Here is what my grasp of all this biblical renderings are. That old testament writings can also be found in other cultural writings from the same time frame. Any reference to morality is so far removed from our time frame it has only a legitimate value as a reference to those cultures and should not be taken out of context.

debating these historic facts in our time is so often absurd and of no real value except with in the limits of that historic reference. I find vary little in old testament writings of importance to modern day moral structures.

A classic is the so called Arch of the Covenant. The object in question was originally so termed as a "contract" and existed long before the Hebrew nation absconded it and renamed it. Now in Axon in Ethiopia, it was so poorly understood by most Hebrews that one of their tribes (Levitz) were completely decimated by it. That is what I have found in reading the historic information without all the 'religious take' on the subject.

I also do not subscribe to the rhetoric of terms like 'pornography'. As has been stated over and over, if you don't like viewing something stop looking and move on. And as an important point, child pornography is under some control as is bestiality, by some vary smart individuals, so don't go there, save it for the attic where this nonsense belongs.

I believe there is a portion in which Noah is drunk and sleeps nude and is seen by his sons and from then it is c0nsidered shameful, i think the scholars that say that put both nakedness and drunkenness together as shameful.


I googled that and found: https://www.bibleref.com/Genesis/9/Genesis-9-23.html

What does Genesis 9:23 mean?
The previous verses describe a scenario involving Noah and his sons without providing more than the barest of details. Even so, this event will have grave implications. Noah got drunk on the wine from his new vineyard (Genesis 9:21). In his drunkenness, he lay naked in his own tent. Noah's son Ham walked in, saw him naked, and went out and told his brothers.

The response of Shem and Japheth reveals how seriously they and their culture took the issue of seeing another's nakedness and honoring one's father. With great care and creativity, they found a way to cover their father without ever looking at him. In this way, they honored Noah greatly.

Did Ham intend to dishonor Noah? The following verse will imply that he did, resulting in Noah's curse on Ham's descendants (Genesis 9:25). Some suggest that Ham's sin was failing to help his father by covering him—instead, Ham went to tell others what he had seen. Others believe that "what He did to [Noah]" (Genesis 9:24) was something more disturbing and personal. The extremely vague nature of the passage, in its own way, supports this idea since ancient literature was famously shy about describing certain shameful acts in any detail. In any case, whatever Ham has done is so offensive, it brings severe consequences.

So it appears I'm one of the few photographers to post male nudity here and I have had some very positive feedback on the images I've posted and a few people who said quite literally "this forum should only be for female nudes". That's exactly what one guy said—indeed, he specified young, pretty, female nudes. I was very surprised in this day and age that in a forum about serious nude or semi-nude photography of the body someone would declare it should only focus on female work and you kind of have to wonder if these guys who said such are really interested in photography or more interested in ogling pretty ladies. Because it sounds like that's all that interests them here, all they wish to see.

Back to the issue of penis vs. vagina, I've seen other photographers here post full frontal female nudes. You are seeing what you'd see if you walked in and the lady was nude. In my work, you see full frontal male nudes. In neither case are you seeing porn or direct suggestion of sexual activity, so I think it's on the same level.

I would hope as long as this form is labeled "Nude Photography, Boudoir Photography, NSFW, Discussions and Pictures" then it allows both female and male and all manner of tasteful erotic photography of adults.

Since the beginning of recorded history, the nude has been featured in artworks of all types. The Bible tells us that there was no need of clothing in the garden of Eden, but when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, he taught them shame and cast them out. So, clothing became a necessity as well as a punishment.

The shame is what has caused the furor. We have no need for God's punishment now because we punish ourselves.

The human form is most intriguing. I see nothing wrong with exploring it artistically.

And rightfully so I would say. Not prudish compared to very conservative Muslim societies, no, but compared to our closest kin in Europe most certainly. I am half-Danish and half-English and find that the way many people even change clothes at a gym or pool in the States seems very cautious and prudish. Nudity when appropriate is seen in a matter of fact manner in Europe whereas here is seems it almost always is called upon with sexual references. Part of the reason I did my nude self-portraits was to present a nude in a way that I hope questions that, and questions our approach to nudes in life drawing classes and otherwise in fine art as well.

I'm new and may have missed something, but all I know is I was very surprised by the push-back by some people here at my posting male nudes. I have both a BFA and MFA so I've been in plenty of art school critiques at two of the finest art colleges in the nation—SCAD and RISD—and never have I ever heard anyone say nudes should only be one gender and not the other. Surprising if college students would not be immature on such matters that people here—many who appear up in their years—would stoop to that.

Is there a double standard here?

One can post self-portrait with a penis visible but showing a vagina is deemed obscene by some.

Pray tell, what is the difference? Both are sex organs, nothing more, nothing else.

I do not see the point of showing either. If you allow one but refuse the other, you are wrong.

Pushing the obscenity to its extreme, a naked breast, man or woman is way too sexualized, so both should be banned or both accepted. The hypocrisy over women's breasts is baffling to me.

If you had two cent of sense you would realize

You make it sound as if The Attic and General Chit-Chat are the only choices on this photography forum. There are currently more than 50 sections.

If you venture out those two non-photography sections you will find quite a few talented photographers - many of whom may be geezer age, but they still have a lot to offer the rest of us.

Chit-Chat is dominated by topics created by Jerry (some are entertaining, some are informative), while The Attic is dominated by five personalities whose lives apparently consist of insulting other participants.