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

LV Moose wrote in post #17401102
Nude, and nearly-nude, women have been portrayed in every medium of art much more than men for centuries.

During most of those centuries, almost all artists whose work became public were men. That might be taken to stand as the whole explanation, except that--

And the basis for this esthetic is ______ ? Why are female bodies more pleasing? Hypothetically, the evolutionary idea provides an answer. Whatever in our brains determines what counts as beautiful isn't inherited separately for male and female offspring. Because youth and bodily fitness are more important to women's role in reproduction than to men's, human minds were shaped to favor smoothness and long curves over bumpiness.

davebreal wrote in post #17401117
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.

Without claiming to be part of any art world, I'll say that I look at much of G&N and appreciate the more arty images. Some other images there strike me as trashy or gimmicky. Both kinds, the prurient and the artistic, garner lots of Likes, no doubt for different reasons.

LV Moose wrote in post #17401102
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.

yes and so have men. the statue of David by Michelangelo is a world famous bit of Art.

I think you will find that women would rather enjoy seeing a semi naked man than a women. We find this type of "art" enjoyable because of the subject. You may find that looking at semi nude women more enjoyable because that's what you like to look at. I would rather look at semi naked men because that's what I find more enjoyable. So most of the photographers are about photographing what's more enjoyable than the photography part.

It's not hard to find a class on photography about how to shoot models and have the models themselves to be women. If the class was truly about learning to photograph models then both men and women would be used. in some ways cases like this just to show you that most men are thinking with the bottom brain than the top brain. Shooting men is different than shooting women. If you are going to be about shooting models then why only shoot 1/2 of the population.

Mark0159 wrote in post #17401531
yes and so have men. the statue of David by Michelangelo is a world famous bit of Art.

I never said there were no examples of nude males; I said women were portrayed more often.

Obviously; that's like saying I enjoy eating chocolate because that's what I like to eat.

So... why not just watch women, or men, or hummingbirds, or mountains, instead of photographing them?

I only took one art class in college that used live models, and both sexes were used. So, I don't know.

No doubt. But artists to a lesser extent, I think; focusing more on the issue of beauty rather than the sexual aspect. But not all, to be sure.

How so?

I guess more photographers find photographing women more pleasing, just like more people like eating chocolate rather than brussels sprouts. I guess we should should put a strict 50/50 rule into effect. You can only shoot a nude female, if you agree to shoot a nude male. Otherwise, you're a sexist.

And FYI, while I find the female form beautiful and pleasing to look at, I haven't looked at the image of a nude female in at least a couple of years, to include the G&N section of the forum.

Mark0159 wrote in post #17401531
yes and so have men. the statue of David by Michelangelo is a world famous bit of Art.

Michelangelo was gay. Even his statues of women looked like men.

This is an empirical question. It would be better addressed by taking a poll than by just thinking in the absence of evidence.

When I took a semester of figure drawing, we had a different model every week. All the models but one were women, and we didn't get much practice with rendering the male body. This imbalance may have had more to do with the greater opportunities in other fields for men who needed part-time work than with anything else.

I would say that there are clearly several groups going on within those communities. Some are very sexists and frankly downright vile in appearance, and seem to care more about churning through more object based eye candy than any real exploration of art or advancement of technical aspects of the work. Others groups however have far more in the way of redeeming qualities.

But as for models and subject matter, I have read more than a few papers and articles that were talking about how men are generally less likely to think they are 'beautiful/handsome/wh​atever' than women are, and are far less likely to be encouraged to take on roles such as modelling or acting. If you're a "real man" then clearly you should be out mowing a lawn, cutting down a tree, or fixing a car, and not sitting there letting someone adjust your makeup and take photos of you... The topic actually came up at a random lunch event I was at last summer, and a modelling agent complained about how hard it was to find male models to meet his client's requests. He had stacks of headshots from 'acceptable' female models sitting on his desk, but was often reduced to passing out his card to random guys on the street at times to get an effective selection for projects.

