Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Male vs Female Nudes

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Attention!

This topic is locked.
Reason: Wall -> Head -> Thud Thud Thud. OUCH! There are guidelines for uploading images, and there are no plans to change them anytime soon.
thebigyin
thebigyin e2 Member 981 forum poststhebigyin vcard United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2007 - 12:29 AM

Can someone explain to me why it is possible and acceptable to post male nudes showing all they've got, yet it is not acceptable to post the female equivalent.

I think there are some double standards going on among the censors (oops moderators).

after all we are told it is a family site, so if this is the case surely these images should not be acceptable irespective of gender.

Alister

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
9 Nov 2007 - 12:29 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

KevinEllison
KevinEllison e2 Member 72500 forum postsKevinEllison vcard England
9 Nov 2007 - 12:59 AM

I think throughout 'artistic' history it's been acceptable to display both (statues, carvings etc) but once it comes to 'arousal' then we hit the buffers... Let's be honest ..it's a lot more 'obvious' when a male is 'interested' than a female....maybe this is where 'society' finds it unacceptable... amusing really, because troll around Africa generally and you can pick up some very ....explicit.....wood carvings where they delight in the 'fertility' connections this entails..
I believe 'western' standards currently indicate... aroused male genetallia - unacceptable...

female gentallia...can't tell, so to be safe, unacceptable too...

However... I've got to agree with you and be puzzled as to why un-aroused conditions attract the attention of the censors...

MediumSizeUnavailable

Never had the impression it is not acceptable to show the sexual apparatus of females on epz. When you are going to try to define 'nudes' or 'porn' or 'art' for that matter you'll get a large area of black and a large area of white, for which it is rather obvious what exactly it is, what is it's (the photo's and the photographer's) intention, and how it should be handled/considered. But in between you'll aways have a rather large area of grey(s) where it's not so easy to define things clearly.
Most of the time I believe the mods handle these cases rather well.

answersonapostcard
answersonapostcard Site Moderator 1012551 forum postsanswersonapostcard vcard United Kingdom15 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2007 - 7:05 AM


Quote: Never had the impression it is not acceptable to show the sexual apparatus of females on epz

Its not.. but from the terms and conditions
Quote: Basically if the photograph would be seen in a newsstand non-top-shelf magazine it is likely to be safe on ePHOTOzine. If it's in a top-shelf pornographic magazine it may not be welcome on ePHOTOzine and may be deleted.

If you want us to delete male nudes then we would have to delete pictures such as yours
here [epz note: link is to an adult image)

Or is this is just to bring your grievance about
Quote: censors (oops moderators).

deleting your picture that did cross the line, again?

Last Modified By answersonapostcard at 9 Nov 2007 - 7:21 AM
joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2007 - 7:56 AM

The point about arousal is a good one but I always thought that if an image looks like it could be a teaching aid for gynaecologists, then it's porn. Otherwise it's 'artistic nude' or glamour depending on presentation and whether the model is looking suggestively at the camera or not.... Smile

stolzy
stolzy  83753 forum posts7 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2007 - 8:48 AM

This site operates a censorship against 'pornography'. Unfortunately the definition of pornography used is different to that generally accepted. In effect, certain parts of the human body are not considered acceptable, regardless of whether the image is pornographic or not. On the other hand plenty of pictures are allowed which would fall under a conventional definition of pornography.
I find it amazing that, on a photographic site, we should have to read foolishness such as:

Quote: that if an image looks like it could be a teaching aid for gynaecologists, then it's porn

lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014056 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2007 - 8:49 AM

Generally from an "Artistic Nudes" point of view a "Curled up sleepy hamster" is considered acceptable whereas "hang your coat on it" isn't. I believe the equivalent for females is "Baps not flaps".

Of course it's all subjective and depends on the actual image the pornographer (oops photographer) has produced.

Last Modified By lobsterboy at 9 Nov 2007 - 8:49 AM
BlindLemon
9 Nov 2007 - 8:55 AM

Stolzy, perphaps you could get together with Thebigyin and start an 'adult' site where anything legal goes.

thebigyin
thebigyin e2 Member 981 forum poststhebigyin vcard United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2007 - 8:56 AM


Quote: from the terms and conditions :Basically if the photograph would be seen in a newsstand non-top-shelf magazine it is likely to be safe on ePHOTOzine. If it's in a top-shelf pornographic magazine it may not be welcome on ePHOTOzine and may be deleted

Some of the male nudes on here recently were certainly top shelf material, some even rewarded HC for the pleasure. The point I am making is if it is acceptable for male genitalia to be shown and rewarded, then why cant the famale equivalent be given the same consideration.


Quote: Or is this is just to bring your grievance about censors (oops moderators). deleting your picture that did cross the line, again?

Please don't come this one, my argument is about double standards.


Quote: The point about arousal is a good one but I always thought that if an image looks like it could be a teaching aid for gynaecologists, then it's porn. Otherwise it's 'artistic nude' or glamour depending on presentation and whether the model is looking suggestively at the camera or not....

Agree up to a point, but as i said above we don't appear to have a level playing field.

Alister

thebigyin
thebigyin e2 Member 981 forum poststhebigyin vcard United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2007 - 8:58 AM

Have got to go earn a living back later.

Alister

mattw
mattw  105189 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2007 - 9:00 AM


Quote: I find it amazing that, on a photographic site, we should have to read foolishness such as:

Let's leave personal insults out of the discussion please.

stolzy
stolzy  83753 forum posts7 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2007 - 9:00 AM


Quote: Stolzy, perphaps you could get together with Thebigyin and start an 'adult' site where anything legal goes.

A variety of reasons, mainly that I don't think we'd have much in common except a dislike for arbitrary censorship

stolzy
stolzy  83753 forum posts7 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2007 - 9:02 AM


Quote: Let's leave personal insults out of the discussion please.

No insult involved or intended - but it would be helpful if an important word like 'pornography were used correctly

mattw
mattw  105189 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2007 - 9:15 AM


Quote: but it would be helpful if an important word like 'pornography were used correctly

It would also be helpful if people could offer their own opinions without being labelled as 'foolish', should their opinion differ from yours.

stolzy
stolzy  83753 forum posts7 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2007 - 9:18 AM


Quote: It would also be helpful if people could offer their own opinions without being labelled as 'foolish', should their opinion differ from yours.

The definition of words is rarely a matter of opinion. I have seen a number of definitons of the word 'pornography', not one of them included medical textbooks or teaching aids.

Attention!

This topic is locked.
Reason: Wall -> Head -> Thud Thud Thud. OUCH! There are guidelines for uploading images, and there are no plans to change them anytime soon.