|
Post by zAkAtAk on Apr 28, 2010 10:54:26 GMT -5
For porn, please see signature.
|
|
|
Post by speedyreedy on Apr 28, 2010 11:09:52 GMT -5
Pooping is natural. Two girls and one cup is not natural. Sure it is. Rabbits eat their own faeces...and they have a lot of sex. Not to be confused with RabbitWho, who probably doesn't eat her own faeces, or have a tonne of offspring.* *Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...
|
|
|
Post by Ferrrrrre on Apr 28, 2010 11:22:01 GMT -5
So after reading a few things in this thread I decided to reply: now I wanted to reply to different kind of discussions in this thread Firstly the art vs. porn thingy and then "be mature and respect the rules": art vs. pornFirstly i'd like to say that we inded used to be naked all the time before we invented clothes and together with them came the "omg nudity *look away*"-issue Like Dan said in his "Sex" video people need to be more open about the subject (no personal details) and that's also my view on all the sex-related things, you should be able to have a civilized conversation when you want to.. However when one is still a teenager, one is allowed to laugh, make jokes about sex etc. that's how it was, is and will always be so DEAL WITH IT! As for the discussion part; I think people were a bit annoyed by the fact the TP was saying we "needed" to follow the " rules and I understand them since I also believe that in a disscusion you don't have rules because if a discussions has rules, it has turned into a game!and my final argument in the second (eventhough is it's becoming offtopic, it's still important ) discussion is that okay, pictures were posted with most pictures were posted as links with a warning suggesting what was on it so it's still on your own risk to click 'em (which is with almost every link on the interwebz... [/post]
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 28, 2010 13:58:11 GMT -5
Look at her face: wordbandit.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/the-ecstasy-of-st-teresa11.jpg This statue was made in 1647 and it's in a church to this day. (warning, picture of saint Theresa and an angel, Theresa is wearing lots of clothes but she looks happy, and you can see the angels nipples, but like all angels he is a boy) ‘The Life of Teresa of Jesus’ (1515–1582). Her experience of religious ecstasy in her encounter with the angel is described as follows: I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it. The soul is satisfied now with nothing less than God. The pain is not bodily, but spiritual; though the body has its share in it. It is a caressing of love so sweet which now takes place between the soul and God, that I pray God of His goodness to make him experience it who may think that I am lying.
Don't tell me there's a line between art and porn because there absolutely isn't
|
|
|
Post by GojuRyuKarateWolf on Apr 28, 2010 17:40:08 GMT -5
Porn IS Art..in the most lustful way possible...EVERYTHING in my opinion is art, in any way, shape or form.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 29, 2010 12:14:32 GMT -5
Dude, I started the conversation. If you're not following the rules that I set out, you might as well not participate in the conversation because you are not discussing the topic as intended. The rules are more there like in sex ed when the teacher says you're only allowed to refer to the parts of the body by their proper names not with the slang terms. And honestly it's just the 2 of you who are going off topic and derailing this topic away from it's intended discussion. If you don't like the rules then don't post, if you want to contribute to the topic as I intended then follow the rules and stop argueing about it. Lol, I don't care if you start the thread or not; I'm following the forum's rules, not yours. I may participate however I'd like as long as I'm obeying the rules that the admins have set out. Also, don't tell us we're going off topic. I put my two cents in, and you sparked the fire. Don't accuse us of derailing the subject when you're the one that made a problem out of it. Dude the whole point of starting a topic is that I have a better understanding of what the topic is about than you do. You're basically telling me what I posted about now. It's the same thing as argueing with an author about what he ment to convay in his books. If you're not following the rules I set out you haven't got a clue what this topic is really about and there for YOU are derailing the thread. If you want to look and compair pictures then go start your own topic that's not what this topic is for.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 29, 2010 13:28:20 GMT -5
Porn IS Art..in the most lustful way possible...EVERYTHING in my opinion is art, in any way, shape or form. I dunno about everything, but certainly everything creative. And Porn is quite creative. Albeit, in an ewwy way. In that way science can be art to.. it might not be concerned with being art but it is art.. anyway that's the conclusion i came to... but the fact is people have been debating this for ages and there's no concrete answer. One thing that i am certain of though from my experiance and the example I gave, is that sexuality and sexual intent and motivation does not negate the beauty or the creativity of certain things (Like the Ecstasy of Saint Theresa...) Just because it's accepted and recognized as porn doesn't mean it's not art, which most people realize, and just because it's accepted and recognized as art doesn't mean it's not porn, which no one realizes
|
|
|
Post by Ferrrrrre on Apr 29, 2010 13:35:53 GMT -5
Lol, I don't care if you start the thread or not; I'm following the forum's rules, not yours. I may participate however I'd like as long as I'm obeying the rules that the admins have set out. Also, don't tell us we're going off topic. I put my two cents in, and you sparked the fire. Don't accuse us of derailing the subject when you're the one that made a problem out of it. Dude the whole point of starting a topic is that I have a better understanding of what the topic is about than you do. You're basically telling me what I posted about now. It's the same thing as argueing with an author about what he ment to convay in his books. If you're not following the rules I set out you haven't got a clue what this topic is really about and there for YOU are derailing the thread. If you want to look and compair pictures then go start your own topic that's not what this topic is for. Can we just skip the whole "obey the rules" thingy and get back ontopic (since that's what you were suggesting in the first place..) ps: As far as I know there are no rules in a discussion?
|
|
kadie
Moon
"You don't need a licence to drive a sandwhich!"
Posts: 240
|
Post by kadie on Apr 29, 2010 15:09:55 GMT -5
yeah this thread is really boring just going on about rules all the time instead of discussing and debating the topic at hand
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 29, 2010 15:24:36 GMT -5
Dude the whole point of starting a topic is that I have a better understanding of what the topic is about than you do. You're basically telling me what I posted about now. It's the same thing as argueing with an author about what he ment to convay in his books. If you're not following the rules I set out you haven't got a clue what this topic is really about and there for YOU are derailing the thread. If you want to look and compair pictures then go start your own topic that's not what this topic is for. Can we just skip the whole "obey the rules" thingy and get back ontopic (since that's what you were suggesting in the first place..) ps: As far as I know there are no rules in a discussion?Technically staying on topic is in itself a rule. The rules I set out were just to better exsplain what the topic was so that we could stay on topic. Anyway... Who's to say to say that something created for art couldn't be used as porn or something created for porn couldn't be used as art. If both are showing a naked woman then how is one more tolerable than the other? So far in this topic we've made a good start and we've shown we all have our own opinions about this subject. This is a good thing but I still don't see what the social standards are. Anything that shows two people having sex or a person masterbating is most definatly porn. I've never seen anything that was considered to be art depicted that way. But things that are considered to be art have also been dipicted in porn. And one thing that really gets me is porn does not hide anything so why did people think that the Vanity Fair photos of Miley Cyrus was porn? The only thing you could see was her back, not her butt, not her breasts, not her vagina, there was nothing sexual at all about thoughs pictures. There are church paintings that show more nudity than the Miley Cyrus vanity fair photos and are even more sexually arousing. It seems like the only real issue is that she was only 16 when the pictures were taken. Miley, her father, and the photographer have all stated the pictures were taken for the sake of art and that non of the photos were forced or taken without premittion. I seen a picture of a young girl a couple years ago and read the description under the picture. The picture was taken of a topless girl. The girl had not been asked to remove her shirt, she was like that already and the photogropher had the mother's and child's premittion to take the photo. However before the picture was posted online the photographer was afraid of someone seeing the picture and making something more of it than what it was and so he or she (I don't know if the photographer was a man or a woman.) cropped the photo to a head shot so only her face and shoulders could be seen. The person even addmitted this was kinda stupid because at her age she didn't even have breasts yet and didn't look any different from a boy with her shirt off. There are actully alot of nudes of children younger than Miley that no one finds any problem with. And I'm not just talking about photos that you only share with friends and family either. I've stubbled apon many of these photos on accident to begin with and then did research to find out if it was legal. Turns out alot of it is legal. Illegal web sites showing kiddy porn don't stay around for long but other web sites made for art that show nude young girls have been up for ages. Alot of them are photos taken by their own familys and are the same types of photos that when we were kids would just go into photo albems but now the photos are being posted online. Given all of this there's alot of confusion for me as to what is and isn't socially acceptible. To me it just seems like nude is nude. If you're going to say that one picture of a naked girl is wrong because someone called it porn than all pictures of naked girls are porn. If full blown nudity is OK for church art then why is a nude picture of Miley Cyrus COVERED UP WITH A SHEET considered porn. Lets try to break out of our own personal opinions for a second and tell me what you think the social standards are? Personally I don't think there are any. I think people just call it art if they like it or see it in church but if it's in a magazine or they don't like they call it porn. I really don't believe there is a social line between art and porn, they're both kinda the same from what I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Apr 29, 2010 15:54:00 GMT -5
rialvestro, people use LOTS of things as porn, just just actual porn or tasteful nudes. People jack off to pictures of people on facebook. Does that mean that it's porn? No. As for your theory about people calling things they don't like porn, that's a bit nonsensical, seeing as how people will admit that they like porn. As someone said before, the difference is in what the photograph is intended for. If it's a serence picture of a nude woman that's meant to provoke deep thought, it's art. If it's meant to be material to get you off, it's porn. I think the difference is very distinct.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 29, 2010 16:04:04 GMT -5
rialvestro, people use LOTS of things as porn, just just actual porn or tasteful nudes. People jack off to pictures of people on facebook. Does that mean that it's porn? No. As for your theory about people calling things they don't like porn, that's a bit nonsensical, seeing as how people will admit that they like porn. As someone said before, the difference is in what the photograph is intended for. If it's a serence picture of a nude woman that's meant to provoke deep thought, it's art. If it's meant to be material to get you off, it's porn. I think the difference is very distinct. Maybe I should rephraise. I meant the uptight "porn is evil" type people. The religious people basically which is why I made so many refrences to church art. Anyway, the point still stands that there are pictures like the Vanity Fair Photos that were made as art which most people seem to think is porn. Personally, if it's sex or masterbation, it's porn. If no nudity can be seen which is the case for Vanity Fair, it's art. However nudity in itself could be seen as both.
