Search


EroTopicon


Kinky Attire


Other Blogs

Comments

  • Vibrating Feeldoes
    We've tested just about every double-ended harness-compatible dildo available, and they all leave something to be desired UNTIL NOW. The FeelDoe is the best double-ended dildo we have ever seen!
  • Aneros Prostate Massagers
    Made of top-grade stainless steel, polished to a gleaming finish. Ideal for male milking.
  • CB-3000 Male Chastity Kits
    The CB-3000 represents the latest design in modern male chastity devices from the same designers who invented the best-selling CB-2000 and The Curve.
  • ErosTek Digital Power Unit
    Whether you've been into electrostim for awhile or are just getting started, there is something to be said about having the best and safest equipment.

« Online matchmaking sites • Home • Citizens Against Pornography vs. A&F »

Suicidegirls. com

• Amorous Web, Cyber Sex

The rise of Suicide Girls is a study in buzz. As a collection of nude and semi-nude photos, it's unremarkable, a lightweight in a bottomless industry. Guests can see much of the site for free, but to view the entire archive of 12,755 pictures they have to pony up $4 a month. Yet Suicide Girls distinguishes itself from the typical softcore porn site with its ever-expanding discussion threads, web logs (blogs) ...

Website devoted to punk, goth and emo girls in various states of undress

The DVD

Richard Evans Lee
March 24, 2003 •
BlinkList • del.icio.us • Digg it • Furl • ma.gnolia • Netvouz
RawSugar • Shadows • Simpy • Spurl • Yahoo MyWeb
Top↑

Comments

The owners of Suicidegirls are right wing conservatives, especially Sean Suicide. They rip off the models by offering lifetime membership, which isn't true once they are kicked off the site. They are paid quite low than any other adult modeling website. They also are racist zionist. They shove their Israeli right wing views on their members and if no one agrees they instantly terminate membership. THey also give 10% of membership fees to the IDF.

Posted by: Revelation | June 7, 2003 05:47 PM

I am a member of Suicide-girls.com and the only thing that I've been exposed to since I joined is a plethora of interesting people possessing a shared disposition in an un-accepting society, and who enjoy being part of a community that not only accepts any deviation from the status quo, but encourages it. And as to the comment about forcing views on their members, The worst I've seen is the occasional music snob who still is more respectful of other opinions than those on any other medium for social conditioning, namely television the right wing weapon of choice, since you've decided to label them so. The reason I've joined Suicide-girls is not for the nudity, in fact now that I'm a member I often forget that is even a feature. I joined because each person in each group available, such as philosophy, drama, poetry, or support groups, offers an artistic part of them self. It may be a photograph, a painting, a poem or short story, even the nude pictures you so quickly label pornography are largely meant to be an outlet for the member to express him/herself. I am opposed to conventional pornography, probably for different reasons, but surely just as much as you are. But when I look at something as ridiculous as Playboy magazine or the fashion magazines you can buy on any news stand, which I would argue are just as bad, then turn my head and see the ugly realities of our country's violent way of life, I can't help but think that mixing the two to create the type of images that are seen in many of the forums in suicide-girls.com makes a valuable statement. That is what appeals to me. By the way Suicide-girls is in no way a political website, and although it's members sometimes do, it isn't trying to make any sort of direct political statements. I am a political science major transferring to Berkeley next fall and I've been living and breathing politics for so long that my perception of issues naturally tends to twist in that direction. So I apologies for the tangent, but I just think that labeling this site as mere pornography is a bit obtuse when given a fair comparison. I would also like to know where Revelation got his/her information because it is an obvious exaggeration.

Posted by: Chris A. | August 25, 2003 08:10 AM

For more EX-SG User and EX-SG Model experiences, please visit: http://www.livejournal.com/community/sgirls

Posted by: Sgirls | August 27, 2003 05:19 AM

Do you have a source saying that Suicide Girls is a racist Zionist cult or are you simply pulling the 'facts' from your ass?

Posted by: Kami | November 5, 2003 10:46 PM

I am a former model and have to agree with everythign that that the first person had to say about it. The owner in the end acts like a pimp more than a business owner. Sure the site is great and unlike other porn sites, yet when someone comes to some sort of disagreeance they are terminated despite them paying fot the site. I modeled with them for a year and after I took photos for a friend who has another site I was terminated and my "lifetime" membership gone. Their contracts are pure blashphemy

Posted by: nala | November 10, 2003 08:42 PM

Dear Posters: Please Please Please learn how to spell. Your posts make it difficult for others to understand when your writing is so full of errors and confusing syntax. Even those going to Berkeley! Jennifer Maher Department of Gender Studies Indiana University, Bloomington

Posted by: Jennifer Maher | November 11, 2003 10:52 AM

I've actually heard that the owners of SG are pretty possesive. They look very down on the models posing for any other sites. I don't know if they automatically boot you, but they sure as hell will hold off putting up sets. Also their contracts as far as taking complete ownership of the pictures for a "free" membership and not allowing you to have any control over them is very shady.

