Sexism in Online Photo Communities (Flckr, 500px, etc)?

Just looking for your general opinions here...

First off all I will clear the air that I am a very heterosexual male who enjoys viewing the female forum. I'm happily engaged to be married as a matter of fact.

On to the topic...

I see many of the most popular photos on Flickr and 500px being scantily clad women. My personal goal as a nature photographer is to make create endearing fine art photos that ALL people might want to view equally. Wishful thinking on my part. Perhaps the non-stop flow of T&A shots on Flickr and 500px reflects the major demographics of photography enthusiasts (and internet users for that matter). I know us guys are more likely to be "tech junkies" than women our age.

Does the overflow of female T&A shots devalue the mass appeal of our artwork as a whole?

Most I have seen on 500px are quite tastefully done and I would view them as art... just as I view the human body as art. There is not really a fine line between art and porn IMHO. Beautiful nudes, whether they be male of female, are incredible.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #17400025
Most I have seen on 500px are quite tastefully done and I would view them as art... just as I view the human body as art. There is not really a fine line between art and porn IMHO. Beautiful nudes, whether they be male of female, are incredible.

I would agree that most popular nude/seminude photos are indeed tasteful, however my point is that probably 90% of them are of female subjects. This is probably intimidating to women photographers and women art aficionados. Globally, the modern world is and always has been male dominated (ruling parties, gov't, business leaders, etc.) Sure there are exceptions to the rule. There are still parts of the world where women can't show their faces in public. I don't know if this was ever the case for men.

I totally get your point. I think there is a VERY small amount of photographers that take photos of males and probably even fewer that are actually female... as art at least. I'm sure there are a lot in porn.

It's all in the eye the beholder, right? I understand where you're coming from about wanting to appeal to "ALL people", but I just don't see it happening. Wildlife photography, as an example, would hardly offend anyone, but it rarely does a thing for me artistically (no offense meant toward wildlife photographers because I appreciate the work it involves). Personally, I enjoy the subject of the human form, and that also includes some nudes. But much of what I see is nothing more than uninspiring T&A that I regard as mediocrity.

I think any pursuit, genre, endeavor, art, profession or whatever you want to call it, though dominated in volume by mediocrity, will be highlighted by truly notable work. Does the mediocrity of photos that are nothing more than T&A devalue photography? I think it devalues it no more than the stale deli coffee around the corner from me devalues the enjoyment of a properly brewed espresso. It devalues it no more than the failings of a young dilettante of a corporate lawyer devalues the inspirational work of a dedicated constitutional lawyer who has affected real change in some people's lives.

Among the nude or scantily clad images that are redeemable to a particular viewer's taste, why are the subjects predominantly female? That's my question.

In part, I believe this to be a genetically ingrained desire to envision beauty and recreate it. Both men and women can appreciate the female form - curves and contours. I also believe men cannot appreciate the male body as easily as women can appreciate the male body. It's more about social mores than sexism in the sense that men that appreciate a male body may be perceived differently than females who appreciate both.

Not sure if this statement is true, but assuming more male photographers exist than female, most men will choose a female body as 'art' sooner than a male body - art might be the object, but hormones influence the subject choice. I'd also bet more women have "beautiful bodies" than men if we can ever define the meaning of 'beauty' in the artistic concept of human form. And, one off-the-wall factor may be the motherly aspect of the female body. Mother nature embraces birth, the survival of our species. As a general social concept (excluding the 'parent' biology for a moment), men cannot have children without a female but females can have children without a male.

But the bottom line may be - more beautiful women exist than beautiful men, AND women are intrinsically more beautiful than men. That last statement is a personal opinion, and will not change in my lifetime

PineBomb wrote in post #17400097
It's all in the eye the beholder, right? I understand where you're coming from about wanting to appeal to "ALL people", but I just don't see it happening.

I agre that it is unrealistic to expect to create work that appeals to all people. Every person is an individual, and we each have had so many different biases and experiences behind us, and these greatly influence what we like, what we dislike, and what we are indifferent toward. To expect there to be anything that ALL people would love is something that is just not going to happen. And that is not just true in photography and other artistic mediums, but also applies to cars, houses, clothing, TV shows, music, ..... everything! There is simply nothing that ALL people will like.

PineBomb wrote in post #17400097
the nude or scantily clad images that are redeemable to a particular viewer's taste, why are the subjects predominantly female? That's my question.

I will attempt to answer your question, but please note that what I am going to say are only my thoughts, which I do not see as being absolute facts. I am guessing at why this may be the case, that's all. And I realize that I will be making generalizations, and that there are probably many exceptions to what I say.