And I've also seen it argued that the 'standards of beauty' for men really are harsher than for women, but it gets far less attention or thought put into it because men are usually less likely to care. I started going bald pretty much back in high school, and I was never likely to have chiselled abs going on, but I simply never let that fact bother me and moved on with things. Contrast that with one of my stunningly beautiful female classmates who was never happy with her looks because she was 'fat'; regardless of how much weight she lost or how many health risks she took to lose even more.

LV Moose wrote in post #17401582
I never said there were no examples of nude males; I said women were portrayed more often.

Obviously; that's like saying I enjoy eating chocolate because that's what I like to eat.

So... why not just watch women, or men, or hummingbirds, or mountains, instead of photographing them?

some people do just watch.

LV Moose wrote in post #17401582
I only took one art class in college that used live models, and both sexes were used. So, I don't know.

No doubt. But artists to a lesser extent, I think; focusing more on the issue of beauty rather than the sexual aspect. But not all, to be sure.
How so?

yea college is going to focus more on the art thing. But I am sure even there people find one subject more interesting than the other. They just have to do both because that's what the course requirements are.

Women and men are photographed differently as exampled by the following links.

men
http://digital-photography-school.com …d-with-photographing-men/

women
http://digital-photography-school.com …otographing-female-models

it's all about how to portray the sex. You have a women in a mans pose and it would seem to be more masculine and man in a women's pose is more feminine It's based on the gender of the model in question and what society accepts them to be.

LV Moose wrote in post #17401582
I guess more photographers find photographing women more pleasing, just like more people like eating chocolate rather than brussels sprouts. I guess we should should put a strict 50/50 rule into effect. You can only shoot a nude female, if you agree to shoot a nude male. Otherwise, you're a sexist.

Not at all. As stated by OhLook, some of the photos in G&N section are rather bad but that's all part of the learn curve for the photographer. At the end of the day it's about photography and if your going to photograph nude women then you should also be open to the idea of shooting nude men. Esp if you want to do it as a living. You are going to get clients that want one or the other or both. As a photographer you are paid to give photos of what the client wants.

OhLook wrote in post #17401665
Michelangelo was gay. Even his statues of women looked like men.

This is an empirical question. It would be better addressed by taking a poll than by just thinking in the absence of evidence.

When I took a semester of figure drawing, we had a different model every week. All the models but one were women, and we didn't get much practice with rendering the male body. This imbalance may have had more to do with the greater opportunities in other fields for men who needed part-time work than with anything else.

Well perhaps he wasn't the best example.

But I have talked to a few women on the subject about looking at nude women and generally they don't like it. If they had to choose they would choose men over women (given that they are straight of course) The idea that women are more flexible when it comes to attraction is a lie.

As for less male models than female models is no surprise. This is a male dominated society so male modeling is perceived by some as something weaker men do. Men have been having their say for a very long time and as such creating such equal balance between the two is going to take a while. But we understand it more than we did, we are willing to change it more than in the past. With each new generation things will change.

I don't follow Flickr or 500 pix, but I've noticed that most POTN users (my guess would be 80% although I have nothing concrete to base that on) seem to be male. And there are vastly more photos of attractive women than good-looking men posted; not just in the G&N section but the lens sample threads & lots of others also.

I'm a (straight) female, and when I occasionally look at G&N I'm mainly trying to improve my understanding of what men find attractive in women. Photos of men I don't know, clothed or not, don't hold any particular interest for me beyond my interest in photos of people generally. I like them if they have some artistic merit, capture an unusual moment, or demonstrate impressive lighting/posing/compos​ition skills.

Anyway something which often strikes me on POTN and in life generally is the huge amount of time, money & effort devoted to creating photos of beautiful young women wearing very little clothing. And I wonder just how much of the gear lust, and the intense interest in various camera bodies, lenses, lighting solutions, software etc evident in many POTN threads which make no particular mention of subject matter is driven by this factor.

