Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 27, 2006
Link

Statistics

Replies: 387

sexualized vaginas versus nosexualized boners

:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2006
there's an annoying double standard here on deviantart. there's photos everywhere of naked women where they are in obviously sexualized poses and you can see their vagina (often they are daily deviations), but no erect penis image is allowed, even if it is totally in a non-sexualized context. wtf. yeah deviant knows where the money is at just like the whole internet and america.

any opinions?

i have totaly non-sexualized work (photographs and drawings) where my penis is erect (a boner my god) and i'm not allowed to post them while people are posting completely sexualized phtos of women (and young, young, young attractive women) that are completely sexual in nature, tone, and intention.

i am steamed at this.

anyone have any recommendations on how i can address the bigwigs here at deviant art about changing this?

peace--wayne
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconaxis-:
axis- Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006   Writer
But you do accept that this is not tantamount to tyranny, tyranny is deciding that itís wrong of them to do as they like with their private property that you happen to use.
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
the notion of wrong can be used in many different senses.

is it legally wrong of them? nope.

is it ethically and morally wrong of them? yes i think so.

what use of tyranny is more important to me, considering this is an art community, and not a government?

i don;t know.

but to be clear as i can, i was using "tyranny" as an example, not as a de facto accusation.

peace.
Reply
:iconaxis-:
axis- Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006   Writer
How is it ethicly wrong to not allow what you don't want to see on the site you own.....
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
cuz what i do not want might be totally repressive and any number of things. i consider that unethical. you may not. < shrugs >

peace.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconaxis-:
axis- Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2006   Writer
Welcome to earth, things aren't equal here.


And for good reason, we didn't get this far as a species by making everything fair for every one, if someone wants to see your boner they'll ask, for now we'll assume vaginas are Ďwhatís iní and your boner needs to stay out :P.


(The consensus is that female nudity is art(istic), your boner is; well about as artistic as the word you used to describe it.)
Reply
:iconmorlhach:
Morlhach Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2006
:wtf: why the hell am i reading a thread about erections
Reply
:iconla-la-ru:
la-la-ru Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2006
I don't think there is such a thing as a nonsexual boner. I do agree with you, though, that people ought not to post pictures of nude women in suggestive poses.
Reply
:iconpeskaa:
peskaa Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2006  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
Here on deviantART? No dear. :roll:
Reply
:iconaxis-:
axis- Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2006   Writer
U n0 w4nt 2 SEe GIaNt H4RD eeRekt PINNY P0Le :omfg:, U mUst H8 Teh ARt!1


"nosexualized boners" R teh C00OLesT
Reply
:iconmirrorkills:
mirrorkills Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2006  Hobbyist Digital Artist
a boner can not exist without some form or sexual (i dont mean phyical here) stimulation
Reply
:iconmerfed:
merfed Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2006
I was just thinking that.
Reply
:iconforbiddensnowflake:
forbiddensnowflake Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2006
Actually, I have seen many a penis in the DD section.
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
erect? show me.
Reply
:iconzephyrkinetic:
zephyrkinetic Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
Join a porn site, dude.
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
no interest in porn.

i maintain, as i have, that erections can be shown in an artistic way. as can vaginas. erections can be shown in a porographic way. as can vaginas. the female body can be shown in a pornographic or artistic way, with or without vagina. the male body can be shown in a poirnographic or artistic way, with or without erection.

the question, artistically, comes down to each single piece.

if i thought a significant, if even anywhere near half, of people would feel my, let us call them my works that include an erection, would be viewed as pornographic, i would not even have started this thread. the people that have seen them, which number only 13, not a valid scientific sample even were they randomized -- all found them disturbing (much like those images one would find in the horroor and macabre sections here on DA depicting violence and death), none of them mentioned the word pornographic or the word sexual. of course i can't put up one of the works in question to get a poll of respones from the DA community w/o breaking the clear rule.

so all i can do is what i did -- start a thread, which looking back on it i should have worded in a more intelligent, Roland Barthes-like manner, that tried to get a hold on where parts of the DA community stood and thought on this issue.

