Photographer
SayCheeZ!
Posts: 20640
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
I just came across a website called "Modelseveryday.com". Despite the fact that many of the website elements are similar to MM, there are quite a few differences as well. So, in order to facilitate the understanding of those differences (so that nobody will ever confuse the two websites with each other) I've made a list of the differences: * MM banner has attractive girl wearing chrome glasses that I never get tired of seeing. ME banner shows a girl that seems to need some Extra Strength Advil really bad! * The "Announcements" section on the right side of the home page has bigger letters on the ME website. * The ME website is almost as slow as MM... but ME only has a few dozen members, MM has 100,000+. * ME has more search options. Uh oh. * ME seemingly allows full frontal nudity in avatars, proving to us that "Steve" must be standing in some pretty cold water! * Tags can be found on the home page. * ME color scheme picked out by the highest achieving students at the school for Colorblind people. -------------------- OK, I tease. But it really does look like the other site 'borrowed' a few items of code from MM. I don't think it's enough to get all up in arms about, nor enough to win more than $20 in a copyright infringement lawsuit. It looks like it's got potential, but it aint no MM!
Photographer
4C 41 42
Posts: 11093
Nashville, Tennessee, US
Poor Steve and his little purple buddy!
Photographer
空
Posts: 5264
New York, New York, US
SayCheeZ! wrote:
* ME seemingly allows full frontal nudity in avatars, proving to us that "Steve" must be standing in some pretty cold water! Yup, that would happen if there were no rules here.
Hi, My name is fred, I model for asian condom companies.
Model
MelissaLynnette LaDiva
Posts: 50816
Leawood, Kansas, US
That's horrible. Poor Steve? I say poor Mrs. Steve.
Photographer
udor
Posts: 25255
New York, New York, US
SayCheeZ! wrote:
* ME seemingly allows full frontal nudity in avatars, proving to us that "Steve" must be standing in some pretty cold water! This is sooo wrong... 
Marksora wrote:
Yup, that would happen if there were no rules here.
Hi, My name is fred, I model for asian condom companies. ROTFLMAO
I don't even feel bad that I enjoy reading/making fun of "competitors"/copycats! 
Photographer
空
Posts: 5264
New York, New York, US
UdoR wrote:
SayCheeZ! wrote:
* ME seemingly allows full frontal nudity in avatars, proving to us that "Steve" must be standing in some pretty cold water! This is sooo wrong...
ROTFLMAO
I don't even feel bad that I enjoy reading/making fun of "competitors"/copycats! I would never. My real name is Fred, I would post my penis if allowed and I do model for asian condom ads.
geez dude.
Photographer
Jack North
Posts: 855
Benicia, California, US
One of my pet peeves is sites that loose that aspect ratio for thumbnails etc... That site seems to have this problem. that is just wrong.
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25351
Santa Barbara, California, US
SayCheeZ! wrote:
It looks like it's got potential, but it aint no MM! and it lacks a 2,000 post thread on escorts!
Photographer
eyelight
Posts: 1598
Moorpark, California, US
SayCheeZ! wrote:
* ME seemingly allows full frontal nudity in avatars, proving to us that "Steve" must be standing in some pretty cold water! Be careful - Steve is on this site 27978 (it's in the first line of his profile).
Photographer
Robert James Imaging
Posts: 82
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Checked it out WOW trasheeeeeeeee. Photographers pimping girls for photos to their email with "Photo Coming Soon" as their avatar. Our non member ability to see the eagle spread her wings. In the defense of the few legitimate models on that site there are SOME decent portfolios. My personal favorite... ...a models request for the photographers MM number prior to consideration for booking. THAT MY FRIENDS SAYS IT ALL!
Photographer
Malameel
Posts: 1087
Dallas, Texas, US
And yet we are making that website look good by visiting... to check it out.
M
Model
Mz Machina
Posts: 1754
Chicago, Illinois, US
I never heard of it before now..
Model
ChristinaS
Posts: 16
Los Angeles, California, US
why is it okay to insult penis size but not dress size, bra size, etc...etc...
anyway he is soft...
not that i actually like the photo...I'm just sick of people making fun of others for things they cant help, especially when these same people get all defensive about making fun of others for their weight, measurements, etc...
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
ChristinaS wrote:
why is it okay to insult penis size but not dress size, bra size, etc...etc...
anyway he is soft...
not that i actually like the photo...I'm just sick of people making fun of others for things they cant help, especially when these same people get all defensive about making fun of others for their weight, measurements, etc... Oh no, ask around... we'll freely make fun of *anyone* who is attempting to *model* and doesn't have the correct shoe/waist/bust/nose/forehead/penis/finger/toe/dress size... We'll also make fun of those models who aren't the right height/weight/disposition/proportion/quality for the area of modeling that they are aspiring to.
