I hear a lot of people call AW a 'porn' site

[acefreely]

I hear a lot of people call AW a 'porn' site, but I really don't see it that way. It's too different.

I want to believe that there are people who find people--the way they naturally are--beautiful and sexy. I think this site's success is evidence that there are people like that out there. In the USA especially, there is this undercurrent in society, that a woman has to put on a costume to be sexy. And she has to look a certain way to be beautiful--hence all the plastic surgery. To me, that obscures the true beauty.

I don't know that I'd even call AW porn. The film Boogie Nights is sort of an eulogy for pornography that came close to being infused with artistry. It shows the "cum drenched sluts" / "fellating dildos" / "extreme[r] sex" world overtake those filmmaker with artistic consciences--and even subverted some of them. I think there's something there. Porn as the word is used today, is synonymous with sexual-exploitation of women. AW isn't porn. Maybe it's "porno". It seems like people used the word "porno" up through the 70s to describe all erotic content--this was certainly better than the 80s stuff. By the 80's everything became one-syllable: rad, ... porn.

But I don't think AW is porno either--nor is ishotmyself.com for that matter. Porno may be superficially better than porn as a word... But, even though the artistic vision that fizzled with the consumerism ("I want more") of the 80s, that artistic vision was very much the product of a male-centric world. There was a brief period (corresponding with 3rd wave feminism) where films were made with the idea of "I can do all these demeaning things, but I can reclaim them as empowering because it's what >I< want to do." It was an inspiring philosophy (except for the demeaning things part), but I think it never really was put into practice. (Like how there's never actually been Communism in Russia--at least as Marx taught it.)

So here, we are pornography... literally in greek: "pornos = dirty", "graphos = words" .. but somehow graphos gave us words for pictures like "graphic".. Some ancient authors supposed used the word 'pornography' to refer to 'writings about prostitutes,' but that's a little sketchy. Those words dont seem to fit this new movement trajectory in erotic art that seemingly is spiraling out of Australia. The underlying philosophy seems completely different than what we've seen.

Before: scripted, costumed, exploitative, tendency towards the extreme (cum drenched sluts, 100 person gangbang, etc.)

AW: no-scripts, natural, not obscuring supposed flaws but celebrating them instead, making erotic art not synonymous with 'filthy' but rather with something real and beautiful.

So, I hope this IS a trend in the world. Thanks, Abby.


-- Oh and a little random history on how I came to find this site: --

I used to use www.pictureview.com and then switched to www.diiva.com (since instead of going only several weeks back, it seems to keep pictures in its archives for a really long time). Then I discovered AbbyWinters.com by using the newsgroups. And I also discovered ishotmyself.com there too. Oddly, these are the only specifically porn sites I ever have suscribed to. I'd never seen such raw, real erotic art before AW--I'd have to subscribe. And honestly, all the while it stimulates your sexual impulses, there's something that makes you go.. wow--that's beautiful. [And why, pray tell, should it be surpirsing that sexual impulses and beauty go together? I think we're taught as children that nudity and sexuality is dirty and that's hard to get past.]

And, after a while as an AW subscriber, I was poking around usenet again, and found ishotmyself.com -- and I thought to myself, wow-- this is some really good raw stuff too! AW might have some competition. (Of course, on further investigation, I found it was quite different in form and purpose, and not 'competition'.) Little did I know that there was any connection of ishotmyself.com to abbywinters.com until I started paying closer attention to what countries people were from, and I did a search on the forums here. So anyway, good to be here.

Also, check out the entry at wikipedia.com on Abby Winters. It may need some revising -- but anyone can revise anything on Wikipedia.

-Jay

incidentally-- somehow the [backup?] billing system automatically set me up with a silly user name (AceFreely?) .. is there any way to change this? .. Maybe I accidentally clicked when i should have clacked.

[Diablo]

That's a well-written argument for your first post

DOMAI actually had a very interesting discussion among its members, some years ago, about whether nude photography was sexual in any way. I can't find the article now (the "letters" section on the site is gone), but here's a similar article about Eolake Stobblehouse's own perspective on the issue. The overall consensus among the members was that it was pretty much left up to the individual viewer, depending on numerous factors like personal experiences, attitudes, current mood state, etc.

