``in all naturalness

som' real sexy about the curve of a woman's back

haai lona maan.
motho o wa itse gore le tlo mo exposa like this. I don't think a ka rata at all.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, haai noooooooooooo maan.

One must be comfortable with who they are.
regardless.

1ove

Beautiful

I wonder what happened to the "tits-and-ass-brigade"...

is this image not womanly enough... or is it too womanly for their acuity???

Does their absence/ silence on this image mean that it's (exploitatively) non-lucrative???

I wonder...*

æ:"tits&ass" draw more pedestrian associations. this, i think brings out the paralysing effect of commitment phobia.

Ante, I think that this pic is the same as seeing, let's say, the Swazi reed dance. The girls are bare breasted but even as a perverted teenager I did not see this in a sexual context.

I think it's human nature to want something because it is rare, hidden in mystery, or prohibited. This picture isn't hinting or suggesting sex it's presenting the epitome of femininity.

Anyway, I guess it's like why guys aren't that turned on by girls who are sexually forceful (for lack of a better word) I mean like chicks who is on you like white on rice. It's in your face. It's not about the challenge not being there really it's just that the desire for something rare, hidden in mystery, or prohibited isn't there.

IMHO:

I'd imagine that there's a lot that's rare (an uninhibited, unclad pregnant woman); hidden in mystery (the miracle of conception, creation); prohibited (obvious) in this image --- if that was criteria to go by.

I'm intrigued as well that you suggest that this is the epitome of femininity... is this really IT???!!! (I'd love to hear others' views on this).

There generally seems to be respect (and restraint) when discussing images such as this one --- had it been a scantilly clad, full-breasted, male-fantasy-fulfilling lass... 'the phallically obtuse' would have indulged themselves ad nauseam

And the justification would have been that she wants to be appreciated. Everybody wants appreciation... but is crude, vulgar, schoolboy lechery the kind of appreciation anyone would want? Is "chick", for instance, an apt term for a being with such potential as demonstrated in this image?

*just some devilish advocacy*

strange what different views we have.
Nna, naked is naked. Whether it be a butt ugly, fat chick, or some hott mama. It's all naked (different, but the first thing that registers is that the darn woman/man is naked).
I can't really look at this picture without thinking - poor woman, does she know her body is being exposed to all at 75?
I can't help thinking, did she okay any of it.
I can't believe that anyone would have the guts to put a naked picture of somebody they know on the public domain.
She's naked. She's naked. She's naked.
Oh my GHARD!

She's naked.
Put her away, I keep thinking.
This is all too private.
No, no, no I keep thinking.
And nobody else seems to think the same way. So I'm left thinking that there's something wrong with me.

The exhibitor has said nothing.
Is he/she not here? Have you nothing to say?
I would like some answers. Please? Pretty please? Does this woman know that a naked picture of her is being exhibited?

Ah ---

The t&a (tits and ass) --- I think the reason why this photograph did not provoke a reaction of the t&a is because it does not contain such. It's composition is not suggesting sexuality but femininity (lack of a better word) and motherhood (again, lack of a better word). I think one is forced to look at the photograph in it's entirety and not the 'bits' and pieces of a human form --- I can, (and not assuming I am a curator of anything photographic) say it is a photograph and not a picture --- if that makes sense.

*clears throat

Heartwamer --- I do believe Pea did ask if 'nudity' would be a problem before this photograph was posted/uploaded --- I responded, "there are not rules, as long as no law is being broken." Now, I'd assume your gripe would be 'privacy' --- I am going to assume, that since Pea wrote: "...a woman willing to bare her soul like this friend of my sy sisters" --- I can assume Pea is familiar with the woman photographed --- and thus Pea would not violate "her sisters friends privacy", just n'je --- it is an assumption that the concept of Harmony is being implemented. BUT, invasion of privacy can include a great deal of other photographs --- even loymad's photograph can be viewed as such, even my photographs can be viewed as such --- in fact how many photographs that contain people in them (with or without their faces or 'bits' shown) can the photographer prove that 'the people in the photograph have granted them permission to publicly show the photographs? (but that has been my moral debate, ever since I pressed shutter)

Aside from that --- I do however think this photograph -- and there has been other's like it on 75 before: which contain female subjects, uploaded by male and female 'graphers, some chose to keep them, some removed them. It's up to the discretion of the 'grapher --- has a greater role in the scheme of things ---- I think it's important that it engages us in debate --- in questioning --- I'm from the school of thought that all forms of expression (dare I say, art) should not suggest answers, but beg questions of us.

Er,,, ja/no?

