udor wrote:
You can pee when erect..., so I've heard,...

Confirming.

TOP O' THE PAGE!

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

Confirming.

TOP O' THE PAGE!

Yes - the Max Hardcore scene with Roxy Jezel pretty much makes this clear. European edition of the DVD.

Caitin Bre wrote:

Ok I just read that version as I had read a different version earlier. There are conflicting information on him and it seems that as time went along he was something different to different beliefs.
But he remained the God of the Garden.
Its Mythology.

Yes I know. But you took one version, generalized it as "That must have been how it was done."

It isn't.

Anyway, what's with the penis envy?

Virtual Studio wrote:

Yes - the Max Hardcore scene with Roxy Jezel pretty much makes this clear. European edition of the DVD.

Pretty much any Max Hardcore scene, really.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

Pretty much any Max Hardcore scene, really.

Yes - he was a very creepy chap.

I think it was the best ever use of the 2257 legislation when he went down.

HHPhoto wrote:
Showing full wood in nude art would eliminate the mystery regarding showers and growers.

"Mystery"?!?!?!

The fact how people still think that the flaccid penis is an indication of it's erect size, in 2014, is the real mystery...

Eros Fine Art Photo wrote:

I disagree.  Porn is porn.  It'll never be exhibited at The Getty, or any well established museum of art.  Although some art can push the boundaries, obvious porn (i.e. Hustler magazine, Vivid Entertainment DVD's, porn websites, etc) will never be confused with art.

Circular reasoning abound; of course what is commonly called "porn" will not be mistaken for what is commonly called "art" because it, whether it is art or not, is very different from orange and red hued, boring photographs of fruit-in-a-bowl.

Just like Rap at one point wasn't considered real "music" (which was ridiculous) by most people and many of you who remember the 70's probably can think back to those times..  But any idiot knows that Rap music, like symphonic music, is "music" all the same.

That's the problem, people defining what is and isn't "art" for other people.  I don't think a lot of "art" out there is art as opposed to literal junk that I wouldn't dare display anywhere, but that's my opinion; and that opinion shouldn't define art for the next guy who might find great esthetic value in what I think is horrible.

Porn isn't porn.   The word "porn" simply describes one area of artistic reality, and even it has many degrees.

I think a person has to be limp-brained to allow others to define areas of art for them.  It's so infantile that I've seen photographs that were "artistic"… but keep the pose and change the clothing and it becomes porn.   Remember platform "hooker heels"?  … interesting that today, it's common and fashionable for girls under the age of 18 to wear them to their Prom and no one bats an eye.

To reiterate what has already been accurately stated:   Porn is art.

CBAPhoto wrote:

Society's truest perverts believe that human genitalia in any representation are "sinful" and "crude" and "distasteful" and any number of other negative, half-thought, emotionally unintelligent, and willfully ignorant adjectives. The human form is the sum of its parts. To demonize one set of parts without demonizing all of the parts is fear and gullibility in their worst forms.

Good to know a few of you have a brain that has neurons actually firing.  Accurately stated.

EnlightendedPhotography wrote:
I had a male model take Viagra during one of my human statue shoots. The female model and makeup artist were not amused.  I wanted to take a two by four to his erection.... His wife found out and he has stopped modeling.  I have never seen a marble statue with an erection.

You have never seen the Greek and Roman statues with erections, it is part of art.

What about Maplethrope ? His nudes that were homoerotic are amazing

Caitin Bre wrote:

Funny. I was told by a well established photographer once that the only difference between art and porn was lighting and aperture. Of coarse he was joking and making fun of the way people quickly judge without thinking.

Isn't claiming an erect penis isn't pornographic, sexual or otherwise, a judgment? Just in the other direction?

Isn't the fact that you are most likely putting your anti puritanical American belief on how this site deals with chubbies, while other countries and cultures may be less open minded, presumptuous and judgmental as well? Assuming that everyone in the world would think like you do, and therefore the site shouldn't ban erections anymore?

Caitin Bre wrote:
I think that erect penis in art is very nice. Limp penises are ugly unattractive.

This subject has always confused me.

The question now is: how many erect pensis have you received pictures of via email or text because of this post?

http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~watrous/make-penis-fast.html

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
Good to know a few of you have a brain that has neurons actually firing.  Accurately stated.

That statement is hilarious to me. I love when people come in and try to sound superior and then spell words wrong or make huge grammatical errors.

Might wanna get your neurons a tune up.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
Porn isn't porn.   The word "porn" simply describes one area of artistic reality, and even it has many degrees. 

Porn is art.

No, actually porn is porn. This notion that porn is this nebulous concept which can't be defined and is in the eye of the beholder is more than somewhat obtuse.

