This is topic I'm still stuck on the porn thing. [Potentially a Mayfly Thread -- we'll see.] in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
I know Hatrack is a family forum, and I promise to keep this appropriate. This weekend I had admitted how odd it was to be one of the Hatrack Porn People (there's a trio -- me, TomD, and Chris Bridges -- and we'll be headlining your local saloon and hootchie hall this coming Saturday ).
When I use the word porn, I refer to sexually-oriented material (sexual in content or context, or both) that can be expected to pique adult interest. There are so many different claims made about sexually explicit material that I find defining porn to be "that icky stuff" makes it incommensurable to use as common term. There is just too much variation between people.
So, for example, when I think of porn, I think of what I might be expected to think of, but also this, this, and this. I have chosen these to be work-safe (as far as I can tell). They are erotic photos taken by a fantastic photographer, and I consider each to be fabulous and incredibly intimate.
Is this porn to you? Why or why not? Do you agree that it is suitable for viewing by children? Even if it is erotic? (Or is it not erotic to you?)
By the way, I am committed to doing no disservice here, and if anyone finds these links or this thread objectionable, I will gladly delete. Therefore, consider it a Mayfly Thread.
[ February 20, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Note: relinked to middle photo. Will change thread topic to highlight potentially transitory nature.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
In that case, when did you switch back to the ClaudiaTherese sn? I missed something... but it's nice to have our CT back!
(edit: "In that case" referring to "this is a Mayfly thread!)
[ February 20, 2005, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Raia ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*laughing
Hi, Raia!
I switched again while I was going back and methodically deleting CT posts. I hopped back to reply to something and absentmindedly forgot to log out and then back in again. Suddenly, "ClaudiaTherese" felt right again, so I kept it.
This has caused some sporadic consternation, and for that y'all have my apologies. Admittedly, it has occurred to me that being a committed HPP under my given name might not be the wisest decision. My supervisor, who is a remarkable and amazing man, is not someone I could comfortably discuss this topic with.
Consider it my way of protecting the delicate sensibilities of those who know me.
*grin
[Not that there would have been anything wrong with that. I do, however, have some modicum of privacy and general Catholic uptightness.]
[ February 20, 2005, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm not sure I have anything to add to thread content at the moment, but thank you for linking to these wonderful pictures! This one in particular... wow! (Also work safe.) Yes, I think it's erotic, in the same way that a good photographer can make a pear or a swath of cloth erotic.
In my mind, there is usually a delineation between erotica and porn, and I'm not quite sure why or if there should be. I think I'll think and listen for awhile.
[ February 20, 2005, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Haha, makes sense. Well, it's nice to see another you again. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yes, that is gorgeous. And how apropos.
Flickr.com is a moderated site that has a wide variety of photos, and although some are erotically charged, I've never found anything I would consider to be objectionable.
I, too, will continue to think and listen. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Incidentally, here is the beautiful but non-erotic view outside our window. Still snowing. Brrrr!
[ February 20, 2005, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Doesn't look erotic at all to me. But then, that might be because of my job. I could explain more but then someone would put me in the out of context thread and I'd get embarrassed. Hmm. I might have more to say about the subject after I think some more.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I know what you mean. Currently I am not practicing in clinic, but doing research, and this likely affects my view of things. But even during residency, I still found some such images erotic. Only in particular contexts, though -- at work, I click into a very different mode. I never understood how someone would switch gears so thoroughly, but it is certainly true that it happens. I don't know how or when I learned the skill -- upon reflection, the transition seemed to have organically grown out of the experience.
I wonder if learning to make such separations and distinctions in our minds can kind of mess around with physicians' sense of the erotic?
[ February 20, 2005, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Gorgeous photos CT. The kind that you just drink in, if you know what I mean. This thread inspired me to spend the last half hour or so looking at photos of Rodin sculpture. His Danaid* is one of the most erotic and beautiful sculptures of the 19th century, I think.
*Those who are squicked out by eroticism should be aware that that photo is probably the most explicit so far linked to in this thread.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oh, Noemon, beautiful! I had forgotten Rodin.
[Hey, welcome back! Yay! ]
[ February 20, 2005, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I would love to see some of Rodin's work in real life. I've only seen photos and the occasional small reproduction.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Noemon, I love that sculpture! A lot of Rodin's stuff is fabulous, but that one takes it just a step beyond.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Doesn't it ElJay? I could spend hours looking at that sculpture.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Although I love seeing sculpture "live," with something like that it would be difficult for me. I am a very tactile person -- a lot of the time I buy clothing based on how it feels instead of how it looks -- and it would be very difficult for me not to run my hands over the stone and get kicked out of the museum and/or prosecuted. I see some things better when I feel them.
[ February 20, 2005, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It is outstanding.
[AHhhh! ElJay, this wasn't in response to you. I was staring off into space and musing on Noemon's link. Below, read "behaving inappropriately" as, say "humping." I was not thinking of a caress. ]
Now, mind you, I have no immediate impulse to behave inappropriately with that sculpture. The Danaid is quite safe from my lecherous advances. But I do recognize it as erotic, and appreciating that does put me more in the mind of seeing eroticism elsewhere. The curve of my love's foot (even in slightly worn gray cotton socks) is yet more intimate and inviting.
So, okay, I'd call it porn. (Again, though, I'd recognize that the semantics of this are complicated and far from privileged by anyone.)
[ February 20, 2005, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
I prefer Camille Claudel to Rodin for sculptures. My favorite would have to be her most famous, The Waltz, or La Valse.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I think porn tends to fall in the category of non-art. I'd consider non-art usually something where the person making it determines what kind of price they expect to charge for it in advance of making it. I suppose there are aspects of commissioned art that blur this definition a bit. And I don't mean to say all non-art is porn. Graphic design and crafts are worthwhile, but the point is that their worth is not inestimable.
It's like the difference between a politician voting on something because it is what he really wants for his constituents versus doing it because some lobbyist is compensating him. It gets back to the "payoff" dialog in the good and evil thread. But I wouldn't be using the terms good and evil so much as authentic vs. serviceable.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Jimminy Cricket, there could not have been a less fortuitous juxtaposition of posts. ElJay, I was not commenting on your desire to touch the sculpture.
I was thinking about (what I take to be) the general response to pornographic material -- i.e., if we find something erotically charged, the mind goes into rut. I think this forced dichotomy between erotic and non-erotic is potentially quite unhelpful.
I wouldn't kick you out of my museum. *grin
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[I will, however, repeat myself indefinitely. Sorry for the quintuple postage -- Hatrack burped for me. *pat, pat]
mothertree, if you are comfortable with the question (and if not, feel free to ignore it! ), how would you classify the above linked photos and pieces of sculpture? Porn? erotic? Both? Servicable or authentic?
Not trying to challenge, I promise. Cross my heart most fervently. Just trying to puzzle through how this works for others.
[ February 20, 2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
To me, pornography means something that is used to arouse certain feelings and ideas. Though there are some things (pictures, movies, what have yous) that are obviously pornography, there are some things, that are less clear. CT, you most common example is erotic literature, or erotic poetry (right?) I would say this is still pornography, though I would rank it on a different level. A lot of the things that are wrong with most porn are not in these types of things. I would say that most times people speak of pornography they’re speaking of items like what I mentioned above (explicitly pornographic material). These materials I feel are wrong for many reasons. For one, it requires sexual acts in a non-private, non married status, and I’m enough of a religious prude to say that’s wrong. Many of the productions (I have a much more detailed knowledge than I would like after having heard it intimately described over dinner at my dorm cafeteria last year ) are brutal to the people involved, which makes sense since it’s basically prostitution with a camera. Some of the woman are happy to be a part of it I’m sure, but I get the impression that a lot aren’t and are either being taken advantage of or are portrayed as being taken advantage of.
Which leads into my next point, the portrayal of both genders. Much of pornography seems to be about power and control, I would guess men over women mostly, but I’ve certainly heard plenty about the other way around. What’s wrong with that? After all, many books and certainly the scriptures have a lot to do with power! Not necessarily gender based, but still. The problem is, as I see it, that the act of sex becomes about power, one person over another. That’s what people seek, and associate with the action, that’s what they want it to be in idealization. It degrades the act, and the attitude of those who view it. When (if) they get married it is still an action inspired by power, of one person over their spouse, which is certainly not healthy. The bonding that the action is designed for, between a married couple (yes, in my opinion, this is all in my opinion ) can no longer fulfill its purpose.
Of course it also has another problem commonly mentioned: the objectification of women. Well that’s true enough, I think an effect that is glossed over but has been in my observation, more pronounced and more harmful, is the objectification of the person viewing such material. In concentrating only on creating pleasure for themselves they see both sex, and their time merely as an opportunity to have that one moment of pleasure. The more pornography viewed the more their life becomes about reaching that moment of ecstasy.
The immediate intent of pornography is of course, personal gratification. Now for me, that’s a problem in and of itself as I feel onanism is wrong, but I know that’s not true for everyone. However, personal gratification means that an act that was designed to bring to people close is now being used as self-pleasing, and when preformed with someone else becomes merely a way of two people pleasing themselves, not each other.
Now on the extreme end of pornography there is also the very serious problem of complete addiction. Pornography acts just like any drug, and its abuse can lead to a desperate search for harder and harder versions of it, in what I see as a desperate search for substance in a medium that by definition, has none. I have seen people do this, one person discovered materials so graphic and … well, graphic beyond reason, and began searching out videos of real killings, and other similar depictions. As I understand it (and this is not from personal experience as the previous example was, but just as I understand it) extreme use of pornography will often result in sexual experimentation, sometimes basically harmless with a partner, but sometimes up to the point of rape and other seditious acts. The lack of substance in the material leads the user to the obvious solution, find substance in life. But by this point sex has lost its actual ability and is no longer truly an experience between two people but mutual-self-gratification and for the user, there’s nothing left that will give reality to the experience, no matter how extreme they get.
Now I know there are people here, like you CT, that can say to me that you have no problems like these with your spouse, and don’t even use those manifestations of pornography. First off, I’d like to point out that this doesn’t invalidate anything I said, the fact that erotic literature doesn’t force people to have sex outside of marriage like visual pornography does, doesn’t invalidate that argument against the pornography that does have this effect. So that while your arguments are valid for your cases, so are mine for the much more general case.
So what about erotic literature? The more “mundane” erotic literature (non-explicit, not about extreme situations) doesn’t have many of the problems I mentioned above. So yes, I would call it “better”, and put it in a different class than most of the pornography available today. Is it still wrong? Well the way I define pornography, all of it is morally unclean (I feel) even if some is better than the rest. Fundamentally anything that is used to derive onanistic pleasures is wrong. Why? Well because it takes an act and feeling that is meant entirely for the bonding of two people to one (and the conception of children) and makes it about the self. This lessens the meaning of it, and the ability for it to be used for its original purpose. Sex is a sacred thing (let me re-iterate: in my opinion) and should be put out for consumption, but shared and created in marriage only.
Hobbes Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I like Claudel's work, but I probably prefer Rodin.
Anyone else here a fan of Helenestic Baroque sculpture? I haven't found all that many great examples of the style online, beyond the incredibly well known, like The Laocoon, but if you can find offline photos of, say, the fragments surviving from Tiberius' Grotto in Sperlonga, it's well worth viewing. If you can find any detail photos of the tracery of veins on the top of Polyphemus' foot, in The Blinding of Polyphemus, it's simply breath-taking (That photo I just linked to doesn't do that sculpture justice in any way, shape, or form, just FYI).
ElJay, I know what you mean--I'm exactly the same way. I was at my local art institute the other day looking at a frieze depicting these sensuously twining Chinese dragons, and couldn't help but run my hands over it. I didn't trip an alarm, though, and there weren't any guards around when I did it, so I didn't get kicked out.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I hope that helped CT, I know you were having trouble understanding the opposition to things like erotic literature since most of the reasons those of us religious people think porn is wrong has to do with extreme use of it, or with the more hardcore material. I tried to focus on this issue.
As for the pictures, I feel a little uncomfortable clicking on the links on the Sabbath, hope you understand.
Hobbes Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Of course, Hobbes. And I appreciate your very thoughtful and considerate analysis. As always, it is worth reading over many times.
Should you choose never to click on the links, I would be perfectly supportive of that choice. Sometime (if you are of a mind, but not unless so), I'd love to hear you comment on Rodin. There is the classic The Thinker as well as others, like The Danaid linked above. I don't have much problem understanding a viewpoint such as yours with regards to what is referred to as hardcore material (how's that for convoluted? ), but I don't have any idea at all what you'd say about Rodin's sculptures.
Mind you, this is the Sabbath. And you might well wish to refrain from Rodinage on non-Sabbath days as well. Such restraint would not be taken to be at all undermining of your philosophical and religious positions. Just want to be clear.
[ February 20, 2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
CT, I would kick me out of my museum. A hundred years of people running their hands over a sculpture and its beauty would be severly diminished.
Ain't condeming Noemon, now, I'd probably do the same if I could get away with it. But I certainly understand why it's not allowed, and agree with the reasons. Intellectually.
(And I would not have taken offense at your post, CT, even without the corrections. But I think the juxposition is funny. And I was afk right after my lst post, so I didn't see yours 'til all the fixes were in anyway.)
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
CT, that was...um...not clear.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
ElJay: Good.
mack: which part are you referring to? Post a confusing chunk and I'll try to explain it better. (My apologies.)
[ February 20, 2005, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What can one say after reading such a post but...Hobbes?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
The part at the end about the Sabbath thing. I THINK I was thinking the same thing, that if you wouldn't do something on the Sabbath, then it doesn't seem you'd be doing it on any other day, either.
Hobbes: Onanism IS wrong, but I think only in the true meaning of the word as explained in the OT.
