostly upright position, such as standing, leaning on props. She may have one knee on a chair, for example. I like to see her from the front, side, and back. There is such a powerful feeling imparted by her muscles, curves, skin, hair. A face can be an additional attraction, but it can also be detraction.

I like to see the point of view from the camera focused midway on the figure to give it balance. Many photographers are insensitive to that. They are often taller than the subject, and focus on or near the chest and head. The result is a distortion that does injustice to the subject. I often say, “Beautiful woman, bad photography.”

I tolerate poses that emphasize individual features of the woman. Sometimes they can be very attractive. However, when all that is shown is her parts, that is, concentrating on breasts, thighs, bottom in various positions, I find that something major is missing. It could be that she would be less attractive in full figure representation. Then again, I think that the principals involved (photographer and subject) are just inexperienced or stupid. If the parts poses are part of a gallery that includes the full figure shots, maybe it is OK.

I dislike close-up explicit shots of genitalia, especially when manipulated. I find it demeaning to the subject. I admit that some of the subjects would be doing something more meaningful if they were intelligent, but still, there is no need for it. If I want to see that, I could go for the raunchy pornography sites for it.

I don’t mind seeing a male form occasionally. However, when it is involved in explicit sexual acts with the female, I get turned off immediately. I don’t resent the implications that two may have had sex, for sex is what is driving the world. I just don’t want to see that degree of open intimacy.

I dislike oiled skin shots. The whole idea of oiled skin makes no sense. If she has oil on her, and she sits or lies on some fabric, the oil makes a mess of it. I cannot imagine my wanting to kiss or lick her anywhere that is covered by oil. Even worse is when she is dressed in assumed sexy wear and still be oiled. It does not follow. But there are some situations where oil on the skin is palatable. For example, a beach scenario, or say, oiled-skin wrestling, but that is getting off the subject.

Makeup and facial expressions can be erotic, distracting, and repulsive. Any normal look between serious, pleasant, or happy is fine. I dislike the faked pursed lips and pseudo sexy looks. Even worse than that are the sneering looks some women put on in an attempt to look different. Some women should not try to put on these fake looks, for they end up looking ridiculous. The photographer should be cognizant of the detraction. Yet, they go with it, thereby producing a gallery of much less value.

Occasionally I run across photographs in which a woman is portrayed as a dominant. I am sure that it is in the eye of the beholder, or the limited minds of the principals. A woman without stature can put on any combination of plastic, rubber, metal, and will look ridiculous. She can wear those asinine platform boots laced up to her eyeballs with the crotch and back open, and look even worse. On the other hand, some women need not have any of that. They could be portrayed in almost ordinary clothes or something more revealing, and still convey strength of demeanor. Choosing the quality of the subject is as important as choosing the photographer.

Since I am talking about still photography, voice, acting, and sophistication are not a consideration, so there is no hint about her attractiveness in those dimensions. For all we know, she could be a complete dud but beautiful. Still, some women impart class, when others impart a base quality. It may be a combination of props, presentation, and photography in addition to her looks. I have my preferences of size, shape, facial features, age, etc. as we all do. I am also versatile when it comes to those. Here is where presentation makes all the difference.

Photographs of non-professional females in their own environment can be very endearing and sensual as long as they don’t get very explicit, as in “spread lips”. These are impromptu snapshots, not set up like the professionals. When they succeed, they get extra credit for being themselves.