Hey everyone,

You may have noticed an article published today on Cherrystems in the Free Press' On7 publication. We're super excited for the attention, but just wanted to clarify a few of the terms.

We were asking not to be referred to as "porn", as that carries negative connotations for a lot of people. But that seems to be in the title of the article itself. Yipes! Cherrystems.com is a website that features pictures of men and women in various states of undress - usually alone. Women are generally only topless, and there is no sex on Cherrystems.com. There's sensuality, sexiness, and body acceptance, but we're definitely not "porn". We're celebrating nudity and the positive things that come of it. We're all adults with "real" jobs that we love. And we also love being happy with our bodies. That's more what the site is about - which I don't think really came through.

We accept sets from men and women of any persuasion - the article makes it seem like we only take alternatively styled people. We don't. We want to be representative of what's out on the street - which CAN include tattoos, coloured hair, or completely average, normal people.

The site is managed by me, Kate, by myself. My boyfriend codes the site, but does not touch management. He simply supports me, as anyone would support their live-in partner.

Also, the article mentions that we're fashioned after a site. This isn't the case, as I told the reporter. We're similar to other websites in that we feature naked people. So in that way, yes - we're similar to a lot of things. I suppose it's impossible to shake the idea that we're a ripoff site, but we're not. We're coming from our own place and have our own priorities.

Otherwise, I hope you're all enjoying your days! We're definitely super stoked about the attention! Hooray!

Cheers,
Kate.
Skinartia on Oct 3, 2010 at 11:44am:
The reporter kept saying "porn" to me during the interview and I kept saying to him that this site is not "porn", saying what you said about no sex, etc. I guess using "porn" is much more salacious and an attempt to catch readers' eyes.

Regardless, kudos, Kate! :D
Stiletto13 on Oct 3, 2010 at 3:47pm:
Hey! Just got a phone call from my BF , who bought the copy of the Free Press issue featuring the Site!
Good thing : Yes , we got the Media's attention , and the photos look great!! 8D

Bad News : He did not like the reporter's referring to us as a "Soft Porn " Site! I didn't like that reference at all , either! :p This is a total misconception of what we stand for , and the Reporter messed up on this! Fortunately , our names are not on the Photos , however , the concern over this terminology of "Soft Porn" may have some negative effects on us , whose photos are on the Pages. This is my only concern ,as to what people's interpretation of the Site and us may be when they see/ read this. Is there any way to get the Free Press to print a correction / retraction of the false terms used in the Feature??
Andrea on Oct 3, 2010 at 5:09pm:
I've already emailed the heck out of poor Kate about this, but I'm in agreement with everyone here.

It sounds like everyone contacted for the article spent an extensive amount of time explaining that we were not a porn site and even correcting him every time he used the word porn.

I'm not sure how we can amend the article other than what Kate has already done by posting this to the front page.

I was going to comment about how this might affect us at our 'real' jobs, but I don't actually know what to say.
Andrea on Oct 3, 2010 at 5:16pm:
Also, the boyfriend just pointed out that we could write a letter to the editor about the journalist integrity of Mr. Preprost, questioning his credentials and express how everyone involved has serious problems with the facts related to his article.
Skinartia on Oct 3, 2010 at 5:23pm:
All good points, Andrea. When I showed the article to my partner, he even said, "The site is *not* 'porn'; it's tasteful nudes."

I'm considering sending Mr. Preprost an e-mail directly and telling him how disappointed I am that he chose to go for a sensationalist angle by using such a word.
Stiletto13 on Oct 3, 2010 at 5:43pm:
So am I! I think that what he did was not only in poor taste , but also completely erroneous and possibly hurtful! i can't believe the level of ignorance he also showed by comparing our work with The Suicide Girls??! Unbelievably stupid!! :p
Andrea on Oct 4, 2010 at 4:37pm:
The comments on the online version of the article are equally hurtful. Which is making me very sad today.

I think I will wait to see how Kate wants to proceed and go from there, just in case Preprost has responded to her.
Skinartia on Oct 4, 2010 at 6:33pm:
Ditto. Referring to models as "hideous" and going on to bash models by specific traits is unacceptable. Why the FP site didn't block comments is beyond me.
Kate on Oct 5, 2010 at 7:10am:
Yeah, the comments are pretty harsh. People are going to say shit, and I knew that going in. If I wasn't prepared for it, I'd have never started the site. It's clear a few of the posters on the Freep site know me personally and dislike me. That's fine, honestly.

It shows me where the weaknesses are, and what needs to change. Luckily, I take criticism constructively.
Samara on Oct 5, 2010 at 10:40pm:
wow i just checked out the comments on the free press site..... holy shit, hostile.
Dole on Oct 13, 2010 at 10:17pm:
I'm a bit behind the game, but when I first read the article, I sort of felt that it misrepresented what Kate was striving for as well. Just curious if anyone sent in any letters to the editor in the end. I don't think that's a bad idea at all and would gladly send one in myself (though it might be a bit late for that).
Also.. I swear my internet skillz (did I do that right?) are normally up to par, but I am failing to find the online version of the article. Could someone post a link for me, perhaps?
Dole on Oct 13, 2010 at 10:31pm:
Found it.
Wow.. what a classy bunch!
To all the beautiful women on this site: the empty words of a couple keyboard warriors are worth as much as the clever screen names they choose to hide behind.
Skinartia on Oct 15, 2010 at 10:51am:
Dole, I sent an e-mail to reporter telling him how disappointed I was that he went for the "pornographic" angle despite the fact that Andrea, Kate, and I all said we didn't consider the site to be porn. Here are portions of his response:

"1) Reporters do not write headlines

2) Every mention of the word 'porn,' save for two times, came from direct quotes... I did not ever say 'This is a porn site,' nor did I put words into your mouth to have you say this is a porn site. In fact I referred to the site in the first paragraph as a 'not-for-profit nudie site' which is on the site's homepage itself, and used it as a jumping point into what the site is trying to accomplish. This is the news value of the story.

Sorry to hear that you, and others, are disappointed. But I stand by my work."

Recent Blog Posts

Recent Forum Posts

Recent Comments