posted
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?
Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
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 ]
Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
I hope this doesn't turn out to be a mayfly thread. There are some links to some very nice pictures.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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!
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the IT folks were doing some conversion and my mail went all wingy. It works now. I miss you!
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1777 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?"
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
*shakes fist
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Lehrer]![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
<--at least three feet apart
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
