posted
(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.)
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
(All your tax issues should be linked to your SSN unless it's business related AND you have an Employer Identification Number.) HTH.
IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to keep quiet and ask work as few questions as possible right now. But I'll figure it out.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 3801 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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 ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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)?
Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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 ]
Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[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)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
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.
