I'm certainly guilty of it, I won't deny it, but when it's pointed out I try to be open to the idea that I'm the short sights one and not them, though I probably don't come to that conclusion as often as they might want haha
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE respecting models: I knew a girl in high school... pretty, very sweet and quiet. She was a nice young lady. A few years later I saw a photo of her in Playboy magazine as part of one of those yearly college football articles. Only her breasts were visible... a very tame image and artfully done. A couple of years after that I saw her sitting alone in a restaurant and she had changed. She wore heavy-covering clothing, sunglasses and a hat. She seemed to be hiding herself from the world. I could only guess it was due to sexual harassment from pea-size-brain morons who just wanted a quick hump.
Emil is only protecting his models.
That boundary is what causes offense to the whole not a very small minority. I have personal experience of what I'd term offensive images (I was in no way involved at any stage) but the police did investigate and parts of the work disappeared. It might surprise you that the offensive images were made by women.
i think it is hard for some people to understand and execute because a lot of people don't know how to relate
to a nude human body other than as a sexual object ... so they see a nude that way.
maybe they also see it as a "naked" body, which means vulnerable / unprotected &c.
and a MALE nude .. forget about it ... a lot of humans are unsure of their sexuality ...
Prolly there are as many lines between those concepts as viewers. As someone said, over the entrance of each gallery it should be written "you don't have to like everything".
As for these images – which I haven't seen – controversy should have been handled privately with moderators.