This thread was locked on 2014-02-18 18:50:42
Photographer
Drew Smith Photography
Posts: 5214
Nottingham, England, United Kingdom
Koryn wrote:
The only erections I want to see are on my boyfriend, at 7am. I like those.
The rest of them...no thanks.... Plural? 
You must be the envy of all your girlfriends.
And..... TOTP Ma! 
Photographer
Connor Photography
Posts: 8539
Newark, Delaware, US
Caitin Bre wrote:
I really do not understand why people are so afraid of erect penises in fine art or well anything for that matter.
So what is the problem and what am I missing?
I think that erect penis in art is very nice. Limp penises are ugly unattractive.
What is the real reason most places ban erect penises in art?
I wonder if a poll taken would it be the men vote or women vote that would make either way acceptable?
This subject has always confused me. I love erected penis, nipple and clitoris. There you are, I said it.
May be the erected state signifies sexual arousal. The church lady does not like it. Therefore we can't talk about it or discuss it in public.
Photographer
Christopher Carter
Posts: 7777
Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Caitin Bre wrote:
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. What hypocrisy? No one is advocating for spread vaginas. And they're just as against the rules. In fact, close up, focusing on the vagina, etc, is grounds for the photo to be removed.
Also, how is it hypocritical to view it as sexual when in fact, it is sexual? Again, why are you so fascinated with erect penises?
Or are you just bored?
Photographer
Connor Photography
Posts: 8539
Newark, Delaware, US
Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
What hypocrisy? No one is advocating for spread vaginas. And they're just as against the rules. In fact, close up, focusing on the vagina, etc, is grounds for the photo to be removed.
Also, how is it hypocritical to view it as sexual when in fact, it is sexual? Again, why are you so fascinated with erect penises?
Or are you just bored? I think the OP was talking our society in general, not specifically about MM policy. ???
Photographer
Kincaid Blackwood
Posts: 23492
Los Angeles, California, US
MesmerEyes Photography wrote:
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. There is some artfully rendered pornography. But it is still pornography. Why is it that people just want it to be art? The fact that it isn't art doesn't mean it isn't beautiful. The label "porn" isn't this damning, awful thing.
I'll say it again: graphic sexual content that has high art aspirations is erotica. Erotica is art. Porn is not art. The fact that it isn't art isn't a negative, it's just what is. An orange is not an apple. Arguing that it's an apple is pointless. It doesn't mean the fruit is any less tasty, it's just not a fucking apple.
I'm just not sure what makes people ago hell-bent on not being able to accept the fact that it can fall into categories. There should not be a problem.
Photographer
What Fun Productions
Posts: 20868
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Ghoul lighting is most dramatic when lighting the subject.
Photographer
Christopher Carter
Posts: 7777
Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Connor Photography wrote:
I think the OP was talking our society in general, not specifically about MM policy. ??? I get that. But then, MM isn't dictated by our cultural beliefs only.
But then how is having a belief hypocritical? If a belief contradicts an action, then I could see the hypocrisy. But there's nothing hypocritical about the fact that some people define an erect phallus as sexual.
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
a lot fo ppl think that erect penises and chicks spreading their labia is the same and makes it inherently pornographic.... however i dont think those are the same at all.
arousal is is seen on male and female parts... its a physical reaction to an emotional response and the parts swell as a result of the emotion and passion.....
spreading ones labia or clenching ones penis however is a direct action done not an involuntary emotional response so it is certainly more overt and much more easy to confuse with explicit pornography than artistic eroticism...
and i for 1, thought art was about eliciting emotion through a visual medium.
but the namby pambies will get scared if the penises are bigger than theirs so thy must be cleverly concealed under a veil of mystery for their plausible deniability or we might all see them and commit to a life of immediate debauchery lol
Model
Caitin Bre
Posts: 2687
Apache Junction, Arizona, US
Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
There is some artfully rendered pornography. But it is still pornography. Why is it that people just want it to be art? The fact that it isn't art doesn't mean it isn't beautiful. The label "porn" isn't this damning, awful thing.
