Posted by XtremeArtists: 
Men an women basically have the same parts. They are just configured differently.

A clitoris is usually hidden when not turgid, unlike it's counterpart the penis.

The ovaries are raised up into the female anatomy, while their conterpart testicals hang low and in plain view of the camera.

I was going to say that it's because pee-pees are ugly and boobies are pretty, but you've found a slightly more sophisticated way of saying it...

This society just doesn't find genetalia aesthetically pleasing.  And a woman's genetalia is harder to see.

Posted by Star: 
I AM NOT ASKING WHAT IS PORN,

I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT AROUSING PHOTO SHOOOTS

I am asking whether you see a man being nude as being more controversal than a woman? and if so, why?

They seem like the same question to me, and I can't really answer the 'controversial' part without answering--at least somewhat--the 'what is porn' [art.

So I'll just go away; the above is the best I can do within the confines requested.

Posted by Star: 
Ok, please do not degenrate this into a porn what is it topic, that is not what the discussion point I am raising is...

this is the point, recently I posted a set of three images of a female model that I did for a porn photographer to make his webpage a bit more mainstream. I sometimes get a few hours of work from him, and keep all rights to the images, since he is down the hall and has the girls coming by anyway.

So, these images, titled porn or art, have recieved mainly good feedback. The center one is of a woman chained to a ladder, fully nude. People have said it is art, or called it pornartgraphy.

I also have an image of a partially aroused man, done in color, in a non-arousing pose. I just read a quote on a forum where someone thought I was banned because of this image being pornographic.

(btb- this person's avatar is of a woman in a wet see through t-shirt)

So the question is, why is it if it is a man who is nude it is more disturbing than a woman?

I AM NOT ASKING WHAT IS PORN,

I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT AROUSING PHOTO SHOOOTS

I am asking whether you see a man being nude as being more controversal than a woman? and if so, why?


Star

I would envision the male nude as more controversial than the female nude, because I'm more accustomed to seeing the female form.  As my fellow Floridian pointed out, the cofiguration is different.  The male's is right on the table. (No pun intended)

-Jennifer Maria

Posted by AgentN: 
It's always been that way and although I don't know why, its just another sad fact of life.

It's a cultural thing that hasn't always been like this.  Just look at the art from ancient Greece.  You'll see far more nude men than women.

I wonder if straight men in ancient Greece bemoaned the double standard that made their culture shy away from female nudes.

Posted by XtremeArtists: 
Men and women basically have the same parts. They are just configured differently.

A clitoris is usually hidden when not turgid, unlike it's counterpart the penis.

The ovaries are raised up into the female anatomy, while their conterpart testicals hang low and in plain view of the camera.

I'm not making a value judgement, just pointing out that without shooting spread eagle poses, a male's sexual anatomy will be more visible than a female's.

However, most men, and heck lets even put in the gay and bi girls, are attracted (sp?) to women's breasts, but the same cannot be said of the pectorals of a man being seen as taboo, or as a sexual objectified region in and of themselves.
So all those pictures of girls covered in baby oil, or dripping wet, are they art?
The main point is that the port or art series was intended to arouse, the nude male was not. It was an experiment in capturing the nude male form (which I still have trouble with.)
So why is the nude male porn, the nude female not?

Posted by Star: 

Posted by XtremeArtists: 
Men and women basically have the same parts. They are just configured differently.

A clitoris is usually hidden when not turgid, unlike it's counterpart the penis.

The ovaries are raised up into the female anatomy, while their conterpart testicals hang low and in plain view of the camera.

I'm not making a value judgement, just pointing out that without shooting spread eagle poses, a male's sexual anatomy will be more visible than a female's.

However, most men, and heck lets even put in the gay and bi girls, are attracted (sp?) to women's breasts, but the same cannot be said of the pectorals of a man being seen as taboo, or as a sexual objectified region in and of themselves.
So all those pictures of girls covered in baby oil, or dripping wet, are they art?
The main point is that the port or art series was intended to arouse, the nude male was not. It was an experiment in capturing the nude male form (which I still have trouble with.)
So why is the nude male porn, the nude female not?

Star, part of the problem is you're talking to the wrong audience.  If you were talking to historians or art students (who actually had to take a course in western classics not to mention african or asian or native american art) you would having people telling you, and rightfully so, that your premise that a male nude is porn and a female nude isn't is wrong.

Our little snippet of time, this place we call US circa 2005 is despite our egotistical leanings, a drop in the proverbial bucket of culture.