Content, intent and outcome. That's how pornography is defined and evaluated. And it does have a definition and it should not be discounted. I can say you and I are "talking" and you know what I mean by that because the word talking has a definition. To discard it would be to court complete disaster of communication. Just like if I say I have a dog, you might not be think of a Boxer over a Dalmatian, but you do have a picture in your mind of a four-legged mammal with a snout, sharp incisors, a wagging tail and fur. If you come to my house and my pet has feathers, wings and chirps you're going to think I'm crazy for calling it a dog. Rightly so.

Pornography has a definition. That definition – no matter where you look it up – centers on the graphic portrayal of sexual acts for the purpose of arousal and gratification. There's a loose connotative definition that also incorporates a profit-driven commercial element. That's pornography.

The portrayal of sexual content with high art aspirations is, by definition, erotica.

Porn is porn. It's not art. Erotica is art. Sometimes erotica is as explicit as pornography. The separation is in intent. Not the eye of the viewer. Were that the case, any damn thing could be porn simply because you think it is, which is silly (despite the fact that people repeat that, too). A women's tennis match isn't porn just because you jerk off to it. Hustler is still pornography even if it doesn't arouse you and you find it beautiful.

Most often, the reason people are so hell-bent on trying to argue that porn is somehow art is that they seem to be under the impression than labeling an image as porn is some kind of insult. It isn't.

Jim Ball wrote:
It is difficult to separate an image of an erect penis from the inherent sexual implications.

Should sexual implications be removed from art?

That would be a tough one.

Caitin Bre wrote:

Ok your missing a few here.
One is as I have been told that he loves me so much that his heart beats very fast raising blood pressure. That the penis is kind of a over flow reservoir keeping his heart from exploding.
I have been given this same exact explanation but that I am so pretty that the heart races.....
How about the temperature. The penis also acts as a radiator to cool the blood flow. Its easily explained as well. It shrinks in the cold.
I had a few friends that got erections with no explanations at all other than it just happens sometimes.
I really don't think that it is just sexual.

You may want to take Human Biology class again.

Good god.

Jules NYC wrote:
Maybe someone should pose with an erect penis and hang some dry-cleaning on it.
Like a crisp white shirt; it would be very 50's.

You should post a casting call...

I'm sure there would be plenty of 'male models' happy to send you selfies to prove they were the right guy for the job

Another Italian Guy wrote:

You should post a casting call...

I'm sure there would be plenty of 'male models' happy to send you selfies to prove they were the right guy for the job

Yes, please send all of your penis pictures to me.
[email protected]

*not a real email address (for all I know)

P I X I E wrote:

You may want to take Human Biology class again.

Good god.

Pixie
It was humor. It was things guys have told me over the years. I am sure that some got a laugh from it.

Eros Fine Art Photo wrote:

Ha!  You should see the nude selfies I take with my cell phone.  Pure art.  Just ask any of the women on Match.com I've sent them to. 



(Disclaimer:  I am TOTALLY kidding here

...they're not artistic at all)

But you still sent the pics!

Jules NYC wrote:
http://www.travelblog.org/Photos/4825358

On that note,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPiOPaD87nM

Good one, I mean the video.

MelissaAnn  wrote:
Maybe they should be semi-erect.  That's a good compromise. 

Another Italian Guy wrote:
I think the problem arises from the fact that an erect penis only really has one purpose.

That is bound to change the way any image is viewed.

Sure, it can be art too, but if you don't want your image to be about sex then you'd damn well better not have an erect penis in it!





Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

So do you think that in a certain lighting and black n white it can change the way people look at the erect penis?

Tropic Light wrote:

Here's one from Molokai.  One of my friends slept under it one night.

http://www.to-hawaii.com/molokai/ancien … icrock.php

Was he soaked when he woke up in the morning ?

Caitin Bre wrote:

Pixie
It was humor. It was things guys have told me over the years. I am sure that some got a laugh from it.

Yeah, sure...

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:

No, actually porn is porn. This notion that porn is this nebulous concept which can't be defined and is in the eye of the beholder is more than somewhat obtuse.

Content, intent and outcome. That's how pornography is defined and evaluated. And it does have a definition and it should not be discounted. I can say you and I are "talking" and you know what I mean by that because the word talking has a definition. To discard it would be to court complete disaster of communication. Just like if I say I have a dog, you might not be think of a Boxer over a Dalmatian, but you do have a picture in your mind of a four-legged mammal with a snout, sharp incisors, a wagging tail and fur. If you come to my house and my pet has feathers, wings and chirps you're going to think I'm crazy for calling it a dog. Rightly so.

Pornography has a definition. That definition – no matter where you look it up – centers on the graphic portrayal of sexual acts for the purpose of arousal and gratification. There's a loose connotative definition that also incorporates a profit-driven commercial element. That's pornography.

The portrayal of sexual content with high art aspirations is, by definition, erotica.

