I purchased this book on the strength of the many strong reviews of Stuarts books. I have only seen this one Roy Stuart book, but if it is indicative of his other work, I can only ask, "what are you people thinking!"
Let me start by saying that much of the book is aimed at various fetishes, none of the ones represented here particularly interest me, though I have seen many interesting photos by other fetish photographers (I do have to say that I have never been able to find any erotic appeal in women urinating, a kink that is heavily represented here.)
The book is made up of a series of narrative photo essays, interspersed with single stand alone pictures. This is a format that has worked well for many photographers. That is not the case here, for several reasons.
The narratives as presented in this book mostly come off as a random jumble of pictures that just happen to have been taken at the same photo session, often jumping around in time and space. At times it appears that Stuart (or his editors)could not make up their mind which variation of a particular idea was best, so they used them both. At other times it appears as though a roll of film has gone missing, resulting in a hole in the story. Then there is the white panties up skirt section, that was apparently put in for 12 year old boys who might be confuse by what is going on in the rest of the book. This section consists of a random group of photos of young women on public streets, with their underpants exposed by various contrived misadventures. The series ends with an out of nowhere foot fetish shot,resulting in a visual mixed metaphor.
As to the quality of the photos, a naked woman with her legs spread wide (regardless of how beautiful)isn't necessarily a good nude or even a particularly erotic photograph. Any photograph no matter what the subject requires several elements in order to be successful.
Subject matter,I believe is a matter of personal taste. I would even concede to the possibility that I might find a beautifully done photo of a woman urinating to be erotically pleasing (see above).
The other elements of a good photograph, Strong composition and interesting lighting seem for the most part to have not been considered relevant by the photographer. Admittedly the book was conceived for the voyeur,and as such it could be argued that the intent was a photo-journalistic look but the majority of the pictures here look like they were taken by someone who was more interested showing the pu**y than making the woman look appealing.
It is possible to make an extremely graphic picture also extremely beautiful. Unfortunately that was not done here.
In the end, I think a good editor could make a very decent 15 to 20 page book out of this material. To me looking at a book of second rate erotic photographs is like trying to make love to a woman who just lays there, but then i'm not into necrophilia either.