peace.
Reply
:iconzephyrkinetic:
zephyrkinetic Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
Yeah, maybe starting the thread more intelligently would have helped a bit, but when it comes down to it, you're groin-deep in a can of worms that most of the dA community doesn't give a fuck about. To that effect, no matter how politely it's worded, most people are just going to go with what the rules already state, as I do. They're clear, they're concise, they're fair. Period. I'm super-sorry that your work, or some of it, falls into the .01% of artwork that dA doesn't allow, but you have to admit, if you see a guy with his flag above half-mast, it's a porno, a sex-ed class, or an absurdly rare piece of art. To allow those works in, the policy would have to be re-written to include erections, right? Can you imagine the veritable army of staff that would be required to police the "artistic nudes" section, then, for camboys trying to get a date?
It would be atrocious. :faint:
It's not that dA hates your art, or hates hard-ons. It's just the laws of averages and statistics. 99.99% of the time, erections = hard-ons. So, dA just says "no erections. Sorry."
:shrug: It sucks. But really, you just have to deal with it. I don't see it changing.
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
i know all of what you state. and i know if i was a genuine artist in the real world capable of selling my own stuff independently in galleries i could paint or photo myself in abreactive traumatic states getting ashamed terrorized erections to my heart's content.

and i don't see it changing, either. so much so i highly doubt i will bring it up to the powers-that-be, or even flaunt them by posting one of the works as a deviation or even a scrap. cuz i know if it was genuine art of genuine quality (the quality is the key point with me, i am a poor craftsman) i wouldn;t bother posting it anywhere -- i'd show it in a gallery and sell it.

maybe i'll get mischievous one night and put it up (pun, naturally, intended) for a couple of hours and post a thumb of it on the thumb-posting forum so i can get opinions on the quality, or get flamed to death. i doubt it.

what i'll try to do is what i originally intended -- to use the photos as studies for oil paintings. which mens getting far better at oil painting. and interpreting the phot into that medium in whatever way -- could be i decide abstract or realistic or expressionistic or who knows? maybe i will achieve succes with it one day -- most importantly, personal atisfaction that i did the whole thing justice artistically.

"camboys tring to get a date" -- it's sad, very very sad, but you're right i think, that's what would happen. i'm surprised it doesn't happen even with the rules. and i sometimes wonder if the many self-portraitizing (be that a word?) women on this site are trying to get a date. or if they are exhibitionists. whatever.

fact is, i'm not a real artist. joel-peter witkin or damien hirst or many many others could do exactly what i propose and be lauded (and creamed) and make a lot of money at it. and i'm not even sure if i think those guys produce works of what i consider genuine "art." but they are established.

me?-- we'll see.

peace.
Reply
:iconzephyrkinetic:
zephyrkinetic Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
Even those guys know that if they sign up for a site that prohibits erections, they don't get to post them.
I'd suggest not "sticking it to the man" (My puns are way better. :|) on this one. They'll just ban you. You'll get a nice, phallic ! in front of your name, though.

Yeah. We call those girls camwhores, and there's good reason.
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
you challenge me to a pun contest!

i can only imagine ramming it down DA's throat in a ridiculous gesture should i decide to leave DA for other reasons (no on gives good poetry critique! < whines > i write in-depth critique after in-depth critique and do i get *any* reciprocation? any at all? wahhhhhhhhh).

i wonder if the camwhores all attend, now or later or before, sowhorities.

peace.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconforbiddensnowflake:
forbiddensnowflake Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
Remind me later, it's past midnight here, and I don't really feel like sifting through weeks and weeks of DD's in the list.
Reply
:iconnk-chan:
nk-chan Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2006
Just turn the pics upside-down, and post them that way. :D Then you can blame it on gravity.
Reply
:iconshelldevil:
shelldevil Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2006
true true, too many nude females about posting stuff that deffinatly is not artistic, but policy is policy, as sucky as it may be. I have a few male friends on here and they had their work removed and they didnt even have a "boner"!!! unfair or what..
Reply
:iconcjade:
cjade Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2006  Hobbyist General Artist
It is a double standard, but try contacting the people who run the site, because they do not care what is written on the forums.

And yes, America knows where the money is at, same as every other country in the world. We just have the resources and intelligence to have done it right, so... sorry you're jealous or whatever about it.
Reply
:icondrphizzle:
DrPhizzle Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2006
I certaintly don't get a boner from hearing a shutter release.
Reply
:icontoffee:
toffee Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
:/

I do. :(
Reply
:iconhereticschizoid:
hereticschizoid Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2006
What =summaro said.

