This thread was locked on 2012-12-13 18:26:03
Model
Mark De Rossi
Posts: 30
North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
what is more impressive in photos, erect or flacid?
Photographer
-Ira
Posts: 2191
New York, New York, US
I'd say they depends on audience and intent.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
there aren't a lot of male models that participate in this forum... so not sure you are going to get the answer you are looking for.. ![https://i.imgur.com/m8TQi.png]()
Photographer
Worlds Of Water
Posts: 37732
Rancho Cucamonga, California, US
MM bans all erect penis images... so I guess you'll never now... 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12117
Tampa, Florida, US
What's more impressive in photos? NO penises.
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 16713
Orlando, Florida, US
I would imagine it depends on the penis.
I mean, can it play the piano if it's erect? Because that would be impressive.
Photographer
John Horwitz
Posts: 2920
Raleigh, North Carolina, US
well, mine sure is 
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Michael Pandolfo wrote:
What's more impressive in photos? NO penises. we i would be in total agreement with you, but we might be thinking from a strictly hetero position...from what i understand, gay dudes seem to love the penis pics...
![https://i.imgur.com/m8TQi.png]()
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12117
Tampa, Florida, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
there aren't a lot of male models that participate in this forum...
so not sure you are going to get the answer you are looking for.. The fact the word "impressive" was used and not "acceptable" or "preferred" tells me this has little to do with anything actually modeling related.
I am curious though. Is there a male model Agency standard for penis size...much like height for a female model? I'm not sure why the status of the penis would make one difference to anyone but the OP.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
there aren't a lot of male models that participate in this forum...
so not sure you are going to get the answer you are looking for.. Michael Pandolfo wrote:
The fact the word "impressive" was used and not "acceptable" or "preferred" tells me this has little to do with anything actually modeling related. yeah, i thought he was looking for love too.
![https://i.imgur.com/m8TQi.png]()
Photographer
ForeverFotos
Posts: 6662
Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Michael Pandolfo wrote:
What's more impressive in photos? NO penises. I second that emotion.......from a purely hetero point of view.
Photographer
Kev Lawson
Posts: 11294
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
oh my!!!! excuse me I need to go get more eye bleach before I see either erect or flaccid.
OK back to the OP, considering that MM does not allow erect penises... or should I say images of them... then I guess the answer would be flaccid.
** quietly reflecting on why I shoot mostly female models
Photographer
Kev Lawson
Posts: 11294
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Michael Pandolfo wrote:
I am curious though. Is there a male model Agency standard for penis size...much like height for a female model? Come on Michael, you know the answer, its 5'9" ... and watch out for ceiling fans!!! 
Photographer
Kent Art Photography
Posts: 3588
Ashford, England, United Kingdom
The problem with having a photo of a guy with an erection is that it stops being a photo of a guy with an erection and becomes just a photo of an erection.
Photographer
Michael Broughton
Posts: 2288
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Good Egg Productions wrote:
I would imagine it depends on the penis.
I mean, can it play the piano if it's erect? Because that would be impressive. mine can, but it needs one of those huge keyboards like in the movie "big". 
Photographer
Bravo Magic Images
Posts: 765
Temple City, California, US
What is impressive is not always acceptable. Why would you want to show off your errection and not leave anything to the imagination. It is sad that female models can show off their errected nipples but no hard weenee on Mayhem.
Photographer
Kent Art Photography
Posts: 3588
Ashford, England, United Kingdom
Michael Pandolfo wrote:
...I am curious though. Is there a male model Agency standard for penis size...much like height for a female model?... Penile enlargement operations are available, of course, and are widely undertaken, I understand. Would that a similar operation was available for all those 5'4" tall girls to make them tall enough to reach agency standard.
Photographer
brian selway
Posts: 54
Leicester, England, United Kingdom
Weird how hetero females can see art in a female nude, but even with photographers, the heteros seem to run screaming from a male nude.
In reply to the OP's question, I'd have to say it's the shot it's in that either is of isn't impressive..a penis is just a part of that, whatever size of state it's in. IMHO.
