David Lucas wrote:
I think it kind of goes without saying that the male nudes in question would have to be in shape. With women nudes, you can do the "Mother Goddess' thing and not have a woman in shape. With males, there's so much more of a classical impulse (thanks Greeks and Romans!) to have a standard of idealized male beauty, simply because it was such a large part of the lifestyle back then, which is the quickest way that I can put it without getting into a massive history lesson.

But, the key word there was "idealized", which is how it goes with any kind of modeling. Maybe not so much with figure models, but it still lingers. I definately am referring to an idealized male figure. But, if you note, the male nudes around the Medieval Period were a bit rounder and more girlish.

-D.

You could go with a mythical bent. The Dagda of Celtic mythology had a belly, as did Buddha and most of the Seven Gods of Luck.

But the point is nonetheless well made.

Stacey S wrote:

omg ew.....

This is one of the hazards of going to a Nudist Camp~~~~

David Lucas wrote:
There is no such thing as a disgusting phallus, sir.

Unless it has a disease or something.

I suppose that also sets me apart from most others - I don't think phalli are ugly, or hideous, or stomach churning in the slightest. I love them. It also doesn't help that I've "tutored' in my own art under some of the best gay erotica artists in the US, either. I think if you have a severe distaste for cock, you're not going to like a male nude. Personally, I say bring them on!

Suddenly I don't feel so bad about my "equipment" anymore. Still, I think it has a lot to do with this which explains why the female form is more appealing than its male equivalent (essentially, that there is none).

The guys I've asked to do it for me (or even model as reference) have been uptight about it.

If I ever go to Tx (or you come to the West Coast), I'll gladly sit for you and your camera... please be gentle.

Charlie Brown Eyes wrote:
Suddenly I don't feel so bad about my "equipment" anymore. Still, I think it has a lot to do with this which explains why the female form is more appealing than its male equivalent (essentially, that there is none).

She fucked up the Sun Salutation. Wench.

And most straight men favor the feminine form. That's natural. I would much rather see a naked man than a naked woman. I see a naked woman every day. It gets kind of boring.

Charlie Brown Eyes wrote:
If I ever go to Tx (or you come to the West Coast), I'll gladly sit for you and your camera... please be gentle.

*cough*

David Lucas wrote:

I think it kind of goes without saying that the male nudes in question would have to be in shape. With women nudes, you can do the "Mother Goddess' thing and not have a woman in shape. With males, there's so much more of a classical impulse (thanks Greeks and Romans!) to have a standard of idealized male beauty, simply because it was such a large part of the lifestyle back then, which is the quickest way that I can put it without getting into a massive history lesson.

But, the key word there was "idealized", which is how it goes with any kind of modeling. Maybe not so much with figure models, but it still lingers. I definately am referring to an idealized male figure. But, if you note, the male nudes around the Medieval Period were a bit rounder and more girlish.

-D.

Good thought - - -

I think of a Plus Size model as being well fed .

but : : :

As you were saying , in the Middle ages the emphasis was more on larger ; or fatter models ; perhaps because it was thought that a larger , more rotund person had more survivability in the Middle ages ;

Nowadays ; a thin person is more likely to be able to move quickly , and keep up with the faster pace of society , and thus , this is our " model " ; or model of perfection , if you will.

Fred T wrote:
As you were saying , in the Middle ages the emphasis was more on larger ; or fatter models ; perhaps because it was thought that a larger , more rotund person had more survivability in the Middle ages ;

Nowadays ; a thin person is more likely to be able to move quickly , and keep up with the faster pace of society , and thus , this is our " model " ; or model of perfection , if you will.

Actually -

If you look at the portrayals of men, it's usually that they have thin limbs and little potbellies. They look more malnourished than "well fed", although later that was to be considered a symbol of prosperity.

