FYI, JPG Magazine thinks pubic hair is genitalia

I got this in an email from JPG Magazine today (emphasis mine):

Michael –

Thanks for participating in JPG, but your photo, “Shadow Play,” had to be removed from the site. Some of the most frequent reasons for removal are:

* Inappropriate content. We’re okay with artful nudes, but no genitalia.

Please be sure to read the photo guidelines before uploading again.

http://jpgmag.com/about/photos.html

Note that once a photo has been deleted from the site, it’s gone. It cannot be reviewed again.

Please don’t take this personally - it’s not! We just want to keep the JPG site focused on the kind of photography that we print in JPG Magazine. Try again with a different photo!

Thanks,

– Paul, JPG Editor
http://jpgmag.com

ps - Do not upload the same photo again.

WTF? Genitalia?

Here is the photo they removed:

Shadow Play

OK, yeah, the pubic hair is clearly visible. Is that genitalia? Well, I don’t think so, obviously. I’ve read JPG’s posting guidelines. I thought about it before I posted this photo. But I remember thinking to myself, “Um, self, this surely isn’t what they mean by genitalia. Is it?”

Well, yes, apparently it is.

I don’t want to go on too much of a rant here. I like JPG Magazine, and they have the right to publish whatever they think is fit. But maybe genitalia isn’t the right word to use in their posting guidelines. C’mon, there must be a million better, less subjective words they could use.

So anyway, dear readers, what do you think? Is pubic hair genitalia or not?

Previous Post: This isn’t news, but… I kick ass!
Next Post: An early Christmas present!

Viewing 2 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Heya! This is Jason S. from 8020 Publishing and JPG.

    I think you're absolutely right, we do need to be more clear about what we mean by "no genitalia photos." To give you some back story, that got added to the guidelines around the time we launched the Beauty Redefined theme for Issue 10, which was sponsored by Suicide Girls. We weren't looking for SG-esque pictures but man, we got a bunch. A lot of us took turns watching what was getting uploaded and deleting that which was over the top. I dubbed it "genitalia watch" and we perhaps got focused on that word, which for all I know may have influenced how the additional guideline got written.

    It's something we've been thinking about the last couple of weeks here in the office (as you're not the only photographer to bring this up!). While I don't think anyone working on JPG would mistakenly think that all nudity is explicitly sexual, we do have people from all over the world, and of all age groups, using the site. That doesn't give us any specific legal concerns, but it does become very difficult to draw the line between what's artful nudity and what's pornographic. Combine that with the fact that there's only a handful of us here able to sort through every photo that gets posted to JPG, and it becomes impossible to make these kinds of editorial decisions without drawing a hard line somewhere.

    Christi posted a clarification to the blog, but of course not everyone reads the blog, so in 2008 we intend to have clearer rules and guidelines up on the site, and hopefully better communication when a photo gets deleted.

    Thanks for sticking with us! And for voicing your concern. We're always trying to improve on what we do and how we do it.
    • ^
    • v
    Jason,

    Thanks for taking the time to respond personally to my post and for giving me some background. I'm actually surprised and delighted that you even found my little slice of the blogosphere! Usually I'm just rambling to myself over here.

    Glad to hear that you will be clarifying the guidelines this year. I really do enjoy JPG magazine, both online and in print. Keep up the good work!

    -Michael

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus