Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Male vs Female Nudes

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 e2
9 83 6 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2007 12:29AM
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

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

9 Nov 2007 12:59AM
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...
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 e2
10 12.7k 15 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2007 7:05AM

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?
joolsb e2
10 27.1k 38 Switzerland
9 Nov 2007 7:56AM
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 9 3.8k 7
9 Nov 2007 8:48AM
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 e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2007 8:49AM
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.
9 Nov 2007 8:55AM
Stolzy, perphaps you could get together with Thebigyin and start an 'adult' site where anything legal goes.
thebigyin e2
9 83 6 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2007 8:56AM
[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 e2
9 83 6 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2007 8:58AM
Have got to go earn a living back later.

Alister
mattw e2
11 5.2k 10 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2007 9:00AM

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 9 3.8k 7
9 Nov 2007 9:00AM

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 9 3.8k 7
9 Nov 2007 9:02AM

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 e2
11 5.2k 10 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2007 9:15AM

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 9 3.8k 7
9 Nov 2007 9:18AM

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.