Mark De Rossi wrote:
what is more impressive on photo,, an erect or non erect penis and circumsized or not.
and why

In my opinion, a flacid unit could be used as part of a tasteful image, but if its erect it is more porographic. I'm not sure if it matters if its clipped or not.

IDiivil wrote:
An erect penis isn't allowed on MM anyways.

This.

Henna N.  wrote:

LOL

Henna N.  wrote:

hahaha awesome.

OP~ Erect penis is more along the lines of porn and is not allowed on mm.
A flacid penis is more artistic if presented right.

Marianne Michaela wrote:
when you're talking about impressive I would say a 12 inch throbbing veined slightly purple-pinkish glistening one that roars and growls and can bring women to an orgasm just by pointing is pretty impressive.

for modelling, I just think it's kind of a weird question .

and erect penises are not allowed here...

Or a penis that can shoot fire. Dude, I'd pay to get one of those.

IDiivil wrote:

Or a penis that can shoot fire. Dude, I'd pay to get one of those.

omg YES that would be so impressive! I wouldn't use it on myself though, for obvious reasons, but maybe I could use it as a strap-on to scare away burglars?

Laura UnBound wrote:
Haaaah, he said "floppy part"

I was going to say "willy" instead... but that's too English.

Steve Hayward UK wrote:
What an incredibly stupid question. Here are some more:

What is better... big boobs or little boobs?
What is better... a smooth pubic area, a little landing strip, or a big muff?
What is better... small tidy labia or huge hanging labia?
What is better... 5'11" skinny girls or 5'2" regular girls?
What is better... Nikon or Canon?

It's the male model that is either impressive or not... not his floppy part.

my best friends dog is named floppy :p

Steve Hayward UK wrote:

I was going to say "willy" instead... but that's too English.

You made the right choice. Floppy part is awesome.

IDiivil wrote:
An erect penis isn't allowed on MM anyways.

Yes, but there is a big wide world out there which is nothing at all to do with MM.

In the eyes of many people, an erect penis immediately turns an art nude into cheap porn, as noted by most of the responses here.  Done properly, and in the right situation, it can be perfectly in context for an art male nude.  But everyone seems to focus on the stiffy and not look at the rest of the picture, so the photo has to be a strong image in its own right without the erection.   And then you have to wonder if the image would work anyway without it.

The market for selling pics with stiffies is a little limited.  The big danglers tend to sell more, so for commercial reasons alone, stiffie shots shots tend to be in a minority.

And, actually, trying to maintain an erection in a studio environment isn't the easiest thing to do.

Marianne Michaela wrote:

omg YES that would be so impressive! I wouldn't use it on myself though, for obvious reasons, but maybe I could use it as a strap-on to scare away burglars?

Doesn't Charlie sheens penis shoot fire? Or at least he said it felt like it was

S B Photos wrote:

Doesn't Charlie sheens penis shoot fire? Or at least he said it felt like it was

Penicillin will usually cure that, if treated soon enough . . .

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Robert Mapelthorpe didn't seem to have any problems getting his images with erect penis' shown in the best galleries and published in fine art books.

It's not what you do, but how you do it and who you are that makes the difference

I'm not sure I'd agree with you that he didn't have any problems, the Corcoran Scandal, among others, comes to mind.

Male nudes without erections are hardly mainstream art, it would be harder(!) to find outlets for works with erections.

IDiivil wrote:

Or a penis that can shoot fire. Dude, I'd pay to get one of those.

What would you do with it?

Mark De Rossi wrote:
what is more impressive on photo,, an erect or non erect penis and circumsized or not.
and why

An erect penis would be more impressive ON a photo.  floppy is better IN a photo

Vincent Arthur wrote:

What would you do with it?

Start bush fires?

S B Photos wrote:
Doesn't Charlie sheens penis shoot fire? Or at least he said it felt like it was

Penicillin will usually cure that, if treated soon enough . . .

In his case, I think they didn't catch it soon enough and it's gone on to his head.

Laura UnBound wrote:
Pictures of dicks arent impressive.

agreed!

Vincent Arthur wrote:
An erect penis would be more impressive ON a photo.  floppy is better IN a photo

I'd pay tribute to this response, the only one that seemed to catch "on", but then, apparently, I couldn't post it because of MM rules.

Henna N.  wrote:

For real...
Just not art being all hard...

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

Penicillin will usually cure that, if treated soon enough . . .

LOL best one yet

Laura UnBound wrote:
Pictures of dicks arent impressive.

Am I to take that as meaning that real ones are?

Laura UnBound wrote:
Pictures of dicks arent impressive.

+1

IDiivil wrote:

Or a penis that can shoot fire. Dude, I'd pay to get one of those.

if my penis is shooting fire, I need to probably go to the clinic.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Robert Mapelthorpe didn't seem to have any problems getting his images with erect penis' shown in the best galleries and published in fine art books.

It's not what you do, but how you do it and who you are that makes the difference

^^