My own opinion on this is that there's many different levels of observation that you can apply to nude photography, for instance:

• A female model, nude, positioned as a static object like the rest of the scenery
• A female model, nude, celebrating her natural form in an aesthetic manner
• A female model, with personality, sharing her lifestyle, experiences or self-affection with the viewer
• A female model, trying to appear as an object of lust to the viewer

There's probably some more in-between levels that should go in there.

Every nude photograph can be observed at one or more of the above levels, depending on who's viewing them. People can see either art, beauty, entertainment, or desire (or a combination of them). For me, it kinda varies; admirable beauty & intriguing lifestyles/experiences are what I usually see in AW's models, although there have been cases, that, upon first sight, have left me with "charged emotions" usually because of my state of mind at the time. Nothing wrong with that, though. I'm pretty sure most other AW members will have varying experiences.

The photographer does have some influence on which levels viewers perceive their work at. A model that is forced to pose in a more obviously erotic, sexually arousing position would be less likely to be perceived as artistic or beautiful; the photographer in this case is trying to restrict the viewer to seeing the model as lustful.

On the other hand, if the model is presented in a less restrictive form (eg. being themselves), then it gives the viewer more power in choosing their level of observation; if they want to go all horny at her, they have to use their imagination. I agree with Eolake's statement about preserving the model's beauty as much as possible; if you do that, it lets those who want to view the models as beautiful, artistic and free-spirited to do so, without compromising too much on those who just want something to target their desires at.

My conclusion is that IMHO "porn" is really a metric for measuring photography; depending on the "degree of observational freedom" that the photography allows. Much like a 0-10 ranking:

• Nude art and simple nudes at the low end of the scale
• Erotica heading towards the middle
• Your average internet porn (stuff that focuses more on "dirtyness") ranking towards the higher end
• Complete smut spanning way into double-digits

DOMAI strictly prioritises on the beauty of the model (but will allow other tones as long as they don't compromise beauty) - I'd say it'd rank roughly between 0-1 on my "porn scale".

AW gives the model more freedom to express herself, so there's a nice wide mix of simple nudity, lifestyle (voyerism) and erotica. Some of the stronger erotica (GB, T3 GG) comes close to porn; however I think it stands out from typical porn because of the reality factor involved (amateur models, genuine passion, no staged masturbation/orgasms, nothing derogatory, etc). I'd probably give AW a "porn scale" rating of 0-5.

So, there's my take on it. I don't consider AW porn, and calling it "porn" is a bit of a blanket manuever that caters to the lowest common demoninator (people who don't know any better), but if it does get called porn, then it's definitely a liberal & classy kind of porn!

Wow, that was long. And it's approaching 3AM here... if none of this makes sense, you now know why!

[Diablo]

I thought I might also share my experiences in how I discovered Abby Winters's site:

I'm now 22, though since my teenage years, I've always known that I seemed to have a preference for nude photgraphy that shows women in respectful, tasteful, less degrading poses. Hadn't figured out why though; just never found hardcore appealing. Basically from time to time, I'd do random web searches for porn, stumbling across all sorts of rubbish. I'd sometimes find some photo sets with first few frames with the model just posing (nude/stripping), then eventually get into some explicit act; these were "mixed bag", because I usually liked some shots but hated others (the explict shots always had a staged, unrealistic, degrading feel about them).

I did find some sites that were "almost there". One example I remember is "Little Gray Guy"; basically featuring various amercian girls just posing with a black tom cat. The site was centered around the cat, with everything worded from his perspective (even had his own blog); silly and entertaining at times, quality of photography was OK. Some models had implants or were shaved; bit unsettling. LGG was free from 2000-early 2002, however it suffered bandwidth overload and became subscription afterwards.

I first stumbled across DOMAI last year, after finding a link to it on an intelligent sexuality discussion forum (something that came up in a random porn search). Very impressed by DOMAI; Sets of exceptional quality, respectful of female models. The founder, Eolake Stobblehouse, also has heaps of articles/newsletters discussing things like appreciating female beauty, nudity in society (why it shouldn't be considered taboo). You'll also find what it is about the female form that makes it so dang powerful. Worth the subscription, been great since. However only problem is the slow release schedule (3 sets/wk).

