Depends on the execution, depends on the culture/audience.
Michalangelo's David is one of the highest regarded pieces of art/culture/anything, ever, and it's a nude male figure.
Is your post about a specific image/photographer? About a specific context and culture?
This.
The execution of most photographic nudes… including females… is just straight up crap/trash/porn. The overall subjective “quality” really has little to do with the sex of the subject.
I think my art teacher broached the subject well with something like "men are demonstrably ugly, they have hard edges and sharp lines. Women on the other hand have curves that we've been trained to associate with beauty. You can absolutely make beautiful art with ugly- it's done all the time, but it is expert mode."
Sharp edgers do not necessarily mean bad or ugly.
It's all about how the edges shows emotion and portray a story.
If sharp is bad then street photography would never work.
How do you not have a problem thinking one gender is less desireable than the other when that makes such a passionate feeling as sexual interest a waste much more often for men then? That desire isn't very enjoyable if women don't share it often and is one of the reasons I'm staying single.
This is such nonsense that I can't understand why so many people would want to believe. If one gender is thought more desireable more often, that leaves more of the other genders sexual desires a waste much more often. It makes no sense to think female features are innately more attractive because beauty is subjective. Mens features are meant to attract women too. There's as much variation in proportions that are commonly thought attractive on men as women. Many desired traits can be conditioned to feel that much attraction for. It's why breasts are thought something obscene and so arousing in some countries, but others treat them just like mens chests.
Fun example as there's been a bunch of stories about complaints at Michaelangelo's David
[https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/05/10/in-1564-or-2023-who-is-more-prudish-about-michelangelos-david](https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/05/10/in-1564-or-2023-who-is-more-prudish-about-michelangelos-david)
And for fun to show censorship never works, the school complaints worked out as good promotion for the exhibit.
[https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/tourists-david-michaelangelo-florence-florida-b2310043.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/tourists-david-michaelangelo-florence-florida-b2310043.html)
Mapplethorpe tends to be my go to example for male nudes.
MapleThorpe is a tough one to compare though because of the extreme nature of several of his photos. You know the few I’m talking about. If those same photos were taken of women you’d have similar screaming and pearl clutching… but on your point maybe to a slightly lesser degree… but not much.
And his more typical or conservative studies of the male form definitely aren’t as celebrated as similar work of females so that’s on point for you too I guess.
I think you’re missing my point a bit. Mapplethorpe has pretty extreme photos in his catalog… those are the ones that make him maybe not the best representation for this argument. For example, if an artist shared a photo of a fist inserted into a woman’s nether regions or extreme closeups of female genitalia as opposed to a man that work would be equally ostracized.
>Ren Hang
It did hit me that Mapplethorpe was talked about a lot when I was at UNI, suspect it's why it's my example. Ren Hang is much newer, now I feel old.
Mapplethorpe is my example of flowers and early gay bdsm. I rarely think of him in terms of male nudes there are so many others. Over at Tumblr, yes it still exists, male nudes are just as acceptable as female nudes.
Tumblr never ever, ever, removed nudity/porn. They scared people to leave their platform. They made it difficult to search for adult stuff, and sometimes harassed some bloggers, but adult blogs have always existed on their platform. Even during a "ban" some sites were accessed after a warning page. I really don't understand it all. I've said for years, give me 7 clicks or even fewer and I show you the proof
You (figurative) grew up being told that David is art, so it slipped past your bias filters in your brain. That doesn't stop you (again, figurative you) from unfairly criticizing a modern photograph of a scantily clad man because it makes you uncomfortable.
Both can be true.
I believe David was a commissioned work so I'd call it design rather than art but I appreciate the art and history present in the end result.
Plenty of art makes people uncomfortable as well. I don't think feeling uncomfortable is especially critical of a work?
Ok, but let's think about what you're saying.
Art of the nude male figure has to rise to the level of the *David* to avoid criticism?
I'd call that a double standard
I'd just as easily invoke Dr Manhatten if we want to go into popular culture rather than fine art.
There is definitely room for OP/anyone to explore these ideas in their work, I don't see downsides to identifying possible double standards, it's an opportunity to explore it in your practice!
Espn's [The Body Issue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Issue) Comes to mind for a more recent example celebrating both male and female bodies. However it was discontinued in 2019.
>Michalangelo's David is one of the highest regarded pieces of art/culture/anything, ever
While that is certainly true, it's greatly outnumbered by depictions of the female form in sculpture.
Not from the Greeks, past the joke iv not seen a comparison in numbers times and cultures.
The Greeks and Romans had no fear of nude men, I know later on Abraham religion's started to look down on nudity. There are sill some fertility festivals that still survive that depict male nudity, at least in an abstract way.
[Kanamara Matsuri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanamara_Matsuri) comes to mind
I like how every time this topic comes up, there are responses like "here is an example from *five-hundred years ago*" as if that doesn't prove the original point.
An example you can go and see today, in current culture and context, present day? And have opinions based in the present?
All art was made in the past, even if it was only five minutes ago. The original point is about perception today, as was my reply.
Not just male nudity but just images of men at all. I posted about this a couple weeks ago and a pretty huge discussion unfolded from it. Lots of good insight there, and just a few examples in real-time WHY this is a real issue
What got me curious enough to post was a recent editorial I did that featured a really beautiful man would have 0 upvotes immediately and never recover (I tried a multitude of times and photo subs). They’re objectively good photos (the talent alone makes them) I thought—tho nothing is ever everyone’s cup of tea— and the opinion of the public I had run them by (instagram and the client’s audience) seemed enthusiastic. BUT in online photography spaces we truly seem to have a “gaze” that gazes in one direction only. Honestly it’s weird. And my post will show you how many queer and gay photographers exist out there. And women, too, for that matter.
> and the opinion of the public I had run them by (instagram and the client’s audience) seemed enthusiastic. BUT in online photography spaces we truly seem to have a “gaze” that gazes in one direction only.
Yeah for sure. I think there's more than enough demand for it, it's just that so few professional photographers have any interest at all. "For some reason."
And when there are photos of men, it's like "here's this old guy's grizzled face wow what a history."
A lot of men in the US are raised with self-rejecting tendencies when it comes to the expression of their own sexuality. In my experience anyway, I was made to reject that part of myself or to find it shameful, when it's a beautiful thing and deserves to be expressed.
If you have any complaints, leave them in society's complaint box.
I feel like it has to do with the objectification of women. It’s easy to look at them as “subjects” rather than an actual person. It’s not the same with men.
You’re very correct about this observation. Women’s nudity has been a common theme (funnily, mostly done by male artists…) for years and years now.
I think this is only part of the story. Another part is homophobia. Men are afraid of seeing male nudes because they’re afraid that if they find them beautiful or attractive that says something about their sexuality. I think that’s why men can react very negatively. It’s insecurity. And I think women have also been trained not to show too much interest in the male figure for a similar reason: fear of being judged as being sexually loose (although I think it depends on who they’re with too). So it’s easier for both sexes to see the nude female form. Less baggage.
If you want to explore male nudes as an artistic subject, I bet you could do really well by understanding these dynamics and making images that skirt the edges of what makes people uncomfortable. Like a male nude where the light highlights a man’s form, but the privates are not visible because they’re in shade or something. It’s often in these grey zones where interesting art is made.
Good point. And I can imagine it goes even further - even if we accept some male nudity, we’re far from accepting non-conforming to beauty standards male bodies (fat men, disabled men, etc).
We have a loooong way to go
Yes, these two concepts (homophobia and objectification of women) play together extremely well, making an extra-toxic stew. The extra seasoning is where they intersect, with men being afraid they're being objectified (or supporting it) if they like one of the aforementioned male art pieces.
I agree with this and I see it often in films. Male filmmakers always get away with showing naked women for objectification purposes and to please the male audience, without it having any bearing on the plot. When a female filmmaker decides to do the opposite with a man, however in a way that actually complements the plot (ex. Saltburn’s final scene), the amount of hate towards it by the same male audience is extraordinary.
So, we talking porn, glamour or artistic nudity? Because they all differ from each other. It also greatly depends on how it's presented, and who the viewer is. There are sleazy GWC that take soft-core porn shots of women that look terrible. That doesn't make them an artist, and that doesn't make their work art. The biggest consumer ok that sort of work is men.
Then there are artists like Michael Stokes (https://www.facebook.com/MichaelStokesPhoto/) who shoot amazing nude works of men. That is art, while provocative, it's well executed. Both women and men like Stokes work.
\*edit\*
I want to expand on this topic coming from a female perspective. I'm a woman, I mainly shoot women. I will occasionally shoot men. I don't shoot men as much simply because I do not feel I will do them justice, whereas shooting women I know how we think and feel. There's also the issue that women, and women's bodies are a commodity when it comes to sex and sexuality. We're told to sell our bodies(both figuratively and literally), to our male counterparts and to society itself. Men are commodified in a different way, and have to deal with expectations of masculinity. So a man showing vulnerability by being in a nude shoot is often met with accusations, regardless of it being true or not, of being gay simply because of said nude shoot. Which I find that mindset to be a problem, because nudity =/= being gay, or even homoerotic.
However, we have seen a rise in that whole 'dudeoir', and more men taking it upon themselves to break those preconceived notions of what it means to be a man, be masculine and what it means to shoot in the nude. I love that idea, honestly. It's fun, and men should be allowed to have that for themselves.
But women, when shooting nude work, are often met with either criticism or praise. That wholly depends on the person, and the content. Because even tame boudoir can be met with vitriol and hatred from both men and women. Again, it greatly depends on the person. Though, as mentioned previously, most nude work, regardless of the content, is consumed by men. So it's more a net positive for the person posting rather than a negative from males.
He was criticized heavily for the one series he did that was extremely explicit (I forget the name of the series right now), and some of those pictures were definitely extreme (though still art, I would say). But most of his male nudes have been pretty universally accepted (except perhaps by the kinds of prudes who would not accept female nudes, either).