CT: The photos are amazing. Beautiful art. I like. Posted by IrishAphrodite19 (Member # 1880) on :
I tried to find a link, but I didn't have any luck so I'm just gonna have to type it out. But here it goes:
In one of my classes last semester we had to read Gloria Steinem's "Erotica and Pronography" and it seemed to address the issue fairly well.
"Erotic: A mutually pleasuarable, sexual expression between people who have enough power to be there by positive choice. It may or may not strike the sense-memory in the viewer, or be creative enough to make the unknown seem real; but it doesn't require us to idetify with a conqueror or a victim. It is truly sensuous, and may give us a contagion of pleasure.
Pornographic: Its message is violence, dominance, and conquest. It is sex being used to reinforce some inequality, or to create one, or to tell un the lie that pain and humiliation (our's or someone else's) are really the same as pleasure. If we are to feel anythign, we must identify with conqueror or victim. That means we can only experience pleasure though the adoption of some degree of sadism or masochism. It also means that we may fee diminished be the role of conqueror, or enraged, humiliated, and vengeful by sharing identity with the victim.
Perhaps one could simply say that erotica is about sexuality, but pornography is about power and sex-as-weapon--in the same way we have come to understand that rape is about violence, and not really about sexuality at all."
Now, about the pictures. I could see how the could be seen as erotic, but I could also see how they could just be seen as pictures. I'm not so sure if I would let children see them, but then the term "children" is a very subjective thing. What age? maturity level?
~Irish
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
CT: I'm thinking over a response about the blending of art and eroticism, I'll see what I can do.
quote:Hobbes: Onanism IS wrong, but I think only in the true meaning of the word as explained in the OT.
Mack, that's a perfectly fair view; to me though, I meant how we at Hatrack normally use the word, any masturbatory activity at all. I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me, but that's what I think.
quote:What can one say after reading such a post but...Hobbes?
::blink:: Yes Stormy?
Hobbes
[ February 20, 2005, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
mack: Ah. He had mentioned not wanting to click on the links on the Sabbath, and I want to be respectful of that choice. I don't practice Sabbath days, but I imagine that some who do might set it aside for reasons not understood by me. That's cool. I don't want to put any undue pressure on anyone to justify themselves to me.
Your work would be very popular on Flickr. Feel free to check out some of David's ("dbblues") contacts. Some are mundane, but some are amazing. Nice to get feedback from a photographic community, too.
Hobbes: No rush. Someday in the indefinite and potential future is just fine.
IA: I read a lot of GS growing up, as my aunt would send me birthday boxes of books about and by people in the feminist movement. GS's distinction made sense to me. However, things looked more confusing to me with the more I read about how other people slot things into those categories. It seems like the distinction she draws is one that can be made (obviously), but I'm not sure it's a useful distinction to make. In practice, it doesn't seem to make any of the murky areas any clearer, at least not for me.
[ February 20, 2005, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm sorry Hobbes, but I just have to correct your spelling as in this instance it pains me to read : masturbatory
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Woops, I knew that was spelled wrong but I was going to spell check it and then forgot to. I fixed it for you.
Hobbes Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
CT, unfortunately I couldn't get the pictures you linked to come up. I'm on dial-up and decided after 5 minutes that I was tired of waiting.
But, if they're in the same vein as the Rodin sculpture that Noemon linked to, I would not classify them as porn. Erotic? Yes. Sensual? Very. Beautiful? Definately yes. I would feel comfortable with my children seeing that sculpture, and would hope they could appreciate the beauty found in a human form. Neither one of my children, I'm pretty sure, would recognize the sculpture as erotic. And if they did, what a much better introduction than the bouncing boobs of Baywatch.
I'm a fan of pieces such as that sculpture, but I do admit a distaste for explicit photos and movies. I don't like my sexual buttons being pushed that easily, if that makes sense. I enjoy a more gentle sensuality, not the in-your-face type of sexual stimulus that will arouse anyone with hormones.
space opera
edit: I used the wrong word! And CT quoted it!
[ February 20, 2005, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
When I looked at the pictures, my first thought was "the artist loves his subject" and I felt a desire to know and love the subject. I don't think this translates into a sexual desire, but it definitely translates into a desire to feel the same intimate connection that the artist has enjoyed.
I think that, for me, this love and reverence for the subject as captured by the artist, is what makes these photos art and the lack of reverence would make a photo of the same body parts porn.
On our wall at work we have a shard of a portion of a female torso. The shard includes one breast. When I first saw this shard hanging in a freind's art shop, I fell in love with it. It did not make me feel sexual in the sense that I wanted to touch it, but it seemed to celebrate my own womanhood and motherhood. My husband and I later became friends with the artist, Alex, and his wife. Alex proudly told us that his wife had been the model for the shard.
(editted for grammar)
[ February 20, 2005, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:But, if they're in the same vein as the Rodin sculpture that Noemon linked to
Yes -- somewhat more abstract, but I would say the same feel. Certainly not more explicit.
quote:I would feel comfortable with my children seeing that sculpture, and would hope they could appreciate the beauty found in a human form. Neither one of my children, I'm pretty sure, would recognize the sculpture as erotic. And if they did, what a much better introduction than the bouncing boobs of Baywatch.
Wow. Couldn't have said it better, myself.
quote:When I looked at the pictures, my first thought was "the artist loves his subject" and I felt a desire to know and love the subject. I don't think this translates into a sexual desire, but it definitely translates into a desire to feel the same intimate connection that the artist has enjoyed.
And again, what a wonderful and precise way of putting it.
quote:It did not make me feel sexual in the sense that I wanted to touch it, but it seemed to celebrate my own womanhood and motherhood. My husband and I later became friends with the artist, Alex, and his wife. Alex proudly told us that his wife had been the model for the shard.
[ February 20, 2005, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Space Opera-
I had the same problem with the link.
I could see the names of the pictures, but not the actual pictures.
To solve the problem, I noted the names then went to whisperings photostream and looked-up the names.
[ February 20, 2005, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
I don't consider those photos pornographic, but at the same time, it doesn't cause me to go "Oooo, and Ahhhhh". Sorry, just personal taste.
Hobbes, not to be critical, but if you aren't going to click on those on the sabbath, you probably shouldn't click on them later (cause if you are going to get impure thoughts today, no difference for tomorrow, dude). Sorry to derail, but is it because you are trying to keep the sabbath day holy?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think the distinction Irish posted is highly valuable, but since not everyone uses those definitions they don’t work too well in reality. However, it does illuminate part of the problem in discussions about whether porn is, by nature, “bad.” If you define porn as the bad stuff and erotica as the good stuff, then porn is, by definition bad. If though you define porn (as Chris Bridges has in these discussions) as any sexual material, then you have “good” and “bad” porn.
(Replace "good" and "bad" with whatever describes the distinction earlier refered to for you. I think most of you can figure out what I’m trying to say here.)
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Thanks LadyDove! That worked for me as well.
Gorgeous pictures, indeed.
space opera
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Hobbes, not to be critical, but if you aren't going to click on those on the sabbath, you probably shouldn't click on them later (cause if you are going to get impure thoughts today, no difference for tomorrow, dude). Sorry to derail, but is it because you are trying to keep the sabbath day holy?
T, I think the idea of judging if something is pornographic or not just doesn't seem like something to do on the Sabbath, just as playing games is something not to do on the Sabbath because it doesn't help with the correct attitude. I have no problem playing volleyball come Monday, but I wouldn't do it on Sunday. I don't really have much issue with clicking on something CT (and everyone else) seems to think is perfectly safe, but I feel strange about doing it on Sunday is all.
Hobbes
[ February 20, 2005, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Fixed for Space Opera.
Dana, I know -- GS pinpoints what I think of as wrong about some things. Definitely, spot on. But it's the same basic reason I find some photos of graphic violence wrong. At the base, it's the same -- and even so, some violent images in a different context or photographed in a different style would not be offensive to me.
I'm thinking of the Pulitzer-Prize-winning photo of the napalmed child* in particular. As part of a video game, I would find it appalling. As a documentation of human suffering in a time of war, I find it unforgettable and important.
This suggests to me that it is likely more about what we bring to the image than the image itself. I think. Although that isn't really straight-forward, either. But it's enough of a problem that I've become willing to throw up my hands and just equate "porn" with "sexually-oriented material (sexual in content or context, or both) that can be expected to pique adult interest."
It's a compromise. I'm still all muddled about how to make sense of it, but this feels most useful way to approach it for me. However, it is definitely a matter of personal preference.
*[warning: graphic. It's a well-known photo that you probably have already seen, though -- certainly if you are of a certain age.]
[ February 20, 2005, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:As a documentation of human suffering in a time of war, I find it unforgettable and important.
That's so much what art can be, a documentation and expression of human nature at that moment in time from both the artist's perspective, as well as the person viewing the art. Art can tweak out different bits of human nature, light and dark, softly or harshly.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Hobbes, I'm sorry but I see that as a bit illogical on your part, and your reasoning. I do respect your decision to do so, since I am not you nor the judge of your character, so I won't push this further.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Those were beautiful pictures. I like graceful and erotic pictures that seem to celebrate the beauty of the human form. Porn, for the most part is rather boring and lacking in romance and beauty...But, there is something oddly beautiful about two men kissing........*trailing off*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Hobbes, sugar, anything you choose about this sort of thing is fine by me.
If it helps to know in advance (for later), the photos I linked to are as follows:
1. Shadowed skin in black-and-white. I think it is an unclothed woman [maybe a man without chest hair?] with her arm obscuring her breasts, but I'm not sure. Quite abstract.
2. A closeup of more skin, but in color this time. A flexed ankle mirrored by a thigh as the person (apparently -- it is a heavily cropped close-up, so also somewhat abstract) squats down. Taut thigh with light gold downy hairs, darker gold-brushed dirt on the heel.
3. Another color shot, also quite cropped. The valley of a lower back (I think male, maybe female?) silhoutted against white.
Noemon linked to a Rodin sculpture which has as its subject a nude woman on her knees, arms and head flung forward onto the ground. You see the curve of her neck and spine, splaying up to her hips. The edge of one thigh is visible. Only her back view is present, as she is sprawled forward on her arms.
Thanks, guys. I'm off to do more mundane stuff, but I'll keep an eye on the thread. Anything untoward and I'll delete the whole thing with impunity. (fair warning!)
[ February 20, 2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Hobbes, I'm sorry but I see that as a bit illogical on your part, and your reasoning. I do respect your decision to do so, since I am not you nor the judge of your character, so I won't push this further.
It might be illogical, I don't know. When I thought about clicking on the links I felt uncomfortable about doing so on the Sabbath, and so I didn't, which is really the bottom line for me.
Hobbes Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Fair enough dude. Like I said, I'm not you, so it's your call, not mine. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
CT Nate
Hobbes Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
(CT, is the Tax ID number that I bill under perhaps the same thing as my social security number which appears to be the same thing as my Taxpayer Identification number? I'm filling out job stuff and getting all confused.)
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
(All your tax issues should be linked to your SSN unless it's business related AND you have an Employer Identification Number.) HTH.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
As a fellow, I don't bill for my services. (I mean, I could sign on for float work, but then I'd have to take call, too.) I really don't know.
Is there someone you could speak with on Monday? or maybe someone in your practice you could call if you need the info today?
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I'm trying to keep quiet and ask work as few questions as possible right now. But I'll figure it out.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
None of the pictures linked to in this thread have been pornography in my opinion. I found all the photos beautiful (except the Napalmed child one, which is upsetting.)
I think my personal definition of pornography includes the exploitation of women, and when I think pornography I think the movies and magazines and internet porn that involves visually stimulating images.
I am not as concerned about erotic literature. Now that may be somewhat hypocritical on my part, but I don't find erotic stories to be as objectionable as, say, pornographic pictures. Maybe because a real person isn't involved? Then again, it does depend on the story, I've run across some in my time that were very disturbing and violent. And, I've read some beautifully written love scenes that were somewhat sexually explicit that didn't upset me in the least. Although, for most parts, I tend to dislike excessive sex scenes in novels, because I'm usually much more concerned with what's happening in the novel than in reading details of a character's climax.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Sara, I'm in Hospital City this week (i.e. away from home and posting from other people's computers), otherwise I would click the links and post my thoughts. On the other hand, were I to post my thoughts without reservation, I would annihilate your image of me as an innocent young man. But even holding some of my more personal thoughts in abeyance, I'd probably have some general thoughts, so if you can possibly bear to let this thread live for just this week and the discussion keeps going, I can respond perhaps Friday or Saturday. Would that be okay?
Alternatively I can append my thoughts on this subject to that thread on Sakeriver, if you have wiped this thread from the universe's memory by the time I'm ready to respond.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
quote:Is this porn to you? Why or why not?
No, because of what LadyDove said:
quote:I think that, for me, this love and reverence for the subject as captured by the artist, is what makes these photos art and the lack of reverence would make a photo of the same body parts porn.
If something is created for the purpose of pure titilation, it is porn. In my personal opinion, this can include stupid movies that don't even include anything that explicit, but include sex or sexual situations unnecessary to plot or characterization. I am made uncomfortable by such scenes if I can't see a real reason for them in the movie.
But people can make things that were not necessarily created for those reasons into porn. I'm going to use a very hypothetical example here, since I haven't even seen the movie I'm talking about. Right now all I know about the movie Velvet Goldmine is that Ewan McGregor gets naked. Since I find Mr. McGregor attractive, my seeing the movie knowing only that would make it, to me, porn. (Now, if someone explained to me other reasons it's a good film and I went to see it because of that, it would not be porn to me.) Likewise, if someone found the images in the first post, sexually arousing to the point that they wanted to masturbate to them, and sought more of them out for that purpose, it would become porn in that person's life.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I'm a fan of pieces such as that sculpture, but I do admit a distaste for explicit photos and movies. I don't like my sexual buttons being pushed that easily, if that makes sense. I enjoy a more gentle sensuality, not the in-your-face type of sexual stimulus that will arouse anyone with hormones.