Posted by: No use for a name | November 15, 2003 01:58 AM

I Love Nala!

Posted by: I Love Nala | November 23, 2003 03:21 PM

i have some issues about my body but they are only skin deep.............i realy respect what you girls do............Pandora

Posted by: pandora | November 26, 2003 02:29 PM

can somebody tell me if this thing is for real... i mean it's JUST nude modeling right? no sex? How much money can you make? Is it fun. give me all the info, because i'm thinking about joining.... jen

Posted by: jen | December 17, 2003 02:02 AM

don't join. well if you want to see some pics of naked girls but there's plenty of other sites that have that..I was booted personally for modeling for fatalbeauty.com i REALLY REALLY liked the photography

Posted by: nala | December 21, 2003 04:48 AM

but i really really like the website and need some extra cash... i don't think it would be so bad... would it? Jen

Posted by: jen | December 23, 2003 07:33 PM

Whatever, the girls aren't "different", "punk", "emo" or "goth". Those are just labels for idiotic kids. It's ridiculous. Anyway, a few naked woman. Big fucking deal. It's really just a computer screen, the girls are all whores no better than a prostitute selling their body for money. Although, if I were a Beverely Hills prostitute I'd make a lot more than your emo pussy model tramp. Shit. Fuck suicide girls, they're a pathetic bunch!

Posted by: Bloop | December 24, 2003 06:08 PM

Bloop: Further hate speech directed against sex workers, whether they sell their bodies or their photos will be deleted. Weblog Owner

Posted by: Richard (Pansexual Sodomite) | December 25, 2003 08:37 AM

I found suicide girls interesting for about 5 minutes then I realized it was a paysite. Then Like Bloop I thought oh a bunch of girls selling sex. However unlike Bloop I am not a hypocrite. The reason I know The girls are more is because I am interested in the Goth Punk whatever scene and I saw what these girls are up to. I just wish the girls would start their own site that involved the same writing and pictures possibly without the video stuff as Suicide girls that was free, but I understand the girls need money like anyone else. And certainly anyone who has half a mind to go into hateful posts on the Suicide Girls has to be more than half interested in the subject as there is certainly more graphic and prolific subjects to force your views upon. I cant help but consider anyone who goes into the subject as having more than a passing interest in it as it takes at least 5 minutes to write a post hence a repressed urge.

Posted by: Kinring | January 3, 2004 05:47 AM

i was also debating on whether or not to model for sg, mostly for the extra cash -- but now i'm reconsidering. are there any paying sites that are similar, other than fatalbeauty?

Posted by: T | January 10, 2004 10:35 PM

Wow, i hate the site but for the fucker who claimed all nude models are whore.... if i knew who u were, i'd find u and stick my boot so far up your ass you'd be screaminb bloody murder. no reason to say such things. love, "the whore" what the fuck is so whorish about taking nude photos?

Posted by: nala | January 22, 2004 01:33 PM

Grr I applied for the site and they said that I'd passed the first stage of the application process and that they looked forward to getting every thing they needed from me so I could become a Suicide Girl. I sent them everything and they still haven't gotten back to me. It has been weeks. I feel jipped. I sent them all my photos for my set and everything. I guess they just rejected me. I really wanted to see Nala's photo set. She's so pretty!

Posted by: Periwinkle | January 23, 2004 05:34 AM

I was a member of SG for a year or so. The models are good & the photography is usually good too, but increasingly the models are not in the least bit "alternative". I left because I was fed up of seeing friends and models banned for expressing their opinions. Having experience of the site, I agree with everything the first poster said.

Posted by: Smatt | February 3, 2004 02:56 PM

Well it turns out SuicideGirls is corporate owned by PlayBoy. So really, is this authentic? I don't think so! They are the Hot Topic of porn.

Posted by: 808 | February 5, 2004 08:57 PM

dear nala~ i love you to death. but i hate calling you nala. love~sara

Posted by: sara | February 5, 2004 11:56 PM

I joined SG a few months ago. Not an actuall Suicide Girl, just a member. I have yet to see any discrimination for voicing your opinions. Or have yet to see anyone get kicked off for any reason. I see nothing wrong with the site in general either. So you want to put pictures of yourself up there, go for it. The pictures are very tastefuly taken, and besides that, you are the one who will be the final judge on which pictures end up on your profile. They have meetings/get togethers so that you can meet your fellow "friends" or other people in your area. I think its no different than any other pay site like livejournal.com or deadjournal.com, other than you are able to post pictures in your profile.