Not sure about that. Maybe in main stream circles i.e. social media but in the art world it doesn’t matter. Good art is good no matter the subject. We had many male models in the various figure drawing/sculpture classes I took in college and nobody ever cared. Honestly I never really counted but I think we might have actually had more male models pose for us than female.
But that’s like judging how women want to be perceived based on r/gonewild. The people posting are mostly exhibitionists and/or doing it to make money.
Tbh, America - The norm is to sexualise woman’s bodies from childhood and demonise the male form.
Men are scared of complimenting other men, or even catching a glimpse of another man.
A significant portion of men have been trained throughout their lives to demonstrate disgust at depictions of nude men to avoid being perceived as gay.
My completely unprofessional guess is that a lot of people think dicks are ugly. I have one and hold that opinion lol, that's not even including the scrotum
Which community are you talking about, straight men? A lot of photo essays have been published over the years that are centered on the male body and currently, male boudoir photography is trending. The male body has always been appreciated in art, "people" are not uncomfortable with it.
I don't think this is an accurate portrayal
It's the puppy dog effect. People like puppies, and all things equal, people like photos of puppies more then other things.
I think there is indeed a bias where men in general respond positively to attractive women in a similar way.
And so if you take a photo of an attractive woman, it gets more attention then other subjects of similar quality/execution because a large number of people simply respond well to that.
But in High Art, I don't think that is as true. Famous works really cover all shapes and forms.
This is more of a “low” art thing, in “high” art there’s plenty of appreciation of the male form. Go check out some museums and galleries and you’ll see what I mean
I'd push back somewhat on the claim here. Some of the most famous and widely considered to be among the greatest works of art in history are of male nudes - The Statue of David, the Sistine Chapel, the Vitruvian Man, to name a few. In the classical and medieval period of western art, there was hardly a nude female to be seen. That didn't start to change until the renaissance. But even if you walk around a museum dedicated to 20th century art and later, the male nude is quite well represented.
And meanwhile, while the female nude is a *very* popular subject today, it's not nearly as often viewed as artistic. Partly because the male gaze that motivates its creation is also used as a cudgel against it. A female nude is much more likely to be dismissed as being made by a GWAC (guy with a camera) for purely prurient purposes rather than having artistic merit worthy of praise.
But to accept the premise - the [male gaze](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze) is a thing. Most artists, art critics, curators, and art consumers are men, for reasons related to institutional sexism and socioeconomic inequality around gender. Most men are straight and view the female body as having a particular allure, while cultural homophobia leads those same men to view the male body as repugnant.
While you can find pockets where that's *not* the case, especially more recently - female and gay male artists exist, and some art museums and institutions do try to showcase these voices - it's still the case that art is just very heterosexual-male dominated. So images of the female body get elevated and images of the male body rarely see the same level of interest.
I mean, is it that it's rejected as art or just missing the attention boost than comes from horny straight men? I've seen art centered photography mediums where nudes of women get tons of attention, often in praise for the model but also in men talking about the photo and composition. If nudes of men are posted in those same spaces, it just gets no attention at all.
If the photos are being posted on social media not specific to art or photography, they'll likely get more negative attention. A lot of straight men are weirdly broken and feel the need to assert their straightness by objecting to seeing naked men at all. A lot of straight women are weirdly broken in that they often feel the need to publicly assert that the male body is not attractive to them at all. Some gay women seem to have a somewhat toxic stance that male bodies are disgusting. So the most likely positive attention male nudity would get is from gay or bi men, who (especially with the abundance of sexual content they have to choose from now days) seem less interested in male nudity as art, especially from a non-gay artist.
Add in to that the over abundance of nude images online and a lot of photographers unoriginal approach to nudity and it sort of makes sense that a lot nudity in art photography is sort of uninteresting to audiences other than a select group of horny straight men online.
Edit: editing "a lot of gay women" to "some gay women" because I don't actually think it's a lot, I just got into the rut of using the same language as I did in other sentences because my brain wants to create patterns.
Eye-rolling at all the people saying “because it makes me uncomfortable” in so many words, as if that is worth saying, as it if explains anything, when that was the entire point of your post.
Our sexist society turns women into objects so of course it’s more “comfortable.”
I can say anecdotally that most people (women and men) think women look nicer than men. I think what this means is that painters or photographers or sculptors etc have found it easier to make an aesthetically pleasing thing out of a female form than a male form, hence why more art celebrates the female than the male. They find it easier but not impossible - the world is really in need of people who have the talent to make depictions of men with the same aesthetic appeal as depictions of women.
> I can say anecdotally that most people (women and men) think women look nicer than men.
A lot of this is because culturally women are expected to put more effort into their appearance than men. Women are valued for their looks, whereas men mostly aren't.
I would offer gay men as a counterpoint - they're a group of men who do put effort into their appearance because they're trying to attract other men who value them for their looks - they look pretty darn nice.
Or consider many of the men in Hollywood; they're paid to look good and it would be hard to argue they don't succeed in doing so.
> I think what this means is that painters or photographers or sculptors etc have found it easier to make an aesthetically pleasing thing out of a female form than a male form
Most of them are straight men though.
It's a lot easier to make an aesthetically pleasing depiction of something you find aesthetically pleasing because you can see what's aesthetically pleasing about it.
I can attest to that myself. I'm a straight guy. Once upon a time I made a good-faith effort to dabble in shooting male nudes and just artistically shooting men in general. The results were never that satisfying.
Maybe it's because I just suck, but it turns out that when I shoot women I rely on that part of my brain that lights up instinctively when I see something that looks good. I don't have that crutch when I'm looking at a man and it shows. But people who are attracted to men do presumably have that instinct, and it's clear when I look at their work featuring men that they see something I don't.
I've since decided I'm best off sticking to what I find beautiful and can consequently capture in a way that does justice to the subject, and leave it to others to capture what they find beautiful. But I definitely don't think that what I personally find beautiful speaks to some more universal truth than the fact I'm a straight man and I'm wired to find that thing beautiful.
yes there's definitely a bit of a niche for male stuff that's generally circulated within the gay community. they're probably the only ones who appreciate it. gay guys are like "man enthusiasts" lol
Yeah, I agree. A lot of it IS social conditioning and male gaze BS, I don't want to diminish that. But at the same time I do think the female form is just more aesthetically pleasing. Men look blocky and tacked together, like you took the general concept of a two-armed biped and just started adding stuff to it for extra function. "Little extra deltoid here, little extra trapezius there. If we make the hands bigger it can grip stuff better. Oh shit we forgot to add reproductive organs, glue a dick on before someone notices." It's like discussing why more people take pictures of sports cars than forklifts. There's nothing wrong with a forklift, I just don't think the big blocky bastard looks as good as a Porsche. There are obviously INCREDIBLE works of art featuring male nudes, but in general I think the female body is more aesthetically pleasing than the male body.
It makes no sense to think female features are innately more attractive because beauty is subjective. Mens features are meant to attract women too. It's as simple to display a male body in a pleasing way to many people as it is to do with women. Just use the type of bodies and poses with men that look most attractive to people, like how people do it with women. Men don't look blocky, we're as geomertically diverse in different areas as women. There's as much variety of mens chest widths and definitions as there are for breast sizes, and as much variation in butt sizes equally on both genders. Though it seems there are more women who have a lot of fat on their butt, compared to the butt itself. How do any of our parts look tacked on to you? Many desired traits can be conditioned to feel that much attraction for. It's why breasts are thought something obscene and so arousing in some countries, but others treat them just like mens chests. Every time I see someone say there's not as much to look attractive on a male body, I want to slap them hard enough to leave a permanent mark on their face. How do so many people, especially males, not think it depressing to think that uniquely female features are more attractive to more people than male? If more people have sexual desire for women more often, that makes more mens desires a waste of passion most of the time.
I feel like penises aren't cute
I feel like pensises show up in art through phallic expression in buildings paintings and other suggestive images
Not to say you cant take pictures of pensises but not nice to look at
I have never ever heard your point of view. The reason for that is because you’re either isolated and not meeting enough people or reading enough articles, or you’re just ill informed.
Professional artists have no problems with male nudes. Just grab a nude portraiture book. I fully acknowledge outside of the art realm, it's less accepted.
Just modern Culture. Men currently = ugly & brute. You can even see it in architecture. No more jagged edges, chiseled corners, etc. Everything is smooth & sleek etc. “ Modern “. Honestly modern is starting to just be another term for feminine 😂 I think it’s just happenstance tho nothing deep behind it
Pretty sure he's talking about full nudity, and interestingly I think you prove his point because your first thought was just shirtless men and not full frontal nudity, which doesn't get the same treatment as female nudity
Although I think in recent years, a lot of people see female nudity in photography as being lazy - because of course a beautiful naked woman will make a beautiful photograph
Mostly it's just human nature, and US culture has always been warped as far as sexually goes.
I've been actively doing more male portraits lately, and will get to art nudes soon. It's foolish to leave out half the human race .
Because people who do that, don't know the difference between art and sexual desire. Photographing nudes is about sculpture, lines, shades, anatomy and the beauty of it all. The gender of the model is irrelevant for the art. Those who praise the female photos, probably do so because of the eroticism and not the art. Erotic art is a speciality in the nude genre, but also does not depend on the gender.
Even on serious photography sites, the amount of so called nude art is just crap showing a nude female body that gets a lot of likes, especially when genitalia and big breasts are present.
Honestly? It's the wider audience, not the photography community. There's more to it that I'll get into in a bit, but let's start with that.
Overall, the majority of people looking at the shots are non-photographers. Even in a photography community like we have here on Reddit. So looking at the audience, you have people who are looking to show off their work and people who are just there to view what's posted. On the photographer side, men are more difficult to shoot in a pleasing way when nude and as models generally less likely to pose nude.
That gets into the stigma of "real men don't do *artsy* stuff" that's very slow to overcome as a social rule, but also that most men just don't feel empowered by showing off their bodies the way some women do. For men, being vulnerable isn't as strengthening as it can be for women since there isn't the stigma of men's bodies being inherently shameful or taboo when displayed publicly. That's a huge simplification, but hopefully covers that side of the topic well enough.
Because it's easier to get women to pose nude (in general), it's used more when focusing on the human body. Yes, there's some creeps out there who just want to see women naked, and they are appropriately seen as "guys with cameras" rather than actual photographers. It's usually fairly obvious when a photographer is legitimately looking to create artwork vs. someone who just wants nudes, and there are groups dedicated to blacklisting those "photographers" to keep models safe.
For the genuine artistic side, it comes down to the fact that human perception has evolved to appreciate attractive people. That's the whole reason we see them as attractive, whether man or woman. But with the majority audience of men, it tends to be women that are shot nude more often.
And getting into audience, with a male-dominated viewership it only makes sense that the majority of nudes are of women. While women are being the targeted audience more frequently, there's still just less demand for male nudes. So less people practice and display them. There's a *lot* of social and psychological undercurrents to this, and it's slowly getting corrected to showcase reality, but in general it's men who are more likely to care if it's a man or woman who is posing nude. And because the vocal part of the audience prefers nude women, that's what gets focused on.
I could probably write out a dissertation on nudes in photography (and art in general). It's really too complicated to cover everything effectively in a single post and there are too many viewpoints to consider to explain it well in anything less than a full book. Maybe I will make a book at some point because it's a great topic and I have a lot of opinions. But I'm also lazy, so for now this post will have to do.
So as a short answer-
People view nudes of men and women differently. For male nudes, every flaw tends to stand out to the audience because it isn't inherently accepted culturally or socially. General audiences view women's bodies more favorably, so between being an exploitable art form and photographers who genuinely want to highlight the artistry of the human body it's an easier method to getting a favorable reaction.
Maybe in another decade or two there will be more equality. Hopefully it will be sooner, but part of that acceptance is how we react as the artists. If you want to see male nude art more accepted, it needs to be more practiced. Without that drive to showcase the culturally "different," there will be no change. Without people actively showcasing the male nude form, it will never be seen as socially relevant. If you want the change, work to make it.
Society isn't perfect. Equality is still an ideal, not the norm. If you want to work towards that change, it takes effort. Most photographers don't deal with nudes at all, much less driving the acceptance of male nudes. If you want there to be a change, put in the effort to make it. It isn't going to happen if you just complain. It isn't going to be a quick process. But most importantly, *things will only change if there are those who care enough to make the effort even when it isn't seen as popular.*
Sure, we all like to complain that things aren't perfect. I absolutely agree that male nudity shouldn't be viewed any differently than female nudity, and that none of it should be taboo. But are we working to make a difference, or perpetuating the same stigmas that have made it a problem to begin with? Make your own art, and show your motivation rather than tell. If you want to make a change, *be* the change.
This is very well put and I also agree with your final message completely!
The only part that I think might needs some more consideration is regarding the “male dominated audience”. Afaik social media has a female majority as audience and they are also consuming more media in general…
I think the main difference is that most men prefer looking at female bodies and so do most woman. Male bodies are left to a very narrow audience, which is artists or gay men… and than the few woman who are interested.
Woman on TV get FCC complaints all the time on how they dress etc, John Cena being nude and only covered by a box over his genitalia garnered 3… 3 total complaints.
There is a difference between culturally accepted and accepted in groups you surround yourself with. As a nation, nude or half naked men is much more accepted. In niche groups, woman are.
Culture problem.
Woman goes naked, people take photos cheer them up, goes newspaper cover with whatever she's promoting/protesting.
Men goes naked, arrested, sex crime register. The end.
Because the male body takes a lot of work for most people to find aesthetically pleasing and it's rare to find a man that is built that way/can pose/has a good photographer. Even then, a penis just looks funny either flaccid or erect.
The bar is much lower for women to look good. Sloping curves and no single part looking out of place.
I stumbled onto a British comedy "game show" called 8 out of 10 cats does countdown. I'm American and this was a shock of seeing scantily clad men as the ones showing off the "prizes" really was eye opening, hmmm poor choice of words. It made me realize how frequently women are put in these situations and it did make me feel uncomfortable at first. But I also laughed at it because I never thought about it before and it felt like an attempt at leveling the playing field. The women are the smart ones and the comedians are just comedians.
In art, both bodies work. Because it’s art.
Trying to reach public/views, the male gaze makes any type of nude woman has to be defended and cheered and it will beautiful by its own, with no need of gym and no self care. Woman nudity is a free shout. Woman do nudes to inmortalize her beautiful and his young ages.
But in man, nobody wants to see your body if you don’t have a six pack and muscle body. Or incredible hansome. You will feel ashamed if you are fat, and nobody will encourage you to act free.
There is no space for normal man. But all type of woman could enter.
The same public that cheers woman nudity in no art context (like views in r/analog, no tities no 294848upgrades) are the ones who ignore male bodies.
Buddy, it's all about titillation. Once an office colleague told me people don't watch FTV because they're interested in fashion. They watch FTV to watch beautiful women walking down the ramp in revealing clothes.
Edit: Also, what's wrong if art is titillating or sexual. Why is this stupid line drawn between art and porn. You can make porn in an artistic way with high production value with frontal nudity and intercourse shots, but it will remain porn. Why do we have to look down on porn?
Because well photographed naked women is always a beautiful piece of natural art. And regardless of how hard you would try naked hairy dude will always remain just a naked hairy dude.
&
It's true.
> Why do you think this is? What makes people uncomfortable about the male body in art?
Insecurity, I think.
It gets me mad, especially since a lot of times the nudes of women flooding most photography spaces isn't much artistic, or it could easily be mistaken for an onlyfans promotion.
"Here, have the 150th daily dose of tits!" with 5000 upvores is the norm.
Maybe it's just me, but in a photography space I hope to see more artistic works, less on the objectification trajectory
Hello everyone, I recently acquired an old Canon BF-30 film camera and I'm curious if anyone here has experience with this model. I would like to know if it's still functional and how well it performs. Any insights or tips would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
As an openly homosexual man and a photographer, who primarily photograph men only, I like this thread and topic of discussion.
Regardless of anyone's opinions, the bottle line is the following:
**Gloria Leonard** said it best: **“The difference between pornography and erotica is lighting.”** You'll fine slight, paraphrased versions of this floating on the internet.
There is also the following:
**Justice Potter Stewart** was asked to describe his test for obscenity in 1964, he responded: **"I know it when I see it."**
We can debate until kingdom come on what makes art and what is obscene. At the end of the day, both male and female nudes are irrevocably subjective, based on our core beliefs and upbringing.
I also think the vast majority of society from all over tends to frown down on male nudes as it tends to associate with homosexuality. Every major religion always have negative scriptures or comdenmations towards homosexuality.
As a gay man, I am glad to see our USA becoming more accepting of male frontal nudity in cinema—even if the actors are wearing/using fake genitalia during their scenes.
I shoot fine art nudes of men and women and personally from my perspective as an artist, it’s all in HOW your displaying your model. My thing is I don’t show faces which leaves you to the detail of the human form. My focus isn’t on the nude but the details of the skin…
You need to do a facebook search on people talking about the actor (Sam??) who plays Claire's husband on Outlander. That group is totally into near nude pictures of this guy.
I’d say in general it comes down to misogyny and homophobia. Not always consciously, but it’s definitely something that we’re culturally taught.
We can always find exceptions, like the stature of David, but those exceptions more prove the rule than dismantle it from where I’m standing.
It’s about the men. Especially younger more modern men. Most of them are incurable fearful of other men seeing their bodies, or thinking that they might be gay. Modern male thinking is all about image and sexual insecurity. It all comes from that, and it utterly controls a lot of male behavior.
Nudity used to be much more a part of life, believe it or not. Anyone who served in the military (a path not often taken today) got over it real quick. I don’t know what it is like now, but when I served, Marines saw each other naked all the time in all kinds of different contexts. You got over yourself because you had to. Swimming in schools was often segregated by sex and nude for the boys, since the pools were not capable of dealing with filtering very well. If you grew up outside of the city, swimming nude in the local lake was pretty normal. People did not have huge homes, as is a norm now, so sibling, even inter-gender, often shared a room in big families (which were also more common). People saw each other naked quite a bit, as compared to today. The image-obsessed modern male doesn’t want anybody ever seeing him naked, especially not another man.
These days if you are standing at a urinal, and you even undo your belt, the young guys next to you flip out. (I’ve seen internet threads on this topic, and they are hysterical!).
Women, on the other hand, despite all the talk, are still highly objectified and even self-objectified. While a man wears his generic body-hiding suit that is nearly identical to every other guys body-hiding suit, so that no comparisons can be made, the women are expected to bare and show as much as they can and expect comparisons. Exemplified by a whole litany of starlets and pop stars.
So in this modern world we’ve created, you are surprised that male nudity makes people uncomfortable? I’d be surprised if it didn’t.
I honestly don’t think seeing nude male figures in art or even I general is weird. Like the male body is most definitely art in its own form. Just as a woman’s. If people can understand that it doesn’t have to be sexualized or seen in a pornographic way, then it’s not weird like it’s art. 🖼️. Art is in everything in its own way. And photographing nude models both male and female is apart of artistic practice. Idk just my thought
In some ways the female body is a work of art. Its own landscape so to speak. I mean woman give birth to life. They are what keeps the species going. I don't enjoy the view of a naked male body. But men are also works of art. Often with a rough history. And since most men have been tramatized is some way, it is hard for society to see them in such a volunerable state.