Another way of thinking about it is, if not for the massive level of interest in photographing attractive women would we still have all the fantastic range of gear currently available to choose from? Canon/Nikon/Profoto etc might be either out of business, or offering a much smaller range of less advanced equipment for those of us interested in other subject matter. So in that sense at least, we should probably be thankful for it .

In reply to your question I don't think tacky photos of women devalue photography generally, any more than the more mediocre or predicable forms of pursuits like sports or cooking devalue them as a whole. Most people know there's a vast range of subject matter, skill and artistry (or not) under the broad umbrella of "photography".

I wonder if one could take an artistic photograph of a bank statement.... or a shot of a portfolio year end statement.

I think it has to do with how males and females are wired. Men are very visual where women are emotional. Just look at the porn industries for both. Pictures of nekid women for the guys and romance novels for the ladies. They both serve the same function but each is tailored to the way they are wired and what gets their motors reved up.

So it's not a surprise to me that nude or semi-nude art follows that same pattern.

woman like looking at beautiful woman too. while men and woman dont seem to really enjoy looking at male models.

OhLook wrote in post #17400889
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.

To add to this, women evolved to appreciate not how a male looks in the bedroom, but his skill in bringing home the mastodon, so that she and her children will survive the winter. A high testosterone level was correlated with that achievement. Coming along with that was aggresiveness, daring, and unfortunately, a wandering eye. Hence their attraction to chisel-jawed males featured on the covers of gothic romance novels. And the other side of the coin is that women became concerned with adorning themselves and enhancing the kinds of things that were attempts to keep the male's eye from wandering too far.

The ironic thing is that the successful Paleolithic male traits live on today in what are known in some quarter as "bad boys" or in others as CEOs.

Interesting discussion!

One thing that comes to my mind is not about nudity/semi-nudity, but in well-done portraits of attractive people.

First, I should say I'm not a portrait photographer, so I'm just rambling...

But do get the impression if a portrait of an attractive woman comes up, it/she will get compliments by both men and women ("great shot of a beautiful woman!").

If, though, a portrait of a handsome man comes up, you may hear comments from the ladies ("Great shot of a handsome man") but I don't see many comments from the guys, even though there are some very handsome guys out there!

Anyone else notice this and how it might apply to this discussion?

I agree that women are more likely to comment on the appearance of both sexes, while men are rather unlikely to comment on the appearance of other men. (And some men are in the habit of being overly vocal, even to the point of being vulgar with it, when expressing their opinions on how a woman looks.)

And I have seen several communities that have become overly dominated by vocal and crude males, and it generates a rather unwelcoming atmosphere for anyone who isn't another crude male, vocal or otherwise. I don't like spending time in those communities, and I really can't see most women wanting to either. If you are a guy and don't go along with the 'community standard' mind set, then they break out the name calling. If they find out that you're female, then more often than not it will attract comments that they should be posing, not speaking.

Reading forums that is dominated by a "Horny teen/frat boy" mind set is just tedious for anyone who doesn't share that mindset, regardless of your gender.


This can easily generate communities where photos of males get very limited commentary or attention. Anyone who would have an interest in such subject matter gets pushed out and gives up on that community.

tonylong wrote in post #17548077
. . . if a portrait of an attractive woman comes up, it/she will get compliments by both men and women ("great shot of a beautiful woman!").

If, though, a portrait of a handsome man comes up, you may hear comments from the ladies ("Great shot of a handsome man") but I don't see many comments from the guys, even though there are some very handsome guys out there!

I don't comment on the beauty of models of either sex, although I notice and appreciate when a portrait subject is attractive. Commenting on the photography is more relevant here. The photographer isn't responsible for the facial structure that a subject came in with! In particular, I'd refrain from saying what a handsome man that is. It might give an impression that I was, um, lustfully lonely.

The need for discretion increases when a posted portrait is of a family member. I'm not about to tell a woman that her husband sure is a hunk.

It's the internet, and a vocal majority on it are young and immature. It's simply a matter of who the audience is.

500px for example, specifically, is also one of the "flavors of the month" (I know it' not THAT new, but you get my point) This puts it into an even less broad user group.