Posted by: Chi | February 7, 2004 07:15 PM

Live Journal is free. As much as I prefer pretty boys I am willing to post reviews of sites if the maintainer will provide a short-term pass to member features.

Posted by: Richard | February 7, 2004 07:22 PM

what annoys me about suicide girls is that it tries to pretend its different from the major porn companies. Just because the girls have piercings, dyed hair and list lots of alternative bands in their profile doesn't make it any different. it's still objectifying women and aparently ripping them off aswell. it's no better than the image created for women to feel that they have to live upto by playboy pinups, just now they're attacking a new market. i'm pretty sure it'll end up making a whole load of annoying people pretend they like some of my favourite bands just because some suicide girl liked it. it belittles the music.

Posted by: ka-click | February 23, 2004 02:24 AM

I have gradually been going off suicidegirls as the girls started to become thinner and more mainstream 'alternative' and the photoshoots have become more bland. It seems to me like any of the models on the site who are not skinny and traditionally beatiful are there as tokens. The news that the owners are so possesive as well as facist sadly does not shock me. Note: if you are a member, try checking out the 'proganda' spread in the feminists group on the recent playboy venture.

Posted by: dubious | February 24, 2004 06:32 PM

I've found there to be 3 really great sites in this Genre-- www.eroticbpm.com is a strong site and treats their girls and community really well. www.fatalbeauty.com offers similar site-features to SuicideGirls but the photos are incredibly classy and quite artistic. www.manicjane.com is somewhere right in the middle of the other two, with a *free* and friendly forum to interact with the models. between those three sites, you really can't go wrong.

Posted by: astroglide | March 2, 2004 06:39 PM

jen: suicidegirls pays alot more per set of photos than other sites, about $300. however, there are so many suicidegirls that they may only buy a set from you once a year, or possibly never again. i agree with astroglide: i've had a very good experiences modelling with manicjane.com, eroticbpm.com, and thatstrangegirl.com. i can't claim to know anything about fatalbeauty firsthand, they seem like a good site but i think you have to be in the SF/Portland area to model for them.

Posted by: Vix | March 2, 2004 06:45 PM

Hi Nala! I didnt know this was here... woah. Another place for people to argue. As if the Boards/Forums werent enough...Im just gonna sit and smile :)

Posted by: Aries | March 19, 2004 07:20 PM

-SG is not run by racist, right wing pimps. -The models on SG are contractually bound to an agreement which states that SG has the right to archive you or purchase sets from you less frequently if you do pose for other sites, espically those which are in direct competition. -SG is not owned by Playboy, it is a privately owned company. It seems that a lot of people seem to overlook the fact that SuicideGirls.com is a business, and just like any other business, it's owners need to watch for the best interests of the company. Its not for you to decide what is right and what is wrong for their business venture. If you don't like it or agree with their practices, then don't pay the membership fees and don't visit the url. Its a fairly easy concept that few seem to grasp. I understand that there have been some models from SG that have been scorned in the past, some (including Nala) are my friends. But unfortunately, it still goes back to the fact that there is a contact signed at the start of your relationship with the site and violation of it can lead to unhappy or unfriendly outcomes.

Posted by: fractal | March 19, 2004 07:44 PM

I think some of you people are out of line ..despite some of the things that go on at SG some people should not complain...we are treated well ..at least I have been..and though they may not agree with some of our professions ..I belive it is a personal decision that an individual must make...not because it hurts someone else's feelings... Suicide Girls is my Hobby they treat me well I have no problems or issues with SG I will remain loyal those are my decisions they only deal with me no one else I make up no one else's mind for them. So everyone just pick a side..and don't preach about it ..keep your will to yourself..and do your will at your own discression without hurting others ~Amelia

Posted by: Amelia | March 19, 2004 08:45 PM

yep. i agree with whatever fractal says. the book will be lovly. love annie

Posted by: anniesuicide | March 22, 2004 09:17 PM

Blah blah blah blah blah. I was a member over a year before I became an SG. I think the site is great. Notice how all the bitter people are the ones leaving rude comments about SG. Real mature. AS far as Bloop goes..I pity he/she. Sounds like somebody has some insecurities there. WAH WAH WAH. The end.