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Apr 29, 2010 16:08:25 GMT -5
Nudity =/= sex. Nudity = humans in their natural state. Society tells us that nudity is wrong, and we should automatically associate nudity with sex, but society is often wrong.
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Apr 29, 2010 17:28:35 GMT -5
Personally, if it's sex or masterbation, it's porn. If we define pornography as something that makes you sexually aroused, does that mean any depiction of sex or masturbation gets you aroused? Sex is beautiful, and I think it can very easily be used as art (in a variety of media). The fact that we rarely see sex as anything other than pornography is somewhat of an indication of the sexual repression of our society. Basically, it seems that it is taboo to consider sex to be art, otherwise we would see it much more often. Sex scenes tend to be left out of movies and tv; we often see the "just-after" scenes instead. I wonder how society's view on the artistic value of sex would be if we experienced it much more often in entertainment media?
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 29, 2010 18:15:16 GMT -5
Personally, if it's sex or masterbation, it's porn. If we define pornography as something that makes you sexually aroused, does that mean any depiction of sex or masturbation gets you aroused? Sex is beautiful, and I think it can very easily be used as art (in a variety of media). The fact that we rarely see sex as anything other than pornography is somewhat of an indication of the sexual repression of our society. Basically, it seems that it is taboo to consider sex to be art, otherwise we would see it much more often. Sex scenes tend to be left out of movies and tv; we often see the "just-after" scenes instead. I wonder how society's view on the artistic value of sex would be if we experienced it much more often in entertainment media? Why would your personal views of what porn is effect my personal views of what porn is? That didn't make sense. You think I'm sexually aroused by your definition of what porn is? That's not my definition of what porn is. Sex is a natural and beautiful thing between two people but when you share it with the world it's not natural anymore. Sex is suppose to be private and intimate thing between two people who love eachother not something for everyone to watch. Porn is basically a substitute for sex when you don't have anyone to share with. And masterbation is a natural thing to but it's also private and shouldn't really be shared with the world. Heck even pooping and peeing is natural but again, it's private. To me, anything which is ment to remain private but is shared with the world is porn. Even if it's ment as art you can still masterbate to it. Even if it's ment as porn it can still be art. If there's really nothing private about the photo then how can people call it porn? There are some pictures of girls in swim suits people call porn but if they're wearing swim suits how is it porn? People wear swim suits in public all the time! Just because you take pictures of it doesn't make it porn. Again, this comes from comments I've seen about Miley Cyrus photos. This time from pictures that leaked off of her MySpace page. The same for other Disney Channel stars who use MySpace and/or FaceBook. Alot of the pictures people were complaining about looked alot like very simular pictures some of my own friends have taken. So I don't see anything wrong with it. It's basically just, if you wouldn't want to do it in public you shouldn't do it in front of a camera either. And typically even in the sake of art, the pictures are taken on a closed set so no one can see which is kinda pointless when you're taking nude photos. The whole process is actually very unnatural. Often times these women are posed in odd positions they wouldn't normally be in. I've looked at a few nudist web sites and one thing I noticed from that is that they are posed exactly the same as they would if they were clothed. They don't see nudity as something sexual, it's natural for them and it looks natural. And they're perfectly comfterble like that in public, they don't really see nudity as private but they do still see sex as private. Basically to a nudist society porn is any unnatural or sexual dipiction of the human body and in that respect Miley Cyrus Vanity Fair would be porn because that's not really a natural position for her to be in. She was posed that way. There is a very big difference between a nude of a person acting naturally such as a young child playing as apposed to a nude that is posed. And Kiddy Porn is always posed, it's not a natural dipiction. So how can you say that art is to admire the natural body if some art is posed unnaturally?