Ask around a little bit more and you'll find that no one actually cares if people "can't help" how they were born... looks are still looks, and a penis that small still isn't a penis.
Model
ChristinaS
Posts: 16
Los Angeles, California, US
James Jackson wrote:
Oh no, ask around... we'll freely make fun of *anyone* who is attempting to *model* and doesn't have the correct shoe/waist/bust/nose/forehead/penis/finger/toe/dress size... We'll also make fun of those models who aren't the right height/weight/disposition/proportion/quality for the area of modeling that they are aspiring to.
Ask around a little bit more and you'll find that no one actually cares if people "can't help" how they were born... looks are still looks, and a penis that small still isn't a penis. i didnt realize there was a required penis size..to pose nude...
granted the photos are tasteless...but the guy has a better body than most of the guys making fun of his dick...which is soft btw...do you guys want it to be hard? you do realize that would make the photos more pornographic right? You dont really want to show off a big dick unless youre striving for porn, and while his photos arent really what i consider art, its pretty obvious hes not trying to do porn...
um wtf is a penis? lol.
the penis is soft, for all we know it can expand 10 times its size when its hard...even if it doesnt, it still performs its function. if you think that is small i must assume you have never seen yourself naked? or are you hard 24/7? that would be shitty.
thats like saying small boobs arent really boobs.
you wouldnt tell an art model that her boobs are too small though...maybe a glamour model...
Model
Wynd Mulysa
Posts: 8619
Berkeley, California, US
ChristinaS wrote:
..you wouldnt tell an art model that her boobs are too small though... You better not!
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
ChristinaS wrote:
i didnt realize there was a required penis size..to pose nude...
granted the photos are tasteless...but the guy has a better body than most of the guys making fun of his dick...which is soft btw...do you guys want it to be hard? you do realize that would make the photos more pornographic right? You dont really want to show off a big dick unless youre striving for porn, and while his photos arent really what i consider art, its pretty obvious hes not trying to do porn... Personally I find no difference in the pornographic level between erect and flaccid penis (what *is* the plural of that... penises, penii???  )
I don't think anyone should. That would be like saying an erect nipple is more pornographic than a non erect one...and it's clearly not. Some penises look better not erect... some look better erect... it is up to the artist to decide how his/her subject looks best.
ChristinaS wrote:
um wtf is a penis? lol. I could show you, but uh... not here...
ChristinaS wrote:
the penis is soft, for all we know it can expand 10 times its size when its hard...even if it doesnt, it still performs its function. if you think that is small i must assume you have never seen yourself naked? or are you hard 24/7? that would be shitty. Well, I have seen myself naked... over 10,000 times I'm sure (once a day at least)... and I'm typically flaccid when that happens, but even in comparison with my own short comings, that's a really small penis.
ChristinaS wrote:
thats like saying small boobs arent really boobs.
you wouldnt tell an art model that her boobs are too small though...maybe a glamour model... precisely. one might say a glamour model has small boobs... and one might say that a male art model with nothing in his portfolio showing "art" has a small penis.
Model
jasmine o
Posts: 49
Castro Valley, California, US
Robert James Imaging wrote:
Checked it out WOW trasheeeeeeeee. Photographers pimping girls for photos to their email with "Photo Coming Soon" as their avatar. Our non member ability to see the eagle spread her wings. In the defense of the few legitimate models on that site there are SOME decent portfolios. My personal favorite... ...a models request for the photographers MM number prior to consideration for booking. THAT MY FRIENDS SAYS IT ALL! i agree...that site really really sucks...MM is 100x better
Model
ChristinaS
Posts: 16
Los Angeles, California, US
an erection would imply arrousal, that makes it pornographic
an erect nipple can be like that because of the cold...
and you guys didnt say he had a small penis, you treated it like it was a disease, omg HIS POOR WIFE...wtf? there are worse things a man can have than a small penis...even in bodytype alone..
and its pretty obvious from the photos that his penis expands a lot when hard (the wrinkles on it and stuff) so i am guessing most of you have not seen a penis? or at least not a soft one..
Model
Wynd Mulysa
Posts: 8619
Berkeley, California, US
James Jackson wrote:
I don't think anyone should. That would be like saying an erect nipple is more pornographic than a non erect one...and it's clearly not. Some penises look better not erect... some look better erect... it is up to the artist to decide how his/her subject looks best. Hey, I don't think this is what you were trying to imply at all, but what you made me think about how much I hate it when people think erect nipples mean something sexual. Most erect nipples are caused by low temperatures. Women's nipples do not get hard when they're aroused. God.
Model
Mz Machina
Posts: 1754
Chicago, Illinois, US
I have small boobs , people told me for years that I couldn't dance, model or whatever cuz of my size (4'11") but i follow my passions and work to improve every step of the way.
