Perfect Pics and Gifs Vol. 2

J8e5GE.jpg
Yes, my stepdaughter was into me, but then it was mutual...
 
Perfect pics of men are never taken then? What a shame. I love to see a nice manly man naked.
 
Perfect pics of men are never taken then? What a shame. I love to see a nice manly man naked.
Ye old double standard.

To begin, a guy's tools are considered shockingly vulgar unless he has an exquisite physique to sugarcoat it. (And don't let's go near if it displays a readiness for sex.) Girls get a pass not only on the readiness score (too hard to read at a distance) but on her overall attractiveness so long as she's showing the important things.

That second point is key, Tess: All else bring equal, guys wouldn't mind seeing a random woman naked. It might be dialed-down to idle curiosity or up to aching need, but rather than not.

Not gonna speak for or even if girls. You tell me.
 
Ye old double standard.

To begin, a guy's tools are considered shockingly vulgar unless he has an exquisite physique to sugarcoat it. (And don't let's go near if it displays a readiness for sex.) Girls get a pass not only on the readiness score (too hard to read at a distance) but on her overall attractiveness so long as she's showing the important things.

That second point is key, Tess: All else bring equal, guys wouldn't mind seeing a random woman naked. It might be dialed-down to idle curiosity or up to aching need, but rather than not.

Not gonna speak for or even if girls. You tell me.
I think you made your point quite clear in the first line. There ARE double standards.

In art we have the Statue of David by Michelangelo. For many people and for many years seen as the epitome of male physical beauty. That work is, if nothing else, a very accurate representation of a young male naked body. No huge penis, no erection, there is even pubic hair! Yet I get true pleasure seeing this work. I can see it for what it is, a fantastic piece of art.

Come forward a few years (David was completed in 1504) to the present day. I am certain that there must be millions of photographs out there on the web showing naked men. Usually trim, gym fit, smooth bodied men with either an erection or an obviously large, but flaccid penis. Mostly devoid of pubic hair, or heavily trimmed.

Speaking purely from my own perspective, I ask myself "Is this art, or is this porn?". I think it is what the creator intended it to be. Is it to be admired as a depiction of a naked man, or is it to titillate and sexually excite? BOTH are equally valid, BOTH are acceptable. But I can see the beauty in a very skinny guy or an overweight man equally as with a gym fit person.

I freely admit that when I have posted pics here they have mostly been to titillate rather than excite artistic critical acclaim. I just find it a pity that the nude male genre of photography seemed to disappear with the death of Robert Mapplethorpe in 1989. His work had the ability to either titillate or be admired for it's art.

So can we please drop the double standard and have good nude photographs of men as much as women.
 
Perfect pics of men are never taken then? What a shame. I love to see a nice manly man naked.

I think you made your point quite clear in the first line. There ARE double standards.

I freely admit that when I have posted pics here they have mostly been to titillate rather than excite artistic critical acclaim. I just find it a pity that the nude male genre of photography seemed to disappear with the death of Robert Mapplethorpe in 1989. His work had the ability to either titillate or be admired for it's art.

So can we please drop the double standard and have good nude photographs of men as much as women.
You make good points. I think that many of the pics posted here by both women and men are meant to be more erotic than artistic, and there's definitely value in that, especially on a site like this. It's fun to see the erotic pics, but hopefully the ones that have something extra in terms of composition, lighting and artistic value are appreciated for those things as well.
 
I think you made your point quite clear in the first line. There ARE double standards.

In art we have the Statue of David by Michelangelo. For many people and for many years seen as the epitome of male physical beauty. That work is, if nothing else, a very accurate representation of a young male naked body. No huge penis, no erection, there is even pubic hair! Yet I get true pleasure seeing this work. I can see it for what it is, a fantastic piece of art.

Come forward a few years (David was completed in 1504) to the present day. I am certain that there must be millions of photographs out there on the web showing naked men. Usually trim, gym fit, smooth bodied men with either an erection or an obviously large, but flaccid penis. Mostly devoid of pubic hair, or heavily trimmed.

Speaking purely from my own perspective, I ask myself "Is this art, or is this porn?". I think it is what the creator intended it to be. Is it to be admired as a depiction of a naked man, or is it to titillate and sexually excite? BOTH are equally valid, BOTH are acceptable. But I can see the beauty in a very skinny guy or an overweight man equally as with a gym fit person.

I freely admit that when I have posted pics here they have mostly been to titillate rather than excite artistic critical acclaim. I just find it a pity that the nude male genre of photography seemed to disappear with the death of Robert Mapplethorpe in 1989. His work had the ability to either titillate or be admired for it's art.

So can we please drop the double standard and have good nude photographs of men as much as women.
Respect…
 
Back
Top