Well, I guess two of my photos have been removed because of erections. I suppose that's fair enough, but they could have sent me an email, or something about it. I've seen a lot of photos of aroused women, some of them masturbating, so why is an aroused male, not masturbating, so wrong? Ironically, I would rather photograph women, but I thought that there was something interesting about that photo (the other was a crop of the same); even if the contrast was off. For the person that left a comment. You were right, the contrast was wrong. It looked great on my laptop and on one monitor screen, but on two other monitors it look awful. But I thought that the composition was interesting, as well as the shadows cast on the body by the tree and the pose of the body. The erection had some interesting angles because of the pose. I agree that erections are generally not good, but that one worked because of the arch of the body. If we don't want sexual arousal of genitals, that's fine. I have no problem with that policy what-so-ever, but it should be across the board. Thanks to the one person that had commented. If someone else did, sorry, all the comments were removed at the same time as the photo(s) and were, therefore, not seen by me.
Nudes, Landscapes and Fine Art Photography
in The History & Philosophy of Photography
Posted