I thought this was an interesting thought from Space Opera. I think that even if I didn't have any faith-based reasons for being against pornography, I would tend to feel this way. I just don't think hard, explicit images are for me. But perhaps if I got used to seeing them over time, it would alter my outlook. Hard to say, since it is a hypothetical.
Some very beautiful images, both the photographs and the sculpture. As an artist, that appeals to me. I wouldn't display them in my living room, or probably any room in my house because in my mind they do have the potential to call up erotic feelings. I like keeping such feelings private, secluded, intimate. It is almost a protected, safe feeling.
These images linked to here seem to echo the sorts of impressions that come into my mind when love-making. To me those are sacred, private feelings. While I am not bothered by viewing these images, I don't think I would seek them out for the purpose of arousing those feelings. I'm not sure why exactly. Perhaps because I feel it skirts the issue too closely with bringing in what I feel is a "third party" to the relationship. It doesn't cross the line, just skirts it.
But on occasion when one or both of us "encounters" something that brings out those feelings, whatever it might be, we just go with the flow and enjoy it. There's a sort of innocence to it all.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I just wanted to answer this question, I'll have to catch up on the thread later:
quote: mothertree, if you are comfortable with the question (and if not, feel free to ignore it! ), how would you classify the above linked photos and pieces of sculpture? Porn? erotic? Both? Servicable or authentic?
I think the links in your initial post fell on the artistic side, I haven't clicked on everyone's links (not that I deliberately meant not to in any particular case) but I do find Rodin inspiring.
And something can be erotic and not be porn. Like I said, it mostly has to do with the intent of the person making it. Though sometimes something someone meant as art is offensive. I don't think offensive art is the same as porn. That Robert Mapplethorpe's photo of the naked boy jumping on the couch. Most of Robert Mapplethorpe's nude adults held no problem for me (two I can recall are a bald black man,nude, in a fetal pose and the one with two perfectly congruent loins- one black and one white). But the naked kid jumping on the couch bothered me. I felt the child's joie de vivre (sp?) could have been captured without him being naked. The wondering of who this kid was and why the photographer had access to him naked interfered with my ability to appreciate the photo.
So I guess in the end I consider porn different from art that I find offensive. Porn should be illegal. Offensive art should just be deprived of support from the people it offends.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
When I was in Quebec a couple years ago they had a Rodin exhibit in the local museum. It was the most sastifying art experiance I have ever had. His sculptures can be erotic, disturbing, and peaceful, all at the same time. When I was in Italy, there were penises EVERYWHERE. Every sculpture, it seemed, displayed the male anatomy in all it's unabashed glory. I blushed constantly at first, but when the human body is so consistently displayed as the thing of beauty it is, and not as a frame for pretty clothing, it's hard to be embarrassed by it. I am a sketch artist, and these trips taught me to appreciate the beauty of the naked human form. I tend to draw women alot, because I find the female form much easier to translate onto paper. I love photos of men and women in intimate situations (not necessarily sex, just intimate), because the melding of those two forms is so beautiful. However, I really hate most porn, as defined by GS. I find it degrading, not just to women, but to the beauty of the human body in general. The emotions most porn engenders tend to be destructive, and it encourages the stigma of shame that so many people place on the physical act of sex.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Gotta love it when porn comes up and my name gets mentioned...
Not much to add at this point, beyond what I've said before. I do like Ms. Steinem's definitions and there are certainly pornographic images/movies that I would never approve of (for reasons of degradation and/or apparent nonconsensual nature) but there are none I would criminalize as long as all the participants were of age and consenting. Shun, advise against, try to shrivel in the marketplace, sure, but not criminalize, simply because I've yet to see a working definition that withstands scrutiny.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
An aside - many years back a local video store had a video that was called (I think) Bodies in Motion. It was a series of vigenttes of different studies of the human body. The first was a nude woman lying on a floor in a dark room while an off-camera light was passed over her at different angles. The effect was startling; like a fast sunrise/sunset over a smooth mountain range. There were two people performing a ballet together. Another was simply a boxer hitting a heavy nag. He was wearing shorts; the camera was focusing on his upper body as he hit the bag so you could see, in slow motion, just what that action does to the human body.
I'd love to get a copy of this again but Blockbuster has long since bought that store and I haven't had any luck searching for it. You don't want to know what comes up when you type "bodies in motion" into Google, and I'm not positive that was the title.
[ February 21, 2005, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
CT, this photographer is a friend of mine. I think he is brilliant.
I would definitely characterize some of his work as erotic, but definitely not pornographic.
quote: Another was simply a boxer hitting a heavy nag.
Did he do it until he was horse?
[ February 21, 2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Did he do it until he was horse?"
Neigh, SS, he just blanketed him with punches.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Myself, I would just equine and dine him.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
*tackles SS to bridle the horse puns, before the thread is saddled with more*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Neigh, neigh, Morbo. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Morbo, what you did will just lead him on. He needs to be reined in.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Maybe a little bit.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
CT wrote
quote: It seems like the distinction she [GS] draws is one that can be made (obviously), but I'm not sure it's a useful distinction to make. In practice, it doesn't seem to make any of the murky areas any clearer, at least not for me.
I think this kind of response is generally true for any attempt to attach pithy definitions to porn vs. erotica. Especially when then mixed with social/community mores and the law (as opposed to merely personal individual responses and principles), I conclude as Chris does that in a free society legislation against such publications is problematic at best.
But back to the personal, individual responses. Here's another 'pithy' definition I've heard: Erotica makes you want more sex, porn makes you want more porn.
Hobbes, you might agree with this, and disparage both for that very reason.... Sex to many has a sacredness to it, or should have, if the individual is striving to live as closely as possible to divine commandment and/or high moral principles -- and even somehow being manipulated into 'wanting more' for its own sake violates this.
On the other hand, for someone who doesn't object to erotica in their lives according to that (very broad) definition, the pithy phrase does provide a useful litmus test for porn. It's something others have touched on in this thread -- the circular, selfish, and narrowing quality of porn.
What's my own view? I am (from what I can tell) among the most -- what? liberal? open-minded? experienced? degraded? -- posters on this thread. I certainly do not consider the links CT provided to be porn by any stretch of the imagination. Those particular images are not even especially erotic to me, although there were some beautifully erotic images in the rest of Robb Rye's portfolio. (Thanks, CT)
PS. Here's a link to a flickr photo of mine (totally worksafe, homesafe, kidsafe). However, I can imagine someone saying, wow, that's almost erotic; or, wow, that's almost pornographic. Interesting to consider what someone might mean by those statements.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What constitutes pornography is totally subjective.
The effects of pornography are subjective.
That's all I'm sayin'.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
My first impression was that it looked like a carcass torn open on an a table.
Edit: The only ethics question that brings up for me is: Does it make me feel hungry?
[ February 21, 2005, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And now that we've seen pepper porn, where will it end? Carrots? Zucchini? SQUASH, FOR GOD'S SAKE?!?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Thanks are to Elizabeth. The work is, indeed, lovely.
I adored Pepper Baby! [I thought it was totally erotic. Intimate, private, pristine.] From the title, I was expecting a nude back sprinkled with ground pepper, which could be cool but also kind of icky, come to think about it. Or not. I mean, the consumption aspect could have exploitative overtones.
Chris, I looked for your video, but I haven't found anything like it yet.
[ February 21, 2005, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Well, Stormie, there's always the inside-of-a-flower thing. Classic erotica image from O'Keefe.
[ February 21, 2005, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
John, were those pics CT linked to on page one Robb Rye's? I did not see that? Or were you talking about the link I put up? Those pics are very Robb Ryish, for sure. (question answered, sorry)
I worked with Robb about eight years ago. He did this amazing, amazing project where he took photos of a bunch od diverse people, then asked them a series of questions. Under each photo, he would have a sentence, like "seven of us have parents who are divorced," "five of us are gay," etc.
Then, he did that with a group of kids at our school. He could not post that project on his website, though. He had all the photos out in the library, and it was just so moving.
[ February 21, 2005, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
CT took my innocence. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Have you ever been experienced? Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
That sounds so naughty, CT.
"I'll experience you."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Naughty Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Wow, I had never payed attention to the lyrics before. Those are awesome.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: I conclude as Chris does that in a free society legislation against such publications is problematic at best.
Well, I guess it depends on your definition of a free society. I guess this gets back to the old problem of righties preferring free markets and lefties preferring free morals. The two seem ot collide at porn. If remuneration and power were fairly distributed to the actual porn objects, it would be a different matter. But it seems the distributors and producers make most of the money and raise the biggest stink about efforts to combat it.
Maybe there should be a system similar to how prescription drugs are distributed. That way we can keep it out of the hands of impressionable children and serial killers.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Wow, I had never payed attention to the lyrics before. Those are awesome.
Glaphyra the Corruptor
A tangential question: Are there people here who distinguish between erotica and porn at least in part by whether or not it is beautiful? Is that part of how you think about it?
(Not challenging or setting anyone up for a slam -- just curious. I'm also aware of the fundamentally question-begging isssues with definition, but I'm just trying to understand the internal language people use to describe things to themselves.)
Posted by Glaphyra the Corruptor (Member # 7408) on :
(By the way, don't even try. )
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: A tangential question: Are there people here who distinguish between erotica and porn at least in part by whether or not it is beautiful? Is that part of how you think about it?
While it isn't where I put the line, I do think that it is a subjective line that often places more of a positive connotation with erotica and more of a negative one with pornography.
Posted by Glaphyra the Corruptor (Member # 7408) on :
Does "beauty" factor into that decision for you? (Again, if this is too personal, please feel free to just let it go. )
That is, I understand it is a factor in making the distinction (to a greater or lesser extent) for some, but is it so for you? Does the "beautifulness" of the work have any bearing on whether something is erotic or pornographic, for you, in the way you would use those terms?
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
Erotica vs. pornography is not a tangential question--it underlies this whole thread. Erotica can be seen as an investigative, descriptive and ultimately empowering view of sexuality. Pornography slides quickly into the degrading and the voyeuristic.
The serial killers I'm familiar with are/were into pain and submission, rather than expressing sexuality and learning. Keeping both erotica and porn under lock and key will continue to obscure the line between the two. I think a big part of the problem with the way we view sexuality is that it is hidden for reasons I don't quite get.
Children have to learn about sex in an age appropriate fashion, as determined by thier parents. I think it can be harmful to expose them to ideas they are unable to process. The upshot is I don't want my kids (when they get here) to have to answer those questions on thier own.
[ February 21, 2005, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: bunbun ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Does "beauty" factor into that decision for you?
Beauty only factors into like and dislike, aesthetics. When it comes to the erotica/porn distinction for me, being fully aware that it is a subjective, personal distinction, I simply place the line at where it starts bringing another person/people into our intimate relationship. While it might happen naturally in the course of events, I wouldn't seek it out or encourage it for the "enhancing" of our intimacy.
Example of what I would think of as erotica: scented candles, lingerie, oils, music, dance, situational stuff, a romantic movie/book, etc.
Example of what I would think of as porn: watching two people graphically having sex for the purpose of arousing our own passions, or thinking of some hot movie star for the purpose of getting myself "in the mood".
The fact of it is, things that I would consider pornographic in nature may have influenced our intimate relationship. As I said above, in those cases I would "go with the flow". But I don't seek them out for that purpose.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
In my opinion, erotica stops and porn begins where someone can only appreciate it for its "sexual value". Those pictures that you linked earlier, Sara, are beautiful and calming, and to enjoy them it is not necessary to enjoy them sexually.
But I suppose, since I enjoy porn for its hilarity, that would make all porn erotica... And I do sometimes use porn for references in art. :/ Hmmm... It's a definition-in-progress.
Posted by Glaphyra the Corruptor (Member # 7408) on :
quote:Erotica vs. pornography is not a tangential question--it underlies this whole thread. Erotica can be seen as an investigative, descriptive and ultimately empowering view of sexuality. Pornography slides quickly into the degrading and the voyeuristic.
Oh, I agree. But it was the relevance of beauty to the decision that was somewhat tangential to the way the discussion had evolved.
bunbun, how do you make the distinction for yourself? Does beauty play a role? *interested, but not at all wanting to be pushy
Thanks, beverly. That is helpful in understanding. I like the emphasis on subjectivity in your definition, as it rings true as an important point to me, too. But how do you apply that to distinguishing between erotica and porn in the public sphere? That is, on what do you base your decisions as a community member regarding community issues about this (assuming that at least some erotica is okay to have in museums and public stores, whereas at least some porn would not be)?
Posted by Glaphyra the Corruptor (Member # 7408) on :
Ryuko, I hear you. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: But how do you apply that to distinguishing between erotica and porn in the public sphere?
I honestly don't know. I think that society should play a part in deciding--make it a bit of a democratic issue. If a large number of people are offended at something, I think they should *at least* be given a fair hearing.
A few years back there was a big "to do" in these parts about a Victoria's Secret poster. It featured a topless woman with strategically placed hands (no nipples shown) and was a very large image, you know, larger than human size. This store was next door to the mall's Disney store.
I personally think they crossed the line of appropriateness and that the people who got upset had reason to be upset. But many mocked them for being upset at all. The biggest problem was probably the unfortunate idea of having Victoria's Secret and Disney as next-door neighbors. But I also think that a model for a bra sale (that was what it was for) should at least be wearing a bra. I mean, come on. Context?
I am as likely to shop at VS as the next person, but I think that they should be careful and respectful in the way they advertise. The TV advertisements as well. They make me uncomfortable--at least in the times of day that they are on TV if not for other reasons. We all know sex sells, and I don't like how money-makers take advantage of it. They distort it in ways I believe to be unhealthy--all for profit.
