bobatkins Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 I believe there's now a bill before Congress to make it illegal to own a mirror without a licence. Apparantly some people have been using them to look at themselves naked, and that sort of behavior has to be controlled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbrown Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 My contribution to this silliness about male nudes . . .<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurie_m Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Now THAT's sure to cause some Winkie envy! Recently, my brother and nephew were at my house viewing my gallery. They soon found themselves in the nude forum, by mistake I'm sure. They were happily viewing one photo after another, commenting on the wonderful photography (no matter how technically flawed). Then....the unthinkable happened, they were confronted with a male nude (a tasteful one). Both grimaced, made some weird gutteral sounds of disgust and walked away from the computer. I don't know what that is. If I reacted that way to a female nude, I'd be labeled prude, or closed minded, whatever. There is certainly a double standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith turrill Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 I am glad that this one is at the local park and not my front yard. Art or not, I don't think it would help real estate values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholasprice Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 The news article about Indiana in the United States, posted above should have made me laugh, but it made me feel very sad! Why do elected public officials in one of the most developed countrys in the world act and think in such a primative and ignorant fashion? I refuse to believe that they represent the views of the majority of Americans who elected them, or am I being naive? America seems a country of extremes - You have freedom of speech (and I assume expression) written into your constitution, but sometimes some of you want to stop people using it? - Isn't it time for those enlightened and liberal thinking Americans who share the rebelious sentiments of your founding fathers, to shout out against this opressive tyranny, and fight for your (and everyone else's) rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabrina_h. Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 I'm very curious to know why men have a problem looking at another man's naked body? I would think men would fight harder to have more balance. But then again, everything is not for children. Just like watching Barney (the big purple dinosaur) and Sesame Street is not for me (and I'll be darned if all TV. programming was rated G). A filter would probably be helpful for some, but I can't imagine it will be very effective in an imperfect world. As Bob mentioned, you'd have to filter all the things that bother people and that's nearly impossible. We were also kids once, and you're telling me that you were never curious about the human form? .. maybe even a sneak peak at a few magazines that the newsstands tried to hide behind the counter? You know the one's you found in your uncle's bottom drawer? ... c'mon now :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kathywilson Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Sabrina - you're right of course :) Everyone looks <g> But the filter I was talking about was one that just wouldn't show that forum, and only for those who have a problem with it. I don't - I view it often, because some of the work is wonderful, and I've got no problem with naked people <g> Some people do though, and well, it's an easy change to make as long as they understand it's not guaranteed. But a crap filter -- now THAT we could ALL benefit from! LOL. I'd miss seeing some of my own stuff though... hmm. I don't get the double standard though - I feel sorry for photographers of male nudes. They get *slaughtered* by low rates which rarely have anything to do with the quality of the photo. I'd be curious to know (if it can even be deteremined) what the percentage is of 1/1 and 2/2 which go to male nudes compared to everything else, because I'm betting it's highly skewed towards slamming the male nude. Nicholas - the US is a study in extremes and contradictions. The pendulum swings though, and spends more time in the center than its recent years at the extremes would suggest. Don't give up on us -- the middle-grounders are about to rise up and smack down the extremists. :) BTW - you PN email address doesn't work or I would have put this privately. (as it subject can rile the masses) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith turrill Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 <p>Going back to the beginning of the thread:</p> <p><i>"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."</i></p> <p>This is a good example of how statements in a thread get used out of context and makes for a very amusing strategy. </p> <p>But to answer one of Dr. Prices previous statements, exhibitionism is in the ICD-10 listed as F65.2 in the UK. As to differences between the US and the UK, it would appear that the sport of "Dogging," either live or in cyberspace has not caught on yet over here.</p> <p>Regarding the broadcast media in the United States, the typical home has access to between 50 and 100 cable television channels, more on digital satellite, as well as the internet. The only ones significantly limited are the very few channels that are also broadcast over local airwaves. On cable, satellite, and the internet, viewers can watch just about whatever they want to subscribe to.</p> <p>Not to let a little humor pass by, <i>"even the Queen has a large collection of nudes!" </i>We should all hope that her majesty does not add Lady Camilla to that collection.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabrina_h. Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Not to keep pushing the nail in the coffin, but I have NEVER visited the nude section on photo.net, EVER... and I have seen many nudes on this site (not that I mind). Heck, I even spotted some pornography in the photojournalism section (I kid you not). But I have to tell you, a "Mr. Winkie" is not dirty to look at. It's beautiful, perfectly designed by nature and so is the woman form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurie_m Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 For those in favor of censorship, what guidelines would you suggest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 <em>Regarding the broadcast media in the United States, the typical home has access to between 50 and 100 cable television channels, more on digital satellite, as well as the internet. The only ones significantly limited are the very few channels that are also broadcast over local airwaves. On cable, satellite, and the internet, viewers can watch just about whatever they want to subscribe to</em> <p> Well, sort of, in theory, at least for now.... <p> <em>Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, recently told a meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters exactly what they wanted to hear. That it wasn't fair for the FCC to doggedly pursue only broadcasters; they ought to have the right to censor pay cable channels like HBO and Showtime, as well as satellite channels. (Broadcasters think revenge and business first, abridged rights second.) </em> <p> At least (as far as I know) nobody has seriously suggested any attempts by the government to censor internet content. I suspect that mainly that's because they can't think of any practical way to do it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjmeade Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Much as I hate to put in a post close to the mark of the original comment, there is an issue for parents here. How can we prevent our children from seeing something that we think would be inappropriate? What is inappropriate can range from violence, swearing and some suicidally insane behaviour on TV, to photographs of, well anything we don't want them to see. Relax people, the answer is with us parents, not with PN. The price of peace of mind? Eternal vigilance. It's up to parents to decide what their children should see and to prevent them having access to what we think they shouldn't see. It could be, that you may have to stop looking at PN with your 8 year old. I know that I don't look at it with my children (11 and 8). As with many things, the answer lies with us and not with someone else. Regards. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholasprice Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 It has been erroneously intimated above that displaying naked male photographs on this site somehow constitutes a psychological disorder as defined by The International Classification of Disorders, 10th edition (ICD10), or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM IV). This is serious and offensive, as it suggests that such people are in some way mentally ill, defining them as sexual exhibitionists! This is of course not the case, and shows a monumental lack of understanding of Psychiatry! Exhibitionism is a recurrent or persistent tendency to exposure the genitalia to strangers (usually of the opposite sex) in public places, without inviting or intending closer contact. It is a personal behaviour, and requires close interaction between two or more people in close proximity. There is usually, sexual excitement at the time of the exposure and the act is commonly followed by masturbation. This tendency may be manifest only at times of emotional stress or crises, interspersed with long periods without such overt behaviour. Exhibitionism is almost entirely limited to heterosexual males who expose to females, adult or adolescent, usually confronting them from a safe distance, but in a public place. If the witness appears shocked, frightened, or even rarely, impressed; the exhibitionist's excitement is often heightened. The act of exhibitionism must take place in life, and cannot by definition, be carried out throught he medium of displayed photography. The important and pertinant point is that of the reaction from the victim (usually shock), which is the driving motivation for the behaviour! There is no such "sexual" feedback available through photo.net to "reward", or reinforce such a paraphillia. Any suggestion that the displaying of a male nude constitutes exhibitionism is just a nonesence, even if it were a self portrait! Going up to someone in a public place and showing them an explicit photograph of ones own genitalia may constitute exhibitionism, but such behaviour would be most rare in an exhibitionist - but this is not what is going on here. Once again I call for common sence in this matter, and am troubled by this stigmatising misappropriation of Psychiatry! Dr Nicholas Price BSc MBBS MRCPsych. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 There are two different photo.net policies involved here. First photo.net does have policies concerning the types of images which can be posted. While we permit the posting of artistic nudes, we don't permit pornography, and we delete pornographic images that come to our attention. Second, we do not exercise prior restraint. Our content policies are enforced by deleting images that have been uploaded in violation of those policies. This means that there could be a lapse of time between the uploading and public visibility of an image, and our becoming aware of it and deleting it. I don't consider that the content policy renders photo.net unsafe for children. If only those images which are permitted on the site were uploaded, I would not have any concerns about my own children viewing the photo.net Galleries. I don't have any objection to my children viewing nudes, male or female. I would not want them to see pornography, but pornography is not allowed on the site. So, my personal opinion is that there isn't anything about our content policies that makes photo.net unsafe for kids. However, that is me, and others may feel that nudes are not suitable for children in general, or for their children in particular. Or they may draw the line between "pornography" and "artistic" in a different place than I draw it. It is all well and good for me to say that I'm comfortable with photo.net's content policies, but I'm the person who gets to make the calls on the borderline cases. If your standards are the same as mine, you are fine, but how many people is