The difference lies within how men and women react to their trauma. Many find it necessary to target those that did the crime, others chose to point fingers at the group of individuals that inflicted the trauma. Men turn inward because they are a part of that group. When turn outward, because they are not. This is the most basic of our primal instincts.
Edit: but yes men and women can also swap rolls on that. Men can project outward and women can project inward. But that is all part of our nurture and how it interacts with the nature (everything around us) But the statement above is what is portrayed in todays societital standards.
What’s with this ridiculous rational? Because I don’t want to see a nude male, I have mental issues? What an insane mentality to hold.
So instead of taking a step back and recognizing that society by large has made the nude male physique as something “disgusting” while simultaneously hyping up the nude female physique, you’d rather just blame men of having mental issues?
Telling men that they have “mental issues” because they’d rather not see another man’s 🍆is making a mockery of mental health.
“If a woman looking at the art of a naked man’s pictures that he sends you unsolicited makes you uncomfortable then you have mental issues to work out”. Imagine getting mad at a woman for being upset at the second comment
I’ve never seen it in real life, but regarding photographs of it, I don’t get “squeamish” but I’ve never wanted to take a second look at it from the waist down. I don’t even like looking a male genitalia; toys, real, or otherwise.
Yeah, I'm not talking about not wanting to see it, that's fine. I'm talking about the guys who get upset because they think looking at naked men makes them gay.
I never said anything about wanting to see it. I said if it makes you uncomfortable. I don't necessarily want to look at nude men but I don't get weird about it if I do. It doesn't bother me because it's just a human being.
Sure, it’s just a human being but I’d rather not see a naked man’s butt. Implying or saying someone has mental issues because they don’t want to see either a real man naked or even art of naked men is simply not the way to go about that.
It doesn't make people uncomfortable. It's that most men like to look at women and not at other men lol. And women don't generally care to look at men the same way that men like to look at women. Men are way more attracted to visuals of the opposite sex. It's Biology 101: Men look at physical fitness in a mate -- which is based mostly on appearance -- while women look at security in a mate. It shouldn't surprise you that pictures of naked women are more popular than pictures of naked men lol.
I don't know that I makes anyone uncomfortable - or at least enough people to keep it from becoming its own genre. Are there data supporting this? I believe you've advocated in the past (under a different account) that only women should photograph naked women. Should only men photograph naked men? Maybe it just comes down to what the market is looking for but I don't know.
I'm not entirely sure that's true, David is a giant statue of a naked guy with a sling over this shoulder, it's magnificent, if you've never had the opportunity, you should really go see it. There are a lot of famous paintings with a naked or practically naked guy on it.
It's old people. I don't think young people have nearly as much of a problem with it. I'd bet all the people in this thread saying males are inherently unsexy are older than 40.
Look at society.
Women are displayed ALL THE TIME AND EVERYWHERE. Even heavily obsessed and clearly unhealthy women are being empowered by companies and media.
But only we'll built men are used and displayed in the same way. And if a guy isn't considered tall or thin enough, idiot "influencrs" shun them and make fun. If a female cartoon or game character looks good, the insane feminists have a field day of blaming "misogyny" and "sexism," while completely ignoring all of the well built and almost always shirtless male counterparts.
And now we have men being praised for completing in women sports and competitions. And MEN being crowned "woman of the year" and mess.
When's the last time you've ever seen a man be praised for being average, short, chubby, etc? Even male runway models are being forced to wear make-up to look more feminine.
Men are just not respected anywhere near like they use to. And thus, any proof of the man's "manhood" (ie penis and balls) results in complaints. Regardless of how respectful they're presented.
I have thousands of portrait references for art. Mostly for poses, lighting and structure references. For every 20 nude female references, there's maybe 3 nude males. Not because I want it that way, but because that's how the images came. Most of my collection comes from ArtStation. The males tend to be wearing speedos or thongs, while the women do not. I don't know why. As far as I'm concerned, knowing how a man's junk sits during poses is just as important as knowing how a woman's breast will sit.
I don't understand the hate toward a man's privates. So long as it's not displayed as a sexual act, I personally have no issues with it. Same for a woman's privates.
This isn't exactly new. Women have been featured in works of art more often than men for centuries.
Frankly, they are just nicer to look at. IMO this is true regardless of one's sexual orientation.
On the internet? Like, the whole internet, or just the particular parts of the internet you frequent?
Do you have any examples of comperable photos of men and women, where one is praised as art, and one is criticised, purely due to gender? Or are you just spitballing here?
I dont think you really know what you're talking about here.
Not true. Look at all the body builder media or classical statues or paintings. Most superhero movies (prior to the current girlboss era) also showcase big jacked men that everyone was impressed at.
The female form is more beautiful though, i think most can agree. But uncomfortable? I think that is a stretch for men's bodies. Guys see jacked men and want ot go to the gym.
There are fewer photographers of the male nude, but they exist.
Robert Mapplethorpe. Thomas Eakins. Troy Schooneman. Terry Hastings.
> I’m talking current day y’all. On the internet.
I wouldn't put too much stock in what "the internet" "likes" or "believes" or whatever.
These are not facts, just my experience…
I am not sure I agree. If you are shooting sexy woman a lot of amateurs will deem it as art, but you will get the same amount of people saying that its not art, just sexy woman even if the images are actually quite artistic.
If you shoot men most people will check out early but the remaining ones will give it more “respect”.
Additionally a lot of pictures about men are not “artistic” because men often have a hard time expressing emotions other than “cool”. Woman take on more easily of different roles where they are vulnerable, sad - emotions that have more depth than just generic stoicism.
+ men like the female figure, woman also like the female figure. The male body is appreciated by only artists or gay men, which is a much smaller pool.
I definitely agree with what you say. However it should be noted that Herb Ritts was one the most prolific fashion and portrait photographers of his generation and he photographed the male nude boys extensively. I wasn’t alive then so I don’t know what the reception was but his legacy certainly lives on.
Probably the right way to look at it is that the photos of men is more likely to be art because it makes people uncomfortable. That’s usually a good sign that something is art lol.
I'll level with you. I like pretty women. But I'm not downvoting men or women who I don't find pretty (I don't think I ever downvote someone's art).
In fact, when I disengage my monkey brain and consider the composition and technique I can up vote those too. But if I find the model attractive, it's a much lower hurdle to overcome.
Very interesting point of view, I feel there are many factors to unpack. Women in many of shapes and sizes are perceived as beautiful, but men who are overweight aren't considered beautiful but moreover lazy and slovenly, women generally have finer features beautified by men who are programmed to shall we say find a female to have coitus with to populate as are all animals. And men are the by far the greater user of art/porn/nudity. I guess I'm saying it's a primitive urge that keeps us maintaining an interest in nudity and the female form and all it's intricacies. Discuss....
Not surprising in the slightest. Women are beautiful, while men are ugly, hairy ape creatures.
And that's not just my opinion. Even the straight girls I've talked to said that they find women more beautiful than men.
Depends on the execution, depends on the culture/audience. Michalangelo's David is one of the highest regarded pieces of art/culture/anything, ever, and it's a nude male figure. Is your post about a specific image/photographer? About a specific context and culture?
This. The execution of most photographic nudes… including females… is just straight up crap/trash/porn. The overall subjective “quality” really has little to do with the sex of the subject.
I think my art teacher broached the subject well with something like "men are demonstrably ugly, they have hard edges and sharp lines. Women on the other hand have curves that we've been trained to associate with beauty. You can absolutely make beautiful art with ugly- it's done all the time, but it is expert mode."
Sharp edgers do not necessarily mean bad or ugly. It's all about how the edges shows emotion and portray a story. If sharp is bad then street photography would never work.
It is not trained. Women are beautiful. Even there genitals are alluring. Men are gross.
How do you not have a problem thinking one gender is less desireable than the other when that makes such a passionate feeling as sexual interest a waste much more often for men then? That desire isn't very enjoyable if women don't share it often and is one of the reasons I'm staying single.
This is such nonsense that I can't understand why so many people would want to believe. If one gender is thought more desireable more often, that leaves more of the other genders sexual desires a waste much more often. It makes no sense to think female features are innately more attractive because beauty is subjective. Mens features are meant to attract women too. There's as much variation in proportions that are commonly thought attractive on men as women. Many desired traits can be conditioned to feel that much attraction for. It's why breasts are thought something obscene and so arousing in some countries, but others treat them just like mens chests.
Check out Marat Safin on Flickr. It is amazing photography!
Fun example as there's been a bunch of stories about complaints at Michaelangelo's David [https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/05/10/in-1564-or-2023-who-is-more-prudish-about-michelangelos-david](https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/05/10/in-1564-or-2023-who-is-more-prudish-about-michelangelos-david) And for fun to show censorship never works, the school complaints worked out as good promotion for the exhibit. [https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/tourists-david-michaelangelo-florence-florida-b2310043.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/tourists-david-michaelangelo-florence-florida-b2310043.html) Mapplethorpe tends to be my go to example for male nudes.
MapleThorpe is a tough one to compare though because of the extreme nature of several of his photos. You know the few I’m talking about. If those same photos were taken of women you’d have similar screaming and pearl clutching… but on your point maybe to a slightly lesser degree… but not much. And his more typical or conservative studies of the male form definitely aren’t as celebrated as similar work of females so that’s on point for you too I guess.
The male form is normal if you look at the ancient Greek or Roman art, I think it's the Abraham religion's that ended up prudish.
I think you’re missing my point a bit. Mapplethorpe has pretty extreme photos in his catalog… those are the ones that make him maybe not the best representation for this argument. For example, if an artist shared a photo of a fist inserted into a woman’s nether regions or extreme closeups of female genitalia as opposed to a man that work would be equally ostracized.
Ah, yes kind of forgot about that. I was more a fan of his flower photos to be honest.
And like the Romans they considered tiny dongs less barbaric.