I guess I feel that sex shouldn't be put on display so much and that it should be something that you have to put forth some effort to find/contact. I don't like the "in-your-faceness" of it all. But I don't know how that would be legistlated, nor do I necessarily think it should be. I just think it is in good taste and is part of respecting others. If people are upset, I think those upsetting them should take that into consideration.
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
quote:bunbun, how do you make the distinction for yourself? Does beauty play a role? *interested, but not at all wanting to be pushy
I think the more important question has to be the approach. Beauty is fine, as it's a component of a positive human response, but it can't by itself dictate whether a given work empowers or degrades.
I look at Paris Hilton. Everything about her is calculated to bring about an immediate sexual response: the two-second, "Wow!" or "Schwing!"
Klimt's work is explicitly sexual, featuring a portion of a nude female body in the throes of passion. The reference to Danae gives the viewers an understanding of what precisely is taking place. But from Klimt I get something I don't get from Paris: an idea that lasts longer than the "Schwing!" The image of Danae is one that is beautiful and powerful. It doesn't require a tanning booth or a bikini wax, and it tells an amazing story.
That's my rambling response. Thanks for asking.
bunbun
Posted by Glaphyra the Corruptor (Member # 7408) on :
bunbun and beverly, thanks for the responses. I'm at loose ends in making my own thoughts about the murky parts explicit to myself, so I appreciate the thoughtful input.
[Thanks for the Danae link! I was unfamiliar with it.]
[ February 21, 2005, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Glaphyra the Corruptor ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I defined porn the way I did because that embodies what I see wrong with it. Porn is something that provokes sexually explicit thoughts, or even more so, is used to provoke sexually explicit thoughts. What the artist intends might be meaningful but is basically impossible to determine. There could be a movie of two people having sex, no editing, and the “artist” claims that it is to show the beauty of sex, but for the most part, I would call it porn. Why? Because it’s hard to look at sex and not think of sex, huh?
Porn and art, where does one leave off and the other begin? Well I think there’s one clear thing that can be said (for me), is that sometimes the creation of porn (or art) is made wrong not just by what it produces (which becomes a unique thing) but how it’s produced. Anything that shows inappropriate nudity (as in specific areas of the human body being nude) or sexually explicit acts is wrong because it requires that this be shown. Which begs the question, what about things like sculptures of nudity, or descriptions? They become not implicitly wrong because it does not require a breaking of these moral laws to create.
Now it can be wrong anyways, I would personally find an explicit sculpture of two people engaged in sexual acts to be pornographic, no matter how much others claim it is art. This is where the definition of porn becomes what thoughts it illicit from the viewer, and thus a personal distinction. If you would look at such a sculpture and think of beauty, and not look at it and turn towards either explicit imaginings of the act, or lustful thoughts inspired by it, then to you, it would not be pornography (by my definition).
How pornographic is it? I have seen and enjoyed movies that have scenes of nudity, and other things I just defined as being wrong (in my world view, I don’t expect others to agree with me). So how pornographic is something based in these rules? Well a movie that has brief nudity might evoke no “unclean” thoughts (yes, I’m a full-time prude ) and yet would still be wrong because it requires that nudity to be created, and then viewed as nudity. However, it is “less” pornographic than what most people would consider pornography. Perhaps I shouldn’t watch such media, and I have been watching less and less recently, but it is not that important to me, to leave such scenes out, though I would prefer that they were left out. A movie that had sex but was not about sex I wouldn’t call pornography, though it has porn in it. A specific scene might be porn but the whole movie is not necessarily porn as a result.
These pictures specifically? To be honest, it took me a significant amount of time just to figure out what some of them were! No, I wouldn’t consider most of them to be pornographic, to me there’s certainly no reaction that would constitute the material to be porn; the Rodin for instance, does evoke beauty, not lustful imaginings or such-like. I’ve scene a few other Rodin sculptures and would say the same for that small sampling, I can’t speak to the whole collection.
Now the napalmed child is an interesting example. To me, that picture is wrong, more so than a lot of porn. First imagine that there was an earthquake while you were in the shower and you were forced to run out into the street naked for safety and someone snapped a photo of you. Now imagine that same situation only you were being brutally beaten and someone snapped a photo. It’s taking someone in there least human, most exposed moment, and showing that moment to the world at large. However embarrassed and uncomfortable I would be (and that’s a lot) with a picture of me nude, circulating the world, how much worse if it were also a moment of such intense pain and agony for me. As if the last shards of human dignity were stripped from me and even my suffering became de-humanized and propagandized. I guess the picture isn’t porn, it doesn’t evoke anything like erotic imaginings! But it is wrong because of what was required to create it, from the same mechanism that a lot of porn is wrong.
I want to note that there will probably be objection to my labeling of that picture, the argument that it helped stop the war and the atrocities because of the graphic depiction itself is a fair one. If you want to make that argument to be honest, I don’t know where I stand in that debate. However, I would still say the picture itself is created through a poor moral choice, though it’s possible in the end it was the correct choice because of greater consequences, just as exploding the A-bombs in Japan is a wrong thing to do, but may have been right because overall the effects were positive.
Hobbes Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
It's the job of a wartime photojournalist to document the war that's happening. I wouldn't say the photograph itself is wrong, but the situation that became the subject of the photograph was wrong, brought on by the horrors of war. Life isn't always pretty, and certainly pictures that depict life aren't either.
Someone could write the words of what happened to that village and that child, but nothing communicates that more clearly, lucidly, shockingly, and quickly as that photograph.
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
I have, on occasion, enjoyed porn. So there.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
The problem with the notion that photos that don't evoke love and reverence or that titillate and excite are porn and photos that evoke love and reverence are not is that the judgement of these qualities are entirely subjective. Consider the words used in the above posts: sacred, investigative, descriptive and ultimately empowering, degrading, and voyeuristic. What do any of these words mean? How are they concrete to us? I have no idea. These ideas suggest that if one person says that some photo is porn and another person says that the photo is not porn that each is equally justified in their claims because their judgement follows from their own relatively held beliefs. There really isn't any meaningful measureable difference between the two cases. This seems like a ridiculous contradiction to me; therefore, having knowledge of whether a thing is porn or not is unknowable with these standards.
Another objection that I have is that a photo may be judged differently in a different context, yet it is the same photo. This leads to yet more contradiction. For example, if we had a photo of a male nude posing as in Michaelangelo's David in an art gallery, then people would think it is art, but if the photo were in some pornographic magazine, then people would think it is pornography.
I agree that what an artist intends a work to be is impossible to determine. It's the intentional fallacy.
I believe that to avoid all of this confusion, a simple definition will do: pornographic images are images that feature human nudity -- plain and simple. There is no perceivable artistic difference between pornography and erotica.
I really don't think there is anything wrong with porn per se because it can give us pleasure. What is wrong with experiencing pleasure, even sexual pleasure from imagery?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:It's the job of a wartime photojournalist to document the war that's happening. I wouldn't say the photograph itself is wrong, but the situation that became the subject of the photograph was wrong, brought on by the horrors of war. Life isn't always pretty, and certainly pictures that depict life aren't either.
I agree Mack, I was trying to talk about the picture specifically to explain to CT (and others) about why I felt certain things were objectionable and not others. Kind of like I would say shooting a person is wrong, but I understand that it's still a soldiers job to go out and do it from time to time because a bigger context shows it's necessity (no, I'm not talking about the Iraq war, I'm talking about a hypothetical case in which it is required). I would say that in this case the photo by itself with no context of why or when or how it was taken is, to me, wrong, but I understand that this does not make it wrong in the absolute, and that contextually it was the photographers job (and a job well done) to take it.
I certainly don't think we should stop taking such pictures and remain ignorant of the many causalities of war, be it body count or morality.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:nother objection that I have is that a photo may be judged differently in a different context, yet it is the same photo. This leads to yet more contradiction. For example, if we had a photo of a male nude posing as in Michaelangelo's David in an art gallery, then people would think it is art, but if the photo were in some pornographic magazine, then people would think it is pornography.
I agree, as I've said, it's entirely subjective. I use this defenition because it puts all pornography into a category that I can say I find immoral, since I defnined it with the same method I use to determine what I think of it. I know no way around this, since what I think is wrong about it is all about personal reaction to it.
quote:What is wrong with experiencing pleasure, even sexual pleasure from imagery?
I refer you to my first post.
Hobbes Posted by Glaphyra the Corruptor (Member # 7408) on :
quote:I agree, as I've said, it's entirely subjective. I use this defenition because it puts all pornography into a category that I can say I find immoral, since I defnined it with the same method I use to determine what I think of it. I know no way around this, since what I think is wrong about it is all about personal reaction to it.
I really have a lot of sympathy for this perspective. I have no idea on earth of how it could appropriately be translated into public discourse (e.g., community standards about what is okay to display in a public museum, etc.)
I end up labelling anything which portrays culturally sexualized parts of the body, or sexual acts, or which has a "sexual theme" (ah, the joys of hand-waving) as porn.
Unfortunately, this puts me directly in the spot of labelling images of breast-feeding as porn. That makes me uneasy. On the other hand, I find a lot of what I would call porn to be entirely appropriate for public view, so it isn't a slam (in my view).
When I object to certain porn images or texts, it is on the grounds of something other than just explicitness. All put together, that is my uneasy truce.
Thus I am one of the HPP. I'm sure I'd end up defending things that would be scandalous to some, although I've limited my links here to the least likely to offend. But again, from my perspective, it isn't the explicitness that makes porn into "bad porn." Even if it's "porn porn," so to speak.
[ February 21, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Glaphyra the Corruptor ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yes, it's hard to impossible to apply that definition to legality, or community standard debates. Like I said, I use it because it simplifies the explanation what's wrong with porn, so that things like Victoria Secret ads are closer to porn than David (which I feel accurately reflects how I feel about the two). I don't know how I would go about doing that, I would say a community vote on appropriateness of certain things (which I guess is semi-similar to the way things are done now) expect I'm not any more comfortable with voting on what falls within free-speech than I am about allowing anything that's not dangerous to physical health.
Hobbes Posted by Glaphyra the Corruptor (Member # 7408) on :
What a complicated world, eh? Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
It'd be a lot less complicated if everyone just agreed with me.
Hobbes Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And boring. We'd have nothing to discuss!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*shakes fist
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*eyes twinkling merrily
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
lol, I come down firmly in your camp CT. I love the sex scene in the Thomas Crown affair for one.
Steve was reading over my shoulder and asked why no one had posted this yet though. I said because most people already are acquainted with Tom Lehrer here.
[ February 21, 2005, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I take it virtually back. I'm sorry! I thought you'd put your palm up on your nose.
[ February 21, 2005, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Personal space! Personal space!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
<--at least three feet apart
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*snort* Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I hope this doesn't turn out to be a mayfly thread. There are some links to some very nice pictures.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
While the porn vs erotica issue always kicks off some entertaining debates -- though few as eloquently expressed as on Hatrack -- I still consider any sexually-charged material to be pornography. Whether it is also erotica or not, well, you pays your money, you takes your choice.
Try this: draw a line and tell me where "fiction" stops and "literature" starts. Of the set of "fiction," what defines the subset of "literature"?
While there are some accepted consensus opinions, ultimately it's a personal choice.
Now. Write a law that makes any fiction other than "literature" illegal.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I agree, Chris. No good definition of porn/erotica exists, because it is subjective.
Aside to Ophelia-- there's really not that much Ewan booty in Velvet Goldmine, if I recall correctly. A lot less than is in the Pillow Book, which definitely shoots for soft core/erotica visuals as a part of the story.
I think it goes back to beauty. Beauty is subjective, but do we not feel a certain awe in the presence of something we find truly beautiful? If something is presented as beautiful, I think that requires a certain respect. In admireing something beautiful, you acknowledge the beauty itself as awesome.
Like the young child (who later became a great poet) scolded by her parents for picking a beautiful flower out of her neighbor's garden, who responded, "But... it's God."
I think our ability tor recognize beauty is also our ability to see the divine in the ordinary. So I think beauty is the difference between erotica and porn, and thus a very subjective thing. Some people really get off on pictures of feet or high heels or whatever, though most of us wouldn't think of such things as obscene.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"I think our ability tor recognize beauty is also our ability to see the divine in the ordinary. So I think beauty is the difference between erotica and porn, and thus a very subjective thing."
I love it when someone says exactly what I am thinking. It is so much easier on my healing brain.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Olivia
I wanted to have the Mayfly option posted up front so that I could clamp down fast on any content I judged out of bounds for a family forum. Given the title, I feel a special obligation to moderate on my own and not wait for Kathryn to be informed and to act.
No way are my porn threads going to be smutty.
[ February 22, 2005, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Thanks Elizabeth.
CT: I replied to your last email and it bounced. Cool things are going on here, and I wanna babble.
Incidentally, I think you are probably the only person who could handle a thread on porn with links and still have stay family-friendly for three pages. Good on yer!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yeah, the IT folks were doing some conversion and my mail went all wingy. It works now. I miss you!
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
This is a good thread. I really like reading what other people think about the subject.
In my opinion, porn and erotica differ from one another much as Olivette explained. I classify porn as media (be it movie, pictures, or literature) that is specifically designed to incite lust and/or focuses on sex acts. I classify erotica as that which focuses on the beauty of sex and the feelings associated with it. The pictures linked on this thread I don't really see as either porn or erotica. They are definitely sensual and are celebrations of the human form, but I do not find them sexual. It's really hard to put into words.
Because definitions of erotica and porn are subjective it's impossible to develop one definition that fits for everyone. I think there are some things that the majority of people classify as porn or erotica, but I think the line between the two (if indeed there even is a line) is very blurry and uniquely individual.
[ February 22, 2005, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I must have uber killing powers - I managed to kill a thread about porn! Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
I think I agree that pornography focuses on the sexual acts rather than the human body, which I would classify as erotica.
