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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
*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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 123 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(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?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?"
posted
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
Posts: 123 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank goodness there was a rather poufy and matress-like dropcloth on the floor, otherwise someone would have really hurt him- or herself.
Posts: 123 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ya know, I had to read your posts, like, three times to try to figure out what the heck you're saying.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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 (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.)
Posts: 2715 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I miss when we talked about porn on Hatrack like on the first few pages of this thread. Before it descended into silliness. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
I'm off, now. Talk to ya later!![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