Posted by: Kimmi | March 22, 2004 10:18 PM

the "SG is a community" aspect is what scares me. i know most of the members are women, i know the models style their own shoots, and from what I’ve seen the sets are lovely. i also know lots of friends are made from the site and it brings people together. HOWEVER. for the models, entrance into and sustenance in the 'community' means posing semi-nude. wow, what a great community! i'll take my clothes off, you just show up with a credit card, and we'll be pals and equals! Hooray, how 'empowering' that is. Even if these women want to do the work and don't feel exploited, as a woman I feel exploited by association. Women can contribute as much to our own oppression as men can. It's my opinion that, if you're a woman, you're either in or you're out in terms of representing women in a positive way. I wish these women would think about the effects of continuing to actively participate in the idea that the world is one big beauty contest with women as the contestants. It may be done in better taste and with more realistic-looking models than at other sites, but it’s the same old shit, and even more dangerous because it comes with a veil of being somehow progressive and less degrading. Less degrading than Hustler, sure! That doesn’t make it harmless. If these girls were anywhere near as forward thinking as they (sorry, generalization, forgive) purport to be, they wouldn’t need an army of internet buddies to tell them over and over again how beautiful they are. Get the pictures done for yourself, ladies! Find other venues for meeting each other, venues where your boobs aren’t the ticket in. just my two cents...no offense intended to SGs or any other souls.

Posted by: old fart | March 31, 2004 02:05 PM

SG and Playboy does at least cooperate in some way: http://www.playboy.com/girlpages/suicidegirls/ Quote: "courtesy of our new partner, SuicideGirls.com".

Posted by: Htapssalc | April 8, 2004 09:44 AM

Further note to Jen: There is a massive backlog of Limbo girls, annd you do not get paid until your set goes up. Some girls have been in Limbo 6-8 months. If you need extra cash, i would suggest you get a pay by the hour job.

Posted by: styg | April 9, 2004 03:03 PM

"i know most of the members are women" no they're not. do a search on the hook-ups page. there are way more men then women.

Posted by: x | April 9, 2004 04:56 PM

if youre a suicidegirl, you get a free " lifetime " membership to sg, but lifetime DOESNT mean forever. i totally understood it when i read it. lifetime pretty much means " the lifetime on the site " i'm just saying this because a lot of ex girls have complained that thier " lifetime " memberships expired. well, if they boot you off SG, how and why should you be entitled to a free membership? really.. it made sense to me.

Posted by: ..yeah | April 10, 2004 05:14 AM

that's one of the stats the site's owner brings up in interviews as evidence that the site is different...that the membership is 56% women. : 0

Posted by: old fart | April 10, 2004 11:05 PM

Just to clear up a bit of the misinformation posted by fractal :) "-SG is not run by racist, right wing pimps." Sort of true. Pimp? No. No matter how much Sean Suhl refers to Suicide Girls as whores, it doesn't actually make him a pimp. Right-wing: he's a self-proclaimed neconservative. You claiming he's not right-wing when he claims he is seems, well, unconvincing. Racist? I'll just post this link http://suicidegirls.com/news/politics/1453/ And let readers decide for themselves. Last one I suppose would be the claim that while Sean Suhl may be demonstrably all these things, he's not the owner of the site. It's owned by Missy. Again, wrong The business registy entry for SG Sean Suhl, sole corporate officer. Quelle surprise. SG just present Missy as the "owner/operator" because they're dishonest: "women owned and operated" makes SG's brand of porn much more acceptable in alterna-culture than the truth. "Misogynistic racist right wingnut owned-and-operated" doesn't get you quite as much sympathetic coverage. Finally, the "SG is a business" line of crap; that's a straw man. The problem people have isn't that SG is run as a business, and they're not criticising it's businesslike behavior. It's that it's run unethically. Being a business doesn't excuse unethical and dishonest behavior. Lots of people appear to get confused about that, but honestly, I don't think they're really confused. They know they're associating with and supporting dishonest behavior. You'd have to be a real raving moron not to, but if they face up to the fact, it becomes harder to maintain their self-image, so a quick slight-of-conscience becomes necessary. It's called casuistry.

Posted by: ninjacodemonkey | April 11, 2004 08:20 AM

dude! thanks ninja. and on another note: though it's irritating, in a way it is a feminist victory that so many of the site's proponents seek to (weakly) defend it in feminist terms. at the end of the day, they must know it ain't good for the world.

Posted by: old fart | April 11, 2004 01:24 PM

It isn't bad for the world either, old fart. People have used, exploited, celebrated their physical charms for millenia and the planet still spins its merry way.

Posted by: Tight Sweater | April 11, 2004 08:41 PM

what? ooh, i'm annoyed now. firstly: i mean sg isn't good for the world, and in no way mentioned the entire community of people/things/animals celebrating their charms or whatever you're referring to. secondly: the fact that the world keeps spinning while an activity continues is no testament to that activity's lack of crappiness. i didn't say sg could stop the gravitational pull of the sun! I said it's degrading to women = not good for the world!!! christ on a crutch! goddamn.