That said, the classification has no impact on whether or not I find it offensive or artistic. There is a well done nude bronze -- I believe in the Elveheim museum here in Madison -- that has been painted to look realistic. I found it incredibly offensive, not because it was nude, per se, but because to me it was calculating. It ceased to be beautiful or artistic to me because the artist was proud of being able to reproduce a life like woman. I'm still not sure why it affects me in this way, but there are definitely some erotic and pornigraphic "arts" that cause me disgust when others are erotic or beautiful, and I guess the only difference I can see is perceived intention.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Thanks CT for the comment about the Pepper Baby.
I read a very active live-journal community called food_porn (perfectly safe). Again, there's the use of the 'p' word to transfer some quality of sensuality, broken taboo, explicitness, to a different domain.
For food it's an especially easy transition, because food is so sensual, and because food for centuries has been the path to love.
Remember the 18th C. feast scene in the movie Tom Jones? A famously erotic sequence that had nothing, and everything, to do with mating rituals.
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
JVP, I often refer to cookbooks as "porn for foodies" so that makes perfect sense to me. I, too, love the pepper baby picture and thank you for pointing us toward it. That livejournal looks interesting, too. You are a good friend to share your links with us! ******* On the subject of sensuality/sexuality/porn/erotica: it's *such* a matter of POV that it's a wonder societies can regulate it at all. I don't have any answers. I don't think there is a problem with porn, I think that there is a problem with people who *need* porn, I think there is a problem with people who are *forced into* (physically or psychologically) porn, and of course we can all agree there is a problem with *child* porn; but healthy, consenting adults having sex? Boring, squicky, and badly-acted (in general), but not, for me, a problem.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: I often refer to cookbooks as "porn for foodies"
Wow. I have shelves full of high-gloss full color cookbooks. But dkw has more.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Perverts.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What about The cook, the thief, his wife and her lover? Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
That sounds familiar... book or movie? Any good?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Er...I think it's good. It's a movie. Let's just say that food plays a central role in the film.
[ February 23, 2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Was that "I think it's good" as in, "I enjoyed it but I'm not sure if you will" or as in "I believe it's supposed to be good but haven't seen it myself?"
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No, I honestly enjoyed the movie, but it's Peter Greenaway and he's kind of quirky.
When you see it, I would be interested to hear what you think about it. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Okay. I'm not sure when that will be, but when I do I'll start a thread.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Excellent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
ElJay, I sincerely hope you hate that movie. I look slightly askance at anyone who tells me that they enjoyed it, because it suggests that, in some not so subtle ways, they're into self-flagellation. It's what Pink Flamingoes would be if it pretended to be an art film.
[ February 23, 2005, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
You don't look slightly askance at me already, Tom? I'm hurt.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nah. Not really. You're Rocky Horror weird, not "eating my own feces" weird.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
That reminds me of the stage production of Rocky that Ryuko, dkw and I went to... one of the costume pieces was a full length black velvet cloak, with the inside completely lined in hot pink satin fabric roses, crushed one right next to another. I totally wanted to mug them for it. I still want to go break into the costume shop and see if I can steal it.
Yes, it would be easier to just make my own. What's your point?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm pretty sure that crosses the line, Tom. Considering that you quite often presume to take upon yourself the role of the moral police, I think you might try to lead by example, for once, rather than castigate on the one hand and flip others off with the other when they presume to think differently than you do.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I haven't seen The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, Her Lover since it was in the theaters way back when (when was that, 1989?), but I don't think I've ever been more completely disgusted by a movie than I have that one. It was involving, sure--in that scene where they're locked in...what was it, a meat truck? A walk in refrigerator? with all that rotting meat, I felt like I could actually smell it. This is the only movie I've almost thrown up because of. It literally nauseated me. Of course, I was relatively young at the time, so whether or not it would have that kind of impact on me today is hard to say. I'm not particularly interested in finding out though.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah, 1989. Wow, I'm surprised I remembered that.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I agree with Tom about that being a weird movie. So it must be empirically true. Granted, I only saw the final scene.
P.S. All this "it's all subjective" and "it's a complicated word" is well and good, but something I'd expect from Xaposert.
[ February 23, 2005, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That is not what Tom said. There is a difference between saying that a movie is weird and saying that someone must like to eat feces or have something wrong with them to appreciate it.
[ February 23, 2005, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Okay, I had an experience yesterday that brought to mind this thread, so I thought I'd bump it.
I was at work, and I was trying to adapt a university humanities course for high school students. The author of the course has a vocabulary that is over the heads of most high school students, so I've been trying to change some "big" words to more familiar ones --or else provide a definition. One part of the course said poetry had a sensuous element, so I wanted to look up sensuous and find a close synonym.
Except that instead of going to merriamwebster.com, I just typed sensuous in the Google toolbar by accident. As soon as I realized it, I kind of laughed, expecting all kinds of porn hits to show up. They did. But the description for the first hit said it was a site for fine art photography of nudes. Kind of intrigued by how such a thing would differ from porn, I clicked on the link, prepared to close the window if it was something I wasn't comfortable seeing.
The first page just had text on it, which said this:
quote:sen·su·ous (sen´shoo·es). adj. 1. pertaining to or derived from the senses 2. having qualities that appeal to the senses, as in: the sensuous beauty of a spring day, the sensuous delights of great music, or a sensuous portrayal. 3. Keenly appreciative of beauty and refinement.
The Sensuous Line includes fine art nude photography from around the world. Please do not enter if you are offended by such imagery.
However, if you are not offended by nudes, are inspired by the work of others, and enjoy the art of human figure photography, welcome!
If you are looking for pornographic images, you have come to the wrong place.
Now, I'm having conflicting guilty feelings about this. One, I feel terrible that my feelings about porn are so strong that I can't appreciate something that is not intended to offend. This is supposed to be beautiful and artistic. Why am I so messed up that it feels wrong to look at these pictures?
Because it does feel wrong. If I looked at any of those photographs, I would feel bad about it. My religion has warned against pornography, but I'm fairly sure this isn't pornography. But . . . I can't change the way I feel.
Likewise, I will never see my favorite play performed live because there is nudity at the end (I've read it but never seen it). It is not sexual at all, but it is nudity.
However, I'm not bothered by looking at Michelangelo's David. What's the difference?
[ March 30, 2005, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Brinestone ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Pardon if I'm wrong, but I read this as that you didn't actually enter the site and look at some of the pictures. If this is the case, are you sure you wouldn't react to them the same way you react to David? I'm not saying that all modern nude photography is in that class, certainly... but I bet some is. You might appreciate some on a purely asthetic level, and not feel it is wrong, and you'll never know unless you look.
</devil's advocate>
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I entered the site, but the main page was only text.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Right... so without going further and looking at a picture, how do you know you will consider it pornography?
I'm about to leave for home, if you like I'll skim the site when I get there and make sure it's not explicit, and tell you if I think it would offend you or not, or find a few images that resonate with me like greek sculpture does, on a completely non-sexual level. Then you can take a look and see if you do consider it the same of not, and it would be a little safer than just charging in on your own.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Right, I forgot that I meant to come back to this thread! Thanks for bumping it, Brinestone.
As to your dilemma, I'm not sure I have any solutions for you. I don't see the difference between the nudity in your favourite play and the David, or why you would have a problem with one but not the other -- it could be the historical distinction (the David is respected for fairly obvious reasons, but also because it is hundreds of years old but is still mostly together), but... I dunno.
The distinction I draw is similar to the one many others who have already posted do, though I don't make the same kinds of moral judgments about that distinction as others (for reasons that I'm not terribly interested in going into here). Basically, tasteful-but-erotic nude or semi-nude photography hits me in my gut rather than in my pants, and my reaction is emotional before it is sexual.
That base-of-neck region is one of my favourite bits of the female body, and yes, seeing nice pictures of that specific part is at least somewhat of a turn-on, but to me, the first two pictures are beautiful before they are sexual, so they are not pornographic (and wouldn't be even if there were naughty bits showing).
The third I included for a couple of reasons. First because I like it. Second because it shows how oxymoronic I am: I detest smoking, everything about it, but damn if I don't find that picture massively alluring. I wouldn't if she was standing in front of me doing that, the smell of smoke bugs me, but in a picture I like it.
So I guess that means my opinions are meaningless.
[ August 23, 2021, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Honestly, I think those who have problems with nudity accept things like "David" because they are used to it. It is a masterpiece, it has been around for hundreds of years. Art from that era had tons of nudity.
Speaking specifically to the LDS and the perspective on pornography, I think the problem is if it makes us think of sex. We are encouraged to be "chaste" in our thoughts and feelings, and viewing nudity can run contrary to that.
Some might say that the paintings and sculptures are farther removed from that because they are pigment and stone, while photography shows actual human flesh from actual people. There may be something to that, I dunno. Does the average person find photographs of flesh more sexual than other depictions? I am thinking of anime chicks.... They can be pretty damn sexy. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I guess my thought is, being overwhelmed with *unnecessary* guilt on the matter is probably not a good thing. I mean this for those (like LDS) who are avoiding nudity in order to be chaste. We know our own hearts. We know if we are rationalizing something. Well, if we are honest with ourselves.
What I am thinking is, there are plenty of things out there that are more likely to make us think unchaste sexual thoughts that have no nudity in them whatsoever. To be hypersensitive to nudity in all forms may be misplaced caution.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I would still put nudity that requires actual nudity (photographs/movies) in a "worse" category than that which doesn't (I have no problem with David for instance).
Hobbes Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What about a really graphic depiction of something like rape in, say, an anime?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Good point, twinky. That would be problematic for the other reason--the thoughts it plants in the mind of the viewer. The photography issue is about whether or not you support nude photography. (Good point Hobbes)
[ March 30, 2005, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
(Assuming you asking me, which you probably aren't ) There are many things which I would take into account if asked to determine "level of wrong" (what a stupid classification ), what was required to create goes into it, so I would consider anything that requires nudity in front of a camera to be wrong. But not that wrong, which is really vague but I wouldn't know how to even begin to quantify this stuff. What it actually depicts is far more important, cartoon rape scenes would depend on the context, and the way in which they're drawn. And most importantly (or perhaps as the deciding factor) the emotional reaction to them, most likely I would say that they were much worse than non-sexual nudity, real or not, but I can't make a blanket statement about it.
Hobbes Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I was indeed asking you, Hobbes, thanks for answering so clearly.
I suppose the point is somewhat moot because from my fairly limited understanding of anime the rapist is usually a tentacle monster anyway. I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
>.<
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Pretty much.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:I would still put nudity that requires actual nudity (photographs/movies)
So Hobbes , what about pictures like twinky's first, or some of the feet pics linked on the first page, where for all we know the model could be fully clothed? Where do pictures that depict, in a focused way, skin that is commonly visable fall for you?
(Not trying to bait, just curious.)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
What is it with anime and tentacles? Seriously. I have noticed a total common theme with tentacles.
And giant robots.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Who doesn't love tentacles and giant robots?
Especially the giant robots.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Maybe the tentacles equal lots of phalluses... Tentacles are so revolting. Yaoi on the other hand.... As long as there are no tentacles involved...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I was just thinking about the drawing class that I took at BYU. (A privately owned LDS university) We had a live model come in for us to draw. In most art classes, the model would have been fully nude. In our classes, they were basically clothed in spandex underwear.
For the most part, we were still able to see and appreciate nearly the entire human form--we just didn't get much practice drawing the naughty bits. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*thinks of Lando Molari's tentacles*
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: It's harder to do with a nude because of the perceptions that Americans have of the nude figure. We associate sexual feelings with the nude, so the first thing felt is usually a sexual jolt. Many people can't get past that. They may be looking at a photo which is emoting incredible passion, but all they see is a breast or buttocks. They can't get past the individual parts and their sexual connotations, so they miss the real emotion happening.
That's a quote from the editor of the site Brinestone was talking about. From a quick glance through, there is nothing I would tell someone who is LDS to go look at and see if they responded to it like David. *grin* But the artist interviews are kinda neat.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
You know, ElJay....I would think that that "American" reaction is a positive thing. It seems to me to be normal and proper to be easily aroused, and I regret that society makes such a condition difficult, so that people must either become desensitized or struggle to avoid something that pretty much permeates our culture these days.
Time was when people found a bare calf as exciting as they now do a bare breast. Perhaps that was going too far, but I think perhaps they were on to something.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
There are a lot of times when I think a calf is more arousing than a breast. And I almost always find partly clothed figures more sexual than fully naked ones. I think that's why the Greek statues are okay to some people where modern erotica isn't... the statues are standing there, completely naked, and not trying to hide anything. It becomes tiltilating when you think you're seeing something you think you're not supposed to, be that an ankle peeking from underneath a skirt when someone decends the stairs or a glimpse of lace between two buttons when a blouse gaps open a little.
[ March 30, 2005, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:There are a lot of times when I think a calf is more arousing than a breast
ElJay, that's more like bestiality than sexuality.
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:an ankle peeking from underneath a skirt when someone decends the stairs
Be still my beating heart.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
...and there you go again.
Only, it should be "EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWE"
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I agree completely Eljay.
That tends to be more of a female perspective than a male one, but for those of us who appreciate it...yummy.
-Trevor
Edit: For creative content
[ March 31, 2005, 04:56 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Trevor, I was exaggerating a bit for effect in my examples, but if that was a female perspective instead of a male one the women in Playboy wouldn't be wearing all those expensive bits of nothing, would they? Nudity on it's own usually isn't as shocking or appealing, depending on your feelings on the matter, as nudity slightly obscured, be it through clothing, camera angles, or lighting.
Not that I consider myself an expert on the matter, by any means. But I remember when I took a scupture class in collage, and was a little disconcerted by the idea that there was going to be a live nude model in class. Then when it happened it was just kinda "Oh, she's naked, okay."
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
steve
You can hardly expect her to observe the rules of proper spelling when she's so overwhelmed with desire.