that? Anyway, the more significant issue is that we enforce our content policies after-the-fact. You might be with us completely on where we draw various lines, but there is no process for reviewing and approving images before they become publicly visible on the site. That means you, or a child, have a chance of viewing something which crosses our lines and which would be deleted if we were aware of it, but is present because we aren't aware of it yet. For this reason, I think I probably would discourage my kids from viewing the photo.net Gallery until they are quite a bit older, especially without me present to help with any issues or questions concerning problem images. All that said, photo.net has no goal to be "child safe". Each parent must decide on his own what he is comfortable letting his child see, and if that does not include all the images that are to be found on photo.net, he should take whatever measures seem appropriate for preventing his kids from looking at photo.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 <em>It could be, that you may have to stop looking at PN with your 8 year old. I know that I don't look at it with my children (11 and 8). </em><p>I think even the most conservative parents and children would probably be safe viewing the photo.net critique forums by category. I doubt you'll find much objectionable in Nature, Landscapes, Architecture, Birds, Insects, Flowers, Pets, Travel, Underwater etc. If you avoid Nudes, Portraits, Abstracts, Fashion etc. your chances of seeing any naughty bits would probably be close to zero. Even just avoiding Nudes would reduce your chances to a pretty acceptable level I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjmeade Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Bob, quite so. But we do look at other areas, such as top photos or portfolios too. I think PN is an excellent site and does an excellent job in this field. As a parent I have to do an excellent job too. Very best wishes. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith turrill Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 While staying at a Marriot Hotel with a walk-up computer, I logged on to Photo.net to check my portfolio. Out of curiosity, the nude category was blocked. Whatever filter software is commonly available allows the public to block at least most nudity on this website. As stated at the beginning of the forum, my only issue is the ocassional creep who decides to post a really bad woody shot, usually with a hand-held camera and built-in flash. On this site, that genre is easy to spot and probably doesn't last long. In any case the thread is quite entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbrown Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 I was badly offended by a photograph I took last year . . . Dr. Robert Brown, MFA, Ph.D., father of twins age 10, who is not offended by nudes (male or female) but would who would keep his children out of the nude section of PN. Like many male PN users I've never had the compulsion to 1) take a photo of my woody and 2) place it online.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholasprice Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 What on earth is a "Woody"? Is this yet another euphemism for the penis, or does it specifically refer to an erection? I think that we would all agree that an erect penis is unacceptable on this site, and would be found offensive by many people. I however thought that this thread was about male nudes in general (seen from the front), and not what is usually considered pornography? Regards, Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constance_cook Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Nicholas: I think you are an optimist if you "think we cn all agree" on anything on photo.net. But is an erect nipple OK, then? Conni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholasprice Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 When I said erection, I was refering to the erect penis. Erect nipples are fine, and for some reason appear much more aesthetic than ones that arn't erect, but I am assuming that you talk about men's nipples? - now, your not suggesting that women have nipples are you? - that would be most strange, and deeply offensive! Still not sure exactly what a "Woody" is? Trying to be optermistic, Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurie_m Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Nick, I'm not looking to argue morality, just understand why a photo of an erect penis would automatically make the photo pornography or otherwise unacceptable. Why would frontal nudity of a male be less acceptable than a frontal nude of a female? If it's just a matter of personal taste, there's no debate. But..if it's a general question of morality, ethics or whatever you want to call it, I don't understand why there would be a male/female distinction, erect or not. Dr. Brown, while you've not posted any "woody" self portraits, some might argue that some of your recent flower photos should be stored in a separate folder with a "V"chip (I've found the series quite enjoyable). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurie_m Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Acceptable?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholasprice Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Laurie, I completely agree with you. A male nude is as acceptable as a female nude, and as far as I'm concerned there is no distinction. I don't even find the notion of an erect penis offensive, I just accept that most other people do, and it has been deemed to constitute pornography in most countrys, and by that virtue should not be posted on this site. There are lots of good sites available for people who like looking at an erect penis, good quality photographs or not. Interestingly, there are notable photographers who include the erect penis in their highly artistic work - Maplethorpe and Koons come to mind amongst others! - I find their work quite acceptable. In agreement, Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constance_cook Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 A male nipple is mere surface ornamentation.Conni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now