My theory is about the thinner models is that our society has moved away from "Children are the future", in regards that there's not so much pressure to more or less breed before our entire bloodline runs out. So being "full figured' isn't as desireable, since that's a symbol of fertility. We live in a society that doesn't like the idea of long-term responsibility, and thus the rise of the virginal pre-pubsecent figure arises. No one's thinking of having kids anymore, but they're thinking of something young and fresh that requires less maintence.

MelissaLynnette LaDiva wrote:
Ladies do you enjoy looking at male nudes?

I enjoy looking at my male nude.
The rest of them?  Not so much.

haha you're awesome!

Fred T wrote:

This is one of the hazards of going to a Nudist Camp~~~~

and to think.. I almost wanted to go to one..

Mike White Photography wrote:
Interesting feedback.
I noticed that the majority of models were turned off with male nudes, but I wonder if it is due to lack of exposure to high quality fine art nudes, or a general conformity to the hangups that insecure males have imposed on everyone.

While you can argue whether or not we're all created equal, I personally find nearly every female body type pleasing to work with in a fine art nude setting, and consider the female genitals unnecessary for my work. On the other hand, the appearance of male genitalia instantly becomes the thing that the model - and the image - are judged upon. I personally think it's silly that we live in a world where someone would consider a photograph of a male sleeping with an erection to be porn, but a photo of a female touching herself to the point of arousal to be art.

I applaud the artist Robert Mapplethorpe (mapplethorpe.org), whose photographs of males, females or even flowers, shockingly transcend any previous mindset of the subjects, and force us to decide the boundaries of our taboos.

Totally.

Tom of Finland's work is amazing. I love you forever for saying this. There's still a patriarichal movement in this country about things like that. Boo on all of it. I also suggest some of the fine artists on Y! host.com, if I remember that URL correctly.

-D.

David Lucas wrote:

Actually -

If you look at the portrayals of men, it's usually that they have thin limbs and little potbellies. They look more malnourished than "well fed", although later that was to be considered a symbol of prosperity.

My theory is about the thinner models is that our society has moved away from "Children are the future", in regards that there's not so much pressure to more or less breed before our entire bloodline runs out. So being "full figured' isn't as desireable, since that's a symbol of fertility. We live in a society that doesn't like the idea of long-term responsibility, and thus the rise of the virginal pre-pubsecent figure arises. No one's thinking of having kids anymore, but they're thinking of something young and fresh that requires less maintence.

Possibly , because ; in some societies ; not so much in the U.S. ; people are being encouraged not to re - produce .

Why ? Because of over - population ; of course .

I believe your possibly right about the male in Renaissance art - I know that females were portrayed as more rotund.   

Males , I am thinking , still used the idealized style of " David "

Fred T wrote:
Males , I am thinking , still used the idealized style of " David "

Overpopulation or not, it's still indicitive of a society that "Refuses" to grow up. Darwinism is unfortunately dead in most societies.

Which David? There's a nice rounded one and then there's Michaelangelo's. I personally think of the male ideal as Bernini's David, or the Barberini Faun, if I spelled that last one correctly.

-D.

David Lucas wrote:

Overpopulation or not, it's still indicitive of a society that "Refuses" to grow up. Darwinism is unfortunately dead in most societies.

Which David? There's a nice rounded one and then there's Michaelangelo's. I personally think of the male ideal as Bernini's David, or the Barberini Faun, if I spelled that last one correctly.

-D.

::Runs to Google::

Haven't seen these.  The faun is... exhibitionist.

Mike White Photography wrote:
I think it's actually sort of immature.
I don't photograph men, but I'm not opposed to it. There are some undeniably beautiful men, many which have been represented throughout the history of art.
That leads me to believe that the women who use words like "gross" or "funny looking" to describe male genitals need to ask themselves why their particular hangup exists. Is it easier to relate to males when you can pretend that they are "penis-less". or is it just more socially accepted and "glamourous" among the MySpace generation to follow the trend of gratuitous female nudity and bi overtones? Wouldn't the same women think that a photograph of two men kissing was equally "yuckky" and "untrendy"?

You should look up the Yaoi community, which is mainly women who draw homo-erotic work. Here's the website of a dear friend of mine: http://mdy.y-hosting.net/mdindex.html

-D.