[ March 31, 2005, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
*snrk*
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Reminds me of a poem I read in high school, "The Naked and the Nude".
I am a great lover of nakedness. Not for its titillation factor, but for its sheer beauty and honesty. For its unabashed being what it is. For its vulnerability. For its reality.
I get more sexual pleasure, sometimes, from a dish of scallops or a scintillating intelligent conversation. I am a sensual person.
So what to do in a world where simply walking across the grass barefoot turns you on? I often wondered about this when being conflicted about the idea that lust is wrong. I guess now I just rejoice in being able to find pleasure.
I do think there is such a thing as pornography, and that it is cruel. To me, porn takes place when there is no sense of the sacred, no honor. Like the gratuitous nudity in frat-boy comedies. That's nakedness made to be shameful, to be funny. It's a hurtful twisting of something lovely. Love scenes, when the actors are worshipping each other's bodies, have a very different feel. Some love scenes are unwarrented, or ill done. I don't like those.
Now here's a controversial bit to throw into the pot. What about pictures of naked babies and children? Think about the works of Anne Geddes, the innocent pictures of naked children playing at the beach, the nudity of cherubs and fairies. Is this child pornography? Of course, pictures of children taken to incite lust - putting them in unnatural poses and encouraging "adult" expressions (I'm thinking of the soft-core Guess ads I've seen with obviously underage teens) are offensive to most people. They horrify me. Yet I love to look at pictures of naked children that seem to embody the ideals of innocence, trust, and naive enjoyment of the world - the embodiment of childhood. And they don't turn me on, they just make me feel happy. Is that exploitation or wrongness?
So what do you think about this? How are pictures of naked adults different or like what I have mentioned above?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Interesting post, Jenny.
I loved seeing all the lil' naked kids running around in the Philippines. There was no shame in it, only freedom.
As for the walking across the grass barefoot, I certainly find experiences like that sensuous, and sensuality *can* lead to sexual feelings, but I don't find it a sexual experience in and of itself. I find "sensuous" and "sexual" to be words with fairly different definitions, though they can overlap.
I treat the two feelings differently. I am free with "sensuous" while I am more guarded with "sexual".
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
The line blurs for me at times. Occasionally, upon reading a really good novel (including some of our host's), I'll feel a thrill in my bits akin to what I feel when my husband kisses the back of my neck. Maybe I'm just wired wrong or something.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Yet I love to look at pictures of naked children that seem to embody the ideals of innocence, trust, and naive enjoyment of the world - the embodiment of childhood. And they don't turn me on, they just make me feel happy. Is that exploitation or wrongness?
Of course that's not exploitation or wrongness. It becomes exploitation when the pictures are taken to titillate, like you said above, with young kids in suggestive poses.
If a person takes a child and puts them in a pose that is suggestive, and takes the picture with the express purpose of either deriving titillation from it themselves or making it available to others then that is exploitation.
If a picture is taken of a child who is partially clothed or unclothed and the intent is to show innocence and childhood and the pose is not suggestive, then it's not exploitation.
Now, if someone who is sick derives titillation from a picture like the Anne Geddes pictures - then there is a fault in that person. It's not the fault of the picture or the photographer.
Does that make sense?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I don't think you are wired wrong, Jenny. If anything, I think a lot of us can relate to those two things crossing over. I think they are *supposed* to cross over. I certainly am not going to feel guilty if something inadvertently causes me a tingle.
But I probably would feel guilty if I were seeking it out for that purpose in what I felt was an inappropriate way. But that is just me.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
So, to broaden the discussion: if a picture is taken of an adult to show beauty, sacredness of the human form, confidence, or even sexuality, is that the same as pornography? Does Intent of the Photographer have a lot to do with the end product? Does Intent of the Observer? When is something made pornographic? Is it through the Viewer, the Image-Maker, the Model, or what?
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Also, I think we've only focused on certain kinds of pornography - mostly visual and linguistic. But are there other types? Is there such a thing as tactile pornography? Or scent pornography? Or taste pornography? Items invented to inspire lust through those senses? I know there is aural pornography - those 900 numbers might qualify.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You're asking if porn is inherent to the subject or the audience. Interesting question - I'd have to respond with, "sometimes."
A more accurate response would be - it depends on the nature of the subject and the highly individualized reaction of the audience. Some reactions can be predicted as being caused by x stimuli in the mainstream while others are more unique and more specific. Example: half-naked Cindy Crawford versus the photos of Anne Geddes.
One example can be counted on provoking an erotic reaction from a large portion of the male audience while the other, most likely not.
As for Playboy - the women are wearing expensive bits of nothing that cover very, very little. They are still clinging to the "we're as much art as tittilation" notion which seperates them from more "hardcore" sources.
I suppose at this point we're discussing degree of coverage and suggestive elements - for me, Playboy crosses the line from suggestive to blatant, although again not as blatant as more hardcore options.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: As for Playboy - the women are wearing expensive bits of nothing that cover very, very little. They are still clinging to the "we're as much art as tittilation" notion which seperates them from more "hardcore" sources.
Hm. I'm not sure, honestly, that this is the reason that women in most porn spreads start out clothed.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I think they start out clothed to help the man run the fantasy from beginning to end, not because of a subtle erotic quality, in my humble opinion, but rather latching onto the imagination as a "wow, this is easy to work into my usual fantasies" scenario.
Something along the lines of, "I've always fantasized about <insert silly porno plotline here> and here I can see it unfolding."
The distinguishing factor, I suppose, between tease and "all hanging out" is the point at which the outside stimuli ends.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I didn't realize Playboy contained a "progressive" aspect, going from clothing to non-clothing.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't even know what a "Playboy" is.
*whistles innocently, adjusting halo
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Hey, that's one good lookin' halo ya' got there....
So, how you doin'? Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Poser.
*adjusts own halo*
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
CT posed in Playboy? (frantically hunts through stacks) Where? Where?
[ March 31, 2005, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Heh.
Not that I've had the opportunity to examine such a magazine lately, but the photo shoots are typically of women half-dressed in elaborate locations - amazingly over-decorated smoking rooms, lush bedrooms and so on. There are invariably exceptions to the rule - the swimsuit and lingerie editions, for example. The first will have a variety of backdrops, ranging from simple to complex, particularly when compared to the exotic shoot locations of SI's Swimsuit special.
The lingerie magazine features women in, go figure, lingerie but they are more covered than models in the primary magazine, again generally speaking. If you call lace "covering".
Insofar as I am aware, they don't do, as Beverly described, "progressive" shoots following one girl from clothed to nude or nearly so.
Progressive photos may be more common with net porn sites with the greater amount of resources to devote to the subject, versus a magazine with a fixed medium in which to operate.
-Trevor
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It varies, and also depends on the type of pictorial.
Theme or celebrity pictorials can be anything (Girls of Hatrack, whichever celebrity wants the publicity boost, etc) and usually jump straight to half-clothed or nude.
Centerfolds almost always begin clothed, generally in a "normal" situation like playing sports or shopping or something fom their every day life because this emphasizes the girl-next-door feel that Playboy favors for their centerfolds.
I hope I've been of help.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:CT posed in Playboy? (frantically hunts through stacks) Where? Where?
It's actually pretty hard to tell it's her--she's wearing this huge fake beard. It covers up her naughty bits for the most part, just FYI.
Under her likes and dislikes she lists long walks, underground caverns, and Legolas.
[Edited to correct the typo pointed out by twink immediately below this post]
[ March 31, 2005, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
"Lislikes?"
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I'm here to answer the unasked questions about tentacles in anime.
The reason that there are tentacles in a lot of hentai (the Japanese word for perverse, used in this context to mean pornography) anime and manga is partly cultural and partly historical.
All the way from the time Japan was formed until the beginning of interactions between Japan and the west, art and religion were very focused on sexuality. (This was, of course, tempered by buddhism.) Much of the popular art when art became available to the masses in the form of woodblock prints was erotic, and the phalli in many if not all of the pictures were grossly overexaggerated, gigantic, monstrous things. The phallus was an important symbol at the time, and it continued to be one, even after western influence changed it.
After westerners arrived in Japan, many of their cultural norms about sexuality and nudity were repressed, and especially this happened after the second world war ended. When America began to impose their stringent (at the time) rules about pornography and sexual images, Japan took it to heart and began to censor everything.
And I do mean EVERYTHING. Even pornographic magazines actually imported to America had the pubic hair scribbled out with permanent marker (this was actually a fairly common job for women not terribly long before the turn of the century.) and any publications, including anime and manga were forbidden to show any actual representation of a male member or female pubic hair or parts. (kids were pretty much OK and always represented in the innocent, non-sexual way. If not innocent, it was for comedic value.)
To get around that and still include sexual scenes and allusions, manga artists went to extremes with imagery and metaphor. From the obvious flower and daikon radish comparisons, to scenes of seals diving into wet shells and exaggerated penis-shaped black lines. An outgrowth (pardon the pun) of this phenomenon was the appearance of tentacles in fantasy and sci-fi hentai..
Though the prohibitions on penis and pubic hair have begun to loosen, today's young man grew up with the tentacle, and it's become a fetish and one of many in Japan, which has a lot more visibility for strange fetishes than America does. Partly because Japan likes to market to everyone.
Can you tell I'm studying Japan?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Very interesting post. Ry.
quote:Though the prohibitions on penis and pubic hair have begun to loosen, today's young man grew up with the tentacle, and it's become a fetish and one of many in Japan, which has a lot more visibility for strange fetishes than America does. Partly because Japan likes to market to everyone.
Weird. Makes sense, though.
So if we keep going down the Ashcroft road of repression/censorship, eventually we'll have tentacle-fetishists of our own?
I would shudder to see an ad campaign targeted at young tentacle-fetishists.
[ March 31, 2005, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I don't know that they advertise much... ^_^;;
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:today's young man grew up with the tentacle
That parses very strangely...
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Well, you did say they market to everyone.
^_^;; ??
What do the ;; represent--prison tats? Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Sweatdrops.
They market to everyone, but they don't do it on the television necessarily. Just because there are a lot of anime fans doesn't mean that they advertise anime on CNN.
Edit: I'm sad, though, that my post got eaten up by the last page.
[ March 31, 2005, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Don't worry--with all the talk of tentacles and fetishs, folks are bound to page back. Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I believe I have heard that ";"'s represent dripping beads of sweat.
Perhaps not the best implication on this thread.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Centerfolds almost always begin clothed, generally in a "normal" situation like playing sports or shopping or something fom their every day life because this emphasizes the girl-next-door feel that Playboy favors for their centerfolds.
Huh. I thought the centerfolds were more likely to be nude, often celebrities.
Ryuko--thanks for the background info. I have enjoyed learning about Japanese culture myself. I think that understanding it really enhances one's enjoyment of anime.
So tentacles were born out of repression? I thought there was some mystical significance aside from sexuality. I have seen those tentacles everywhere in anime, used as weapons, used to show magic powers, etc. Think of the "tentacle" weapon in Escaflowne, or the "tentacle-worm-demon-rot" in Mononoke Hime. That sort of thing. Does all that really share roots in repressed sexuality?
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Well, shoot. I completely forgot to talk about squid. That's where tentacles in particular came from, and from a famous print of a woman being, er... violated by a squid.
I don't know if non-sexual tentacles came from the tentacle fetish or directly from squid, which like many other animals, have a place in Japanese folklore, legend, and religion.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Edited to add that Ryuko rocks!
They couldn't show penises. The tentacle sort of replaced the penis. So, yeah.
Like this...
Uninfluenced/repressed Japanese art = openly sexual
Add in American influence, which was quickly adopted into systematic repression.
The sexual stuff found its way through the repression only in a very exaggerated and nearly unrecognizable form.
Hmmm.
Actually, that isn't a stretch.
Ron and I once rented an anime based on an acquaintance's reccommendation, only to be shocked and horrified by tentacles and giant raping machinery. We never rented anything based on what that guy liked ever again.
[ March 31, 2005, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Olivetta ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: I think that understanding it really enhances one's enjoyment of anime.
Definitely. That's why I got into Japanese culture in the first place. Then I began to enjoy it on its own merits.
quote: Ron and I once rented an anime based on an acquaintance's reccommendation, only to be shocked and horrified by tentacles and giant raping machinery. We never rented anything based on what that guy liked ever again.
Yeah, when I was about fifteen, I was just starting to be into anime and babysitting at my cousin's house. They had cable channels I didn't and I was watching anime on Cartoon Network. When they came home, a friend of theirs found out I liked anime and told me about a hentai she'd watched in college where the guy had three penises. I was scarred.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Apparently this form of art is called Shunga.
[ March 31, 2005, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
If you guys can figure out how to order the July 1996 Water polo cover for Life, let me know, because I want it. I've kicked myself ever since for not buying that magazine. I flipped through it at a newsstand at an airport. I've been checking archives and I don't know if it is findable.
Thanks... I had actually found that one, but it's not what's in my head. *shrug* Maybe I'm thinking of something else.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sometimes google ads are useful.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Funny, here's what I get on the google ads:
quote: Buy Catsuits Online Choose from our exclusive handmade catsuits
Ender's Game by Card Study Guide: Summary, analysis, themes, characters, essays: $7.99
That first link is, um, interesting. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We know you want a catsuit, ElJay . . . come to think of it, I want you to have a catsuit . . .
*ahem*
Actually, in this case I'm referring to the google ads that pop up when you search for 'back issues "life magazine"'.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I have a catsuit. More than one, actually. However, unlike the ones on that site, none of mine are vinyl. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, vinyl would likely chafe, for one thing.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
As much as I think I should stop this line of conversation...
They're probably lined.