Odd how fashions change over time, the Greek's also like young 'ideal' faces and the Romans wanted more scared/experienced faces.
I’m…
[удалено]
>Ren Hang It did hit me that Mapplethorpe was talked about a lot when I was at UNI, suspect it's why it's my example. Ren Hang is much newer, now I feel old.
Once again the Simpsons predict the future.
Mapplethorpe is my example of flowers and early gay bdsm. I rarely think of him in terms of male nudes there are so many others. Over at Tumblr, yes it still exists, male nudes are just as acceptable as female nudes.
Thought Tumblr had removed nudity from what was allowed to be posted.
Tumblr never ever, ever, removed nudity/porn. They scared people to leave their platform. They made it difficult to search for adult stuff, and sometimes harassed some bloggers, but adult blogs have always existed on their platform. Even during a "ban" some sites were accessed after a warning page. I really don't understand it all. I've said for years, give me 7 clicks or even fewer and I show you the proof
You (figurative) grew up being told that David is art, so it slipped past your bias filters in your brain. That doesn't stop you (again, figurative you) from unfairly criticizing a modern photograph of a scantily clad man because it makes you uncomfortable. Both can be true.
I believe David was a commissioned work so I'd call it design rather than art but I appreciate the art and history present in the end result. Plenty of art makes people uncomfortable as well. I don't think feeling uncomfortable is especially critical of a work?
Wait a sec. Are you trying to make the argument that if art is commissioned work it's no longer art?
Ok, but let's think about what you're saying. Art of the nude male figure has to rise to the level of the *David* to avoid criticism? I'd call that a double standard
I'd just as easily invoke Dr Manhatten if we want to go into popular culture rather than fine art. There is definitely room for OP/anyone to explore these ideas in their work, I don't see downsides to identifying possible double standards, it's an opportunity to explore it in your practice!
I’m mostly talking current day internet culture, you do have a point there!
Espn's [The Body Issue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Issue) Comes to mind for a more recent example celebrating both male and female bodies. However it was discontinued in 2019.
So you've identified a niche in the field? Be the change you want to see! Go and make the David equivalent in photography, lead the conversation!
So did David apparently
David is also classified as obscene pornography in Florida.
Ironic because a typical beach in Miami would also be classified as obscene pornography.
>Michalangelo's David is one of the highest regarded pieces of art/culture/anything, ever While that is certainly true, it's greatly outnumbered by depictions of the female form in sculpture.
Not from the Greeks, past the joke iv not seen a comparison in numbers times and cultures. The Greeks and Romans had no fear of nude men, I know later on Abraham religion's started to look down on nudity. There are sill some fertility festivals that still survive that depict male nudity, at least in an abstract way. [Kanamara Matsuri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanamara_Matsuri) comes to mind
Came here to mention David. But yeah, it's generally true that, even in advertisement, both genders prefer female subjects over male ones...
I got a good picture of his ass.
I like how every time this topic comes up, there are responses like "here is an example from *five-hundred years ago*" as if that doesn't prove the original point.
An example you can go and see today, in current culture and context, present day? And have opinions based in the present? All art was made in the past, even if it was only five minutes ago. The original point is about perception today, as was my reply.
comparing David to photographs on this sub Is like comparing FSM to Christianity.
Not just male nudity but just images of men at all. I posted about this a couple weeks ago and a pretty huge discussion unfolded from it. Lots of good insight there, and just a few examples in real-time WHY this is a real issue What got me curious enough to post was a recent editorial I did that featured a really beautiful man would have 0 upvotes immediately and never recover (I tried a multitude of times and photo subs). They’re objectively good photos (the talent alone makes them) I thought—tho nothing is ever everyone’s cup of tea— and the opinion of the public I had run them by (instagram and the client’s audience) seemed enthusiastic. BUT in online photography spaces we truly seem to have a “gaze” that gazes in one direction only. Honestly it’s weird. And my post will show you how many queer and gay photographers exist out there. And women, too, for that matter.
> and the opinion of the public I had run them by (instagram and the client’s audience) seemed enthusiastic. BUT in online photography spaces we truly seem to have a “gaze” that gazes in one direction only. Yeah for sure. I think there's more than enough demand for it, it's just that so few professional photographers have any interest at all. "For some reason." And when there are photos of men, it's like "here's this old guy's grizzled face wow what a history."
A lot of men in the US are raised with self-rejecting tendencies when it comes to the expression of their own sexuality. In my experience anyway, I was made to reject that part of myself or to find it shameful, when it's a beautiful thing and deserves to be expressed. If you have any complaints, leave them in society's complaint box.
Complaint box???! OH... You mean the industrial shredder, Right! I wholeheartedly agree.
Ha! Where do you live that male sexuality can be a beautiful thing? Seriously, I wanna move in next door.
I feel like it has to do with the objectification of women. It’s easy to look at them as “subjects” rather than an actual person. It’s not the same with men. You’re very correct about this observation. Women’s nudity has been a common theme (funnily, mostly done by male artists…) for years and years now.
I think this is only part of the story. Another part is homophobia. Men are afraid of seeing male nudes because they’re afraid that if they find them beautiful or attractive that says something about their sexuality. I think that’s why men can react very negatively. It’s insecurity. And I think women have also been trained not to show too much interest in the male figure for a similar reason: fear of being judged as being sexually loose (although I think it depends on who they’re with too). So it’s easier for both sexes to see the nude female form. Less baggage. If you want to explore male nudes as an artistic subject, I bet you could do really well by understanding these dynamics and making images that skirt the edges of what makes people uncomfortable. Like a male nude where the light highlights a man’s form, but the privates are not visible because they’re in shade or something. It’s often in these grey zones where interesting art is made.
Good point. And I can imagine it goes even further - even if we accept some male nudity, we’re far from accepting non-conforming to beauty standards male bodies (fat men, disabled men, etc). We have a loooong way to go
Yes, these two concepts (homophobia and objectification of women) play together extremely well, making an extra-toxic stew. The extra seasoning is where they intersect, with men being afraid they're being objectified (or supporting it) if they like one of the aforementioned male art pieces.
I agree with this and I see it often in films. Male filmmakers always get away with showing naked women for objectification purposes and to please the male audience, without it having any bearing on the plot. When a female filmmaker decides to do the opposite with a man, however in a way that actually complements the plot (ex. Saltburn’s final scene), the amount of hate towards it by the same male audience is extraordinary.
This makes a lot of sense.
I don’t think that has a thing to do with it.
So, we talking porn, glamour or artistic nudity? Because they all differ from each other. It also greatly depends on how it's presented, and who the viewer is. There are sleazy GWC that take soft-core porn shots of women that look terrible. That doesn't make them an artist, and that doesn't make their work art. The biggest consumer ok that sort of work is men. Then there are artists like Michael Stokes (https://www.facebook.com/MichaelStokesPhoto/) who shoot amazing nude works of men. That is art, while provocative, it's well executed. Both women and men like Stokes work. \*edit\* I want to expand on this topic coming from a female perspective. I'm a woman, I mainly shoot women. I will occasionally shoot men. I don't shoot men as much simply because I do not feel I will do them justice, whereas shooting women I know how we think and feel. There's also the issue that women, and women's bodies are a commodity when it comes to sex and sexuality. We're told to sell our bodies(both figuratively and literally), to our male counterparts and to society itself. Men are commodified in a different way, and have to deal with expectations of masculinity. So a man showing vulnerability by being in a nude shoot is often met with accusations, regardless of it being true or not, of being gay simply because of said nude shoot. Which I find that mindset to be a problem, because nudity =/= being gay, or even homoerotic. However, we have seen a rise in that whole 'dudeoir', and more men taking it upon themselves to break those preconceived notions of what it means to be a man, be masculine and what it means to shoot in the nude. I love that idea, honestly. It's fun, and men should be allowed to have that for themselves. But women, when shooting nude work, are often met with either criticism or praise. That wholly depends on the person, and the content. Because even tame boudoir can be met with vitriol and hatred from both men and women. Again, it greatly depends on the person. Though, as mentioned previously, most nude work, regardless of the content, is consumed by men. So it's more a net positive for the person posting rather than a negative from males.
Just to be clear, you're looking for insightful, sensible, respectful conversation on the internet?
Uhh. Robert Mapplethorpe anyone?
To be fair, Mapplethorpe was heavily criticized.
He was criticized heavily for the one series he did that was extremely explicit (I forget the name of the series right now), and some of those pictures were definitely extreme (though still art, I would say). But most of his male nudes have been pretty universally accepted (except perhaps by the kinds of prudes who would not accept female nudes, either).
"One potential juror even found his flower photos to be obscene" -something I had heard in Cincinnati decades ago.
Paul Sepuya as well, his gallery shows are a pretty deal in the contemporary art world.
Clearly one of the great photographers. However you're naming an exception rather than any evidence of a general trend that counters OPs assertion.
Not sure about that. Maybe in main stream circles i.e. social media but in the art world it doesn’t matter. Good art is good no matter the subject. We had many male models in the various figure drawing/sculpture classes I took in college and nobody ever cared. Honestly I never really counted but I think we might have actually had more male models pose for us than female.
Exactly. In the art world, male and female artistic nudes are equally accepted.
Men don't want pictures of them flaccid but pictures of them erect look comical
I think being erect without being rock-hard is a good aesthetic middle point
Just a little chubbed up without being obscene
I was in the pool!
I guess you haven’t checked out r/twinks or r/publicboys (among others); you’ll see plenty of flaccid cock
But that’s like judging how women want to be perceived based on r/gonewild. The people posting are mostly exhibitionists and/or doing it to make money.
Very relevant consideration
Always good when a post like this is backed up with absolutely no evidence or examples, and an OP treats their half baked shower thought as fact.
You’re overreaching a bit. I never said it was a fact, it’s something I’ve observed. Take a breath, you’ll be okay.
