Forums >
General Industry >
Who marked my photo "18+"?
Why was my photo marked "18+"? Ok I have no problem with marking my images as being 18+ when I believe that they are showing more "stuff" than general society can bear (or bare..lol) in public, but I dont believe that my images are such. Jan 11 06 08:53 am Link I agree with you...Both pictures are provocative, but not to the point of being 18+. You see shots like this all day on mag covers while standing in line to check out at the grocery store. I think both pictures are great shots that show off your assists without really showing anything. Jan 11 06 09:02 am Link I myself am baffled by this considering lots of models and photographers, even the more visible well known ones on here have shots showing more than that in their avatars all the time for weeks at a time. Jan 11 06 09:02 am Link Let's be serious. You've got a shot of a guy with a hard-on there. You do this for kicks or what? Paul Jan 11 06 09:03 am Link He doesn't look 18+ to me. I don't mean years Jan 11 06 09:06 am Link Both are showing pubes or stubble of pubes. I will admit to marking the one without the red undies because it was called to my attention by another member. Both should be marked 18+. Sorry. We can't undo it, but you can. What does it matter anyway? Members can see them even with the marking, non-members can't. You cannot use either image as your profile. If you want to go for a witch hunt and let me know about more that are abusing this policy in your opnion, I would appreciate the help. This came about because of the same situation: we marked someone's avatar and they thought it was wrongly marked. So....he went and found about 15 profiles where he thought they were in violation. Jan 11 06 09:08 am Link Paul Ferrara wrote: how do you know hes got wood? maybe is a limp biskit... anyway, the only thing that stands out on there is the red, if it was all b/w would there be any discussion? Jan 11 06 09:13 am Link King wrote: It would still be marked 18+. No discussion. Jan 11 06 09:15 am Link Paul Ferrara wrote: Hahah!! Is there anything I can say that won't be perceived and unmoderatorly? Jan 11 06 10:51 am Link Paul Ferrara wrote: If that's a hard on?????.... Shame poor guy. Jan 11 06 10:57 am Link Thank you DawnElizabeth ... I have a question .. if I had photoshopped out the stubble would it still be considered 18+??? I an still confused on the red undies though, if female models can pose with hands covering breasts and it not be considered 18+ how can this image where no private area is being shown be consider so? I have seen on a number of images both male and female of "bush" and even the top of the shaft of a penis that has not been marked 18+. Jan 11 06 12:05 pm Link Paul Ferrara wrote: Come on Paul.. is the sight of a male penis erect so hard for you to look at??? If my name was Mapplethorpe would we be having this discussion???? Jan 11 06 12:06 pm Link Where's the damn hard on??? I don't see any hard on action happening in that image at all. Hell's bells. Jan 11 06 12:08 pm Link T Jones Photography wrote: How many accounts you have? Jan 11 06 12:14 pm Link you could have at least edited the razor burn.........eeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwww Jan 11 06 12:16 pm Link T Jones Photography wrote: But does it need to be an avatar? That is the question. Any member can go to the port and see the images. Jan 11 06 12:17 pm Link Why, because Soft core gay porn doesn't make a good avatar. Crop out the pubes and it will improve the photo. Just toss the one with the red banana hammock. Jan 11 06 12:30 pm Link Miss Anthropy wrote: HAhaha good one!!!! Jan 11 06 12:33 pm Link Miss Anthropy wrote: Thankyou, I needed a good laugh today. MM provides so often. Jan 11 06 12:35 pm Link T Jones Photography wrote: Wait, they have FEMALE penises now too? Unless they do, wasn't it a tad redundant to specify that the penis belonged to a male? Jan 11 06 12:37 pm Link Ok, I'm going to say something positive. Well, constructive. The play of the light against the torso is very nice, but you are making them too sexual. There's no money in it but you could easily do MALE FIGURE STUDIES. The difference is that these are not "erotic" in nature. Get a plain backdrop, the proper lights if you don't have them. Also don't harbour any illusions that you're making these calenders or whatever for WOMEN. The irony is that most of my gay friends would think that these pics are tacky too. OOps slipped into being snarky again. i gotta be me... Jan 11 06 12:47 pm Link BTW: if any of you come across images that you feel need to be 18+, please use the CAM function and let us know. We really appreciate this since most of us don't have the time to patrol the existing members to see what's been added since they've been apprived. I'm really sorry about the 18+ marking, I felt it was necessary. Not really for the red undies, but I didn;t do that one. If you feel that I am in error, I invite you to ask another moderator or two and see if they feel different than I do on this one. Use the contac-a-mod function. Thanks! Jan 11 06 12:51 pm Link Miss Anthropy wrote: There might be money in male figure studies, I get inquires about about shooting nude guys every once in a while. If you're good at it, and these shots look good to me, you just need to find some clientele. Jan 11 06 01:01 pm Link JM Dean wrote: I appologize for the confusion in this case.. I was meeting with another photographer and they were logged on when I made this reply. I am the OP and I DO NOT have more than one account. I just happened to reply to the earlier post forgetting that the other photographer was logged in. Jan 11 06 01:29 pm Link Miss Anthropy wrote: I dont know why you are apologizing.. you have your opinion about other peoples work... just like Im sure some people have opinions about yours. We may not all agree on what everyone likes.. that is why this is a free country and I can shoot whatever I want. Jan 11 06 01:35 pm Link DawnElizabeth Moderator wrote: Thank you again DawnElizabeth for the information.. I will approach some of the other Mods and ask. Jan 11 06 01:38 pm Link I also mark images 18+ that show pubes. I'm pretty sure I didn't mark these ones, but I think whoever did so was _not_ out of line. (Shrug.) Jan 11 06 04:53 pm Link Josie Nutter wrote: Thank you Josie.. I will acquiesce and leave the podium after one other question.. would this rule still apply to images that show the top of jeans, trousers, or any covering for that matter that starts just above the shaft of the penis.. but still shows pubic hair or even the pubic bone? Jan 11 06 05:18 pm Link Images By Ijumo wrote: The best and easiest way to get your shots "unflagged" is to crop them. I understand that your focus & interest may target the soft core gay porn market, but I agree that MM admin/moderators made the right decision. There ARE underage MM members here and I think the "red flag" is not only prudent but responsible behavior. There are plenty of more restricted adult sites where your body of work can be displayed unedited. Jan 11 06 08:03 pm Link Images By Ijumo wrote: Simple... Nobody wants to see sweaty half naked dudes on the screen! Jan 12 06 04:31 am Link Digital Al wrote: I beg to differ on that point. I know I for one enjoy a sweaty dude on the odd occasion.These are much more than half naked. One is totally naked and the other is nude but for the bright red banana hammock. Jan 12 06 05:15 am Link mollie_lane wrote: I keep seeing this reference to "soft core gay porn" WTF is that... this is the problem with America today.. why is is that anytime anyone shows a naked man it is supposedly geared toward a gay market... with that mentality.. all naked females are catering to the lesbian market?!?!? Why cant an image of a naked body be simply viewed for the beautiful work of art that it is PEROID and not be catagorized for a particular market straight or gay? Jan 12 06 06:38 am Link All the talk over whether it's tasteful or not, gay or not is besides the point. The image wasn't banned, it was flagged as 18+. So What? If someone hasn't got the time or the inclination to join this site then I'm pretty certain they wont generate the energy to contact me and enquire after my work. It's almost worth marking all my images as 18+ so that only people who give a damn can view them. Terry Jan 12 06 08:22 am Link Frisson wrote: Actually I also use this site to show people samples of my work.. and i couldnt do that if all of my images are suddenly marked 18+ I dont mind the rating at all.. I think my biggest gripe with the whole deal was that none of the moderators contacted me in advance and requested that I make the change myself.. it was just done. If anyone has looked at my folio they would see that I dont mind marking my images appropriately myself.. and would have felt more agreeable to the marking of said images if someone had the courtesy of asking me to do it myself. Jan 12 06 09:38 am Link The photo clearly shows the base of the penis...its should be 18+. We may not agree with the rule....but thats what MM wants. Jan 12 06 09:51 am Link The first image would be fine...if the photographer would crop off the bottom inch of the photo. I think then the pic would fall into MM's guidelines. and for the second picture.. I have seen the exact photos on Female\Gay Birthday Cards in the mature section of novelty stores.....looks like someone is trying to promote his website. Either way the photos are well done. Jan 12 06 10:09 am Link Images By Ijumo wrote: Because of the incredible volume of images that members don't mark, we don't often notify people when we mark images. Granted, in a borderline case like this it would be a good idea. However, you are always welcome to use the CAM form and we'll explain if you're unsure why something was done. Jan 12 06 10:44 am Link Thank you ... the red undies photo was done for a client.. and that is their website. Jan 12 06 10:47 am Link Images By Ijumo wrote: My comment was NOT biased, personal, nor an attack, just a personal observation & perception of what your photographic interest, focus, & target market appeared to be. And I offered an amenable solution to meet your desires as well still adhere to MM standards & requirements. Jan 12 06 02:39 pm Link theda wrote: Thanks Theda... I really dont mind the rating... and I guess my main goal with this thread and with my photography in general is to push the envelope to what is considered art vs pornography Jan 12 06 03:27 pm Link |