I'm done now.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*snort*
your restraint is noted Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
On the subject of tentacles in anime, I refer you to a classic Megatokyo guest strip by Poe of the defunct strip Exploitation Now. (worksafe, nothing bad but a few moaning sounds coming from a tv set)
On the subject of catsuits, pretty much any vinyl-wear you find is going to be lined. I'd even venture that you'd probably have to order from a rubber-fetishist site to get vinyl clothes that WEREN'T lined, as this caters more to people who actually want to feel the rubber that they're wearing. Bear in mind also that the lining may keep it from chafing, but it will not keep you from sweating. The vinyl still does not breathe at all, so the more skin area you cover, the more you will sweat.
--Enigmatic
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
On an aside - I never thought of the weapons systems in Escaflowne as sexual metaphors.
They resembled tentacles, yes - but let's face it, Freud would also claim all swords are extensions of phallic fascination instead of being perfectly viable and usually effective weapons.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
-Trevor
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: We never rented anything based on what that guy liked ever again.
This reminds me of the client who told my husband that "Don't tell mom, the babysitter's dead" would be entertaining. I sat it out, but he watched the whole thing thinking "Something has to make this worthwhile by the end." PUNKED!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
ElJay wasn't there a picture of Greg Luganis somewhere that was on the front cover of a magazine?
AJ
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Trevor, I never would have thought of them as sexual either. But I've gotten used to people somewhere out there thinking just about anything is sexual.
I do see now that there is a history behind the "tentacle thing" with the Japanese. I am assuming that extends into multiple things, even things not really sexual at all. So maybe in these cases the cigar really is just a cigar--and it has become prevailant in their culture by default.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Wow Beverly - you associate with some lewd people.
-Trevor
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*bump* so maybe CT will see the pictures I posted AJ
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I really enjoyed Exploitation Now, and was sad when it ended... though I was pretty impressed by the ending. Those last few strips were very good.
I read Megatokyo semi-regularly (it's in the rotation with Penny Arcade and the 8-bit Theater strip at nuklearpower).
AJ, I know the pictures are work-safe, but nonetheless I will be returning to this thread after work. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
What? you mean you're actually working? AJ
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You cut me deep, Shrek. Real deep.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Behold the resurrection of the porn thread. You may be wondering why I brought this up again, but I assure you it's not really for anything that deep, and won't take too long.
Partly it's because, after reading the original post of the thread, I want to be one of the Porn People too! Where do I sign up for that? Though I should mention that when looking at the original trio of pics linked to, I'm reminded of nothing so much as a line from Milk Money, where the kids are trying to watch an adult movie on a scrambled channel: "Whoa! What's that?" "I think it's an elbow." "Why would he be doing THAT to her elbow?"
Mainly, though, it's because I recently came across a picture I'm rather intrigued by, which seems to fit into the same vein as those discussed earlier. I think there actually is an elbow in it, though. What do you think? Disclaimer: This picture does not have any naughty bits, mainly two hands, some arm, possibly the side of a torso. It does cross one line that I don't think any of the other pics linked to have though: there are definitely two people here. So if you think this is a bit too explicit... well, you probably shouldn't have clicked on any links in a thread with "porn" in the title, but sorry about that anyway.
--Enigmatic ^ ^ is not a porn star.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
quote: Potentially a mayfly thread
. . . five pages long . . .
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
It didn't live up to its potential.
How sad.
(disclaimer: Please don't delete, CT)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: What do you think?
I don't think there's an elbow.
I kinda like the picture, though. Nice.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Aw man, I'll never get to be one of the porn-people if the only one who actually looks at the pic I posted is my sister!
Hmmm. That sentence isn't at all creepy.
I think there might be an elbow in there. The tension in the fingers and forearm make me wonder a bit what's going on off-frame.
--Enigmatic (no longer has an entire harddrive dedicated only for porn. Err.. "erotic photography")
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I totally did not need to read that first sentance.
I'm also not wondering what's going on off-frame. <prim>
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not sure someone commonly found wearing a "What Boyfriend?" t-shirt can really be prim . . .
I liked the image, though I also must wonder what's going on off-frame.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't wear the shirt all that often. So I can be prim if I wanna. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pfft. She can do prim while wearing that shirt!
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Thank you, rivka.
-----
(ppthhhibt!)
[ May 02, 2005, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*prims ElJay*
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I question the "prim" as well, though for entirely other reasons. (I've known her longer than any of you (except dkw, I suppose (this is just to nest another parenthesis)))
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ha! I have backup!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Do you have a picture of it, fugu? If you do, is it porn? Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The shirt in question, along with some interesting discussion on her "rack" (hey, her term).
She looks great in it, of course
And kwea, porn? Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'll point out that was jexx's term, actually. I don't believe I've ever used it previously.
Edit: Wait a minute! I can't believe there's a picture of me linked on the porn thread!
[ May 03, 2005, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I liked how I had to look at that pic Enigmatic linked two or three times before I realized which hand belonged to which arm. That was neat.
I've been going back through this thread recently and some of the stuff in the sets that CT linked to on page one is just unbelievable. I didn't go through them before because I was reading the thread at work.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ya know, I'm not sure how much priming El really needs...
-Trevor
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:No, Kama, but it's nice.
I know, I just mostly wanted to brag Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
T, I'm sure I have no idea what you could be insinuating.
---
I like it too, Kama. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
See ELJay...you just proved his point! Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*bump*
'Cause I see CT's around, and I want to make sure you see Enigmatic's application to join your club. (On page 5.)
That's what siblings are for, after all...
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
Sure, the more the merrier.
Maybe his sister will join, too. (Either of them. Both of you seem to surprise me at regular intervals.)
But Enigmatic would be most welcome. I'm not sure he'd want to go through the initiation ritual, though.
--CT
PS: The potentially mayfly nature of the thread was just my way of clarifying that if anyone were to say or link anything which I believed would embarrass our hosts or janitor, I'd shut the place down faster than you can say "snit."
[ May 07, 2005, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Mayfly ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*laugh* I'm certainly pro-porn. Perhaps we'll get a chance to talk about the initiation ritual in June. I'm holding you to the mint juleps.
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
Sure enough. I'm cleaning out my kitchen right now, and in a month or two, I should be able to accept callers with a straight face.
I like Enigmatic's photo quite a bit. I'd consider it porn, myself, but I'd also consider Kama's gorgeous line art to be porn, too. On the milder side, true, but quite delicious nonetheless.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
(I could not currently accept callers with a straight face. Not without wincing in embarrassment, actually. So I'm not inviting anyone over, currently. )
Delicious is a good word for Kama's drawing. But on Enigmatic's, you didn't answer the question of the day: Is there or is there not an elbow?
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
Ah, now you're going to make me go back and look closer. And what with the blushing already, everything looks all rose-tinged anyway.
Let me go peek again.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*grin* Sorry about that.
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
Amid the trials of my life, being forced to inspect intimate photography certainly ranks up there.
I feel faint.
Well, let me see. As somewhat of an expert on body parts, I would make the call "no elbow," *** although there definitely are two forearms. I do believe the view falls short of either a medial or lateral condyle (which would demarcate the joint per se).
I would agree that there is a notable amount of tension in one of the forearms. Perhaps high blood pressure of some sort? The veins appear to be distended. An excess of emotion during a heated debate, during which one opponent has been thr-- ... er, shall we say, compelled to submit to another's greater intellectual weight?
In conclusion, I note what I believe to be the presence of an [upper] arm, and it is placed at such an angle as to indicate it is a third arm. Shocking, utterly shocking.
***[see annotation below]
[ May 07, 2005, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Mayfly ]
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
I withdraw that objection but insert another.
Upon yet further close and outraged scrutiny, I find the upper arm to be attached to one of the forearms, which is well-flexed.
I am pretty sure this means that the [hidden] elbow is sort of wedged into a Very Naughty Place indeed. Which compels me to ask, in tones of imperious hauteur, ""Why would he be doing THAT to her elbow?"
[ May 07, 2005, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Mayfly ]
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
I could definitely be talked into a little bit of pre-knee, too.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Wait a minute, I missed the objection. And a third arm? I'm gonna hafta go look again...
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
I was objecting to the (purported) presence of a third person, possibly, as this outrages my prim missionary standards.
There is definitely nothing missionary about this photo.
I have come to the conclusion that this partially-tanned woman and rather excitable man were engaged in verbal fisticuffs. At some point, the emotions must have run rather high (probably an abortion/gay marriage/Jake Lloyd debate), and they were so incensed that they had to throw off their clothes. And then she must have slipped in some pudding, and he flung himself on top of her to perform CPR. On the back of her hand.
Goodness, he was not trained very well at all, was he? *disapproving
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
Thank goodness there was a rather poufy and matress-like dropcloth on the floor, otherwise someone would have really hurt him- or herself.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Ya know, I had to read your posts, like, three times to try to figure out what the heck you're saying.
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
In summary, I believe this to be the illustration from a public service ad of some sort about kitchen safety. Or, perhaps, the benefits of keeping a hold on one's head in the course of passionate debate.
It passes approval, although they really could be demonstrating better form and technique. Repetitive compressive thrusts on the dorsum of her hand is not going to restart her heart.
I mean, really.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Indeed.
Really.
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
Well, I am attempting to retain my dignity and protect your virtue, you know. One cannot discuss naked people cavorting about with perfect frankness, at least not if one maintains some pretense of modesty.
*fans self
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
(I cannot think of anything at this point which is not totally out-of-bounds risque. I confine myself to the wink. )
[ May 07, 2005, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Mayfly ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think you're missing the word "false" in that last post. Like, between "some" and "pretense."
I'm off, now. Talk to ya later!
Edit: You're too fast... second to last post!
[ May 07, 2005, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
[ May 07, 2005, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Mayfly ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Heh.
Bad girl, May.
-Trevor
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
Well, yes.
But you knew that already.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Pffft - that's why I like you so much.
-Trevor
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: Repetitive compressive thrusts on the dorsum of her hand is not going to restart her heart.
Wait a minute. I just got home and re-read this. (For the laughs.) Her hand is clearly on top. Sorry, CT, but I can't buy your explaination here.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Nah Eljay - this just demonstrates why amateur porn is overrated.
-Trevor
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
Well, good grief, you are absolutely correct.
Perhaps he fainted at the sight of her peril (spread unclad across the dropcloth, what with the pudding flying every which way and all) and landed atop her? And then maybe she is attempting to clench him back into vitality?
Still, it is entirely the wrong part of the anatomy. I can't imagine what they are teaching in the schools these days.
*eyebrows raised
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
ElJay! I send you email!
(You are quite the topic of conversation at my house today.)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Oh dear... in context, I am quite abashed.
*off to check e-mail*
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
*grin
Nothing so salacious. I was discussing "The Hand Kiss" with Dave, a sociologist. He was in agreement with your analysis.
And so, when Minneapolis came up later, he recognized your city. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Well, I'm not sure if I should be relieved or disappointed.
Posted by Mayfly (Member # 7870) on :
Well, I confess to showing him your avatar at sakeriver. I find it to be enchanting.
*smile
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
While I am pleased that my pornographie has been met with suitable approval so as to allow admission into Ye Olde Porn-People Clubbe, I do have to wonder about your reference to the initiation. It seems obvious that initiation into an organization such as this would naturally involve either viewing of or featuring in porn, and probably also alchohol. So how, in any way, would I object to it?
I am, however, rather alarmed that the touching and delicate image which I had posted here has led to discussion of such vulgar topics as debate and resuscitation. Can't you see they are simply holding hands? What could be a more sweet and innocent display of affection on a first date than holding hands? Naked. On a bed. Without any clothes on. Taking pictures. Nude. I mean, honestly people, your minds are in the gutters!
--Enigmatic
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
*bump*
--Enigmatic (is bumping this for amusing reasons, which if you don't know then it's entirely less interesting, although admittedly some of the people who know don't seem to know that they do.)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*Nostalgic bump from the grave*
I miss when we talked about porn on Hatrack like on the first few pages of this thread. Before it descended into silliness. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Um, we already have two threads talking about porn. Why was this necessary?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
are you saying we as humans can't benefit from ideas that have proceeded ones that we are currently discussing? That we should ignore all past wisdom?
Imagine if was writing a book on particle physics and then derided someone for suggesting i might be interested in reading a few books that were already written on the subject. I might choose to read them or not, but I would never call them unnecessary.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I totally missed this thread the first time around. All the links are broken now except a few. I read all six pages and actually have something to say that, as far as I could see, wasn't said yet on the thread.
I think there's a really good scientific reason for avoiding porn. People's sexual responses are trained over time. So whatever associations and connections people make between the world and their personal sexuality actually change who they are sexually over time. Sexuality is so powerfully personal, it's all mixed up with who we are. I would say that if one's sexuality is not somewhere very close to who they are as a person, it would mean they had disassociated themselves from their sexuality, which is probably a bad thing. There are no absolutes here, and nobody can judge another person's inner heart but themselves and God, so I don't presume to dictate any of this, just tell what it seems to me happens.
So, to restate, hopefully in a clearer way. Sexuality is very close to self. Sexuality is trained by the way in which it encounters the world. So in a way you are what you consume, sexually. If you consume things that are unsavory, then you become that, little by little, over time. You train your brain and your heart to respond that way. Over time, if you consume a lot of very unsavory stuff, you become like that, whether you need that sort of thing to become aroused, or just invoke those sorts of feelings.
So, I don't have any rule but one. If art, literature, music, whatever I'm allowing into my mind and heart, if it takes me in a direction toward whom I want to be, then I call it good and I enjoy it with unabashed enthusiasm. If it takes me toward a darker or uglier place, then I avoid it. Along the way you make some mistakes and correct for them. You learn to choose better in the future. It's also difficult to know what effect something will have on you until you've actually seen it. So you discriminate based on the best information you have, and can be prepared to bail out in the middle of a book or movie if you found you made a mistake.
