Chelsea Lauren wrote:

They make a female equvilant, but do women really "dry out"?  I know erection for men get difficult after a certain point in their lives, but I don't recall hearing anything about women drying out.
It may quite possibly be that I am completely in the dark in the subject.

I have plenty of mojo, so pills for me may give me the equivilant of having a, what is it, 8 hour erection for a man. hahahah.

"Sigh"

Colford Studios wrote:

You know as an aside, I just worked with Thomas this week. I don't think he has anything against gay people (not that it even came up in discussion) and definitely not against the human form.  He was naked for about 75% of the shoot and quite comfortable being so in front of another man.  Most guys with a homophobic attitude generally are skittish at that.  Truly he's just a nice guy who's only been on this site for like a week and he's just trying to figure everything out.

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to do erection shots or simply asking about what is common practice.

It amazes me easy people jump to conclusions and flame on around here!  Sheesh, relax people.

Aye, seriously, some of the things people assumed about him are totally outrageous!  He's such a sweetie and he's got a real open mind, seems like some people are just looking for someone to flame :S

Doubting Thomas wrote:
I don't have anything against an erect penis, I just don't want to have my picture taken in that abject state.  The point of this thread is to ask if it's often obligitory for fitness/underwear models to...*ahem*..."beef up".

Check out the current issue of Elle.  There's a D&G ad in it that contains exactly what you are referring to.

Next question . . . .

lamar photography wrote:
it is required of some underwear models to "beef up" as you call it ... NOT to erection but theres a alot of area between fully soft in a cold room... to fully hard.

i know one paticular mens underwear company uses prostetic penis's for boys with less then worth while packages.

Ooh that's gotta suck for the guy.

Doubting Thomas wrote:
I find these incredibly distasteful, much more vulgar than a simple ithyphallic shot.  My question is...how often are these required for fitness/underwear models? So many guys on this site have erect shots in their ports, and I simply do not want to be photographed like that.

Back to the topic... don't do anything you don't want to do.  That's my philosophy. 

Jewelz Santana wrote:
now that is just crossing the line between artistic and porn.

Jewelz Santana

I saw a photograph once of a girl holding a sign that had the definition of art saying "to excite and arouse emotion and feeling in a person"  and under it had the definition of porn saying "to excite and arouse emotion and feeling in a person"




O_O

Shortly afterwards, Lewis Blacks head exploded.

DPphotography wrote:

I saw a photograph once of a girl holding a sign that had the definition of art saying "to excite and arouse emotion and feeling in a person"  and under it had the definition of porn saying "to excite and arouse emotion and feeling in a person"




O_O



Shortly afterwards, Lewis Blacks head exploded.

lol...

Payaso_Perverso wrote:
You people are funny who cares... If it is not something you want to do that is fine don't do it... It is just funny to see you guys afraid of Cock... That is so funny...

I respect any work that the model must work "hard on".

Doubting Thomas wrote:
I find these incredibly distasteful, much more vulgar than a simple ithyphallic shot.  My question is...how often are these required for fitness/underwear models? So many guys on this site have erect shots in their ports, and I simply do not want to be photographed like that.

I admire your sense of self respect. Who wants to see that? The human body can be photographed in a variety of different ways, without being offensive.

Chill Factor wrote:

I admire your sense of self respect. Who wants to see that? The human body can be photographed in a variety of different ways, without being offensive.

So who gets to decide across the board whats offensive and whats not?

Denis C wrote:
I have such a shot on my site. If distasteful, I will certainly remove it. Let me know. I mean no offense. I think it's an arty, simple shot. What do you all think?

Denis

Denis, what really matters is what you think.  I think the human body is a great work of art.  I don't find those kind of images offensive.

Denis C wrote:
The human body as many states of being. The penis is just one part of our body and it remains the "last taboo" in a way, after all these decades of art... Michelango's David, and many more. How come the penis remains ugly (or too shocking when erect) to so many - or as one comment mentioned, just for the gay men? Is that true? The penis is part of every man and it has expression, artistic, pornographic, of many different implications based on the intentions of the auteur of the work. It is manly and human. I believe it can be viewed artistically.

Denis

I agree with you.  All my girl friends think that female bodies are very attractive naked but that male bodies are not.  I personally don't agree with that.  All human bodies can be wonderful works of art.

Doubting Thomas wrote:
I find these incredibly distasteful, much more vulgar than a simple ithyphallic shot.  My question is...how often are these required for fitness/underwear models? So many guys on this site have erect shots in their ports, and I simply do not want to be photographed like that.

I haven't read any of the other responses... but I am wondering if anybody else came to the conclusion that this thread is a marketing ploy to get attention?

Not that there is anything wrong with that... but, c'mon... the header is racy, and your statement... I mean... I am on MM since the beginning and as a moderator I see a lot of ports, including in the approval process, but also during complaints about over the top portfolios.

What you are describing, an epidemic of hardons in underwear shots... please... there are by far not as many as you want to make us belief.

Of course, if all what you are browsing are male portfolios and the photographers who specialize in male models, you'll see naturally a handful (pun intended) more woodies than normal.

So, you proclaim that you won't do hardon in underwear shots... ahem... who really cares... just don't do them! Simple.

Hope your thread "paid off"...

Denis C wrote:
I have such a shot on my site. If distasteful, I will certainly remove it. Let me know. I mean no offense. I think it's an arty, simple shot. What do you all think?

Denis

in my opinion, underwear is more sexual many times then fully nude, so erection or no i usually prefer nude to underwear.

Dean Solo wrote:
Erect penises should be outlawed period!! They are a menace to society and anyone caught with an "erection" should be put behind bars.