Morevoer your assertion that the breasts are where it's at, is narrow as well.  It depends on which part of the world you're talking about.  In the US we seem to have a mammary obsession.  Other parts of the world don't have quite the same mommy or nurturing complex.

Posted by KM von Seidl: 
Star, part of the problem is you're talking to the wrong audience.  If you were talking to historians or art students (who actually had to take a course in western classics not to mention african or asian or native american art) you would having people telling you, and rightfully so, that your premise that a male nude is porn and a female nude isn't is wrong.

Our little snippet of time, this place we call US circa 2005 is despite our egotistical leanings, a drop in the proverbial bucket of culture.

Morevoer your assertion that the breasts are where it's at, is narrow as well.  It depends on which part of the world you're talking about.  In the US we seem to have a mammary obsession.  Other parts of the world don't have quite the same mommy or nurturing complex.

but as a response to XTremeArtists it would seem to work if the USA has a mommy complex than the images of the female should have been seen as pornagraphic as well. My response took into account that the reason cited for the male shot as being porn but the female not because the female did not show the clitoris(can we even say that here.)

Couldn't that be seen as the narrow viewpoint?

Look, to make it simple, why is a man nude automatically labeled as pornographic when every forum debate to date has boiled down to you can't put porn into black and white definitions?

I don't want to get banned, but there will be more nude images of men, and women, in my port. I do fashion as well as fine art photography, and I feel my port should represent the type of images that I am exploring.

Oh, and the English model (addressing the differances in what is seen as sexually stimulating in differant cultures) who posed for these didn't seem to feel they were all that debate raising either...

Posted by Star: 
I also have an image of a partially aroused man, done in color, in a non-arousing pose.

The problem is he is semi aroused. If you had a woman inserting a finger, that would be a problem too. Both of those cross the "line" by being "explict".

Note: I have not seen your image because I am at work right now, I am going only by your description.

Posted by Star: 

Posted by KM von Seidl: 
Star, part of the problem is you're talking to the wrong audience.  If you were talking to historians or art students (who actually had to take a course in western classics not to mention african or asian or native american art) you would having people telling you, and rightfully so, that your premise that a male nude is porn and a female nude isn't is wrong.

Our little snippet of time, this place we call US circa 2005 is despite our egotistical leanings, a drop in the proverbial bucket of culture.

Morevoer your assertion that the breasts are where it's at, is narrow as well.  It depends on which part of the world you're talking about.  In the US we seem to have a mammary obsession.  Other parts of the world don't have quite the same mommy or nurturing complex.

but as a response to XTremeArtists it would seem to work if the USA has a mommy complex than the images of the female should have been seen as pornagraphic as well. My response took into account that the reason cited for the male shot as being porn but the female not because the female did not show the clitoris(can we even say that here.)

Breasts occupy a special place in our culture, they are considered nurturing, erotic and above all, commercial.   You would be hard pressed to sell any number of products in the US without the aid of a well endowed set.

A penis is generally considered alot more sinister.   It probably is a result of our prohibitions around sex as well as a strong Christian (and ironically feminist) stance that women need to be protected from male sexual impulses.  Nothing more obvious of such an impulse than an aroused organ.

Posted by KM von Seidl: 
A penis is generally considered alot more sinister.

That has to be one of the most unintentionally hysterical sentences I've read on these forums.

Posted by Eric Muss-Barnes: 

Posted by KM von Seidl: 
A penis is generally considered alot more sinister.

That has to be one of the most unintentionally hysterical sentences I've read on these forums.

I agree.


But probably for different reasons.

Posted by aye provide: 
Personally I find  art in the nude forms of both sexes.

2) the shape of the penis is bold jutting nothing that easily
    obscures ...and such blatent sex makes many uneasy.

Lightmeter?

:-)




*It's an internal joke between Aye and me... just couldn't resist!*

Posted by KM von Seidl: 

Posted by Eric Muss-Barnes: 

Posted by KM von Seidl: 
A penis is generally considered alot more sinister.

That has to be one of the most unintentionally hysterical sentences I've read on these forums.

I agree.

If you consider that the word sinister comes from left handed as opposed to right handed (the idea being that left handed people come from the devil) this statement on penises is right out of left field.

Posted by Paul Ferrara: 
I think Star just likes to take pictures of guys holding their penuses.  Believe it or not, there are a lot of other things to take pictures of.

