15 Oct 14
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSo if I were a billionaire and chose to create hard core material and give it away for free, it would suddenly not be pornography?
I'd argue that that is not pornography. If they were to sell it it would be, but they aren't. In fact I'd go as far as to say that amateur pornography as a whole isn't pornography until people start making money from it or it reaches a mass audience. The Oxford online dictionary gives the definition of pornography as:[quote]Printed or visual material ...[text shortened]... husband and wife making a video for their own amusement shouldn't be considered as pornography.
I doubt you could converse on this forum if you limited your understanding of language to its etymology.
I, of course, mean converse in the sense of 'to turn often'.
15 Oct 14
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI did include it not hitting a mass audience, since the distributors would paste advertising and malware over it that would hit the definition I gave.
So if I were a billionaire and chose to create hard core material and give it away for free, it would suddenly not be pornography?
I doubt you could converse on this forum if you limited your understanding of language to its etymology.
I, of course, mean converse in the sense of 'to turn often'.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
15 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtso in this situation you believe the profits made by an advertising agency and distribution company define if its porn or not rather then the content!?!?!?!?
I did include it not hitting a mass audience, since the distributors would paste advertising and malware over it that would hit the definition I gave.
if porn happens in the woods but there is nobody around to watch it.....is it still porn?
15 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou misunderstand me.
I did include it not hitting a mass audience, since the distributors would paste advertising and malware over it that would hit the definition I gave.
I am distributing it by hand in plain envelopes to those in need who request it.
Apparently what the envelopes contain is not pornography now.
Listening to recorded music is a poor substitute for the real thing. I grant that not everyone can make music himself; but recorded music is still a poor substitute for going to a live concert and tapping your toes along with other people doing the real thing. Live music is the real thing; recordings are artificial.
There is anecdotal evidence, but probably no scientific proof, that listening to recorded music can be addictive; haven't you noticed that people who listen to recorded music tend to listen to the same songs over and over, sometimes for years!
Moreover, listening to recorded music is so often secretive: why else would they wear headphones?--evidently to hide their shamefully poor taste. I see people plugged into their iPods for hours and hours when they could be doing the real thing or something else really useful and productive with their lives (such as painting sidewalks). What wastrels. Parasites on society.
OK, it's fun, I grant that, but should everything that's fun be allowed?
Maybe recorded-music addicts need some sort of therapy. I pity them. I really do be do da sha na na na.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
15 Oct 14
Originally posted by moonbusgreat post, but according to deepthought its only music if somebody makes money from it!
Listening to recorded music is a poor substitute for the real thing. I grant that not everyone can make music himself; but recorded music is still a poor substitute for going to a live concert and tapping your toes along with other people doing the real thing. Live music is the real thing; recordings are artificial.
There is anecdotal evidence, but proba ...[text shortened]... ecorded-music addicts need some sort of therapy. I pity them. I really do be do da sha na na na.
16 Oct 14
Originally posted by stellspalfieA quick look at the etymology of music on the Oxford online dictionary gives:
great post, but according to deepthought its only music if somebody makes money from it!
Middle English: from Old French musique, via Latin from Greek mousikē (tekhnē) '(art) of the Muses', from mousa 'muse'.So it's only music if it is artistic. Whether it is paid for or not is in this case irrelevant.
Tell me. Would you regard, for example, Botticelli's The Birth of Venus as pornography? There's a line somewhere, and I was attempting to draw it. You can hardly debate pornography if you can't clearly define what it is, and the dictionary definition was inadequate in that regard, because it could catch Botticelli's painting in it's definition. My condition, reinforced by the etymology is logical. Your poor attempts at derision are not.
16 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think you are clutching at straws - let's leave this
Tell me. Would you regard, for example, Botticelli's The Birth of Venus as pornography? There's a line somewhere, and I was attempting to draw it. You can hardly debate pornography if you can't clearly define what it is, and the dictionary definition was inadequate in that regard, because it could catch Botticelli's painting in it's definition.
etymological struggle aside now and concentrate
on your valid point: [i]What exactly is pornography?[i]
It certainly means different things to different people, and
I'm sure "The Birth of Venus" has been considered porn by some.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
16 Oct 14
ASOriginally posted by DeepThoughtI've sometimes wondered, as we have wandered thru classical art museums, if the art didn't give a bigger lift to the original patrons than we can appreciate. In their time.
A quick look at the etymology of music on the Oxford online dictionary gives:Middle English: from Old French musique, via Latin from Greek mousikē (tekhnē) '(art) of the Muses', from mousa 'muse'.So it's only music if it is artistic. Whether it is paid for or not is in this case irrelevant.
Tell me. Would you regard, for example, Bo ...[text shortened]... My condition, reinforced by the etymology is logical. Your poor attempts at derision are not.
"In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything Goes."
The point that is missed is the best way to de-eroticise something, de-fetishise it, really, is to bring it out into the open.
16 Oct 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59In fairness, most renaissance nude art would be caught by my condition as well, the painters were being paid by nobles to paint the pictures, who would then hang them in their bedrooms. Part of the nature of pornography is a pretty sordid form of voyeurism, which with the old masters is absent. I severely doubt anyone would look at Giorgione's Sleeping Venus for the purpose of assisting their auto stimulation. I also severely doubt that anyone in the future will regard any of the porn made now as anything but porn.
I think you are clutching at straws - let's leave this
etymological struggle aside now and concentrate
on your valid point: [i]What exactly is pornography?[i]
It certainly means different things to different people, and
I'm sure "The Birth of Venus" has been considered porn by some.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThis thread has focused on visual porn for the purpose of auto-s(t)imulation. What about literary pornography? No one at the time read “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” or “A Spy in the House of Love” or “Naked lunch” or “Story of O” for the purpose of masturbation. Yet they were denounced as pornographic in their days.
In fairness, most renaissance nude art would be caught by my condition as well, the painters were being paid by nobles to paint the pictures, who would then hang them in their bedrooms. Part of the nature of pornography is a pretty sordid form of voyeurism, which with the old masters is absent. I severely doubt anyone would look at Giorgione's Sleeping ...[text shortened]... erely doubt that anyone in the future will regard any of the porn made now as anything but porn.
I had an uncle who was professor of art history at University of Wittenberg (OH). He traveled to Europe to get a copy of D H Lawrence’s book in plain covers, which was then forbidden in the USA, smuggling it over the border back to Ohio. Seems laughable today. I shouldn’t be too quick to predict how the future will judge today. The future will look back on us and see that we made judgments but probably disagree with them. Early Christians chiseled the male members off Greek statues because they thought them obscene; that was inexcusable vandalism. It was not the Greek sculptors who looked upon the human body with sordid motives, but those who defaced the statues.
My guess is that the future will look back on present-day porno movies as repetitive and boring.
BTW, does anyone here realize that there is such a thing as feminist pornography? Yes, FEMINISTS who MAKE pornography. I gather they are about relationships instead of obsessing over in-out-until-HE-juices.