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Apr 29, 2010 20:44:19 GMT -5
Alright, I'll bite lol This is the basic idea, guys. Porn = Arousal Nude art = Awe-inspiring You can say what you want about how the art makes you feel. I mean, really. You could say music makes you all ready to shag, but is it pornography? As for nudity, I hope you guys understand that we don't just wear clothes for decency. They're actually very practical, and not just for cold weather. I mean, why don't you travel through a forest, desert, or swamp in the nude and tell me how it goes. That's not to say that nudity isn't normal. We shouldn't be freaked out by nudity or sex, but we should be cautious with pornography. Like deodorant, porn should be for personal use only.
|
|
|
Post by swan on Apr 29, 2010 22:00:13 GMT -5
Art is meant to evoke emotions and sensations, and all good art stimulates something in the viewer. I think porn is certainly a type of art (albeit a lower form of art) and it can be distinguished from the more traditional form of art in the sense that porn only evokes physical sensations, while traditional art can evoke a much wider variety of sensations such as intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and even physical as well, and I would go as far to say that good art should evoke a wide variety of sensations (which is the reason why porn is a lower form of art since it is only capable of evoking specific physically sexual sensations).
I think this is the best way to distinguish between the two, but in terms of how society makes the distinction, I would say that, in most cases, anything involving sex or nudity is considered porn, or at the very least pornographic. I would say this is because of the social stigma surrounding both sex and nudity, which is a response caused by the general population's inability to deal with such artistic sensations (most people don't care about art afterall); so they label anything related to either nudity or sex, that they are uncomfortable with, as pornography which has a distinct negative connotation. This results in what may normally be considered legitimate art (like the Miley Cyrus vanity fair photos) being labeled as pornography even though there may be no explicit sexual arousal involved.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 30, 2010 1:12:36 GMT -5
Art is meant to evoke emotions and sensations, and all good art stimulates something in the viewer. I think porn is certainly a type of art (albeit a lower form of art) and it can be distinguished from the more traditional form of art in the sense that porn only evokes physical sensations, while traditional art can evoke a much wider variety of sensations such as intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and even physical as well, and I would go as far to say that good art should evoke a wide variety of sensations (which is the reason why porn is a lower form of art since it is only capable of evoking specific physically sexual sensations). I think this is the best way to distinguish between the two, but in terms of how society makes the distinction, I would say that, in most cases, anything involving sex or nudity is considered porn, or at the very least pornographic. I would say this is because of the social stigma surrounding both sex and nudity, which is a response caused by the general population's inability to deal with such artistic sensations (most people don't care about art afterall); so they label anything related to either nudity or sex, that they are uncomfortable with, as pornography which has a distinct negative connotation. This results in what may normally be considered legitimate art (like the Miley Cyrus vanity fair photos) being labeled as pornography even though there may be no explicit sexual arousal involved. See part of my confusion comes from that it seems socially porn isn't just about sex and nudity like everyone thinks because there are many cases where nudity is socially acceptible. Some church paintings show nudity. There's a famous one of a naked man and God touching finger tips and the man's privates are fully visable. But this is seen as a thing of beauty showing the relationship between man and God. Michelangelo's David is a fully nude man. We even find it socially acceptable to teach art classes with fully nude models. There has to be something more to it than just "eeek, naked person, it's porn." otherwise we wouldn't have any of this art, it'd all be considered porn. But I just don't see what the difference is, I really don't. Even the emotional responses you all talk about. Art and Porn can both stimulate the same responses either as purely sexual or as something more. Anyway, the short question for this post. If nudity in general is socially considered to be porn how do we have any nudity that is socially accepted as art?
|
|
kadie
Moon
"You don't need a licence to drive a sandwhich!"
Posts: 240
|
Post by kadie on Apr 30, 2010 2:11:22 GMT -5
Anyway, the short question for this post. If nudity in general is socially considered to be porn how do we have any nudity that is socially accepted as art? It's a personal opinion, i guess. There are people who would dislike, or flinch or look away from Michelangelo's David because of the nudity. But it is a minority. Most people are able to see beyond that and see the meaning in it. It's harder to that with porn because the whole point of it is that the women or man is naked.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 30, 2010 2:46:14 GMT -5
Here's something to think about...
If I were to take a picture of a woman taking a shower, something that everyone does and call it porn how many of you would see something wrong with it?
Now take the same woman and pose her unnaturally, not in a way she would act on a day to day basis, still naked, and call it art. How many of you would view that as art?
If art is just about showing what's natural and beautiful then showing someone naked as they are in their day to day lives would be more art than unnaturally poseing them for a photo.
If porn is more than just nudity than anything posed unnaturally for the camera is porn.
It just seems to me like society will say something is porn or art with no real difference between the two. What really bothers me about this is that art is acceptible for children to see, porn is not but as far as I can tell there's no difference between the two. Go right along with Dan's video and myself as proof this does nothing but confuse children. I basically grew up encouraged to look at nude art while at the same time being taught that porn is wrong but I never see any difference between the two. The only difference I manage to find is that porn never covers any up and art never shows people having sex or masterbateing. But all the nudes inbetween these two extremes are still a mystery to me.
|
|