I remember that post from several years ago. It got me to thinking more about male nudity in other areas as well. Specifically in Movies.

At a time when it is not uncommon for any movie not aimed at children to have at least some female nudity in it, there is rarely ever any male nudity. When there is male nudity it is a huge story. The last movie I can think of which featured a brief shot of penis was Sideways. Which I remember the naked penis only because of all the news stations telling me how offended I was by it -without them I might never have known I was offended. That movie makes for a great example though, since it featured female nudity and actual sex scenes, yet it was a 1 second flash of limp penis that supposedly makes it "distasteful smut".

That led me to my theory on just why photos/movies that show penis are so bad. It is all about male insadequacy. Powerful men with small penises don't want women, or anyone else for that matter, to ever see an average penis. That way, when faced with his small penis, the woman (man?) won't have a point of reference for comparison. Maybe that also explains why some people are so adamant about only having missionary sex, and only with the lights off.

Of course that theory would just explain why the penis is rarely seen in the male dominated movie industry. As for why someone like Mr. Bodie would go to a website with lots of beautiful photos, and only an occasional, tasteful nude photo, actively seek out only the photos of men, and comment on their pornographic nature, well that really has to be about his hatred of the fact that he enjoys looking at them.

I spent probably 30 minutes going over photos on that site, looking only at the photos of seductive and or nude women. I wanted to see if Mr. Bodie made any comments on any of those photos, but eventually my hand got tired (from clicking, you see), and I never found such comments. That leads me to think that Mr. Bodie really wants to be looking at www.dilf.com (don't go to that site, it is exactly what you would expect. Just like milf, only with Dads an a lot more explicit) and hates himself for it. Is that really homophobia?

 

Just an idea, but thought i might try an expansion of the "corrupting the children" arguement. So if you are someone like Mr Bodie and you have a son, the most terrible thing that could happen would be if said son turned out to be gay no? As such Mr Bodie would want to do everything in his power to make said son hetronormative in sexual tastes. So having this son only exposed to female forms in a sexy way with no sexy male forms willl get the little guy thinking that sexy only happens with women not with men? As such when he goes looking for some sexual fun he will pursue women not men, and the crisis of the gay son is averted (halleluja!). The problem now is that Mr Bodie's poor daughter might end up the same, but then again, lesbians arent nearly as threatening, since if porn has taught us anything its that a pair of lesbians are just a threesome waiting for a man.
Ah well... just an attempt to work that arguement through, which I of course do not endorse at all and think is blatant bullshit...

 

I would say both those guys, particularly the second one, are at least semi-hard, so it does 'sort of' cross a boundary.

Those shots of women are all nice and artistic, but you don't see any of them dripping vaginal juices or anything, so there's no sign of arousal whatsoever, which makes them more artistically acceptible, rather than being labelled porn like these ones.

Not saying I agree with the people who posted, but I can see why they might think the way that they do about these 2 photos, particularly if they think those guys are erect (fully or not).

 

As for the suggestion that these photos are just for gay men or something, that's really really weak, and even if they were, so what?

I can find hundreds of sexually explicit photos of naked guys on the internet within seconds, but trying to find artistic ones is very hard. I once came across some forums that hosted a whole lot of content from gay artists who focused on the body/lifestyle, and the majority of it was rubbish, and most of it was drawings or paintings, very few photographs. Usually when you do get artistic photos of male nudes, they're big beefy muscle hunks, so its nice to get some variety, as well.

 

That black guy has a really HUGE cock, especially if it is not at least partially erect, which it does appear to be if compared with my equally gigantic schlong.

As for whether these male pictures are art or porn, I can see it either way and it makes no difference to me. The conventional view, however, is that the female form is more artistically accepted than pictures of oversized cocks or semi-erect teenagers looking down in wonder at their own organs.