Posted by: old fart | April 12, 2004 12:13 PM

my god you people need to get a life. i don't see how a women getting naked degrades women. men get naked for sites as well. does that mean it is degrading to men. NO! if you don't like it, don't look at it. you will find more degredation of the feminist movemnet if you go to your local club where most women act like tarts all the time and have one night stands. it isn't only men that do that. this is why there is so much std in the world. and your complianing about a few women that want to through there own chioce pose nude. if you don't like the site don't go there. i'm on the site and i love it. i've met loads of people, including sg's, and they haven't complained a bit about it. it's not a job for alot of them cause they'd have to get a set up every week for that. the one's i've met said it's more of a hobbie. no more than going to a nudist camp. and the fact that sean is right wing makes no difference. everyone is entitled to there view on how the world should be. if it bothers you that much then just don't go to the site. i don't like certain things in this world but you can't change them. with such a wide and diverse world of people, there are always going to be groups of people that have a view that you won't like. just live with it and get on with life.

Posted by: gothicwolf | May 8, 2004 06:47 AM

Ninja, Old Fart, Revelation and anyone else with a counterpoint to the gleaming media image that is SuicideGirls - please contact me. Click on the above name to send me an email. I am researching at the moment and would like to hear more about your experiences and observations.

Posted by: Interested | May 20, 2004 03:40 PM

send me a message skankmag@hotmail.com thanks

Posted by: Interested | May 20, 2004 03:42 PM

How do I get in touch with someone to become a suicide girl. If you want to see what I look like I am on the website eastcoastghost.com under the listing of bondage clothing. I had black short hair at the time dark eyes and a black shirt saying too young to die. You can see my tatoos across my chest and some of my arm. Can someone write back and give me some info. Thanks riot grl

Posted by: Riot Girl | May 29, 2004 01:58 AM

gothicwolf, that's not a very good argument. "If you don't like it, don't look?" I don't like the Bush administration. Guess I'll sigh, stop voting, and stop watching the news! GREAT idea. And also, people are making points that sg is degrading, and that affects the lives of ALL women, whether or not the sg's themselves feel degraded. They want the attention too much to think about the consequences of fueling the beauty myth/evil sorority machine. I guess. By the way, people who devote so much time/energy to a faux punk nudie website should refrain from telling other people to 'get a life.'

Posted by: huh? | July 6, 2004 12:49 PM

huh? ; "gothicwolf, that’s not a very good argument. “If you don’t like it, don’t look?” I don’t like the Bush administration. Guess I’ll sigh, stop voting, and stop watching the news! GREAT idea" whoever you are I want you to know that was just perfect otherwise...we should do something for a better world... not just live like parasites ught disgusting

Posted by: alias | July 28, 2004 06:34 AM

This is depressing. I have been searching through the net trying to find a way to contact one of the SG models without paying a fee. Yes, I realise SG is a buisness trying to make money, but hey, if I can get something for free, then they weren't paying close enough attention. I finally get close to what I am looking for and lo and behold I have to wade through all this CRAP! Nothing personal to any of you posters(and yes I realise I am adding to the aforementioned pile), but please! First, the site in question has for a hook........ NAKED. WOMEN. Frankly that is what attracted me to the site..., DUH. If someone finds this offensive, scew em'. They are not the one posing, and they are not the one looking( or are they?). This is a free country and what a person decides to do is up to them ( unless they are a minor, and if anyone is a minor here we have a diffrent sort of problem). Maybe they are not getting the best deal. So what, is someone forcing them to do this against thier will? Probably not(if you are being forced, please contact the authorites or at least get some friends together and make sure they can't find the bodies) Otherwise, if you are so offended by naked women you can leave the site alone and GO. BACK. TO. YOUR. OWN. LIFE. What's that you say? If we ignore this then we might as well ignore the other problems in life; Like Bush? Get real, if you are comparing someone showing a litle skin with a man who is most likley a puppet for his father's ambitions (ex head of the CIA, who still gets daily updates from that org. by the way), then you need therapy. You are only proving what an uptight, sexually repressed society this really is. SECOND. I do agree that objectifying women is a sexist, demeaning thing to do. We stand up and talk about our rights to do what we want, but often forget just what kind of legacy we leave for our decendants. I have a two and a half year old son, and it does bother me that he may grow up to be a male chauvnist pig. If I can teach him to treat women like he would want men to treat his mom, then I would be proud. In our rush to get where we are going we often lose sight of the ways in which we affect one another. It is sad that this company uses objectification to make money. It is a sad commentary on human nature that even though they make thier living off the swaet of another humans brow, as it were, they might not treat those people in the way they would hope to be treated. I guess it is just human nature. But wait.... Is that all that is going on here? You who complain about objectification, how many other forms of porn(hard or soft) put the viewer in direct contact with the thoughts and feelings of the viewed? When we can put a picture of a naked woman(or man) in such a medium that we are afforded the opportunity to NOT see them as just a breast, NOT see them as just a two dimensional prop in our lives. Maybe then we might just be on our way to making ourselves just a little better as a society. As well, how many times have you heard people talk about thier crappy jobs? How they are underpaid and over worked for what they do to get a paycheck? Try asking them if thier boss lets them have a forum to express themselves as a person? If I could go to my crappy job tomorrow and accually meet people I wanted to talk to , argue with, or just enjoy shooting the shit with without my boss telling me to "get back to work"; I would be elated! Maybe we get to caught up in ferreting out something to rail against instead of searching for the positive things that can accually help us to get through another day. Like Voltaire said, "we must tend our gardens". DAMN, now I got off track. What I was here for was to see if I could find a way to get to Fractal without paying a fee. I know you don't like to be touched but I hope you meant that in a strictly physical manner. Don't get me wrong, from what I saw you have delightfully touchable bits that I will probably revisit tonight in my dreams. But more so, I find you interesting, engaging and not in the least the average heard beast(no slight to the more hum-drum women out there). Most people focus more on the bark pressed against thier noses instead of the wider, often more confusing view of the forest around them. SO, I was wondering if you might allow me to drop you a line now and then as I think you might have an interresting view of the world. If so, you can reply here (unless you have changed your e mail add. since last year, I already have it).

Posted by: fortnibras | August 2, 2004 12:39 AM

lol. i liked the bush comparison! (no pun intended on bush). and i think the issue here is about feuling sexism, which is a huge problem, and not 'someone showing a little skin.' Just because a person doesn't like seeing women objectified -- and they are so rampantly you probably barely recognize it anymore...it's just part of our culture) or just plain getting their whole identity off of their looks (which must fall into a certain very narrow category) then you must be prudish and wear clothes when you shower or something? i'm so sure. i'm as sexual a person as you'd ever want to meet, and i think sg is sexist crap. i don't want it banned or anything(free speech first) but i think it's bullshit that so many girls want to do it and call it something new and freeing...same shit new day. that is all.

Posted by: delilah | August 19, 2004 11:45 PM

Look, I understand that you feel S.G. is promoting sexist crap, in some ways I agree. But since when is looking at the human body something to be ashamed of? I mean come on, speaking strictly of what we are intrested in, why should we be ashamed of expressing these desires? I don't think there was ever a time that I was ever upset with a girlfriend for looking at an attractive male. Oh sure I may have felt envious of what they had that made women look at them, but I see that as a deficiency in my own psychological makeup, rather than a failing in them. Take a look at the countries that we consider our socialogical equals. How many of them do not blink an eye when it comes to nudity? What we need to ask is why do we? Is there somthing inherently wrong with seeing a naked person? I say again, we are a sexually repressed society, we were started by colinists who burned people for heresy, not making a pact with the devil, but not agreeing that our god was the right one(you will note that no matter how people talk about seperation of curch and state, we still have polititions saying "it dosen't matter what god you belive in,.. "). Look I understand that you do not feel that this is an acceptable form of expression for people to make, but can you belive in an america that does not nessicarily agree whith your ideas of what is moral? That does not agree in your idea of what they should be? I once read a statement, "I have never seen someone trying to get a law passed to stop themselves from doing what they thought was wrong, only those to get people to stop what they thought others should not do". Is this the best rule that we can find for the land of the "free"? I would fight to the death to protect your idea of how your life should be run(and yes, I have put my life on the line in more than one situation to preserve this ideal), but I would fight you to the death to preserve the rights of another whom you did not feel had a right to order thier life in thier own way. The motto of the US ARMY "This we'll defend". As did others "To this we pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor". If you do not know to what this references, you should reread the Declaration of Independance, and reflect upon the spirit with which it was written.

Posted by: fortnibras | September 8, 2004 02:52 AM

I just had a thought, have you payed attention to the daily writings of these people or have you only focused on the pictures? Of all the things that have intrested me since I first found the site, I have payed far more attention to the writtings of these people. Check out Kalischild, Fractal and others. If all you see is naked pictures, not the minds that have contrived to present these lustfull images then you have missed the most intriguing parts. I have copied only one of these photos for othes to see, while I have copied many, many pages of thoughts for others to see. What is it that you see? Only naked people? Only that?

Posted by: fortnibras | September 8, 2004 03:46 AM

okay. fortinbras, i have no problem with nudity (i'm an artist, and look at/draw nekkid people all the time). It's that the SGs entrance into their community is based on their nudity and their appearances (all else -- intelligence, sass, coolness, is secondary). if everyone -- girls, boys, everybody in between, and of all sizes and types, were required to be naked in photos on the site, that would be fine w/me. Let me put it this way: imagine if instead of a website the community were my own group of friends, in real life, and we all had intelligent conversation (i'm sure some SGs are intelligent and thoughtful, as you've said. i've met some who are complete boneheads too, but boneheads exist in every sample of people). So anyway, I'm in this group of friends and we're all buddies and talk about relationships and sex and music and Donnie Darko and so on. HOWEVER, i'm the only one naked at our events. everyone else just shows up with a credit card to pay to look at me (and hear me talk, i guess) and we chill out and they tell me how hot i am in my fishnets? that's just such an old and lame way for women to relate to people/get attention/get praise. and it's really tiring. so even if you think you're a rebel free spirit nudist, you're really just doing the same old tired schtick women have felt they've had to do for years. Some of us are tired of that, and that's why SG is irritating. Because SGs are all rahrah, we're so free, we're so daring, when in fact they are taking the most conservative, time-weathered approach to female societal roles ever -- "look at me and my body, it's my number one asset! and now that i'm here because of my body, please read my poetry." i can't say i blame SGs for taking that route to make friends/feel good about themselves/feel sexy...we all want those things. I just think that's a weak way to go about it, and not good for the status of women in general.

Posted by: delilah | September 11, 2004 04:07 PM

AAARGh. Hasn't this argument gone on at least fifty year? The key word here is Portland. San Francisco in the 60's. Seattle in the 90's. Portland. Now let us discuss the relations of production. You have a bunch of young people living on ramen noodles and brown rice and who have a need for quick monry so the can eat and (if they're artists or students) still have lots of free time. You have a guy selling porn claiming to be doing something artistic and community oriented.Think Nugget Magazine hiring Kerouac to improve their image. I'd love to bea able to enjoy this stuff without thinking about the process but I've been around too long. And how many of the models(since Fatal Beauty features boys too)are supporting a street family or household that isn't supporting them?

Posted by: Dharma's Dad | September 17, 2004 07:53 PM

I would just like to say that i think SG is great. I is what Playboy used to be, when women were admired for their beauty. I think they're are so many beautiful women on the site (Mary, i love you! Mwah!) Fuck you all who say it's shit. Wake up!

Posted by: ben | September 30, 2004 07:54 PM

Delilah, I do agree that in a community of people the one getting paid to be naked would be an attraction, a show. Only the truth is I don't pay, I don't get to look at these photos (other than the free promotional ones). What I am interested in is thier logs written daily which are free to read. I do wish I could communicate with them and exchange ideas, but the truth is I read logs written by many people. I found one written by a woman who has a degree in lit., and since I truly liked the style of her writting I took five minutes to track her down years later in time and on the other side of the country. I wanted to know if she had continued to write especially in book form. Well, she did not find this amusing, and in fact it put her off (to say the least, the log I originally read was quickly shut down). The point is, although she had written this log in a verry public forum it had not really occured to her that some one might connect her life with what she put out there. This led to much contemplation about what people people get out posting thoughts, art, ideas and yes even pictures of thier sweaty little bodies. The conclusion I have come to is it is none of my business why they do what they do or even what I personally think of the adviseability of what they do, but only if I find something (no matter how small or large) interesting or appealing. I am not a boxing fan and I am assuredly am not a fan of Nazi Germany, yet in the coming together of an aging boxer (who was a tool of Nazi propaganda) and the despicable event of Christalnacht, this boxer hid two jewish children from the mobs. I can't say I approve of the man or his beliefs, and I abhore the situation, but the single act, this I find precious. In an ever increasing world of connectivity, should we ignore the precious things that are there simply because we don't like the wrappings they come in? I read many logs now, not because I want to be a part of thier siuation, but because I can find things that I can take with me in my personal gestalt. The truth is while we may have many opinions about what we encounter, we are not really a part of them but more like observers in the backdrop of our lives. If I do participate it does not mean that I am even welcome, I become simply part of the backdrop of thier lives. Where does the impression that my opinion means anything more than that come from? Most likley from inside, only. Which is why I try to appreciate, or tune out.

Posted by: fortnibras | October 30, 2004 10:03 AM

well I used to love SG when my favourite girl nala was on there but suicide girls messed it up and she went to fatal beauty and I found a new site called metalbitches.com that she also seems involved with - I follow her because I love and respect her character. I never just saw things as simply porn but more intriging people who have a grace about them; it may be altrenative so it means its not going to be everybodys taste now is it?

Posted by: welcome angel | November 13, 2004 12:01 PM

I remember getting into this HUGE fight with the members and models, because i told them they needed a few plus size models. The average girl is a size 12, but the largest on suicidegirls is a 10. (and this is a size quote from the models themselves) How is that representing anything? I much prefer manicjane.com, at least they show what beauty really is- an it's not measured in inches.

Posted by: Jinx | November 23, 2004 05:47 PM

Who cares who owns them. Who goes to the site for anything other than hot chicks? It is just a Playboy mag for the 21st century.