David Lucas wrote:

Overpopulation or not, it's still indicitive of a society that "Refuses" to grow up. Darwinism is unfortunately dead in most societies.

Which David? There's a nice rounded one and then there's Michaelangelo's. I personally think of the male ideal as Bernini's David, or the Barberini Faun, if I spelled that last one correctly.

-D.

so true ~~~~

i wonder if I ought to model my  robotic maid  ( Laverne ) on the "fat" ; or the "thin" side?

You see ; with the Laverne 743 ; it doesn't matter if she's fat or thin ; because I've put a ' morph ' chip in which enables her to slip into tight places ( to dust ) ;
and then morph into a 350 pounder ; to bum rush the line at the grocery store .

With the Laverne 744 ; I'm going to include a 35mm camera in her finger ; so when she points at you ; she is actually taking a picture ( this will keep Mr.Fred from going on those nasty location shoots )

Also included is a updated voice memory data chip ; programming her to say such things as : " Fred , you are the hottest looking photographer on MM " ; or ::::
" How on earth did you get so adorable? "

Now this , I believe , is the wave of the future .

Fred T wrote:
Also included is a updated voice memory data chip ; programming her to say such things as : " Fred , you are the hottest looking photographer on MM " ; or ::::
" How on earth did you get so adorable? "

Now this , I believe , is the wave of the future .

THIS DOES NOT FEMPUTE.

Fuzzybear Photography wrote:
I'm curious.

No.

Mike White Photography wrote:
I think it's actually sort of immature.
I don't photograph men, but I'm not opposed to it. There are some undeniably beautiful men, many which have been represented throughout the history of art.
That leads me to believe that the women who use words like "gross" or "funny looking" to describe male genitals need to ask themselves why their particular hangup exists.

amen

Wouldn't the same women think that a photograph of two men kissing was equally "yuckky" and "untrendy"?

nah, bi boys are in these days.

Fuzzybear Photography wrote:
I'm curious.

Nope! Kinda over the female nudes already as well... how many tits can we actually look at??

David Lucas wrote:

Actually -

If you look at the portrayals of men, it's usually that they have thin limbs and little potbellies. They look more malnourished than "well fed", although later that was to be considered a symbol of prosperity.

My theory is about the thinner models is that our society has moved away from "Children are the future", in regards that there's not so much pressure to more or less breed before our entire bloodline runs out. So being "full figured' isn't as desireable, since that's a symbol of fertility. We live in a society that doesn't like the idea of long-term responsibility, and thus the rise of the virginal pre-pubsecent figure arises. No one's thinking of having kids anymore, but they're thinking of something young and fresh that requires less maintence.

I'm going to disagree here when it comes to societal views of beauty.

It has to do with available leisure which, in turn, is an indication of wealth and status.  In previous generations calories were scarce so a layer of fat indicated that you had plenty to eat.  Now we all have desk jobs that require 14 hours of our attention so we don't move AND concentrated calories are just down the hall in the vending machine.  After that are the kids, etc.  Having time to go exercise is an indication of available leisure.

Tans are also an indication.  Once upon a time pale flesh was desirable.  It meant you didn't have to go outside.  Now we work under fluorescense so the tan is now again an indication of status.

Beauty is status.

Maycuplover wrote:
Nope! Kinda over the female nudes already as well... how many tits can we actually look at??

234837

JChristopherLittle wrote:

234837

A day??

damon wrote:
nah, bi boys are in these days.

I think a photographed male embrace can be very erotic.

And  here I thought I was straight.

Maycuplover wrote:

Nope! Kinda over the female nudes already as well... how many tits can we actually look at??

39 years worth so far...

kokodean wrote:
well let's face it...male genitalia isn't exactly a mantlepeice...they're kinda awkward looking in pictures... awkward looking in general i suppose...

what is awkward about it?

and if you think that (that they stand out in contrast to the body) could it be just that they haven't been properly photographed?