To be or not to be naked? I don't think there is nothing wrong with the nude pic. Won't even recognise if I see her tomorrow, I think she won't find it violating her privacy, she would have not agreed to have the snapshot. Let's all free our minds, I have seen so many vid's of R-Kelly, that *yawns* just taking it all off is kinda boring, this kinda pic's don't make me imganine lots. I say PEA, bring 'em on.

phew, i hope she knows she's on 75 though, she may know and have agreed to her photo being taken, but did she agree to be on this o so public forum? Now that's exposure

S_83: I remember well the image of the lady that was taken down last year. Context: the subject was captured a le ko party-eng in the middle of a fierce dance move (sika le kheke *I stand to be corrected). Hers was not a “t&a” debate. She was concerned that the photographer had captured what was essentially a “private” moment and made it “public”. This was clearly a lady with opposing “public” and “private” personas (as I’m sure we all have to some extent). Basically, she felt that the image of her a sika le kheke (F7) conflicted with the image she wanted to portray publicly and therefore she felt violated. We can also debate this at length and ask questions such as: “if she didn’t want to be portrayed in that manner, then why was she behaving in such a manner?” Mara intimately (and this speaks to you lebogang), do we conduct our lives as though someone’s watching, likely to capture and publish our every moment? Or do we just live? I don’t know. In this case I was conflicted. I understood how the subject could feel violated. And I also understood the ‘graphers right to publish, whatever her/his motives.

interesting debate. sometimes the basis of the (art?) is that the subject is unaware or at least ignorant of exactly how intrusive the medium can actually be. the subject's ignorance in this regard, mitigates the sense of overwhelming self consciousness that may accompany the shot if say the subject knew... (err...). i feel, as the viewer of this photograph, as if I AM violating some sacrosant space. vouyerism

@ ante - with regards to ur q bout whether the photo potrays the epitome of femininity, id say it does. as a female, i feel hore bearing a child is one of the most beautiful things ever that cant be justified with words. at the end of the day the essence of being female is being able to nurture the life of someone u only feel but have never met and love them unconditionally. so i gues it does.

im probably too late to hop in on the bandwagon, but anyway.
wow, lots of diverse views, very interesting and strong too. lebogang, i like the statement that art should beg questions and not answers. although in some ways i agree that the lady here should be made aware that the pic is on a public domain, some of us may be viewing nakedness with western/christian eyes. over time, the missionaries conquered in making us ashamed of our bodies and therefore removing very important aspects of how we as africans(i speak for us in the south), express our beauty, manhood, culture etc. more so, the long, british dresses that replaced our traditional garb were not suited for our weather. we were seen as savages, heathens when we were, in their eyes, not dressed.

i find christianity in africa quite scary. we've taken what they gave us and ran with it. even if the west itself became more liberal and less focused on the doctrine, we took it full speed ahead and continue to do so. unfortunately, sometimes it is detrimental to who we are.

i guess we are all going to disagree what the pic means and thats ok. pea hasnt responded to what he/she was intending with the image in response to what some people have questioned.

the idea of internet is another issue that we must also take into consideration. if this pic was taken in the 80s perhaps, fewer people would have had the opportunity to view it, and maybe pea wouldnt have been questioned so. would it have made taking the picture ok then? what about his (sorry pea, im assuming youre a man now) viewing? maybe our civil and international laws have not caught up to cyber space, and we are still trying to make sense of its stretch whilst placing our moral, artistic beliefs right in the middle of it.

whatever the case, and if i may, as a woman, i dont think its offensive. furthermore, as an african woman, i still dont think its offensive. shes a very beautiful lady, pregnant or not, captured on film or not. she has placed her arms over certain parts that make me assume that even though shes naked, shes still chosen to hide what she doesnt want us to see, and that still makes her the one who decides above pea.

as a photgraph, its shot well. the black and white add to the effect and the light streaming in from the back adds to the serenity of it all.

as someone who loves taking pics like all of us here, i envy the private and immortalized moment pea shared with her. not necessarily because shes naked, but because she trusted him (or her!!) and his skill in capturing her soul (as pea states).

photographers tend to be despised as leaches and invaders of privacy until we are called to duty. some do invade privacy, and some invade privacy for the good of society, whilst some capture time just for art of it.

in the end, who does this picture belong to? pea or the lady? but thats making it too serious. if she doesnt want her pic on 75, i dont think pea (or any of us) have a committed a crime, but it would be sad that if anyone of us met her and recognized her, would consider shaming her for standing nude for a mere photograph to be taken.

thats what worries me. so what if we see her dressed, she has done nothing wrong, and even if she had (although i cant see how), who are we to judge her, or pea?

phew.... im sorry i took so long i kinda didnt know that so many comments were left.

where do i start??

first of all i appreciate all the crits, opinions and comments. i cnt really beef with any of your interpretations of the pic but i would like to clarify a few things.

i am female, contrary to sum of your assumptions.... and yes i did get permission to 75 this picture or else i wouldnt have put it up.

having said that im interested if your responses are going to change

pea: thank you for the upload. debate is always grand.

lebogang: i don't think your gloating is deserved. we still haven't determined other more explicit shots. and by explicit, i mean shots where the figure is directly communicating with the audience; thus baring her soul.
perhaps that also depends on a definition of "baring her soul". she may have agreed to the publication of the shot, yet she still is holding back. her "baring of her soul" is in fact implied.

i never disbuted "permission". i think it's irrelevant really [in this instance].
my point is: although pea states that the subject afforded her persmission of publication [and the subject has] -- the subject's pose & posture do not actually reflect the notion of "soul baring". But! Semantics ...
*trails of