I decided I should find something else to fill in the gaps. AW's Ally & Elizabeth sets are featured on DOMAI; thought I might take a look at AW's own site. Not only heaps more content, but also unique in class. No fantasy/acting garbage, just real-life aussie girls, doing the things that they want to do, and being happy about it. All of it celebrated as healthly and enjoyable, nothing purposefully dirty or degrading; even explicit shoots are respectable. Signed up for 12 months right away, and I have no regrets* since

*Actually, I only have one regret: I forgot to pay off the damn CC bill on time. after stupidly misplacing my statement, and ended up incurring $50 of late charges, after getting a surprise phone call from the bank. Perhaps next year I should pay cash by mail. I can be a real moron sometimes!

[Diablo]

incidentally-- somehow the [backup?] billing system automatically set me up with a silly user name (AceFreely?) .. is there any way to change this? .. Maybe I accidentally clicked when i should have clacked.

It might be silly, but it's got quite an amusing sound to it - I actually like it!

(BTW "Diablo" was my AW-assigned username; though I've got others that I use elsewhere on the 'net).

[Dafydd]

Welcome to the boards, AceFreely (or whatever you choose to call yourself from here on in).

I agree with you. The way I differentiate (and I know my views are far from universal — I've been raked across these boards about this before) is that there's erotica, which celelebrates sex and sexuality as healthy, wholesome and wonderful, and then there's pornography, which degrades sex and sexuality as dirty, shameful and derogatory. AW, then, is obviously erotica. Compare "Girls In Love" to "Locker-Room Ass-Sluts 23" and tell me what you think.

[nowido]

I hear a lot of people call AW a 'porn' site, but I really don't see it that way. It's too different.

I want to believe that there are people who find people--the way they naturally are--beautiful and sexy. I think this site's success is evidence that there are people like that out there. In the USA especially, there is this undercurrent in society, that a woman has to put on a costume to be sexy. And she has to look a certain way to be beautiful--hence all the plastic surgery. To me, that obscures the true beauty.

.

Here's what the Eccyciopaedia Britannica give as a definition of Pornography:

"Depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement.

The word originally signified any work of art or literature depicting the life of prostitutes. Though pornography is clearly ancient in origin, its early history is obscure because it was customarily not thought worthy of transmission or preservation. The invention of printing led to the production of ambitious pornographic written works intended to entertain as well as to arouse. The first modern works designed solely to arouse appeared in 18th-century Europe. The development of photography and motion pictures contributed greatly to the proliferation of pornography. Since World War II, written pornography has been largely superseded by explicit visual representations."

If you boil all this down to the essentials, it translates to: Anything sexual which arouses you is pornography. This would include your wife, if married, along with a lot more.

Since I was raised as a Catholic, I can testify that is exactly their definition of sex, Protestant also, but not so forceful. This applies both inside and outside marraige. The only time sex is ok is for procreation, as long as you don't have any fun.

From my experience, expecially my wife, long ago divorced, no Catholic woman I have ever known sexually was ever able to have an orgasm, and only tollerated sex to get something that they wanted. This is real PORNOGRAPHY, and prostitution of the worst kind, dishonest.

Therefore, what do you call AW site? Tecnically it should be called sexual art. I'll post some classical "sexual" art below as my examples. Some of it arouses me, some is funny, some imaginative, and all of it damned beautiful.

Jim

[calliope]

....... and then there's pornography, which degrades sex and sexuality as dirty, shameful and derogatory.

I'm not sure whether I understand what you're saying here.

Pornography,(ie material that is intended to cause sexual arousal),can be bad for two reasons.

The first reason reason would be if it panders to some corrupted or perverted sexual response that causes harm to the vulnerable.

The second reason would be that the material is so witless and incompetent that it simply fails to cause sexual arousal.In my view,mountains of supposed pornography fall into that category.

Outside of those two cases,there is a very small percentage of good pornography which is intelligently made,has wit,charm,and causes deep sexual arousal,although obviously that's subjective.Personally,I wish there was more of it.

