posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
posted
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)
posted
(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.
posted
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...
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the tentacles equal lots of phalluses... Tentacles are so revolting. Yaoi on the other hand.... As long as there are no tentacles involved...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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."
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
I didn't realize Playboy contained a "progressive" aspect, going from clothing to non-clothing.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
steve