Also, I think there's something rather disturbing about you're strong desires to post your erect penis on an art website.
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
perhaps you haven't been raped for years as a young child, cochise.
and i don't have strong desire or i would've done it with or without permission.
a clearly traumatized man getting an erection cuz he's having abreactive flashbacks to being sexually abused is not pornographic or normal arousal or sexual in nature.

and being ***disturbing*** is *exactly* the point. it is. it is *not* sexual stimulating or pornography.
Reply
:iconsubversive-imaginati:
From hereticschizoid who regrets she cannot reply right now to you herself:

"Actually, I was molested from 6 to 15. And if I posted pictures or drawings of me masturbating to older guys or being turned on by innocent people (not little kids just fyi) being sexually corrupted (all kinks that stem from my past), then people prolly wouldn't be thrilled about that. It's still pornographic even if I'm trying to make a statement about my abuse"

And my own personal two cents, Abuse is not an excuse to justify anything and everything. dA does not permit erections just as it does not permit images of women's vagina's dripping with lubricant or having toys pushed into them. No double standards, a male body in a non-aroused state is perfectly fine as is a womans. And quite frankly I'd think abuse sufferers would be less likely to want to whip it out for the camera as it were.
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
there's all kinds of statements, from artistic to lewd to stupid to pornographic.

trust me when i say mine is in the emotionally horrifying category. you can tell i'm horrified, ashamed, afraid, and, um, *truamatized* by my erection. it's in my facial expression and body language. there is an unwanted physical arousal. it is an appalling scene depicting an important theme: how the body can react -- like waking up at 5am on a saturday morning to go to work when you don't have to -- in ways the mind does not at all want it too, about lack of control, about the terror of that. this is no "opinion" -- it is fact.

and since it's okay to depict photos mimicking (often with relish) people killing themselves and others with whatever implements and plenty of blood or not, i put my stuff in the horror and macabre category just like them.

call it disturbing cuz that's what it is, and is supposed to be. but it's not pornographic.

and i never wanted to "whip it out" (can't anyone here write about this without resorting to pre-tenn euphemisms, how uncomfortable are you with yourself?) -- i was doing a series of photographs for studies for oil paintings and i experienced a flashback, in which i, to my clear horror and disgust, got an erection.

there's nothing staged or intentional about it -- that's a big part of the point, and the message is quite clear. art is often disturbing. deal with it.
Reply
:iconsubversive-imaginati:
I don't care, there's no ambiguity in the rules. No erections, no matter how "artistic" you think it is. End of story.
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
hope you get somewhere rule-following your whole life.

peace.
Reply
:iconsubversive-imaginati:
And I hope you learn to understand when the rules should be broken such as when someone will die if they aren't and not just because you want to be "shocking and controversial" by breaking them.
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
not trying to be "shocking and controversial."

keep on grandstanding. i'm glad you can see the future. hallelujah.
Reply
:iconpistachio-god:
pistachio-god Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2006
That's something that's annoyed me for ages. Particularly with advertisments; a naked woman can sell a car, why is it practically illegal for a naked man to sell, say, bananas?

An erection does signify sexual inferences; although I think what you mean is that they're not being portrayed in a particularly sexual manner.
Reply
:iconmysteriouschicken:
mysteriouschicken Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2006   Photographer
Bananas :lmao:
Reply
:iconpistachio-god:
pistachio-god Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2006
Lol. Banana hammock....
Reply
:iconguitargrizz:
GuitarGrizz Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2006
Well I was just reading some and yeah, lets compare a guys limp penis and a girls vagina. Those are similar and are allowed. A guys errect penis is not though as you have stated, but think for a moment. How many girls with vaginas are holding their lips open? I mean that would be a more sexual picture of a vagina and I haven't seen any of those in the nude pictures.
Reply
:iconmercifuldeath616:
mercifuldeath616 Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2006
I don't have time to read through all the replies, so I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet...but in my opinion, technically vagina's are non-sexual as long as they are...um...shall we say dry? Since the vagina's on DA aren't really turned on vagina's, then they don't count as porn. An erect penis is the male equivlent to a happy vagina.
*shrug* Just my opinion.
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
a clearly traumatized man getting an erection cuz he's having abreactive flashbacks to being sexually abused is not pornographic or normal arousal or sexual in nature.