Ok - here goes: I think that the subjects depicted nude, or scantily clad, are most often women because what men value most in women is physical beauty and sexual appeal. Therefore, if what men appreciate most in women is a physical manifestation of their sexuality, then men will want to see photos of women that are nude or scantily clad, for these images showcase the physical manifestation of their sexuality, and their physical beauty. Because such photos show men those things that they most highly value, there will be many who endeavor to create such photos, and those photos that are created will be viewed a lot.

I also think that it is most likely that what women appreciate most in men is not their physical attributes, or the outward, purely physical manifestations of their sexuality. I think that perhaps what women value most in men are other things, such as trustworthiness, stability, kindness, competence, etc. These things that women value most are not showcased best in nude photos. Therefore, nude photos of men are not showing women the things that they most value and enjoy. Hence, those photos are not so popular - relatively few seek to create such photos, and relatively few seek to view such photos.

PineBomb wrote in post #17400097
Wildlife photography, as an example, would hardly offend anyone, but it rarely does a thing for me artistically (no offense meant toward wildlife photographers because I appreciate the work it involves).

Oh, darn! I try really hard to create wildlife photos that are of artistic merit. That's hard to do, and I don't succeed nearly as much as I would like to, but I was hoping that at least some of my work would appeal to some people on an artistic level, even if the subject matter is not of much interest to them. Oh, well.....I guess I need to realize that there are some folks who will never find great appeal in wildlife imagery.

if you go to Fstoppers you will see that most of the photos they have listed the Popular Photos & Videos, a series of 6 photos from their community. Most of it is "artistic" photos of women. This forum in the arts/nude section is mostly women. You don't get to see many men in there.

when it comes to this work of course it's going to mostly women. If you look at women in photography most don't shoot artistic nudes. Even if they did they have no problem with shooting women or men. They are more interested in seeing the subject and not dictated by what turns them on.

Men on the other hand would generally shoot women because that's the subject of desire and most men are uncomfortable shooting men for the perception that they may get from other men. it's a whole social problem when you look at it and it's only going to change when society accepts that men can also be sexy.

How we can change this of course is when you see an artistic photo of a man is not to go geek a nude man but as a photographer to look at it as art. Comment and accept it for what it is. just because you are straight doesn't mean it's not any less artistic.

Some great thoughtful comments so far, thank you.

I decided to dig deeper into this issue last night, and read a couple of brief articles that hypothesis why much of the world is traditional matriarchal.

http://www.dailymail.c​o.uk …-oldest-argument-all.html

http://www.scientifica​merican.com …e/are-men-the-weaker-sex/

Interesting thread and links. With regards to photographing men I just thought I'd put in another reason men might be more likely to shoot photos/nudes of women than of other men as it's one that definately applies to me - I have no idea where to begin posing a nude bloke. Not a clue what would looks sexy, artistic or anything like that - I would find it difficult to come up poses or image styles and then to judge whether they are good or not. However as man who is attracted to women I find it much easier to pose and photograph a woman as I can do so to my own tastes.

Evolutionary theory has a standard explanation for why men like to look at images of female nudes much more than women like to look at images of male nudes. A woman's appearance is a more reliable guide to reproductive fitness than a man's. A woman who looks young and healthy is likely to be able to bear and take care of many children. Remote male human ancestors who preferred that kind of looks had more descendants than males with other preferences. Successive generations inherited their tastes in appearance, and here we are.

Likes, favorites, and trite one-word comments aren't necessarily an indicator of a photo's value.

...I have the same annoyance. My most-viewed and most-favorites image in my entire Flickr library is a mediocre snapshot that shows off a little more buns than usual. I guess it got shared somewhere, I don't know where all the attention came from.

I hear you, my flickr pages went nuts when I posted shots of women wrestling (college). I now have a very distasteful group of followers.

Nude, and nearly-nude, women have been portrayed in every medium of art much more than men for centuries. Their bodies are just much more aesthetically pleasing to look at than men's, even for women (I think). Naturally, the forms usually preferred are those which are healthy and deemed "attractive" in that period of time, whether thin, muscled, soft, or rubenesque. Sure, there are folks that just get off sexually looking at these images or statues, and "artists" that pander to such. You're not going to stop that. I've always found a healthy female form one of the most beautiful things in the world. I don't do that kind of photography' I don't think I could do them justice.

LV Moose wrote in post #17401102
Their bodies are just much more aesthetically pleasing to look at than men's, even for women (I think).

The women that I know of in the art world generally don't seem look forward to viewing nude/semi-nude art.

This brings us back to the topic that we are merely creating nude "art" for adult men to look at.

I also scoff at local photography "workshops" where men pay to photograph young and attractive female models w/ minimal clothing. Aren't they really just paying a woman to take her clothes off?