Photographer
DOUGLASFOTOS
Posts: 10604
Los Angeles, California, US
Select Models wrote:
MM bans all erect penis images... so I guess you'll never now... i could not tell with all those hard on penis's pointing south.
Photographer
EdwardKristopher
Posts: 3409
Tempe, Arizona, US
Good Egg Productions wrote:
I would imagine it depends on the penis.
I mean, can it play the piano if it's erect? Because that would be impressive. +1 That truly would be impressive!
Photographer
Kent Art Photography
Posts: 3588
Ashford, England, United Kingdom
brian selway wrote:
Weird how hetero females can see art in a female nude, but even with photographers, the heteros seem to run screaming from a male nude... It's actually more an American thing, and you'll see it a lot on MM. I don't think it's as prevalent in the UK.
Photographer
Rays Fine Art
Posts: 7504
New York, New York, US
There was a character, a hooker, in a really bad off-B/way play I saw once that had a truly memorable line, "A penis is just a penis, but a prick is still a prick."
Photographer
REMOVED
Posts: 1546
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Mark De Rossi wrote:
what is more impressive in photos, erect or flacid? If you are going for the gay porno market, buyers will be interested in the stiffies.
Photographer
Don Garrett
Posts: 4984
Escondido, California, US
I'm partial to pussies, but whatever someone else likes is their own business, and I am happy for them. I know the question was about flaccid vs erect, but, to me, they are all the same, (except for mine, which is exceptional).
-Don
Photographer
Yves Duchamp- Homme
Posts: 3212
Virginia Beach, Virginia, US
Mark De Rossi wrote:
what is more impressive in photos, erect or flacid? Honestly, it depends on the photo. As far as "impressive" goes, erections are almost always more impressive.
Photographer
Yan Tan Tethera
Posts: 4185
Biggleswade, England, United Kingdom
Good Egg Productions wrote:
I would imagine it depends on the penis.
I mean, can it play the piano if it's erect? Because that would be impressive. I'm pretty good on the fretless bass..
Erections.......
Photographer
Yves Duchamp- Homme
Posts: 3212
Virginia Beach, Virginia, US
Kent Art Photography wrote:
The problem with having a photo of a guy with an erection is that it stops being a photo of a guy with an erection and becomes just a photo of an erection. Not necessarily.
Photographer
Glenn Hall - Fine Art
Posts: 452
Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Michael Pandolfo wrote:
What's more impressive in photos? NO penises. yup...and no vaginas
Photographer
Kent Art Photography
Posts: 3588
Ashford, England, United Kingdom
Shon D.- Homme wrote:
Not necessarily. Well, maybe not in every case.
But mostly, in the eyes of most straight Americans.
Photographer
C h a r l e s D
Posts: 9312
Los Angeles, California, US
A "Look at my penis" thread. Don't see too many of these around here. OP, since 'impressive' is an opinion, there is no definitive answer. Whatever gets you paying work or sells more images is what you should produce. Glenn Hall - Fine Art wrote:
yup...and no vaginas I've never seen a vagina shot on MM. Sure do see a lot of labias and vulvas, though.
Photographer
David J Martin
Posts: 458
El Paso, Texas, US
C h a r l e s D wrote:
A "Look at my penis" thread. Don't get too many of these.
I've never seen a vagina shot on MM. Sure do see a lot of labias, though. Usually it's the woman model vs. the male photographer. Now it seems to be the hetro photographers vs. the homo photographers. It is an interesting twist.
Model
Anna Adrielle
Posts: 18763
Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
you have asked this question before I think...
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Mark De Rossi wrote:
what is more impressive in photos, erect or flacid? Well why don't you just upload one of each, see which gets more attention.