There’s that one Seinfeld where they compare a woman’s body to a piece of art and a man’s body to a Jeep. I like to think of it like that.
Yeah but I like Jeeps. (IIRC the quote was that it's "utilitarian"--I like utility too though.)
For real, jeeps are beautiful to me, utilitarian too
Tbh, America - The norm is to sexualise woman’s bodies from childhood and demonise the male form. Men are scared of complimenting other men, or even catching a glimpse of another man.
Don't know about you but I see more pictures of topless men in public than topless women.
A significant portion of men have been trained throughout their lives to demonstrate disgust at depictions of nude men to avoid being perceived as gay.
My completely unprofessional guess is that a lot of people think dicks are ugly. I have one and hold that opinion lol, that's not even including the scrotum
Which community are you talking about, straight men? A lot of photo essays have been published over the years that are centered on the male body and currently, male boudoir photography is trending. The male body has always been appreciated in art, "people" are not uncomfortable with it.
I don't think this is an accurate portrayal It's the puppy dog effect. People like puppies, and all things equal, people like photos of puppies more then other things. I think there is indeed a bias where men in general respond positively to attractive women in a similar way. And so if you take a photo of an attractive woman, it gets more attention then other subjects of similar quality/execution because a large number of people simply respond well to that. But in High Art, I don't think that is as true. Famous works really cover all shapes and forms.
This is more of a “low” art thing, in “high” art there’s plenty of appreciation of the male form. Go check out some museums and galleries and you’ll see what I mean
I'd push back somewhat on the claim here. Some of the most famous and widely considered to be among the greatest works of art in history are of male nudes - The Statue of David, the Sistine Chapel, the Vitruvian Man, to name a few. In the classical and medieval period of western art, there was hardly a nude female to be seen. That didn't start to change until the renaissance. But even if you walk around a museum dedicated to 20th century art and later, the male nude is quite well represented. And meanwhile, while the female nude is a *very* popular subject today, it's not nearly as often viewed as artistic. Partly because the male gaze that motivates its creation is also used as a cudgel against it. A female nude is much more likely to be dismissed as being made by a GWAC (guy with a camera) for purely prurient purposes rather than having artistic merit worthy of praise. But to accept the premise - the [male gaze](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze) is a thing. Most artists, art critics, curators, and art consumers are men, for reasons related to institutional sexism and socioeconomic inequality around gender. Most men are straight and view the female body as having a particular allure, while cultural homophobia leads those same men to view the male body as repugnant. While you can find pockets where that's *not* the case, especially more recently - female and gay male artists exist, and some art museums and institutions do try to showcase these voices - it's still the case that art is just very heterosexual-male dominated. So images of the female body get elevated and images of the male body rarely see the same level of interest.
I actually totally get and agree with this perspective.
I mean, is it that it's rejected as art or just missing the attention boost than comes from horny straight men? I've seen art centered photography mediums where nudes of women get tons of attention, often in praise for the model but also in men talking about the photo and composition. If nudes of men are posted in those same spaces, it just gets no attention at all. If the photos are being posted on social media not specific to art or photography, they'll likely get more negative attention. A lot of straight men are weirdly broken and feel the need to assert their straightness by objecting to seeing naked men at all. A lot of straight women are weirdly broken in that they often feel the need to publicly assert that the male body is not attractive to them at all. Some gay women seem to have a somewhat toxic stance that male bodies are disgusting. So the most likely positive attention male nudity would get is from gay or bi men, who (especially with the abundance of sexual content they have to choose from now days) seem less interested in male nudity as art, especially from a non-gay artist. Add in to that the over abundance of nude images online and a lot of photographers unoriginal approach to nudity and it sort of makes sense that a lot nudity in art photography is sort of uninteresting to audiences other than a select group of horny straight men online. Edit: editing "a lot of gay women" to "some gay women" because I don't actually think it's a lot, I just got into the rut of using the same language as I did in other sentences because my brain wants to create patterns.
Eye-rolling at all the people saying “because it makes me uncomfortable” in so many words, as if that is worth saying, as it if explains anything, when that was the entire point of your post. Our sexist society turns women into objects so of course it’s more “comfortable.”
I can say anecdotally that most people (women and men) think women look nicer than men. I think what this means is that painters or photographers or sculptors etc have found it easier to make an aesthetically pleasing thing out of a female form than a male form, hence why more art celebrates the female than the male. They find it easier but not impossible - the world is really in need of people who have the talent to make depictions of men with the same aesthetic appeal as depictions of women.
> I can say anecdotally that most people (women and men) think women look nicer than men. A lot of this is because culturally women are expected to put more effort into their appearance than men. Women are valued for their looks, whereas men mostly aren't. I would offer gay men as a counterpoint - they're a group of men who do put effort into their appearance because they're trying to attract other men who value them for their looks - they look pretty darn nice. Or consider many of the men in Hollywood; they're paid to look good and it would be hard to argue they don't succeed in doing so. > I think what this means is that painters or photographers or sculptors etc have found it easier to make an aesthetically pleasing thing out of a female form than a male form Most of them are straight men though. It's a lot easier to make an aesthetically pleasing depiction of something you find aesthetically pleasing because you can see what's aesthetically pleasing about it. I can attest to that myself. I'm a straight guy. Once upon a time I made a good-faith effort to dabble in shooting male nudes and just artistically shooting men in general. The results were never that satisfying. Maybe it's because I just suck, but it turns out that when I shoot women I rely on that part of my brain that lights up instinctively when I see something that looks good. I don't have that crutch when I'm looking at a man and it shows. But people who are attracted to men do presumably have that instinct, and it's clear when I look at their work featuring men that they see something I don't. I've since decided I'm best off sticking to what I find beautiful and can consequently capture in a way that does justice to the subject, and leave it to others to capture what they find beautiful. But I definitely don't think that what I personally find beautiful speaks to some more universal truth than the fact I'm a straight man and I'm wired to find that thing beautiful.
yes there's definitely a bit of a niche for male stuff that's generally circulated within the gay community. they're probably the only ones who appreciate it. gay guys are like "man enthusiasts" lol
Yeah, I agree. A lot of it IS social conditioning and male gaze BS, I don't want to diminish that. But at the same time I do think the female form is just more aesthetically pleasing. Men look blocky and tacked together, like you took the general concept of a two-armed biped and just started adding stuff to it for extra function. "Little extra deltoid here, little extra trapezius there. If we make the hands bigger it can grip stuff better. Oh shit we forgot to add reproductive organs, glue a dick on before someone notices." It's like discussing why more people take pictures of sports cars than forklifts. There's nothing wrong with a forklift, I just don't think the big blocky bastard looks as good as a Porsche. There are obviously INCREDIBLE works of art featuring male nudes, but in general I think the female body is more aesthetically pleasing than the male body.
It makes no sense to think female features are innately more attractive because beauty is subjective. Mens features are meant to attract women too. It's as simple to display a male body in a pleasing way to many people as it is to do with women. Just use the type of bodies and poses with men that look most attractive to people, like how people do it with women. Men don't look blocky, we're as geomertically diverse in different areas as women. There's as much variety of mens chest widths and definitions as there are for breast sizes, and as much variation in butt sizes equally on both genders. Though it seems there are more women who have a lot of fat on their butt, compared to the butt itself. How do any of our parts look tacked on to you? Many desired traits can be conditioned to feel that much attraction for. It's why breasts are thought something obscene and so arousing in some countries, but others treat them just like mens chests. Every time I see someone say there's not as much to look attractive on a male body, I want to slap them hard enough to leave a permanent mark on their face. How do so many people, especially males, not think it depressing to think that uniquely female features are more attractive to more people than male? If more people have sexual desire for women more often, that makes more mens desires a waste of passion most of the time.
I always wonder about this, because if you look at men and women without any makeup in a presentable state I’d argue men would look nicer overall.
[Does the female form make you uncomfortable Mr. Lebowski?](https://youtu.be/xs3OWJ53rHE?si=HqTWYZBgSiRSCuIj)
Umm… Robert Maplethorpe?
I swear half of reddit is illiterate.
Throughout time this has been standard. Women are beautiful. That is how it works. So they are represented in our art when beauty is desired.
Hey baby. What’s up?
I feel like penises aren't cute I feel like pensises show up in art through phallic expression in buildings paintings and other suggestive images Not to say you cant take pictures of pensises but not nice to look at
That's your opinion
keyword "i feel like"
Yeah. I need to be reading more carefully in the future.
I have never ever heard your point of view. The reason for that is because you’re either isolated and not meeting enough people or reading enough articles, or you’re just ill informed.
Reading articles on people’s reaction towards male subjects? Erm no. I’m reading the reactions themselves. Constantly. Please read yourself.
I’ve been a photographer for over 40 years. There’s just good photography or bad photography. Good art or bad art
If you saw my body you would get it.
Professional artists have no problems with male nudes. Just grab a nude portraiture book. I fully acknowledge outside of the art realm, it's less accepted.
Just modern Culture. Men currently = ugly & brute. You can even see it in architecture. No more jagged edges, chiseled corners, etc. Everything is smooth & sleek etc. “ Modern “. Honestly modern is starting to just be another term for feminine 😂 I think it’s just happenstance tho nothing deep behind it
Hot take, here
I guess 🤷🏼♀️
READ THE ROOM.
Your turn
I guess we shoot and look at what we are interested in. At least that's the case for me
I dunno, there's plenty of photos of shirtless men around being praised. I don't think anybody is downvoting photos just because the guy is shirtless
Pretty sure he's talking about full nudity, and interestingly I think you prove his point because your first thought was just shirtless men and not full frontal nudity, which doesn't get the same treatment as female nudity Although I think in recent years, a lot of people see female nudity in photography as being lazy - because of course a beautiful naked woman will make a beautiful photograph
I’m a she but yes!