Paul

Paul, if you couldn't say anything nice...

well if you were nice you wouldn't have any posts at all. Honestly Paul, I have never read a post of your that wasn't putting someone down.

xtreme- it is hard to masturbate with copper wire around your penis

I really do appreciate the contructive critique, I just will fight passionately for what I believe in. (Don't ask about President Bush)

Posted by Star: 
xtreme- it is hard to masturbate with copper wire around your penis

Now you're just getting kinky.

Where's alexwh when we need him?

Posted by XtremeArtists: 

Posted by Star: 
xtreme- it is hard to masturbate with copper wire around your penis

Now you're just getting kinky.

Where's alexwh when we need him?

Not if you Plug them In...lol

Posted by Hugh  Jorgen: 
Comming to a theatre near you!!!

"Attack Of The Sinister Penis"

Can ya see the crowds Running and Screaming as they exit the Theatre....

That's exactly the visual!  Only they ain't running from the theatre.  They're turning off the TV.  Or they're writing angry letters.  Or they're calling it porn.   The only thing that surprises me at this point is that there hasn't been a movement to cover up animal genitalia.

Posted by Star: 
Look, to make it simple, why is a man nude automatically labeled as pornographic when every forum debate to date has boiled down to you can't put porn into black and white definitions?

Doesn't that violate your original constraints?

Posted by Star: 
I AM NOT ASKING WHAT IS PORN, [...]

I am asking whether you see a man being nude as being more controversal than a woman? and if so, why?

Given that you just said that a nude man is automatically labeled as pornographic--whether it's true or not--makes it pretty clear you know the culture's answer. Objecting to that being the answer is silly; it might well be a "bad" definition, but it seems widespread enough that  you take it as a given, even while railing against it.

Or, to answer the "why is a man..." question directly: "Because it is". It doesn't have to make sense, any more than putting clothes on to go swimming does: it's a cultural thing.

Posted by alexwh: 
There is another big difference (some may differ on this) and that is that men eject substance at a certain point and women don't.

G-Spot = Prostate

Posted by alexwh: 
There is another big difference (some may differ on this) and that is that men eject substance at a certain point and women don't.

Women don't?

(ahem)

Ladies, you better let this fella know he's doing something seriously wrong.

Posted by Star: 
I am asking whether you see a man being nude as being more controversal than a woman? and if so, why?

Short answer... No.

Posted by alexwh: 
I have posted this before but here goes. If you do not count breasts as sexual organs (in Canada they are not) the biggest difference between men and women is that men have two ouside and visible sexual organs, the penis and the scrotum. A woman has no exterior sexual organs, just the opening. There is another big difference (some may differ on this) and that is that men eject substance at a certain point and women don't.   

Actually, 5% or so do, it is called female ejaculation

Posted by Kevin Connery: 

Posted by Star: 
Look, to make it simple, why is a man nude automatically labeled as pornographic when every forum debate to date has boiled down to you can't put porn into black and white definitions?

Doesn't that violate your original constraints?

Posted by Star: 
I AM NOT ASKING WHAT IS PORN, [...]


I am asking whether you see a man being nude as being more controversal than a woman? and if so, why?

Given that you just said that a nude man is automatically labeled as pornographic--whether it's true or not--makes it pretty clear you know the culture's answer. Objecting to that being the answer is silly; it might well be a "bad" definition, but it seems widespread enough that  you take it as a given, even while railing against it.

Or, to answer the "why is a man..." question directly: "Because it is". It doesn't have to make sense, any more than putting clothes on to go swimming does: it's a cultural thing.

OK, what is porn has been covered, multiple times that is not why I am asking about it, I can read the threads and see what people think. This is about two specific images, one of which was referred to as porn in the site related discussion forum.
That disturbed me, since MM does not allow porn.

I also was writing in response to other people, who said that a nude male is automatically porn, not stating it for myself.

(Deep breath, do not flame)

Like an odd conversation with a half deaf relative who only answers about an hour after you asked the question, that is what these boards are like. You have to read every post, to understand why someone would write as they do, and what they do. It is a conversation, not a soliloquy.

Posted by Star: 

Posted by alexwh: 
I have posted this before but here goes. If you do not count breasts as sexual organs (in Canada they are not) the biggest difference between men and women is that men have two ouside and visible sexual organs, the penis and the scrotum. A woman has no exterior sexual organs, just the opening. There is another big difference (some may differ on this) and that is that men eject substance at a certain point and women don't.   

Actually, 5% or so do, it is called female ejaculation

The other 95% just haven't yet.