[sylvain2]

I really have no objection to calling Abby's work "pornography". When I hear "porn", I think "commercial production and mass reproduction of images designed to appeal to sexual appetite".

The thing is that Abby's work is not just pornography: it's pornographic portrait photography. Most pornography takes cues from glamour/fashion photography, and not from portraiture.

[Bob]

pornography... literally in greek: "pornos = dirty", "graphos = words" .. but somehow graphos gave us words for pictures like "graphic"

I think the key difference between AW cum-soaked-sluts is that on AW these are clearly real, whole people, both the models and the staff. Jamie's notes, the technical discussions about the new site, the sometimes prosaic audio, Jenny's stories, Molly's orgasm, the zits and scars and little bio notes. Sure many of us are using false names, but the interaction is basically honest throughout.

I have previously described AW as porn, albeit with some sense of irony. Thank you, Acefreely, for the derivation. If porn = dirty then I stop using the word about AW right now!

[Luxman]

If porn = dirty then I stop using the word about AW right now!

I call AW always (also when I recommend it to other people) "explicit erotic photography artwork of real life people".

In my eyes that says everything what's needed.

Lxm

[pjay]

Thank you, Acefreely, for the derivation. If porn = dirty then I stop using the word about AW right now!

I believe the porno bit in pornography is derived from porne, which is Greek for prostitute. This doesn't, of course, make the term any more appropriate for this site (or indeed for a lot of other porn sites), but then Greek etymology and modern meaning regularly part company.

For example, hierarchy means 'rule by high priests'; cynical means 'dog-like'; tragedy probably means 'a song about goats'.

[Vid Dude]

We are an Adult Web Site.

We provide Erotic Imagery.

[Quartz]

I believe the porno bit in pornography is derived from porne, which is Greek for prostitute.

Yes.

Pornographos = writing about whores
Pornos = fornicator
Pornè = whore

Not sure why ethymologists chose writing about whores over a fornicator's writings. I concede that it may amount (heh, he said mount, heh) to the same thing.

For example, hierarchy means 'rule by high priests'; cynical means 'dog-like'; tragedy probably means 'a song about goats'.

Don't get me started on penis (tail) and anus (-us, -us) (old woman - actually, that's a bit of a Latin Urban Legend, because the male form (-us, -i) does mean 'ring') ...

[pjay]

Not sure why ethymologists chose writing about whores over a fornicator's writings.

I guess it wasn't the etymologists who chose the meaning; they would merely have expounded on it later. According to my dictionary, the term entered English in the 19th C as an adjunct to pornographer which was adopted from the French pornographe which was in turn adopted from the Greek pornographos. Presumably then the word is found in Classical texts and isn't a neologism.

[Talking Figleaf]

I hear a lot of people call AW a 'porn' site, but I really don't see it that way. It's too different.

Well, Abby says it's porn and calls herself a pornographer, so I guess it's coming from a reliable source. :-)

I agree it's different, but the difference is that, unlike the routine cum-soaked sluts business, AW offers *good* porn. I don't know why more sites don't offer good porn. Abby's a very good photographer, and she's got a good attitude and a great staff. But (and I mean this in the most respectful way possible) she's not magic, she pays models well compared to other sites but extravagently more so, she certainly doesn't charge us more. She's just got good taste, and she seems to prefer what she'd like to see rather than what she thinks everyone else wants to see. I mean *that* in the most respectful way possible as well.

A better articulation of the question might be "If AW is porn, what does that make all the crap that's out there trying to pass for porn?" The question sort of answers itself, doesn't it?

Anyway, if Abby wants to call it porn, I'm happy to call it porn too. I'm sorry there aren't more people like her in the business. But for my purposes one's enough anyway. I like her pornography, and I like her.

figleaf

[nowido]

Anyway, if Abby wants to call it porn, I'm happy to call it porn too. I'm sorry there aren't more people like her in the business. But for my purposes one's enough anyway. I like her pornography, and I like her.

figleaf

Dear figleaf, do not fall for the favorite tactic of all propagandist, which is to define what you are by their standards. It is not Abby's job to defend herself, although she can do so if she likes.

It is the job of the customers of AW to defend her, and define by their standards the content of the site. Do not accept a label, definition, which is not accurate.

There are no "good" axe murder's or rapist's or pornography. Therefore, reject the label put upon the content of this site by others and develop a proper definition.

I propose SEXUAL ART.

Jim

[calliope]

We are an Adult Web Site.

We provide Erotic Imagery.

As so often,your clarity of thought and expression shines through.

Although,on reflection,your initial observation does sound a bit like Margaret Thatcher announcing,"We are a grandmother."

[alexbee]

We are an Adult Web Site.

We provide Erotic Imagery.

Erotic Figure Studies perhaps....

[alpha_hazard]

this is probably just repetative, but Porn is defined by the allmighty websters as writings, picture, etc. primarily intended for sexual arousal. So yes, Abby Winters Produces Pornography, but the website offers other things, such as a community in which to chat. Most porn sites do not offer that, which is what makes it so cool when they do...

[BigSpud]

I found this quote while surfing for something totally unrelated (energy saving light bulbs promised in 1992 and yet to be delivered).

"Good technology is like pornography...you know it when you see it." --

[Roops]

Here I am, thinking of re-joining (unlike Mrs Roops who has no such inhibitions, I feel guilty posting to the boards whilst not a member) and what do I find ? The aw.com forums now resemble a computer programmers and philosopher's love fest. Where's the smutty discussions?

Now then, abbywinters.com - porn or art ? Well any Internet site that features within it's content, images (amongst others) of young nubile girls sliding two fingers into another girls vagina is, in anybody's book, going to be regarded as porn, pure and simple.

Is aw.com craftsmanship par excellence? yes
is aw.com art ? of course not
is it porn ? yes

Vid Dude hit the nail on the head when he said his organisation provided "erotic imagery". I would go further - visual viagra ….er…not that I am in need of any such stimulus, why only yesterday I had a satisfactory masturbationary experience at the gentlemen's urinals at Manchester Airport's Terminal Two building, so you can see I am healthy and normal.

[pjay]

only yesterday I had a satisfactory masturbationary experience at the gentlemen's urinals at Manchester Airport's Terminal Two building, so you can see I am healthy and normal.

As it used to say above the urinals in my dear old school: - "More than two shakes is wanking."

I can't help thinking that "Now wash your hands" might have been more useful.

[calliope]

..... why only yesterday I had a satisfactory masturbationary experience at the gentlemen's urinals at Manchester Airport's Terminal Two building, so you can see I am healthy and normal.

I have been heartened in recent days to read of your emergence from the torpid phase of the cycle that overtook you earlier in the year,but I would urge caution and vigilance in your analysis of your current position within that cycle.

Perhaps your progress towards health and normality could best be assessed by reflecting on how many fellow travellers were similarly engaged.

[calliope]

To the language scholars,is the word 'masturbationary',or 'masturbatory'.?

[Roops]

I have been heartened in recent days to read of your emergence from the torpid phase of the cycle that overtook you earlier in the year,but I would urge caution and vigilance in your analysis of your current position within that cycle.

What is it with you and cycles ?

Perhaps your progress towards health and normality could best be assessed by reflecting on how many fellow travellers were similarly engaged.

Not sure, but Inspector Knacker has told my solicitor that the police have 8 witness statements

[Bob]

What is it with you and cycles ?
Not sure, but Inspector Knacker has told my solicitor that the police have 8 witness statements

Ah well, if you will use someone to do your soliciting you can expect interest from Knacker.

[Quartz]

To the language scholars,is the word 'masturbationary',or 'masturbatory'.?

That depends on whether it decribes the action or the actor. Since this describes an experience, it would be an action, though I prefer the term leisure in this instance.

[calliope]

That depends on whether it decribes the action or the actor. Since this describes an experience, it would be an action, though I prefer the term leisure in this instance.

Thank you Quartz.

So if one engages in masturbation,one performs a masturbatory act,but has a masturbationary experience.

However,if one does it to excess,does one become a masturbational character,or simply end up like this.?

[Quartz]

So if one engages in masturbation,one performs a masturbatory act

No, one is a masturbatory person .. performing a masturbationary act.

Some people settle for wanker, though.

[Roops]

Jeeze, I'm beginning to wish I had written that I had a nice wank at the airport.