None the less (and in no reference to Steve ) ME seems flacid, cold and stiff at the same time ...
the colors aren't becoming , neither is the logo banner across the top.
Has anyone here a profile there?
As far as Steve goes , his profile says he is willing to do "Adult" , so perhaps that is why he chose that picture as an avitar.
Model
ChristinaS
Posts: 16
Los Angeles, California, US
CareLyn Anita wrote:
I have small boobs , people told me for years that I couldn't dance, model or whatever cuz of my size (4'11") but i follow my passions and work to improve every step of the way.
None the less (and in no reference to Steve ) ME seems flacid, cold and stiff at the same time ...
the colors aren't becoming , neither is the logo banner across the top.
Has anyone here a profile there?
As far as Steve goes , his profile says he is willing to do "Adult" , so perhaps that is why he chose that picture as an avitar. are you kidding me? for dance, you HAVE to be short...whoever told you you were too short to dance was a moron...
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
ChristinaS wrote:
an erection would imply arrousal, that makes it pornographic That is a false statement.
An erection can be achieved in complete absence of arousal.
And arousal does not "make it pornographic"... pornography is the lascivious display of the genitals or sexual organs. Only if the arousal of any random man makes you get wet is it lascivious... and if the random arousal of any random man makes you aroused in turn, my god... your life must be hell.
Model
ChristinaS
Posts: 16
Los Angeles, California, US
James Jackson wrote:
That is a false statement.
An erection can be achieved in complete absence of arousal.
And arousal does not "make it pornographic"... pornography is the lascivious display of the genitals or sexual organs. Only if the arousal of any random man makes you get wet is it lascivious... and if the random arousal of any random man makes you aroused in turn, my god... your life must be hell. its not about the audience's response, its about the intent. by your definition, a toys r us catalog can be porn.
but im glad to know one person isnt turned on by every naked women alive apparantly...most men seem to see a naked women and ALWAYS think sex.
Model
Wynd Mulysa
Posts: 8619
Berkeley, California, US
James Jackson wrote:
... pornography is the lascivious display of the genitals or sexual organs. ChristinaS wrote:
... by your definition, a toys r us catalog can be porn. Wow.
I.. I guess I haven't looked at a Toys R Us catalog in a long time.
They grow up so fast.
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
ChristinaS wrote:
its not about the audience's response, its about the intent. by your definition, a toys r us catalog can be porn. It is not *my* definition of pornography, it is the federal government's... and yes, by their definition the toys r' us catalog *could* be porn... look of the definition of the word lascivious and you'll see it's all about audience response and nothing about intent.
*My* definition of porn *would* have to do with intent too, but I'm just going with what most people call porn right at the moment... changing the definition of porn is a battle I don't want to wage.
Photographer
Archived
Posts: 13509
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Wynd Mulysa wrote:
Women's nipples do not get hard when they're aroused. God. You sure about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple
The nipple and areola of males and females can be erotic receptors, or considered sex organs. Stimulation or sexual arousal can cause the nipples to become erect.
Photographer
Curt at photoworks
Posts: 31812
Riverside, California, US
Wynd Mulysa wrote:
Women's nipples do not get hard when they're aroused. God. maybe a little too much generalization here???
Model
ChristinaS
Posts: 16
Los Angeles, California, US
James Jackson wrote:
It is not *my* definition of pornography, it is the federal government's... and yes, by their definition the toys r' us catalog *could* be porn... look of the definition of the word lascivious and you'll see it's all about audience response and nothing about intent.
*My* definition of porn *would* have to do with intent too, but I'm just going with what most people call porn right at the moment... changing the definition of porn is a battle I don't want to wage. por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-ngr-f) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "pornography" [P]
n.
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
Model
ChristinaS
Posts: 16
Los Angeles, California, US
Curt Burgess wrote:
maybe a little too much generalization here??? Its funny that only guys are arguing against this. As if they would know!
Nipples get hard when they are cold.
They do not necessarily and i have never seen them or heard of them getting hard from arousal.
Do not base your generalizations on porn, they ice the nipples beforehand.
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
ChristinaS wrote:
por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-ngr-f) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "pornography" [P]
n.
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. That's the dictionary definition... now for the law definition see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ … -000-.html
As you see the definition of sexually explicit (synonymous with pornography ever since the supreme court ruled "pornography" was too loosely defined a term) always includes "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" and in most state laws includes lascivious exhibition of the genitals, breasts, pubic area, or buttocks of any person"
Model
Wynd Mulysa
Posts: 8619
Berkeley, California, US
Curt Burgess wrote:
maybe a little too much generalization here??? Maybe we should ask the girls.
Nipples can become erect upon physical contact.
But mostly not from arousal. Definitely not in the same way a penis becomes erect from arousal.
If a girl is watching porn or something [assuming that turns said girl on] it is not likely to make her nipples erect.
|
)