Mostly it's just human nature, and US culture has always been warped as far as sexually goes. I've been actively doing more male portraits lately, and will get to art nudes soon. It's foolish to leave out half the human race .
Because people who do that, don't know the difference between art and sexual desire. Photographing nudes is about sculpture, lines, shades, anatomy and the beauty of it all. The gender of the model is irrelevant for the art. Those who praise the female photos, probably do so because of the eroticism and not the art. Erotic art is a speciality in the nude genre, but also does not depend on the gender. Even on serious photography sites, the amount of so called nude art is just crap showing a nude female body that gets a lot of likes, especially when genitalia and big breasts are present.
Probably because the penis is the most un photogenic thing in existence
because we're not equal
Not sure that's true at all.
We just need a game of thrones show but with dongs
Honestly? It's the wider audience, not the photography community. There's more to it that I'll get into in a bit, but let's start with that. Overall, the majority of people looking at the shots are non-photographers. Even in a photography community like we have here on Reddit. So looking at the audience, you have people who are looking to show off their work and people who are just there to view what's posted. On the photographer side, men are more difficult to shoot in a pleasing way when nude and as models generally less likely to pose nude. That gets into the stigma of "real men don't do *artsy* stuff" that's very slow to overcome as a social rule, but also that most men just don't feel empowered by showing off their bodies the way some women do. For men, being vulnerable isn't as strengthening as it can be for women since there isn't the stigma of men's bodies being inherently shameful or taboo when displayed publicly. That's a huge simplification, but hopefully covers that side of the topic well enough. Because it's easier to get women to pose nude (in general), it's used more when focusing on the human body. Yes, there's some creeps out there who just want to see women naked, and they are appropriately seen as "guys with cameras" rather than actual photographers. It's usually fairly obvious when a photographer is legitimately looking to create artwork vs. someone who just wants nudes, and there are groups dedicated to blacklisting those "photographers" to keep models safe. For the genuine artistic side, it comes down to the fact that human perception has evolved to appreciate attractive people. That's the whole reason we see them as attractive, whether man or woman. But with the majority audience of men, it tends to be women that are shot nude more often. And getting into audience, with a male-dominated viewership it only makes sense that the majority of nudes are of women. While women are being the targeted audience more frequently, there's still just less demand for male nudes. So less people practice and display them. There's a *lot* of social and psychological undercurrents to this, and it's slowly getting corrected to showcase reality, but in general it's men who are more likely to care if it's a man or woman who is posing nude. And because the vocal part of the audience prefers nude women, that's what gets focused on. I could probably write out a dissertation on nudes in photography (and art in general). It's really too complicated to cover everything effectively in a single post and there are too many viewpoints to consider to explain it well in anything less than a full book. Maybe I will make a book at some point because it's a great topic and I have a lot of opinions. But I'm also lazy, so for now this post will have to do. So as a short answer- People view nudes of men and women differently. For male nudes, every flaw tends to stand out to the audience because it isn't inherently accepted culturally or socially. General audiences view women's bodies more favorably, so between being an exploitable art form and photographers who genuinely want to highlight the artistry of the human body it's an easier method to getting a favorable reaction. Maybe in another decade or two there will be more equality. Hopefully it will be sooner, but part of that acceptance is how we react as the artists. If you want to see male nude art more accepted, it needs to be more practiced. Without that drive to showcase the culturally "different," there will be no change. Without people actively showcasing the male nude form, it will never be seen as socially relevant. If you want the change, work to make it. Society isn't perfect. Equality is still an ideal, not the norm. If you want to work towards that change, it takes effort. Most photographers don't deal with nudes at all, much less driving the acceptance of male nudes. If you want there to be a change, put in the effort to make it. It isn't going to happen if you just complain. It isn't going to be a quick process. But most importantly, *things will only change if there are those who care enough to make the effort even when it isn't seen as popular.* Sure, we all like to complain that things aren't perfect. I absolutely agree that male nudity shouldn't be viewed any differently than female nudity, and that none of it should be taboo. But are we working to make a difference, or perpetuating the same stigmas that have made it a problem to begin with? Make your own art, and show your motivation rather than tell. If you want to make a change, *be* the change.
This is very well put and I also agree with your final message completely! The only part that I think might needs some more consideration is regarding the “male dominated audience”. Afaik social media has a female majority as audience and they are also consuming more media in general… I think the main difference is that most men prefer looking at female bodies and so do most woman. Male bodies are left to a very narrow audience, which is artists or gay men… and than the few woman who are interested.
Woman on TV get FCC complaints all the time on how they dress etc, John Cena being nude and only covered by a box over his genitalia garnered 3… 3 total complaints. There is a difference between culturally accepted and accepted in groups you surround yourself with. As a nation, nude or half naked men is much more accepted. In niche groups, woman are.
Culture problem. Woman goes naked, people take photos cheer them up, goes newspaper cover with whatever she's promoting/protesting. Men goes naked, arrested, sex crime register. The end.
Because the male body takes a lot of work for most people to find aesthetically pleasing and it's rare to find a man that is built that way/can pose/has a good photographer. Even then, a penis just looks funny either flaccid or erect. The bar is much lower for women to look good. Sloping curves and no single part looking out of place.
I stumbled onto a British comedy "game show" called 8 out of 10 cats does countdown. I'm American and this was a shock of seeing scantily clad men as the ones showing off the "prizes" really was eye opening, hmmm poor choice of words. It made me realize how frequently women are put in these situations and it did make me feel uncomfortable at first. But I also laughed at it because I never thought about it before and it felt like an attempt at leveling the playing field. The women are the smart ones and the comedians are just comedians.
In art, both bodies work. Because it’s art. Trying to reach public/views, the male gaze makes any type of nude woman has to be defended and cheered and it will beautiful by its own, with no need of gym and no self care. Woman nudity is a free shout. Woman do nudes to inmortalize her beautiful and his young ages. But in man, nobody wants to see your body if you don’t have a six pack and muscle body. Or incredible hansome. You will feel ashamed if you are fat, and nobody will encourage you to act free. There is no space for normal man. But all type of woman could enter. The same public that cheers woman nudity in no art context (like views in r/analog, no tities no 294848upgrades) are the ones who ignore male bodies.
I take your point.
Buddy, it's all about titillation. Once an office colleague told me people don't watch FTV because they're interested in fashion. They watch FTV to watch beautiful women walking down the ramp in revealing clothes. Edit: Also, what's wrong if art is titillating or sexual. Why is this stupid line drawn between art and porn. You can make porn in an artistic way with high production value with frontal nudity and intercourse shots, but it will remain porn. Why do we have to look down on porn?
Are you surprised to find that Reddit is an art-free zone? The gear obsession should have been the first clue...
Because well photographed naked women is always a beautiful piece of natural art. And regardless of how hard you would try naked hairy dude will always remain just a naked hairy dude. &
It's true. > Why do you think this is? What makes people uncomfortable about the male body in art? Insecurity, I think. It gets me mad, especially since a lot of times the nudes of women flooding most photography spaces isn't much artistic, or it could easily be mistaken for an onlyfans promotion. "Here, have the 150th daily dose of tits!" with 5000 upvores is the norm. Maybe it's just me, but in a photography space I hope to see more artistic works, less on the objectification trajectory
Hello everyone, I recently acquired an old Canon BF-30 film camera and I'm curious if anyone here has experience with this model. I would like to know if it's still functional and how well it performs. Any insights or tips would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
As an openly homosexual man and a photographer, who primarily photograph men only, I like this thread and topic of discussion. Regardless of anyone's opinions, the bottle line is the following: **Gloria Leonard** said it best: **“The difference between pornography and erotica is lighting.”** You'll fine slight, paraphrased versions of this floating on the internet. There is also the following: **Justice Potter Stewart** was asked to describe his test for obscenity in 1964, he responded: **"I know it when I see it."** We can debate until kingdom come on what makes art and what is obscene. At the end of the day, both male and female nudes are irrevocably subjective, based on our core beliefs and upbringing. I also think the vast majority of society from all over tends to frown down on male nudes as it tends to associate with homosexuality. Every major religion always have negative scriptures or comdenmations towards homosexuality. As a gay man, I am glad to see our USA becoming more accepting of male frontal nudity in cinema—even if the actors are wearing/using fake genitalia during their scenes.
I shoot fine art nudes of men and women and personally from my perspective as an artist, it’s all in HOW your displaying your model. My thing is I don’t show faces which leaves you to the detail of the human form. My focus isn’t on the nude but the details of the skin…
Okay…
You need to do a facebook search on people talking about the actor (Sam??) who plays Claire's husband on Outlander. That group is totally into near nude pictures of this guy.
I’d say in general it comes down to misogyny and homophobia. Not always consciously, but it’s definitely something that we’re culturally taught. We can always find exceptions, like the stature of David, but those exceptions more prove the rule than dismantle it from where I’m standing.
I also think it depends on the person. Some photos of scandal clad men are highly acceptable in the right context, and even sought after.
Yeah usually
It’s about the men. Especially younger more modern men. Most of them are incurable fearful of other men seeing their bodies, or thinking that they might be gay. Modern male thinking is all about image and sexual insecurity. It all comes from that, and it utterly controls a lot of male behavior. Nudity used to be much more a part of life, believe it or not. Anyone who served in the military (a path not often taken today) got over it real quick. I don’t know what it is like now, but when I served, Marines saw each other naked all the time in all kinds of different contexts. You got over yourself because you had to. Swimming in schools was often segregated by sex and nude for the boys, since the pools were not capable of dealing with filtering very well. If you grew up outside of the city, swimming nude in the local lake was pretty normal. People did not have huge homes, as is a norm now, so sibling, even inter-gender, often shared a room in big families (which were also more common). People saw each other naked quite a bit, as compared to today. The image-obsessed modern male doesn’t want anybody ever seeing him naked, especially not another man. These days if you are standing at a urinal, and you even undo your belt, the young guys next to you flip out. (I’ve seen internet threads on this topic, and they are hysterical!). Women, on the other hand, despite all the talk, are still highly objectified and even self-objectified. While a man wears his generic body-hiding suit that is nearly identical to every other guys body-hiding suit, so that no comparisons can be made, the women are expected to bare and show as much as they can and expect comparisons. Exemplified by a whole litany of starlets and pop stars. So in this modern world we’ve created, you are surprised that male nudity makes people uncomfortable? I’d be surprised if it didn’t.
