Nude Males anyone !

Is it just me? We seem to be displaying an increase in nude Males.I

find no problems with female.We do not get close shots of females,

but one or two members seem to be going for shock value with males.If

its art, no problem but some seem to be treading a fine line.

 

My concern is that my 8 year old daughter ( a budding photographer )

often browses through the site looking at wildlife and bird

photographs.She commented that she had seen a lot of ****** last

night.

 

In our household nudity is not a taboo but when its thrust in your

face ( so to speak ) I believe it could become one.

Are male nudes less acceptable than female nudes?

The naked female form looks better to me than a naked male.Maybe this is because I am male? I wonder what female photographers think?

You have to take the rough with the smooth - so to speak.

 

If female nudes are OK, there are little grounds on which to ban male nudes.

 

Photo.net does remove sexually explicit nudes, male or female. I guess the male "equipment", being external, is somewhat more obvious. Sometimes a little more obvious and, err...sometimes a lot more obvious.

 

If you have specific complaints about specific images or posters, send email to "abuse@photo.net" and someone will see if any given images or set of images crosses the invisible line between acceptable and not acceptable on photo.net. Photo.net doesn't actively patrol images, but does respond to user concerns.

 

Just don't post URLs here or you'll only draw attention to the images.

Make sure you never go to Florence, as there is a very large naked man called David

standing bold as brass in the open air! Oh, and art gallerys are right out, or you might see

any number of genitals! - Oh, and make sure that you never look up if you visit the

Vatican!

 

I have never seen anything explicit on this site, but I suppose that people have very

different sensitivities. If for some reason people don't want their children to see what

naked people look like, then there is a very simple answer - They shouldn't let their

children look at photo.net unsupervised, however much they like pictures of wildlife!

 

Regards, Nick.<div></div>

<p>I have no problem with male nudes as an art form. What bothers me are the

occasional snapshots where some exhibitionist obviously took a camera, pointed

it a Mr. Winkie, and then published it across the internet.<br>

<br>

For parents of children, here is a good practical lesson, <i>"Be it a drunken

college party, or a pervert in a subway, at some point in thier lives most

people probably cross paths with an exhibitionist. Children need to learn that

either through intoxication or mental defect, that flashers are out there and to

just try to avoid them."</i><br>

<br>

Recently, I pulled an account from one of the other websites after being

reprimanded for an unfavorable critique of a weenie snap. Just as users may have

a 1st amendment right to take a really bad snap, I reserve the right (though almost never

used) to say it is in poor taste.</p>

Its not just "Mr. Winkle" - I have seen a number of very cheesy sunsets on this site that are in

really bad taste! - perhaps we should think about the effect that these images have on the

young and impressionable, particularly those with an interest in photography?

 

Nick.

Q: Why do men take picture of their genitals?

 

A: Because they can.

 

The real question is why most male nudes are so awful. Actually many female nudes are too, but in that case the male brain is far more interested in the subject matter than how it is portrayed in the image, so we don't notice.

 

Maybe women see things differently?

Great artists like honest models!

 

quod vide the oils of Lucien Freud!<div></div>

<p><i>I have seen a number of very cheesy sunsets on this site that are in

really bad taste!</i></p>

<p>With considerable amusement, no sunset in a city park or grocery store

parking lot is going to put anyone on the Level 3 Predatory Offenders List. The

patterns of behavior that leads some expose their aroused genitalia for self

gratification occasionally does.</p>

<p>Determining what is or is not in bad taste is open to everyone's own

interpretation. Perhaps a better test of interpretation than Photo.net, male or

female; would be to go stand out in front of your local Police Department and

drop your pants. A judge and jury will be happy to help anyone resolve the

issue.</p>

Honest models arn't aweful - they are just more interesting. This is why great artists love

them!

 

Here is a female version of an "honest model" from the great Lucien Freud.

 

Regards, Nick.

.<div></div>

The problem is that you have all eaten too much from the Tree of Knowledge!

 

What is wrong with the naked human form, and why in America does it make you an

offender? We are very reserved here in the UK, but we don't lock up people for displaying

images of genitals! - even the Queen has a large collection of nudes! - What is the problem

over the pond? - my American friends are all very liberal - is this just a prudish minority

speaking?

 

Nick.

<p>Even in the UK, self gratifying exhibitionism is considered a behavior

problem, as any psychologist or psychiatrist would be aware of. A link is

attached: <a href="http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/exhibitionism.htm">

http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/exhibitionism.htm</a> </p>

We use ICD10 in the UK!