I'll say it again: graphic sexual content that has high art aspirations is erotica. Erotica is art. Porn is not art. The fact that it isn't art isn't a negative, it's just what is. An orange is not an apple. Arguing that it's an apple is pointless. It doesn't mean the fruit is any less tasty, it's just not a fucking apple.
I'm just not sure what makes people ago hell-bent on not being able to accept the fact that it can fall into categories. There should not be a problem. I agree.
I also think when a particular thing in art becomes more popular then people scurry to categorize it into something already known or make a genre. people aren't happy with just calling it art.
We are a society of labels. When something doesn't fit in a conformity we become unorganized. Being unorganized scares people and confuses them. So it gets crazy.
Unorganized is not a bad thing. I think of art as unorganized creative free thinking.
Model
Caitin Bre
Posts: 2687
Apache Junction, Arizona, US
orias wrote:
a lot fo ppl think that erect penises and chicks spreading their labia is the same and makes it inherently pornographic.... however i dont think those are the same at all.
arousal is is seen on male and female parts... its a physical reaction to an emotional response and the parts swell as a result of the emotion and passion.....
spreading ones labia or clenching ones penis however is a direct action done not an involuntary emotional response so it is certainly more overt and much more easy to confuse with explicit pornography than artistic eroticism...
and i for 1, thought art was about eliciting emotion through a visual medium.
but the namby pambies will get scared if the penises are bigger than theirs so thy must be cleverly concealed under a veil of mystery for their plausible deniability or we might all see them and commit to a life of immediate debauchery lol I love your answer.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Model
D A N I
Posts: 4627
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Penis scares me. Like a sea cucumber looking me in the eye
Photographer
udor
Posts: 25255
New York, New York, US
Danielle Reid wrote:
Penis scares me. Like a sea cucumber looking me in the eye Simple solution:
Take forward defense actions and "eat it" before it eats you! 
Model
D A N I
Posts: 4627
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
udor wrote:
Simple solution:
Take forward defense actions and "eat it" before it eats you!  I have nothing to say to this
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Model
Caitin Bre
Posts: 2687
Apache Junction, Arizona, US
udor wrote:
Simple solution:
Take forward defense actions and "eat it" before it eats you! ROFLMAO
Photographer
Earthspirit
Posts: 189
Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Caitin Bre wrote:
I love your answer. And I agree!
Photographer
Earthspirit
Posts: 189
Perth, Western Australia, Australia
orias wrote:
a lot fo ppl think that erect penises and chicks spreading their labia is the same and makes it inherently pornographic.... however i dont think those are the same at all.
arousal is is seen on male and female parts... its a physical reaction to an emotional response and the parts swell as a result of the emotion and passion.....
spreading ones labia or clenching ones penis however is a direct action done not an involuntary emotional response so it is certainly more overt and much more easy to confuse with explicit pornography than artistic eroticism...
and i for 1, thought art was about eliciting emotion through a visual medium.
but the namby pambies will get scared if the penises are bigger than theirs so thy must be cleverly concealed under a veil of mystery for their plausible deniability or we might all see them and commit to a life of immediate debauchery lol I also love this...mainly because it is a beautiful and accurate statement, but also because it saves me all that typing :-)
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
Post hidden on Feb 17, 2014 06:26 pm Reason: violates rules Comments: No Erections...what do we not understand by that rule?
Photographer
What Fun Productions
Posts: 20868
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Post hidden on Feb 17, 2014 06:26 pm Reason: other Comments: Hiding quoted post
Photographer
Schlake
Posts: 2935
Socorro, New Mexico, US
Danielle Reid wrote:
Penis scares me. Like a sea cucumber looking me in the eye Sea cucumbers can turn themselves inside out.