Porn is porn. It's not art. Erotica is art. Sometimes erotica is as explicit as pornography. The separation is in intent. Not the eye of the viewer. Were that the case, any damn thing could be porn simply because you think it is, which is silly (despite the fact that people repeat that, too). A women's tennis match isn't porn just because you jerk off to it. Hustler is still pornography even if it doesn't arouse you and you find it beautiful.

Most often, the reason people are so hell-bent on trying to argue that porn is somehow art is that they seem to be under the impression than labeling an image as porn is some kind of insult. It isn't.

So are you saying that there is no such thing as artistic porn?

Porn is porn and art is art, but isn't there such a thing as pornographic art/Artistic porn? They are not mutually exclusion. Not all porn is art of coarse and not all art is porn, but you could cross genres.

Caitin Bre wrote:
What is the real reason most places ban erect penises in art?

Where?

Caitin Bre wrote:
I do believe as I am reading more and more on the subject that the boner banning from art works is a great hypocracy.
I like seeing a erect penis in artworks. Does that give you a opinion of me or who I am? It shouldn't.
How many of you take pictures of young, nude, sexy, hot women. Seductive looks and clothing. Its justified art right? How many of you could take sexy pictures of men? I bet over half of you would say no way. But its not sexual, its art right?

How about this. Lets hear some real thought out answers on the subject. Is anyone brave enough to give there real honest feelings on the subjects?

I've shot male nudes. Doesn't bother me. Problem is male models flake more.

Caitin Bre wrote:
I do believe as I am reading more and more on the subject that the boner banning from art works is a great hypocracy.
I like seeing a erect penis in artworks. Does that give you a opinion of me or who I am? It shouldn't.
How many of you take pictures of young, nude, sexy, hot women. Seductive looks and clothing. Its justified art right? How many of you could take sexy pictures of men? I bet over half of you would say no way. But its not sexual, its art right?

How about this. Lets hear some real thought out answers on the subject. Is anyone brave enough to give there real honest feelings on the subjects?

The implied thing is hard to do with erected penises
but you are right.

Caitin Bre wrote:
So do you think that in a certain lighting and black n white it can change the way people look at the erect penis?

Not really.

I mean, it is what it is and we all know what it's for. That automatically adds a (strong) sexual element to any image regardless of lighting etc. Guys don't just stand naked around with erections thinking about the weather or what they're going to buy at the grocery store later...




Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Where?

A very common example this one from deviant art:
The following contents are considered unacceptable for submission in either visual art or literature form and will be subjected to immediate removal without notice.

• Erections.
There should be no use of imagery depicting an erect penis, however there may be exceptions granted to illustrations created for legitimate medical or educational purposes.


MM has its policy as well. Erections are not allowed even in Jeans.
The following represent image types that are NEVER allowed to be posted on Model Mayhem:
- erect penises (must be completely flaccid) covered or not

Many sales sites do not allow it as well. Many Galleries ban the boner too.

Another Italian Guy wrote:

Not really.

I mean, it is what it is and we all know what it's for. That automatically adds a (strong) sexual element to any image regardless of lighting etc. Guys don't just stand naked around with erections thinking about the weather or what they're going to buy at the grocery store later...




Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

there is an app for that

Caitin Bre wrote:

A very common example this one from deviant art:
The following contents are considered unacceptable for submission in either visual art or literature form and will be subjected to immediate removal without notice.

• Erections.
There should be no use of imagery depicting an erect penis, however there may be exceptions granted to illustrations created for legitimate medical or educational purposes.


MM has its policy as well. Erections are not allowed even in Jeans.
The following represent image types that are NEVER allowed to be posted on Model Mayhem:
- erect penises (must be completely flaccid) covered or not

Many sales sites do not allow it as well. Many Galleries ban the boner too.

Who cares?

Why are you so eager to be allowed to show erect penises? What are you not telling people?

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
Who cares?

Why are you so eager to be allowed to show erect penises? What are you not telling people?

Exposing the hypocrisy.
We all call ourselves artist here for the most part. But yet I see so many prejudices.
In order for art to be free expression one should have the freedom of expression.
Who cares? I would think you would as you like the freedom to express what you want how you want right? or what are the chains that bind you?

It is extremely important that people are free to express themselves. Oppression is the control from another. All are equal and that should be relevant in all things. No person should have the power to control how others should think.
Freedom and equality begins with the freedom of expression. It should be protected 1st and foremost.
If we are all artist here then we should have a appreciation for all art even if it is not something that we particularly care for personally.
Like someone brought up rap music and how people said it isn't music. Just because a person doesn't like something doesn't mean it doesn't or shouldn't exist.

Someone asked what is art somewhere on the forums recently.
Art is a 2 part explanation. The expression and the view.
No matter what it is you are expressing if it is your art then it is art. For the viewer what ever you are viewing if you feel it as art then it is art. No single or group can truly define art. By even trying to define it you are exercising censorship. If you define it for yourself then you are simply finding your place of comfort and it will change from time to time. But in no way shape or form should you define it for anyone else.