Well, Bob, I don't go to the nudes category to view photos but if I did (maybe I will), I definitely prefer looking at male nudes. Female nudes, other than light and shadow, don't do much for me. But I see one at least twice a day since I hit puberty. Maybe the value has just worn out for me due to repetition.

Conni

I guess you chose your friends carefully.

 

America is one of the most repressed countries on the planet outside of the Middle East. Many here are trying change that of course. If they succeed, the US will be THE most repressed country on the planet.

 

US broadcast TV has NO nudity, NO obscenity, virtually NOTHING which would offend (as long as you're white and nominally Christian).

 

Naughty bits are just plain naughty and should not be revealed to anyone. Even looking in a mirror is questionable...

 

Old naughty bits, at least 200 years old, preferably 2000, carved in stone or painted in oil are sometimes acceptable - as long as they aren't TOO naughty, though I do recall that on particularly open minded leading politician had status in the background of his press conferences covered up so as to preserve the delicate eyes of those unfortunate enough to be spectators.

 

Liberal? You've got to be kiding.

Look up the copyright "fair use" doctrine.

<p>

<em>...reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright...</em>

Bob's arguement is much more insightful and intelligent, and this thread should carry on

from his comment, and not the trivial nonsense above!

 

Nick.

I don't mind male nudes. Although I must admit, the ones I have seen were bordering on

pornography (not that there's anything wrong with that, I just don't want it with my

coffee).

 

I also believe if a naked woman's body is acceptable, than a man's body should be as well.

Women have fought to hard for equality and should not practice the convictions of our

adversaries.

 

double standard

 

Also, everyone is entitled to raising their child the way they see fit. My child will not be

ashamed of her naked body and will not apologize for it. But then again, my husband is

from Europe :P

From several posts above, a cheesy sunset.

If you look on the nudes page, you will see about 8 females to 2 males (right now), so if this is an increase, bring it on! I've seen some very close shots of female parts on this site at times.

 

If it was your 8-year-old son instead of daughter viewing, would it still be a problem, or would the problem change to him viewing females? I think it's a guy thing - I can be looking at a female nude and my hubby will look over and either say "that's nice" or say nothing. If I'm looking at a male nude, even in a similar pose to a female nude, he'll say something like "what the heck??". Double standard, I do believe. I've seen some female nudes that border on tasteless, imo, and I've seen some male nudes the same. Then we have the opposite end of the spectrum, where there are some very artistic nudes, males and females, and then a whole lot falling in between. I say judge on the merit of the image and not so much the sex of the model.

Speaking as a female photographer - most nudes bore me senseless. Female nudes generally - because female nudes predominate on PN, but male nudes as well. I think the problem between the two is that many photographers of male nudes think the story is ALL about Mr. Winkie, as though there's nothing else about the male form worthy of study. You find that in female nudes as well, but you see a lot more study of female form. It's not all about T&A (though really, it's sometimes difficult to tell) Both are beautiful, or fascinating, and I see no reason to ban either one of them. What drives me crazy are the photos depicting women as objects for the fetishistic bondage fan, blood drinking freaks, stiletto-heeled/leather-clad dominatrix groupies, the endlessly banal "model" shots, naked girlfriends/boyfriends on beaches, the ubiquitous woman-upside-down-on-surface-of-your-choice shots. OMG I could go on all night. Truth is, most nudes just suck (no pun intended). When one is done well male or female I'm more than happy to see it! For those concerned for their children - be around when your children are browsing. You ought to be anyway - there are far more dangerous things out there than anything on PN (even the photo meant for the blood drinkers, which was, really, way over the top)

 

However -in the search for a compromise, or a way to make everyone happy - can a checkbox/filter be added to the member's preferences which might filter out the nude category? I think it's understood that won't be 100% effective, but it should work enough, enough of the time, to make most ppl who don't want to see them, happy.

Would you ask the Metropolitan Museum of Art to move all their nude sculptures and paintings into a seperate part of the building so that those offended by such sights wouldn't have to see them. You can hardly turn a corner there without viewing T, A, or "Mr Winky"!

 

Of course they do "censor" in the sense of getting rid of the crap, but if you think that's the reason they're OK and photo.net isn't then what photo.net needs is a crap filter, not a nude filter.

"Would you ask the Metropolitan Museum of Art to move all their nude sculptures and paintings into a seperate part of the building so that those offended by such sights wouldn't have to see them."

 

Well now that you mention it, I guess if it were in Indiana they would.

 

<a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/30/national/a135035S55.DTL">Ind. Business Told to Hide Nude Statues</a>

 

Who knows where something like this will end.