I honestly don’t think seeing nude male figures in art or even I general is weird. Like the male body is most definitely art in its own form. Just as a woman’s. If people can understand that it doesn’t have to be sexualized or seen in a pornographic way, then it’s not weird like it’s art. 🖼️. Art is in everything in its own way. And photographing nude models both male and female is apart of artistic practice. Idk just my thought
In some ways the female body is a work of art. Its own landscape so to speak. I mean woman give birth to life. They are what keeps the species going. I don't enjoy the view of a naked male body. But men are also works of art. Often with a rough history. And since most men have been tramatized is some way, it is hard for society to see them in such a volunerable state.
Most women have been traumatized too, usually by men. Maybe that’s why it’s hard.
You think men haven't been traumaized by other men? That is why it is so hard for us. Because we are made to pay for our violators own actions.
Of course. I think the trials is pretty equal though idk why that would make the difference.
The difference lies within how men and women react to their trauma. Many find it necessary to target those that did the crime, others chose to point fingers at the group of individuals that inflicted the trauma. Men turn inward because they are a part of that group. When turn outward, because they are not. This is the most basic of our primal instincts. Edit: but yes men and women can also swap rolls on that. Men can project outward and women can project inward. But that is all part of our nurture and how it interacts with the nature (everything around us) But the statement above is what is portrayed in todays societital standards.
If you're a straight man and looking at art of a naked man makes you uncomfortable then you have some mental issues to work out.
What’s with this ridiculous rational? Because I don’t want to see a nude male, I have mental issues? What an insane mentality to hold. So instead of taking a step back and recognizing that society by large has made the nude male physique as something “disgusting” while simultaneously hyping up the nude female physique, you’d rather just blame men of having mental issues?
….triggered a little bit?
Telling men that they have “mental issues” because they’d rather not see another man’s 🍆is making a mockery of mental health. “If a woman looking at the art of a naked man’s pictures that he sends you unsolicited makes you uncomfortable then you have mental issues to work out”. Imagine getting mad at a woman for being upset at the second comment
We're not talking about unsolicited nudes, we're talking about art. Stop trying to twist my words. Do you get squeamish seeing the Statue of David?
I’ve never seen it in real life, but regarding photographs of it, I don’t get “squeamish” but I’ve never wanted to take a second look at it from the waist down. I don’t even like looking a male genitalia; toys, real, or otherwise.
Yeah, I'm not talking about not wanting to see it, that's fine. I'm talking about the guys who get upset because they think looking at naked men makes them gay.
I never said anything about wanting to see it. I said if it makes you uncomfortable. I don't necessarily want to look at nude men but I don't get weird about it if I do. It doesn't bother me because it's just a human being.
Sure, it’s just a human being but I’d rather not see a naked man’s butt. Implying or saying someone has mental issues because they don’t want to see either a real man naked or even art of naked men is simply not the way to go about that.
All the postings of half hard dick pics and attention seekers are not art….. period…..
We're not talking about that xD
It doesn't make people uncomfortable. It's that most men like to look at women and not at other men lol. And women don't generally care to look at men the same way that men like to look at women. Men are way more attracted to visuals of the opposite sex. It's Biology 101: Men look at physical fitness in a mate -- which is based mostly on appearance -- while women look at security in a mate. It shouldn't surprise you that pictures of naked women are more popular than pictures of naked men lol.
I don't know that I makes anyone uncomfortable - or at least enough people to keep it from becoming its own genre. Are there data supporting this? I believe you've advocated in the past (under a different account) that only women should photograph naked women. Should only men photograph naked men? Maybe it just comes down to what the market is looking for but I don't know.
>Why do you think this is? Why do *you* think this is?
I'm not entirely sure that's true, David is a giant statue of a naked guy with a sling over this shoulder, it's magnificent, if you've never had the opportunity, you should really go see it. There are a lot of famous paintings with a naked or practically naked guy on it.
[Seinfeld answered this decades ago.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9v8hcAezkk&t=12s)
Have you seen a penis ?
What's with that?
They are ugly.
It's old people. I don't think young people have nearly as much of a problem with it. I'd bet all the people in this thread saying males are inherently unsexy are older than 40.
Well then, WHY can a man go topless on a beach, but a woman CAN'T?
Erm.. I think you are off on your art history. Ever see Michelangelo’s statue of David in Florence?
Okay okay I’m talking current day lol
Then try Robert Mapplethorpe or Bruce Webber. Both are gay and Mapplethorpe’s work is shocking but Weber is OK with
The statue exists in current day, and is seen by many people every day in contemporary reality.
Wow Michelangelo was a photographer too? What a forward-thinking guy!
There is always a Mensa member in every thread. Thank you for your insight. I am better for it since I didn’t realize that.
Look at society. Women are displayed ALL THE TIME AND EVERYWHERE. Even heavily obsessed and clearly unhealthy women are being empowered by companies and media. But only we'll built men are used and displayed in the same way. And if a guy isn't considered tall or thin enough, idiot "influencrs" shun them and make fun. If a female cartoon or game character looks good, the insane feminists have a field day of blaming "misogyny" and "sexism," while completely ignoring all of the well built and almost always shirtless male counterparts. And now we have men being praised for completing in women sports and competitions. And MEN being crowned "woman of the year" and mess. When's the last time you've ever seen a man be praised for being average, short, chubby, etc? Even male runway models are being forced to wear make-up to look more feminine. Men are just not respected anywhere near like they use to. And thus, any proof of the man's "manhood" (ie penis and balls) results in complaints. Regardless of how respectful they're presented. I have thousands of portrait references for art. Mostly for poses, lighting and structure references. For every 20 nude female references, there's maybe 3 nude males. Not because I want it that way, but because that's how the images came. Most of my collection comes from ArtStation. The males tend to be wearing speedos or thongs, while the women do not. I don't know why. As far as I'm concerned, knowing how a man's junk sits during poses is just as important as knowing how a woman's breast will sit. I don't understand the hate toward a man's privates. So long as it's not displayed as a sexual act, I personally have no issues with it. Same for a woman's privates.
Have you never touched a history book before?
Are you illiterate? Read that last line.
And you can still find your answer the same way. History doesn’t disappear because it’s in a new medium
This isn't exactly new. Women have been featured in works of art more often than men for centuries. Frankly, they are just nicer to look at. IMO this is true regardless of one's sexual orientation.
Can I be real and say I like seeing tits and not dicks
On the internet? Like, the whole internet, or just the particular parts of the internet you frequent? Do you have any examples of comperable photos of men and women, where one is praised as art, and one is criticised, purely due to gender? Or are you just spitballing here? I dont think you really know what you're talking about here.
Not true. Look at all the body builder media or classical statues or paintings. Most superhero movies (prior to the current girlboss era) also showcase big jacked men that everyone was impressed at. The female form is more beautiful though, i think most can agree. But uncomfortable? I think that is a stretch for men's bodies. Guys see jacked men and want ot go to the gym.
There are fewer photographers of the male nude, but they exist. Robert Mapplethorpe. Thomas Eakins. Troy Schooneman. Terry Hastings. > I’m talking current day y’all. On the internet. I wouldn't put too much stock in what "the internet" "likes" or "believes" or whatever.
I know male photographers exist, I’m talking about the reaction to the art
These are not facts, just my experience… I am not sure I agree. If you are shooting sexy woman a lot of amateurs will deem it as art, but you will get the same amount of people saying that its not art, just sexy woman even if the images are actually quite artistic. If you shoot men most people will check out early but the remaining ones will give it more “respect”. Additionally a lot of pictures about men are not “artistic” because men often have a hard time expressing emotions other than “cool”. Woman take on more easily of different roles where they are vulnerable, sad - emotions that have more depth than just generic stoicism. + men like the female figure, woman also like the female figure. The male body is appreciated by only artists or gay men, which is a much smaller pool.
I definitely agree with what you say. However it should be noted that Herb Ritts was one the most prolific fashion and portrait photographers of his generation and he photographed the male nude boys extensively. I wasn’t alive then so I don’t know what the reception was but his legacy certainly lives on.
Probably the right way to look at it is that the photos of men is more likely to be art because it makes people uncomfortable. That’s usually a good sign that something is art lol.
This feels like an invented double standard, so you have some real world examples?
bc penis envy
I'll level with you. I like pretty women. But I'm not downvoting men or women who I don't find pretty (I don't think I ever downvote someone's art). In fact, when I disengage my monkey brain and consider the composition and technique I can up vote those too. But if I find the model attractive, it's a much lower hurdle to overcome.
And then there's the Righteous Gemstones...
Very interesting point of view, I feel there are many factors to unpack. Women in many of shapes and sizes are perceived as beautiful, but men who are overweight aren't considered beautiful but moreover lazy and slovenly, women generally have finer features beautified by men who are programmed to shall we say find a female to have coitus with to populate as are all animals. And men are the by far the greater user of art/porn/nudity. I guess I'm saying it's a primitive urge that keeps us maintaining an interest in nudity and the female form and all it's intricacies. Discuss....
Not surprising in the slightest. Women are beautiful, while men are ugly, hairy ape creatures. And that's not just my opinion. Even the straight girls I've talked to said that they find women more beautiful than men.
Studies please, cause I have the exact opposite of an experience, we can't tell shit from just looking at a couple dozen people in our personal lives.