Posted by: I Love Them All | September 13, 2005 08:35 PM

I am a godsgirl...i was a burningangel and fuck i was even asked to be a Suicide girl... after consulting a friend who was an SG model she gave me a very negative description of her time modeling for them in addition to some scary stories of things they had done...i decided not go to in that direction... i had more respect for burningangel because it was female owned and oporated...for fucks sake she was on the site.. in addition i had a few friends that were on the site and i thought it might be fun... i had 3 sets up on BA.com however when i moved across the country it didnt seem practical... i did it to express myself... not even for the money although i certainly got paid more than i would have as an SG i also got better photos... well i got here and a few months after i moved to CA..my friend told me she was going to start a site... artistic erotica with an amazing fashion photographer... it was going to be amazing she wanted me to be the lead model... i said okay..i have now done extensive shoots for them as well as have found them amazing girls... the site will be up in october and i believe it is the best thing yet... she pays the girls better than any site... we have a nice little family system, we all hang out and help eachother out... in addition some of suicide girls biggest girls such as KATIE SUICIDE (who recently left due to disagreements) Kelly suicide( who after word of her shoots with GG was archived ..she is nolonger paid will never do another sg shoot...) and APNEA whom you all know ... Godsgirls lets the girls live their lives and are proud of eachother for all their endeavors no matter what they are and even if they are another site... we are the best of the best... suicide girls doesnt like godsgirls too much...but their models do :D I am a godsgirl...i was a burningangel and fuck i was even asked to be a Suicide girl... after consulting a friend who was an SG model she gave me a very negative description of her time modeling for them in addition to some scary stories of things they had done...i decided not go to in that direction... i had more respect for burningangel because it was female owned and oporated...for fucks sake she was on the site.. in addition i had a few friends that were on the site and i thought it might be fun... i had 3 sets up on BA.com however when i moved across the country it didnt seem practical... i did it to express myself... not even for the money although i certainly got paid more than i would have as an SG i also got better photos... well i got here and a few months after i moved to CA..my friend told me she was going to start a site... artistic erotica with an amazing fashion photographer... it was going to be amazing she wanted me to be the lead model... i said okay..i have now done extensive shoots for them as well as have found them amazing girls... the site will be up in october and i believe it is the best thing yet... she pays the girls better than any site... we have a nice little family system, we all hang out and help eachother out... in addition some of suicide girls biggest girls such as KATIE SUICIDE (who recently left due to disagreements) Kelly suicide( who after word of her shoots with GG was archived ..she is nolonger paid will never do another sg shoot...) and APNEA whom you all know ... Godsgirls lets the girls live their lives and are proud of eachother for all their endeavors no matter what they are and even if they are another site... we are the best of the best... suicide girls doesnt like godsgirls too much...but their models do :D <3 jane-danger myspace.com/godsgirls

Posted by: kayla-jane-danger | September 14, 2005 02:47 AM

looking for punk, goth or emo girls who want to have slutty fun in the los angeles area. i'm a cool, fit, fun vampyre. find me at mahatadse1 at aol

Posted by: choker | September 26, 2005 02:06 PM

I just think the whole thing is really very very sad. It's all just about wanking at the end of the day.

Posted by: londonpx | October 5, 2005 12:00 AM

Best comment: The site is run by right-wing conservatives. What, as opposed to all those Marxist conservatives? And the IDF, incidentally, isn't like the Red Cross. One can not "give money" to the Israeli military.

Posted by: mm | October 9, 2005 09:07 PM

Its very interesting the meanings of this website: Its a media spectacle. Its just a modern Playboy. Its a pay-to-participate program for woman in communities. Its a metaphor for the voting poll for or against the Bush Administration. Its a business. Its a right-wing something as represented by its male owner/pimp/or "part owner" or whatever his real life day-today role is. Its a betrayer of "lifetime" member contracts. Its a community of blogs and journals by interesting people. Its a group of posers who only think they are edgy but are really mainstream. Its degrading to women. Its empowering to women. It makes women money. It doesn't make women enough money to make a living. Its not really about the women its about the community. Its just about wanking. So who cares what I think? I'm a community member because I need to filter out invasive puritans in my life. Best way I've found so far. Thats all.

Posted by: Alex | November 27, 2005 02:55 PM

Monthly Summaries

June 2006, May 2006, April 2006, March 2006, February 2006, January 2006, December 2005, November 2005, October 2005, September 2005, August 2005, July 2005, June 2005, May 2005, April 2005, March 2005, February 2005, January 2005, December 2004, November 2004, October 2004, September 2004, August 2004, July 2004, June 2004, May 2004, April 2004, March 2004, February 2004, January 2004, December 2003, November 2003, October 2003, September 2003, August 2003, July 2003, June 2003, May 2003, April 2003, March 2003, February 2003, January 2003, December 2002, November 2002,