Model
D A N I
Posts: 4627
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Schlake wrote:
Sea cucumbers can turn themselves inside out. Ewww
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
Model
D A N I
Posts: 4627
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Photographer
udor
Posts: 25255
New York, New York, US
Danielle Reid wrote:
Penis scares me. Like a sea cucumber looking me in the eye orias wrote:
i dunno sea cucumbers look pretty cute to me
http://reefguide.org/watermark.php?src= … umber4.jpg Danielle Reid wrote:
Cute in a "scared the fuck out of me" sort of way . But I can see it If the penises you encounter look like this sea cucumber... I think it's time to recommend a visit to an urologist.... the CDC... or a visit to Area 51! 
Model
D A N I
Posts: 4627
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
udor wrote:
Danielle Reid wrote:
Penis scares me. Like a sea cucumber looking me in the eye orias wrote:
i dunno sea cucumbers look pretty cute to me
http://reefguide.org/watermark.php?src= … umber4.jpg If the penises you encounter look like this sea cucumber... I think it's time to recommend a visit to an urologist.... the CDC... or a visit to Area 51!
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Danielle Reid wrote:
I have nothing to say to this Smart!
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
udor wrote:
Danielle Reid wrote:
Penis scares me. Like a sea cucumber looking me in the eye orias wrote:
i dunno sea cucumbers look pretty cute to me
http://reefguide.org/watermark.php?src= … umber4.jpg If the penises you encounter look like this sea cucumber... I think it's time to recommend a visit to an urologist.... the CDC... or a visit to Area 51! i vote ripleys... might as well cash in on the creepy penis encounters lol
Photographer
Schlake
Posts: 2935
Socorro, New Mexico, US
Model
Caitin Bre
Posts: 2687
Apache Junction, Arizona, US
udor wrote:
Danielle Reid wrote:
Penis scares me. Like a sea cucumber looking me in the eye orias wrote:
i dunno sea cucumbers look pretty cute to me
http://reefguide.org/watermark.php?src= … umber4.jpg If the penises you encounter look like this sea cucumber... I think it's time to recommend a visit to an urologist.... the CDC... or a visit to Area 51! I was kinda thinking the same thing. But hey glad you said it 1st.
I was also thinking it looked kind of like those very ugly french ticklers I think they are called.
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
Caitin Bre wrote:
I was kinda thinking the same thing. But hey glad you said it 1st.
I was also thinking it looked kind of like those very ugly french ticklers I think they are called. theres gotta be some practicality to those though for them to be a common thing someone should try them and let us know how they work out ;P
Photographer
Stanley L Moore
Posts: 1681
Houston, Texas, US
Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
All the Greek statues featured erections.
But, y'know… those Greeks were just widdle guys… I beg to differ. Almost no Greek statues featured erections, the exception being Satyrs or the god Priapus. The Greeks were quite prudish in fact. Large penises were considered barbaric and most ideal male statues show proportionally small penises often with a large foreskin. Greek men .... youths at least, would tie string to their foreskins to make them longer and fully cover the meatus.
http://www.penissizes.org/penis-size-art
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
Stanley L Moore wrote:
I beg to differ. Almost no Greek statues featured erections, the exception being Satyrs or the god Priapus. The Greeks were quite prudish in fact. Large penises were considered barbaric and most ideal male statues show proportionally small penises often with a large foreskin. Greek men .... youths at least, would tie string to their foreskins to make them longer and fully cover the meatus.
http://www.penissizes.org/penis-size-art i prefer my penises skinned. the corpus cavernosa are sexy
Photographer
790763
Posts: 2747
San Francisco, California, US
What about this? Remember when Netflix decided to split their services and charge separate fees? The users got mad and started a petition. Netflix changed their minds.
Remember when Adobe Photoshop upgrade policy, before the CC (Creative Suite subscription) debacle, a lot of us signed the petition and it was spearheaded by Scott Kelby. Adobe fixed their upgrade policy.
I am curious if we start out own petition to IB, to allow us to have tumescent penises—CLEARLY MARKED 18+—as part of our portfolio, do you think it would work?
Photographer
Stanley L Moore
Posts: 1681
Houston, Texas, US
Post hidden on Feb 18, 2014 06:50 pm Reason: violates rules Comments: STOP POSTING LINKS TO PORN!!
|
I have nothing to say to this
