As the named precipitator of this thread I better weigh in before the puns start in earnest. :-)
First I must say I'm _quite_ relieved that your issue is of a general nature rather than being something I'm specifically doing. I was beginning to fear I was offending you with frequent depictions of undraped windows. Then let me say Frank that I think the PDML sample size is simply too small to be representative of the world in general. If there were many more PESO contributors here I think a male nude might have been posted by now. As it is, I may eventually have the honour of granting your wish as I work my way through the local model list and my personal projects. I am a big fan of Mapplethorpe and his figure studies (his lighting and b&w toning is meticulous and exquisite) and I want to improve in that direction. When I get a chance to shoot a buff, body-building male I will go for it. If you were to look just at the Flickr world (I know you're not a fan, but it's an example) you would find a lot of male nudes. They are numerous and varied. But Flickr is a huge community compared to the PDML. It just happens that nobody here is interested in shooting male nudes. My own preferences are to shoot women. I understand much better what makes interesting-to-me shots of a woman (clothed or un) whereas I have very little clue what would make an interesting-to-me male shot. I honestly just haven't given it much thought. I will one day, but up to now: no interest. So sue me. I could be wrong, but I think I'm also in good company that way. And I think it boils down to sexual attraction mechanisms in typical humans. Unlike other species, among humans the females expend huge amounts of energy and time making themselves visually attractive to males. Males spend very little time in comparison reciprocating. And unsurprisingly, male humans are hardwired to be sexually stimulated by images, especially images of females. The reverse doesn't apply: there are plenty of studies that show that women are not turned on by viewing male erotica to the same extent as men are by female erotica. In fact, penises are considered by most people of both sexes to be amusing, funny looking and/or simply ugly. But women's bodies are universally admired by both sexes. Look around you: at least two dozen beauty, hair, and nails shops exist to every one barber shop. But at least 12 dozen men's porn and erotic magazines to every one woman's. (Is Playgirl still even published?) How many women's clothing stores exist for every one man's? It's just the way it is. Everyone, men and women, think images of females are esthetically pleasing, but only very specific images of men are (eg hunky actors and bodybuilders). For myself, I think your quest is worthy of a Cervantes character. :-) Oh yeah: then there's the issue of the PDML list itself. I could be mistaken, but I find I get a pretty lukewarm reception to images of models fully clothed, and downright chilly to semi-nude and nude ones. Posting anything "pornier" than that (and uncovered genitals would be interpreted that way I fear) could bring out the pitchforks and torches. I can't be the only PESO pusher who has had that reaction. The PDML has no appetite for it. I know that you're not a prude, Frank, and I'm certainly not either. But I think the list contains a large percentage of, if not prudes, then folks uncomfortable viewing nudes. Maybe it's the large percentage USA makeup? [There. I said it. :-) That should breathe new life into this thread.] On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:41 PM, knarf <[email protected]> wrote: > And I'll say it again: > > I am not saying there needs to be "equality". Just a bit of balance. > > I'm not planning on counting but the way it is now only naked women appear > here. It just doesn't seem fair, dammit! > > Cheers, > frank -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
