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.
Wow! What an impressive answer. I never looked at things that way.
Aaliyah Love wrote: labias and vulvas are PART of the vagina. I have vagina pics on my MM profile. They get the most clicks and most comments. Which makes me want to take those pics off of my profile..
pssst....the vagina is on the inside...kinda not the same..
and unless you have already taken them down your vagina is not visible in any of your images..
Besides the obvious answers here [intent and content], an erect penis can be distracting if the model wishes to display their body as a whole [no pun intended]. the penis is a relatively small [sorry] part of the whole figure. An erect penis can steal the show [sorry]and distract from a great figure shot [sorry]. Much like placing an art work in a distracting frame, it can ruin the interpretation of the work. Decide "what" YOUR goals are, and display accordingly.Just remember, an erect penis by itself can be a lonely thing....................[sorry].
Michael Pandolfo wrote: 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).
I find an erect penis very beautiful. a flacid one looks a bit sad most of the time . an erect one looks so impressive though, and strong, and masculine.
I can appreciate an erect penis in like art-erotic type of images, but there is a time and a place for that.
What is it you are trying to prove? That you are able to get a hard on, oh my that is impressive.
Or perhaps to show how desperate you are to stand out... No pun intended.
If you don't have what it takes to attract attention from potential clients without your old fella standing to attention, then you're in the wrong place bud.
An erect cock is for fucking, its a state of arousal, full stop. Therefore it has no valid place here or any other respectful modeling site.
And frankly, anything short of mine is not all that impressive
Manchester, New Hampshire, US
When ever I see people speak of the penis being a "distraction" in a male nude because it's such a focal point I can't help but wonder: Do these people ignore a woman's breasts and pubic area in a female nude...? Of course not. These are the things that actually personify the genders, that's why we like to look... /hijack
MS Foto wrote: It's really no different than any other nude capture, male or female: Can it be done well? Yes. Is it usually done well? No....