by Kovalik Martin

untitled kovalik martin

Gallery: Others

Category: Uncategorized

Published: Friday 12th of January 2007 02:02:34 PM


John Crosley
Terms of Use Violation? I haven't reviewed the terms of use for a while, but I suggest you do, and I'm providing a relevant part for you to consider. The erect penis long had been banned from Photo.net and while this appears to be a dildo, a dildo is a depiction of an erect penis and it appears also to be involved in a direct sexual act, which appears to me to be in contravention of the terms of use, at least until the Administration change. We have relative freedom on this forum; it is self-policed to some extent, and it is not patronized by a bunch of prudes. I, myself, am not a prude, and I have no problem with someone seeing such an image IN THE PROPER FORUM, but this forum is open to people who are not looking for images of sexual depiction, as here, even if relatively well done. That said, I suggest you remove the photograph in the interest of retaining our self-regulating freedoms, or you review the terms of use and explain why this photograph does NOT violate the terms of use (and Google various terms, such as Penis, erect, as used by this site's Administration in the past before Administration changeover. In the Administration changeover there was an expressed slight change in the attitude toward depiction of nudity, with implications towards the depiction of sexuality, which you might want to consider. Here is the relative portion of the 'Terms of Use' quoted: 'Nudes, Nudes, Nudes 'This has been a divisive subject for the community. The editors of photo.net don't have a strong opinion on the issue because nudes, one way or the other, are not core to our educational mission. Nudes are okay if they have enough aesthetic value to justify the nudity. The more flesh and sexuality, the better the photo has to be. 'Nude images may only be uploaded by users with a verified name and location, e.g., "Philip Greenspun, Cambridge, MA" may upload nudes but "NikonGuy347" may not. 'photo.net is required to comply with U.S. law regarding child pornography.' I leave it to the Administration and you to engage over whether this much flesh (depiction) and this much sexuality is justified under the circumstances. A friendly reminder to a colleague. John (Crosley)

Rob Wray
Martin What a portfolio of exceptional work..... I just viewed you portfolio and came across this.... Yowsaaaa.......... Although this is in terms of a no no on this site, I can not but say how well done it is, I mean the whole silhouette lighting control etc is very good. I've got that feeling though that this might not stay around for long though? If not I'm under the impression that the admin will not just delete the file but the entire folder it is in, I suggest that you move it! Just in case. Once again I love your images they are some of the best I have seen on here for their pure professionalism and art work. Kind regards Rob

Martin Kovalik
??? it is only funy gift from the shop it isnt penis it is soap ;)

Madeleine B.
Why is this a no no? Why is it that we can show female anatomy from every angle and pose but the male anatomy is a no no? Do you know that this is true in film as well as in many medical textbooks? Help me understand

John Crosley
Madeline There is no rational way to understand. Period. It's just the way things 'are' or 'were'. But this image (and its folder) have not been deleted by the Admin., but then we've had a change in the administration, I think, since it got posted, and the rules changed -- favoring 'art' in various forms and allowing various forms of nudity, so long as 'artistic', whatever that is. The new Administration gave examples as guidelines, but everything is somewhat porous . . . perhaps as it should be. Life does not go well with long lists of 'don'ts', and absolute rules for everything with no exceptions. Use a gun to pry open a window of a friend's house you are burglarizing for the old albums/dvds you thougt they stole from you and it's an extra five years in some states (such as California) no matter what, no matter that the gun was not used for violence, and it may have been a .22 and you're on the way home from ping shooting. This a good example of why 'hard and fast' rules sometimes are inappropriate - viz. the 'zero tolerance' rules some schools have for use of drugs -- even nonprescription pain relievers people (especially women at certain special times) need for pain relief, such as Tylenol and Aspirin. It seems to me that principals and other representatives of school districts should have some leeway, just as this Administration has shown leeway with this photo, which is quite artful by the way. 'Zero tolerance' rules sometimes are just a 'cop-out' - a way to avoid people in charge taking 'real responsibility' and just passing it off to a rule book, regardless of how well the rule treats any circumstance. And as to its being 'soap' -- so what? I have woman friend who buys all sorts of perfume and other objects that are in the shape of an erect male member not so that she can wear the perfume, but because she's too shy to buy a dildo, and those things work just fine for her 'needs'. As to the hypocrisy . . . probably it should come down, but so many males are uncomfortable with seeing an erect penis other than their own that it may be a long time arriving (not coming . . . if you understand my reasons for my choice of words). Chalk if up, perhaps to fear of being 'converted' to homosexuality, which bespeaks a certain susceptibiility to being 'converted' by viewing images of the same sex, as felt by certain males, who undoubtedly are uncertain truly of the direction of their own sexuality and truly do fear a 'conversion' because they are already 'wavering'. For what it's worth, after all this time. John (Crosley)

Bogdan Stefan
Bravo.... Bravo for the entire gallery. I have read some posts about the burger photo and now about this... I think that your work is great. I suggest for those who always complain about being offended by something that they should not look at something that will offend them. I also find pathetic the excuse "...my child will see this picture...". Once more...great work...

Trisha Jean-Angela

So men are bothered by the sight of an erect penis unless their own? I say too bad...unless you are going to remove the thousands of shots of vaginas that we women have to be bombarded with on this sight! But God forbid, a man is offended by the sight of an erect penis! Such hypocrisy!

About this photo...the silhouette makes it difficult to tell it isn't real...and I think until all the vagina shots are removed, this one should stay!

Next Image >>