Basically, I don't look at anything that I wouldn't feel comfortable sharing with Jesus or Krishna or (think whatever embodiment of deity you hold most dear). In this thread, of the links that weren't broken, all but the last picture, of the hands, struck me as beautiful, normal, and good. Not that the hands weren't beautiful too, or could be in the right context to the right person, but not to me here and now. I say this not as an attack on those who enjoy it but just to delineate for clarity how this plays out for me in particular.
My own personal quirks of spirit have me finding some things enlightening and edifying that other people might think are smutty. One concrete example of this might be the French movie "Olivier, Olivier". I also find things trashy that other people think are fine. I don't look at Victoria Secret catalogs, and particularly not Delia's, (though I buy their clothes), because of what I feel is inappropriate use of sexuality to sell things. I think Disney's Sleeping Beauty is a travesty for its glorification of the utterly passive heroine, and don't even talk to me about Disney's Winnie the Pooh, which is just a travesty in a totally nonsexual way. Yet I have no qualms about watching R rated movies, as long as they're good movies.
To sum up, I have two things to say in this post.
1. Be careful what you consume, for you are what you eat.
2. You can know by the fruits. Whatever enlarges your soul and makes you more beautiful and good is a good thing. Whatever lessens you and makes you uglier or darker in spirit, flee that.
[ March 11, 2009, 03:36 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The problem is, I don't think there's any indication that looking at porn makes a person uglier, or darker of spirit.
I've watched lots of violent movies, and played violent video games, and I have no interest in murdering people, robbing stores, or becoming a one-person army to fight off aliens.
We all know that adults can interact with entertainment and not take on aspects of that entertainment.
Nobody thinks watching Top Gun makes you a fighter pilot, why would watching Top Buns make you a porn star?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Who's worried about accidentally becoming a porn star?
Watching Top Gun DOES give you immediate mental associations that attach to the actors, the characters, the memorable lines, the concepts of kicking tires and lighting fires, etc. You're a different person after watching it than before, albeit in mostly-innocuous ways.
What you watch does affect the way your brain works. I don't think it totally transforms your personality overnight, but your assumptions, associations, and even your perceptions of the world, are all colored by what you've seen before.
I think a person would be foolish NOT to try and control how much of what sort of art they take into their minds. For example, it drives me crazy that I find myself singing the theme to "Little Einsteins" at the drop of a hat, and I wish I hadn't let my kids watch so much of that show in my presence Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Beats singing " Bha chika Wa-Waaa" doesn't it?
Wait...maybe not.....
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
what was wrong with my thread Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Wearing sunglasses means that you want to be a fighter pilot?
How have I not realized my dreams before?!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: Wearing sunglasses means that you want to be a fighter pilot?
How have I not realized my dreams before?!
To it's merely indicative of how far one is willing to go. Some stop with the sunglasses, others actually become pilots.
With porn I think some people simply watch more of it, some take the stunts they learn back to the bedroom, or some go on to make a business of it.
I'm not sure anybody said porn does not alter behavior at all, but some seem to be saying that it's like sexual satisfaction. When people are having their sexual needs satisfied it often crops up in the lowest 15% of what they think is important to them, but when those needs are not satisfied it often becomes the most important aspect of their lives.
Likewise porn when it's being watched has few quantitatively (not qualitatively) speaking effects, but when it is not, it's absence is pronounced.
edit: And getting a specific pair of sunglasses featured in a movie is more indicative of something than simply owning a pair.
[ March 11, 2009, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:I've watched lots of violent movies, and played violent video games, and I have no interest in murdering people, robbing stores, or becoming a one-person army to fight off aliens.
I've watched a lot of violent movies and played violent video games, and I've *definitely* been desensitized to violence. I don't go out committing random acts of violence, but I know the way I think and feel about violence has drastically changed, and I know my response if I'm ever in a violent situation will be vastly different than it would have been years ago.
I avoid any situation that has the potential for violence, but if someone ever attacks me, I will probably kill them. At least I would have no inward hesitation about doing so, in any way possible. (Outward motivations such as avoiding prosecution still matter.)
Now the question is, am I fairly unique in being affected by the media I have watched, or am I just in the minority because I'm willing to admit it?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Now the question is, am I fairly unique in being affected by the media I have watched, or am I just in the minority because I'm willing to admit it?
*shrug* I don't really filter any of the media I consume based on violence and I even find myself giggling at really over the top stuff, but when I experience real violence I still cringe. Perhaps different people make different empathic associations with portrayals of violence - I may just have some sort of internal filter that differenciates on "real/not real".
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Nobody thinks watching Top Gun makes you a fighter pilot, why would watching Top Buns make you a porn star?
No, Top Gun doesn't make you want to be a pilot. It makes you want to be an actor. That's more dangerous, in my opinion. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But safer. You saw what happened to Goose.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"Now the question is, am I fairly unique in being affected by the media I have watched, or am I just in the minority because I'm willing to admit it?"
If watching movies and playing video games has given you the ability to kill an attacker, then you are fairly unique.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, I shoot virtual Nazi zombies nearly every night...and yet I will not touch a gun in real life. I can't stand guns. My husband has a lot of older guns he's inherited from his father, and he loves them and takes them out and cleans them...they are precious to him. I don't even like to look at them.
But I'm a happy camper when I am in the Help room and hit the random weapons lottery and the MG42 comes up. I'll take that and mow down some zombies. IRL though...I don't like guns at all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "Now the question is, am I fairly unique in being affected by the media I have watched, or am I just in the minority because I'm willing to admit it?"
If watching movies and playing video games has given you the ability to kill an attacker, then you are fairly unique.
I suppose it would depend on what sort of weapon they had on them wouldn't it? I mean, if they learned advanced disarmament and hand to hand combat skills from a video game, that WOULD be pretty unique, but if they had a gun and their accuracy had improved, I would think it wouldn't be that big of a surprise.
Though, I'd think it'd only be good for one shot for someone who has never fired a gun before. I've never fired a gaming gun that accurately came close to replicating actual recoil from a gun, so, the next couple shots would probably be wildly off.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "Now the question is, am I fairly unique in being affected by the media I have watched, or am I just in the minority because I'm willing to admit it?"
If watching movies and playing video games has given you the ability to kill an attacker, then you are fairly unique.
I suppose it would depend on what sort of weapon they had on them wouldn't it? I mean, if they learned advanced disarmament and hand to hand combat skills from a video game, that WOULD be pretty unique, but if they had a gun and their accuracy had improved, I would think it wouldn't be that big of a surprise.
Though, I'd think it'd only be good for one shot for someone who has never fired a gun before. I've never fired a gaming gun that accurately came close to replicating actual recoil from a gun, so, the next couple shots would probably be wildly off.
Not if you fired slowly and methodically. Just sayin...
I not sure violent media and pornography are comparable as they typically deal with separate activities, emotions, parts of the brain, etc. I too have played plenty of violent video games and seen many violent movies. I still tend to shy away from torture porn (as in the movie genre) but I can distinctly tell that my tolerance for violence is much higher than it was even in high school. If I think about my life as a whole I can detect a slow methodical build up of tolerance for violent and disturbing themes in the media I encounter. I've never come close physically harming somebody, but my tolerance has certainly increased. I assume that higher tolerance is still a step close to perpetuating violence, though I may go no further than simply tolerating it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Watching PBS Sprout all day, my tolerance for violence has decreased. That or regular tv has gotten a whole lot more violent.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I wonder how much of that difference is innate or cultural though. Its a pretty well known meme(?) that between European and American culture that American culture is much more permissive towards violence while more puritan towards sex. So its not entirely surprising that an American may develop a higher build up of tolerance to the former rather than the latter.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: No, Top Gun doesn't make you want to be a pilot. It makes you want to be an actor. That's more dangerous, in my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But safer. You saw what happened to Goose.
True, but did you see what happened to Tom Cruise? I'm not sure that's any better. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I wonder how much of that difference is innate or cultural though. Its a pretty well known meme(?) that between European and American culture that American culture is much more permissive towards violence while more puritan towards sex. So its not entirely surprising that an American may develop a higher build up of tolerance to the former rather than the latter.
No my tolerance for sex certainly increased as I aged as well. Also I'm not a big fan of equating "puritanical" in regards to sex as being synonymous with "prudish." The puritans believed married couples should have sex and lots of it, and not just to make babies. But that too is neither here nor there.
I can certainly recognize that the amount of sex I have been exposed to growing up is probably less than violence, but tolerance for both has certainly increased.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yeah, but isn't that what you would expect?
One is exposed to more violence than sex in American culture, so one develops more tolerance to the former. Its also natural that both tolerances would increase simply because you get more exposed to just about everything as you grow age.
The question is whether an alternate-universe-you growing up in Europe would really develop the same tolerances independent of culture or whether it is culturally independent.
As a side-note I used the word "puritan" with this article in mind:
quote: "When you get mad, you look for words that attack what represses you," said Louise Lamarre, a Montreal cinematographer who must tread lightly around the language, depending on whether her films are in French or English. "In America, you are so Puritan that the swearing is mostly about sex. Here, since we were repressed so long by the church, people use religious terms."
Which is in the end, another aspect of the same idea.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well Mucus, all I can say is that to date I am involved in a lot more sex than violent behavior.
I guess my point is that while violent may not cause violent behavior in all cases, I think it's pretty sound that it does increase tolerance. Tolerance is certainly required before somebody would be willing to be violent I should think.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I wonder how much of that difference is innate or cultural though. Its a pretty well known meme(?) that between European and American culture that American culture is much more permissive towards violence while more puritan towards sex. So its not entirely surprising that an American may develop a higher build up of tolerance to the former rather than the latter.
I am an American and sex doesn't bother me at all (though I haven't seen anything beyond R-rated movies), but violence strongly affects me. I would much rather see naked people then bloody people.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Only CT can start a 7 page mayfly that lasts for months. I love it. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Months? You might want to look a little closer at the date on the first post.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
well, the thread was "active" for months, it's now been reborn.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well Mucus, all I can say is that to date I am involved in a lot more sex than violent behavior.
How would I put this delicately. While you may have been exposed to a lot more direct sex than direct violent behaviour, I rather suspect you've been exposed to a lot more indirect violence than indirect sex (or direct for that matter) at least as measured by a metric like time. For example video games or to relate it back to OSC, xenocide.
quote: I guess my point is that while violent may not cause violent behavior in all cases, I think it's pretty sound that it does increase tolerance. Tolerance is certainly required before somebody would be willing to be violent I should think.
I think thats generally true.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I am an American and sex doesn't bother me at all (though I haven't seen anything beyond R-rated movies), but violence strongly affects me. I would much rather see naked people then bloody people.
Well, the generalizations are just that, generalizations. There will always be exceptions.
That said, if you haven't seen anything beyond R-rated movies your samples may be very skewed toward violence because of how the American rating systems work. And just to note that I'm not pulling this out of nowhere:
quote: On the sex and violence issue, the ratings people might say and since they never explain their rationale, we have to guess at it that kids are programmed from their earliest days to believe that sex is for real, where as violence is pretend. It's the difference between watching a video game in the basement and making an untimely visit to your parents' bedroom. For most American children, sex education begins just before puberty, but violence they can get from infancy in Tom and Jerry pain-fests on the Cartoon Network. Whatever the MPAA's argument, their raters must believe that kiss-kiss is more toxic than bang-bang, since four times as many films are rated NC17 for sex as for violence.
But I wonder: are American kids so different from Europeans? In Europe, scenes of sexuality that would be proscribed in the U.S. often get a pass. Leos Carax's 1999 Pola X contained a love scene with a somberly lighted but unmistakable view of an erect penis, yet it received a U in France, the equivalent of our G. (The film had a limited, unrated release in the States.) Y tu mama tambien, Alfonso Cuaron's Mexican comedy-drama about two teenage boys and the slightly older woman they take on a jaunt, could be seen by 12-year-olds in France but was forbidden to under-18s by the MPAA.
Conversely, foreign ratings boards are tougher on the most extravagant forms of movie violence, to which the MPAA board is so famously indulgent. In Britain, Germany, Ireland, Finland, Hong Kong, the Philippines and most of Canada, someone under 18 couldn't see, say, Saw, the grisly horror film that was rated R in the U.S. There are dozen of similar examples. The foreign boards obviously think they're protecting kids from traumatic images. But if you were to ask Hollywood distributors not to show splatter movies to kids, they'd probably squawk, "But that's our main audience!"
quote:The foreign boards obviously think they're protecting kids from traumatic images. But if you were to ask Hollywood distributors not to show splatter movies to kids, they'd probably squawk, "But that's our main audience!"
Actually, they'd nod sagely and say that of course they want to cooperate in protecting children from inappropriate images, and that's why they cooperate fully with the MPAA ratings system and encourage parents to use ratings and their own judgment before allowing anyone under 17 to view these movies.
Not until kids actually stopped watching the movies would they squawk. Even then I doubt they'd admit to targeting that audience; they'd probably focus on adjusting the product to meet the demand.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Only CT can start a 7 page mayfly that lasts for months. I love it.
And my first thought on rereading it is, "Gee, that title may not have been such a great choice, all things considered."
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Mayflies. They live for sex.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
On the other hand, am I the only one who thinks porn is just funny?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Relating to the U.S. and puritanism, I think it was Robin Williams who pointed out that the U.S. was founded by people who were too uptight to be British. Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenny Gardener: On the other hand, am I the only one who thinks porn is just funny?
Well, not all of it. Some of it is pretty bad and boring. Sometimes the over-the-top-ness is too much for me to enjoy it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). ![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
]![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Sorry for the quintuple postage -- Hatrack burped for me. *pat, pat]![[Frown]](frown.gif)
) are brutal to the people involved, which makes sense since it’s basically prostitution with a camera. Some of the woman are happy to be a part of it I’m sure, but I get the impression that a lot aren’t and are either being taken advantage of or are portrayed as being taken advantage of.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
I fixed it for you. ![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
Nate![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
*shakes fist
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Lehrer]![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
<--at least three feet apart
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)