and the vaginas on DA may not be turned on themselves, but they turn on those who view them quite often, yes? let's not be ignorant.
Reply
:iconsummaro:
summaro Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2006  Professional Artist
I think erections are typically sybmolic of arousal to the majority of the population at DeviantArt.
Besides, as =darkmoon3636 said, no spread legs plz.
Allow me to explain - an erect penis is not the penises usual state - therefore an errect penis often becomes the centre of attention in a given artwork. And, considering they are symbolic of arousal, it is usually safe to assume the model, if not the meaning of the picture, is aroused.
Whereas vaginas, as posted on DA, are in their natural form - and are often not the centre of a piece. And, like has been discussed, vaginas when aroused don't often change appearance.
Hence, an erect penis often becomes the centre of attention, much as spread legs would. Hence both are banned.
A flaccid penis, and a normal shot of a vagina, don't. Hence both are allowed.
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
a clearly traumatized man getting an erection cuz he's having abreactive flashbacks to being sexually abused is not pornographic or normal arousal or sexual in nature.

eroticized, highly sexual pics of females need not have their legs spread, as you well know.
Reply
:iconsummaro:
summaro Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006  Professional Artist
Besides, it may not be intended as sexual, but as I said, it is symbolic of arousal, and even if that's not your intent, thats the way it will be interpreted. Visa versa.
Thus the rules.
Reply
:iconsummaro:
summaro Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006  Professional Artist
I said in general, not all the time. What this boils down to is you wanting to get your stiffy on the internet.
DA's policy strictly forbids it. Deal with it. Don't like it? Then go to another site, or launch your own.
Don't whine about it in the forums. You've been given more than enough rational explanations. You're splitting hairs now.
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
if i wanted my "stiffy" on the intternet it would be.

what i just wrote in reply to you was not splitting hairs.

if you think so you are as insensitive as your choice of language.

not asking for explanations. just brought up a topic.

you think i whine, i think you proselytize the status quo as if you were a catholic missionary in africa a century ago.
Reply
:iconsummaro:
summaro Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006  Professional Artist
You use the same argument over and over to back your point, whereas the opposition has made literally hundreds of different arguments to prove theirs. Think I'm insensitive, I don't care. Whatever your emotions or intent when posing, yours is not a typical case - allow your "boner", and the other 95% of "boner" shots will be sexual and explicit, far beyond the image DA is trying to make for itself.
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
my point is *my* point. as you clearly say, not a typical case.

but DA is capable of making exceptions.

they obviously do with some of the more suggestive and raw sexual shots of women that have an impossible time even being classfied as fetish or artistic nude -- categories which call for a fine line anyway.

i'm in no hurry to post any shots of the kind i am speaking of, and they all occurred at as accidents, as i was not expecting a flashback or abreaction leading to an erection. the shame and fear and other emotions of the like are apparent in my fac and other body reactions. and they were taken for studies for eventual oil paintings. my only interest in possibly putting them up is for feedback as to how they stand as photos in and of themselves.

and what, by the way, is the image DA is trying to make for itself. that's open to widespread interpretation.

i do take your point in regards to my case. open the door a little, and some will expect to open the whole way. but that not need be the case.

this is an issue of importance to me not for my self only, but for art itself, any art that may be deemed inappropriate, which covers a very large portion of art that is deemed acceptable and even necessary now.

boundaries must be pushed for progress to be made.

i only said you were insensitive cuz of your language. i'm not talking of a "stiffy," which you well knew when i mentioned what my pics were about.
Reply
:iconsummaro:
summaro Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006  Professional Artist
No, DA is NOT capable of making exceptions. Period. Why should you be above the rules, just because some bad shit happened to you? Realty check - bad shit happened to a lot of people here. But are they clamouring for exceptions to rules? No.
The image DA wants is that of a respectable, but family friendly art community. Erections have no place in that image.
Oddly enough, I Googled for erections in the art world, and the only related sites were about sexual and erotic art. So even in the wide spread art world, you are in the minority.
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
"artistic nudes" and "fetish photography" is *not* "family friendly" and neither is macabre and horror.

the wide-spread (ha, pun) art world is not confined to the net, or the limited ways of searching it.

or maybe i'm a pioneer. < laughs>

peace.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconsanozatsho:
sanozatsho Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2006  Hobbyist Photographer
half the fun with this post is the comments.

but reguradless you have made me think. really, i cant say i have seen a dick on this site. not that i have looked for or plan on looking for one, but i can see the double standard. i have seen a few nude girls though they were not showing much which to me was the best part.
have you asked the admin about this? i wonder what they will say. perhaps they will allow it. or inform us as to the answer.

does this just bother you or do you want to post some?
Reply
:iconbeleave:
beleave Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2006
it bothers me.

how is a pic of a clearly traumatized man getting an erection cuz he's having abreactive flashbacks to being sexually abused considered pornographic?
Reply
Add a Comment: