Images By Ijumo 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

You're welcome. If we considered the image pornographic, we'd have asked you to remove it altogether. We just thought it was pushing the Rated R boundry and needed to be marked.

I can see where the gay porn references people are making come from really.  The images are mild sexual depcitions of men, and the primary market for that imagery is gay men.  I mean, I'd say most of Bruce Webber's A&F work has definite homoerotic undertones as well and it's far tamer than what you posted.

mollie_lane wrote:
Diversity in perception, opinion, and personal preference is a GIVEN when anyone
willingly goes public and opens their body of work to the public and public opinion. The majority do not offer their personal and/or professional opinion on MM portfolios unless asked. There is a small percentage of people who DO give their opinions (positive or negative) without request or invitation. THAT is a given within online showcases as well as public art displays and/or gallery showcasing. Thick skin is a necessary survival tool.

I have no problem with receiving solicited or unsolicited critiques of my work.. in fact I encourage it.. I would love for people to tell me what they think... If they like it.. hate it.. wouldnt wipe their a$$ with it.. I have no problem with that.. in fact if you had read all my posts in this thread, I specifically answered this point when someone appologized for their opinion.  I have a very thick skin and can take on all comers good and bad.

mollie_lane wrote:
Additionally, any member or potential member of MM who uploads photos, sees a  banner appear that requests that you YOURSELF label photos 18+ if they meet certain nude and/or implied nude criteria. There is ALSO a help window that when opened EXPLAINS what constitutes 18+ flag over the photo.  So you WERE given the opportunity to flag the photos on your own.

Once again if you had read the OP I included the exact refernce to 18+ images from the FAQ section.. there is nothing about implied nude criteria... continuing on, in subsequent posts I asked the question on the procedure for an image where clothing is covering the genitals (male or female) but is pushed down to the point where the pubic bone or pubic hair can be seen.  As you nor anyone else was on my set when I shot these images other than the model and myself you can not say if he was fully nude or just implied with his pants pushed down out of the shot.  Once again I will state, I have no problem adhering to MM criteria/standards if they are uniform for everyone.. but when I see images of of female models fully nude and just because her nipples and crotch are not showing because of a limb or well placed prop.. or just because, as in my case, god forbid, the photographer decided that he/she wanted to crop the image where they did to give the illusion of nudity.. and they are not tagged as 18+ then I feel that I have the right to post my images as I have.

Amelia G wrote:
Societally, a lot of people are really uptight about male nudity.  Given likely reactions to the shots, probably they should be marked 18+ or at least that is how I would designate my own work on here if it were that level of male provocation.  Too bad thought that people think a chick workin' it is just what is required of women, but a guy is extra super-duper naughty.

You know I HAVE had people report male figure studies as porn for "openly displaying male genetalia" as if that's some how dirtier than the smae photo only with a female model.  I'm not going to be responsible to reinforcing that insane double standard.

Penes welcome! Erect penises being stroked, not so welcome. But neither are spread shots of women.

theda wrote:
I can see where the gay porn references people are making come from really.  The images are mild sexual depcitions of men, and the primary market for that imagery is gay men.  I mean, I'd say most of Bruce Webber's A&F work has definite homoerotic undertones as well and it's far tamer than what you posted.

I can understand that and I am very appreciative of everyone that likes my work.. gays and straight... When I first got into painting and drawing the male figure and then continuing with photgraphy, I thought I could appeal to a wider range of clients especially female clients.  Really because there are a whole lot more of you females than us guys.. ie a bigger market share... I guess my downfall was that I still think like a guy and really dont know what women find attractive/sensual/erotic about men to the point of wanting to buy my work.  I guess women still want to look at naked women more than naked men.. i dont know!?!?  I would love to hear female feedback on what you find sensual or appealing to you about male photography...that is to say images of males

Lillith Leda wrote:

HAhaha good one!!!!

LMAO...

Miss Anthropy wrote:
Just toss the one with the red banana hammock.

Is what I actually was laughing at..

King wrote:
... anyway, the only thing that stands out on there is the red, if it was all b/w would there be any discussion?

I was wondering that myself.. if the selective color had not been added.. would there still be a problem with this image?

Paul Ferrara wrote:
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

Lets be serious, the guy asked why his shots were 18+, whats with you're little bit of sarcasm there.  The guy doesn't have a hard on, if he does than i feel sorry for him.

Miss Anthropy wrote:
OH and the images are tacky. Most of the stuff on both of the accounts you've posted from are. Sorry.

Tacky, there's the kettle calling the pot black.

Morphine Dream wrote:

Tacky, there's the kettle calling the pot black.

I wasnt going to go there but thank you

CO Model Amber wrote:
Both pics are showing pubes so I would agree with them being 18+

WOW ! Thats wierd !By this standard, we will fall back to the 1400's !! I suggest that you travel a bit & see what under 18 material floats around in public in other countries.

ON a similiar note, I once posted a close up pic of a Ganja plant & it was marked over 18 by a moderator ? Oh well, no accounting for individual perception.

Steven Bigler wrote:
Dude... first tend to your "stuff" a bit better... the razor burn, stubble and ingrown hairs are a bit sick.  (like 'sick' bad... not 'sic' good.)

Beyond that... just delete the images then reload them.  Simple!

We'd just mark them again and possibly ban you for being a) too stupid to just unmark it and b) trying to buck authority.

Steven Bigler wrote:
Dude... first tend to your "stuff" a bit better... the razor burn, stubble and ingrown hairs are a bit sick.  (like 'sick' bad... not 'sic' good.)

Beyond that... just delete the images then reload them.  Simple!

theda wrote:
We'd just mark them again and possibly ban you for being a) too stupid to just unmark it and b) trying to buck authority.

The image is staying as it is... razor burn, stubble and ingrown hairs included.. Im not recropping it to get the 18+ rating removed.. Im not touching it up to please others and have the image conform to what they think is "right".  I submitted the image because I liked the shot I took and it will stay as is.

Images By Ijumo wrote:
The image is staying as it is... razor burn, stubble and ingrown hairs included.. Im not recropping it to get the 18+ rating removed.. Im not touching it up to please others and have the image conform to what they think is "right".  I submitted the image because I liked the shot I took and it will stay as is.

That's the only dignified option, I think. 18+ isn't censorship, but cropping is.

Images By Ijumo 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+

It's not really great for that. Pretty good in a pinch, but not great. I don't usually send people here (then again, I never update my portfolio - nor my website - so why would I?).

Lillith Leda wrote:
Where's the damn hard on??? I don't see any hard on action happening in that image at all. Hell's bells.

Neo D!ck - 2005. Clearly a strong "semi". Incapable of penetration, perhaps, but fiercely intimidating in the locker room.

Steven Bigler wrote:
I love Theda!

I secretly do too.

Seriously, Ijumo's subjects may not be right up my alley, but I like his shooting. I just don't think being flagged on a "maybe" is that big a deal. It's a free site (not as in "It's a Free Country"; I mean it doesn't cost anything, and most days, we get at least our money's worth); sounds like Ijumo's come to the same conclusion, let's tell all the villagers to take their pitchforks and torches and go home, until next time something provocative and possibly sexual regarding the not-fairer sex comes up.

easyonthe eyes wrote:

Images By Ijumo wrote:
The image is staying as it is... razor burn, stubble and ingrown hairs included.. Im not recropping it to get the 18+ rating removed.. Im not touching it up to please others and have the image conform to what they think is "right".  I submitted the image because I liked the shot I took and it will stay as is.

That's the only dignified option, I think. 18+ isn't censorship, but cropping is.

Images By Ijumo 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+

It's not really great for that. Pretty good in a pinch, but not great. I don't usually send people here (then again, I never update my portfolio - nor my website - so why would I?).

Lillith Leda wrote:
Where's the damn hard on??? I don't see any hard on action happening in that image at all. Hell's bells.

Neo D!ck - 2005. Clearly a strong "semi". Incapable of penetration, perhaps, but fiercely intimidating in the locker room.

I secretly do too.

Seriously, Ijumo's subjects may not be right up my alley, but I like his shooting. I just don't think being flagged on a "maybe" is that big a deal. It's a free site (not as in "It's a Free Country"; I mean it doesn't cost anything, and most days, we get at least our money's worth); sounds like Ijumo's come to the same conclusion, let's tell all the villagers to take their pitchforks and torches and go home, until next time something provocative and possibly sexual regarding the not-fairer sex comes up.

Thank you.. and this is exactly what I have thought.. What you like may not be what I like.. and may not be what someone else likes and so lets let bygones be bygones and leave well enuff alone things will stay as they are.. but i will still push the envelope when I can.