Photographer
Image Magik
Posts: 1515
Santa Cruz, California, US
haha now that's a bold question! lol First off as with everything not everyones looks the same. Second, depends who's looking. Third, depends what kind of impression you're trying to make. I've seen a lot of ugly erect penises and not to many "good' looking ones. If I saw one I'd probably photograph it! :-)
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 6895
Glens Falls, New York, US
brian selway wrote:
Weird how hetero females can see art in a female nude, but even with photographers, the heteros seem to run screaming from a male nude. It has nothing to do with being gay. It's because a penis is meant for fucking, and that's it. And I don't mean 'it's used for sex' - I mean 'it does the fucking.' Sure we urinate with it, but women seem to be able to accomplish that just fine without one. Unlike female genitals, the penis has no other uses.
That means that any photo ever taken of a man with an erect penis is about sex. He just had sex, he's about to have sex, he wants to have sex with the viewer, whatever. More to the point, he's gonna' be the one doing the sexin'. That is why erect penises are not seen as art; there's absolutely no room for interpretation.
If you really want to get into the sociophilosophy of it, it also has to do with the fact that the viewer has an inherently dominant relationship to a portrait. Many artists, such as Robert Mapplethorpe have challenged this, but it is still the standard. The viewer gets to ogle the person in the portrait for as long as they want, make up whatever back story they want, and move along to the next image whenever they feel like it. In a way, the viewer gets to force the person in the portrait into role-playing with them.
The fact that it's okay for women to be shown as sexual beings in a photograph is because women have historically been seen as the passive sexual partner in most cultures. Showing a woman spread-eagle on the hood of a Mustang doesn't change our dynamic with the photograph. We might be offended, shocked, turned on or off, or any other response, but the viewer remains the dominant one in our relationship with the photograph.
Having an erect man in the same position does change our relationship to that photograph. Now, the photograph OWNS us. It's not about what we want to see anymore - it's about what he wants to do to us. And while we can still look away, we're no longer fully in control of our viewing experience with that image.
The fact that Mapplethorpe could do this so well, often without actually showing erect penises, is why he is regarded as a master of the genre. Not because he was an Irving Penn with more nudes.
Photographer
Stephoto Photography
Posts: 20158
Amherst, Massachusetts, US
It's only impressive when 1- shooting erotica or fine art nudes and 2- when the guy is already largely sized, anyway.
Aside from that? Keep it flaccid and hidden away, please!
As an FYI, I do multiple genres, so- yes, I have seen a few that are fairly impressive/nice looking. I just don't want to see it unless it's preplanned... and i'm getting paid to take photos of it.
Photographer
Image Magik
Posts: 1515
Santa Cruz, California, US
DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
i could not tell with all those hard on penis's pointing south. Yes, well pointing down is officially not erect.
Photographer
Image Magik
Posts: 1515
Santa Cruz, California, US
Kent Art Photography wrote:
The problem with having a photo of a guy with an erection is that it stops being a photo of a guy with an erection and becomes just a photo of an erection. Well that would depend how it's framed!
Photographer
Sidney Kapuskar
Posts: 876
Paris, Île-de-France, France
Mark De Rossi wrote:
what is more impressive in photos, erect or flacid? hhhhmmm...
I'm thinking about the female equivalent, would it be shaved or non shaved??
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12117
Tampa, Florida, US
brian selway wrote:
Weird how hetero females can see art in a female nude, but even with photographers, the heteros seem to run screaming from a male nude.
In reply to the OP's question, I'd have to say it's the shot it's in that either is of isn't impressive..a penis is just a part of that, whatever size of state it's in. IMHO. Hetero females can see art in the female nude because it's a universally beautiful thing - lines, curves, soft, etc.
Most hetero males (and most females of any sexual preference that I know) don't see that same beauty in the male form. The penis may be very utilitarian but it is by no means a beautiful object. (reminds me of the Seinfeld episode that dealt with male nudity).
Of course, some male and females might find the penis to be artistic and beautiful. Then again, there are also people who become sexually aroused by having dirty socks stuffed in their mouths.
The issue most had is the use of the term "impressive." There is nothing modeling or photography-related in the use of that term. The only thing that would have made it even more inappropriate is if the OP had preceded it with "rock hard..." I do have to wonder who the OP is wanting to "impress."
|
