Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
IMHO, versatility is good and makes for a better portfolio. I'm an artist as well as a model, and I know for a fact that there's no way I'd be taken seriously in today's art world if I only made images depicting one gender. However, way too many people seem to view aesthetically pleasing art as what gets them horny.

I should also mention though that male nude models can be a little weird and difficult to work with, so I'm sure that makes a huge difference.

This is one of my (female, and 18+) pieces of "aesthetically pleasing art".  But it's not the kind of thing that "gets me horny."
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/29885264

Art of the nude wrote:
This is one of my (female, and 18+) pieces of "aesthetically pleasing art".  But it's not the kind of thing that "gets me horny."
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/29885264

That's a really lovely image. So why can't an image of a nude man be equally lovely?

Even from a purely business stand point it makes more sense to shoot both males and females. Say there's an aspiring male model on MM perusing through photographers to pay for a shoot. If he sees a portfolio with only females in it, how likely is he to hire that photographer? My guess is not very likely. That's potential income lost. Same may go for clients looking for a photographer to shoot male fashion, couples, and many more. If you only shoot females, you lose out on a lot of that. Of course that's no problem if you're a hobbyist, but if you have the goal of making money as a photographer, it seems more practical to me to include both genders in your portfolio.