Let's not stop there!!! Anyone with a penis should be put in prison for life!!!  They cause all kinds of trouble when they start doing the thinking.  And women don't need them - they are all "bi-curious" (oh, sorry - I was going by the risque dating sites )

UdoR wrote:

I haven't read any of the other responses... but I am wondering if anybody else came to the conclusion that this thread is a marketing ploy to get attention?

Not that there is anything wrong with that... but, c'mon... the header is racy, and your statement... I mean... I am on MM since the beginning and as a moderator I see a lot of ports, including in the approval process, but also during complaints about over the top portfolios.

What you are describing, an epidemic of hardons in underwear shots... please... there are by far not as many as you want to make us belief.

Of course, if all what you are browsing are male portfolios and the photographers who specialize in male models, you'll see naturally a handful (pun intended) more woodies than normal.

So, you proclaim that you won't do hardon in underwear shots... ahem... who really cares... just don't do them! Simple.

Hope your thread "paid off"...

UdoR be nice to Thomas, he was just asking an honest question, trust me, I read the whole thing!

Chelsea Lauren wrote:

OH NO! That makes kitty sad.

LOL......

Dean Solo wrote:
Erect penises should be outlawed period!! They are a menace to society and anyone caught with an "erection" should be put behind bars.

True, true.  Stick 'em behind a bar. Alcohol will soon make them all floppy!

Hamza wrote:
Erect penis through underwear, camel toe, what's the difference?

"I'd walk a mile for a camel toe..."

Doubting Thomas wrote:
I find these incredibly distasteful, much more vulgar than a simple ithyphallic shot.  My question is...how often are these required for fitness/underwear models? So many guys on this site have erect shots in their ports, and I simply do not want to be photographed like that.

They aren't supposed to.., it has to be phlacid (sic)

Dean Solo wrote:
Erect penises should be outlawed period!! They are a menace to society and anyone caught with an "erection" should be put behind bars.

Naughty boy! Go straight to my room!

UdoR wrote:
I haven't read any of the other responses... but I am wondering if anybody else came to the conclusion that this thread is a marketing ploy to get attention?

Aren't they all?

Doubting Thomas wrote:
I find these incredibly distasteful, much more vulgar than a simple ithyphallic shot.  My question is...how often are these required for fitness/underwear models? So many guys on this site have erect shots in their ports, and I simply do not want to be photographed like that.

You know what's disturbing seeing a photographer have a self nude hard on shot in their port. I don't wanna see that of a photographer I plan working with. Kind of off topic but making a point.

Doubting Thomas wrote:
I find these incredibly distasteful, much more vulgar than a simple ithyphallic shot.  My question is...how often are these required for fitness/underwear models? So many guys on this site have erect shots in their ports, and I simply do not want to be photographed like that.

$1000 word of the day, for all of us that didn't know, I looked it up:

ithyphallic |ˌiθəˈfalik| adjective (esp. of a statue of a deity or other carved figure) having an erect penis. ORIGIN early 17th cent.(as a noun denoting a sexually explicit poem): via late Latin from Greek ithuphallikos, from ithus ‘straight’ + phallos ‘phallus.’



BTW there should not be any of that type of photos on MM as per the 'Rules'

McKenzie Bros Photo wrote:

$1000 word of the day, for all of us that didn't know, I looked it up:

ithyphallic |ˌiθəˈfalik| adjective (esp. of a statue of a deity or other carved figure) having an erect penis. ORIGIN early 17th cent.(as a noun denoting a sexually explicit poem): via late Latin from Greek ithuphallikos, from ithus ‘straight’ + phallos ‘phallus.’



BTW there should not be any of that type of photos on MM as per the 'Rules'

Thanks for saving me the trouble of looking it up.  Will try to use that word once a day. 

McKenzie Bros Photo wrote:
ithyphallic |ˌiθəˈfalik| adjective (esp. of a statue of a deity or other carved figure) having an erect penis. ORIGIN early 17th cent.(as a noun denoting a sexually explicit poem): via late Latin from Greek ithuphallikos, from ithus ‘straight’ + phallos ‘phallus.’

BTW there should not be any of that type of photos on MM as per the 'Rules'

Only true if you define an erect phallus as *neccesarily* pornographic. The rules are pretty vague on that, just specifying "no porn" and leaving the definitions therein to the mods.

UdoR wrote:
I haven't read any of the other responses... but I am wondering if anybody else came to the conclusion that this thread is a marketing ploy to get attention?

Not that there is anything wrong with that... but, c'mon... the header is racy, and your statement... I mean... I am on MM since the beginning and as a moderator I see a lot of ports, including in the approval process, but also during complaints about over the top portfolios.

What you are describing, an epidemic of hardons in underwear shots... please... there are by far not as many as you want to make us belief.

Of course, if all what you are browsing are male portfolios and the photographers who specialize in male models, you'll see naturally a handful (pun intended) more woodies than normal.

So, you proclaim that you won't do hardon in underwear shots... ahem... who really cares... just don't do them! Simple.

Hope your thread "paid off"...

Totally agree. DT do whatever you feel confortable you are the only owner of your body and actions.

Ryan Colford Studios wrote:
Wow!  I remember a time when underwear companies didn't there to be so noticeable an outline.

2xist and Pappi are the underwear brands that changed all that - and it worked for their sales

Photos By Deej wrote:
I've never seen these type of shots in fitness/underwear magazines. You obviously you've seen a ton of them on MM where I've only seen a few.  Whose ports are you looking at?  lol  As far as being required I'm sure they like something to enhance the underwear. They have pads for that if you need it.

Probably mine - but don't worry there not there anymore so you're all safe