Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt seems to me futile to try to come up with a definition of what constitutes pornography. For the same reason that it is futile to define "art". This does not mean that we cannot provide examples of it (both of pornography and of art), granted there will always be a penumbra of instances which are disputable. The fact that dawn is neither day nor night does not mean that we cannot distinguish between day and night.
... 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...
Any putative definition is bound to be vitiated by the fact that the range of examples which definitely fall under the definition will change over time (viz. “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” ). There isn’t a line--there is a movable gray area.
As Deepthought remarked, the consumption of pornography is a sort of voyeurism--by proxy, removed in space and time. So long as the people who perform the sex know that others will watch (either as it happens or later) and agree to it--perhaps even enjoy the thought that others will get enjoyment out of it--I see no reason to prohibit the activity. Some people actually like being watched; if others like TO watch, so much the better for all involved. So long as no one is a captive audience, I see no reason to prohibit the activity.
I would not dispute the claim that pornography is a debased form--a debased form of sex for the performers (for whom it is merely a job), and a debased form of art for the consumer. (Although I grant that porno films might be used as a sort of ‘training exercise’ for some people to get over hang-ups or increase libido. See the quote from Dick Martin above.) My question at this juncture is: is debasement sufficient reason to prohibit?
Milton Keynes Slobspeak is a debased form of language. Junk food is a debased form of cuisine. Furthermore, junk food is demonstrably unhealthy and addictive. Mass-produced pornography is the junk food of sex. But this is not sufficient reason to prohibit.
I take it as axiomatic that children should not be exposed to debased forms: in art or sex or food or language. They should learn ‘proper’ forms first so that they become able to recognize debased forms for what they are when they are grown up. I take it as axiomatic that the range of what is considered ‘proper’ in an open and pluralistic society (especially one without a state religion) is wide at any one time and variable over time.
I would maintain that it is impossible to have only high art. In any art form (pictorial, literary, dance, music, whatever), there will of necessity be low examples of it. Think, for example, of the urinal presented to a national museum by Marcel Duchamp. I remember seeing a live performance of the musical HAIR in the late 1960s; it was quite riske having nude actors on stage then and some critics panned it as obscene. Passe now. When I first heard rap, I thought it was just gobbledy-gook. I’ve changed my mind about it--I still don’t like it stylistically, but I accept that it has achieved legitimacy as an art form.
How low do we stoop? The future will stoop lower. Our obscenities will be their laughingstocks and they will mock our prudery. The hope that they will also fly higher is perhaps unwarranted; they will, in any case, invent new forms which would shock us.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
16 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtno, the birth of venus is clearly not pornography - it was not painted with the purpose of causing sexual arousal nor does it depict sexual organs
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, Bott ...[text shortened]... My condition, reinforced by the etymology is logical. Your poor attempts at derision are not.
the dictionary does a more than adequate job of pointing this out
your condition reinforced by etymology is not at all logical. the word pornography (as defined in the dictionary) no longer has the same meaning as its routes......if it did the dictionary would say so, that's what dictionaries do.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
16 Oct 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59too much much neck, knocky knees, weird arms, odd shaped torso and a tiny head.....im sure even men in those days couldnt get themselves to the happy place looking at that painting.
A nipple, a navel and plenty of flesh. ... could titillate some in years gone by.
(Incidentally am I the only one who thinks she is about to fall over?)
16 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59bwahahahahahahaha!!
A sizeable minority of my partners have been excited by
standard porn - its a myth to suggest otherwise.
"Yeah, that's what she said..."
You find this eminently believable even though you've also called women on this site "unbelievable" and/or "dramatic" when they do tell the truth.
The actual myth is to suggest that women (as a whole) do not find porn stimulating and/or enjoyable. The number that do is higher than you might think. But they will most often say that it doesn't do anything for them when asked by a man, oftentimes due to societal pressures and "norms".
I bet they also say they do not own a sex toy, either.
17 Oct 14
Originally posted by SuzianneTake deep breaths.
bwahahahahahahaha!!
"Yeah, that's what she said..."
You find this eminently believable even though you've also called women on this site "unbelievable" and/or "dramatic" when they do tell the truth.
The actual myth is to suggest that women (as a whole) do not find porn stimulating and/or enjoyable. The number that do is higher ...[text shortened]... due to societal pressures and "norms".
I bet they also say they do not own a sex toy, either.
Calm down.
You're agreeing with me.
17 Oct 14
Originally posted by moonbusI've seen adaptions of Lady Chatterley, but not read the book - so I don't know how explicit it actually is. The book was as much, if not more, to do with class as it was sex, although of course the two are intertwined in the book and I think that that was a strong motivation behind the banning. I read some of the "Story of O" but frankly couldn't be bothered to finish it. While I'll accept that most people didn't read the books as an aide to bishop bashing I think the statement that none did a little hard to believe - especially the "Story of O" because I can't see anyone reading it for the characterisation.
This 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.
I had an uncle who was professor of art his ...[text shortened]... ography. I gather they are about relationships instead of obsessing over in-out-until-HE-juices.
I don't agree with your statement about it being impossible to define either pornography or art, at least in the sense of a working definition - although it would be one of those rules proved by its exceptions. To poke at your analogy a little one could impose a rule where day is defined as being the time when the amount of light has reached some threshold such as twice the illumination from moonlight from a full moon; or even just say it is night until the sun is just coming over the horizon. The problem with the analogy is that something that is clearly pornography to some people is clearly art to others, whereas with day and night they'll at least agree that dawn is a borderline case.
Possibly a better question would be "is it just pornography?".
17 Oct 14
I agree with you that “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” was offensive to tastes when it was published at least partly for the broaching of class boundaries, but also because a woman had allowed herself such liberties (libertinage) as men had been assumed to allow themselves (namely, to have affairs). The explicitness of the lovemaking was secondary. Similarly, in “A Spy In The House Of Love,” Nin’s ‘offense’ consisted in portraying a woman as having sexual desires which she openly and brazenly gratified. It was all too much for the time. As you point out, a definition of pornography is too wide if it catches Botticelli's The Birth of Venus in the net. But the other end of the spectrum, defining pornography as “explicit descriptions of intercourse” is too narrow, for lets works which were in fact considered “just pornography” to slip away.
”...something that is clearly pornography to some people is clearly art to others, whereas with day and night they'll at least agree that dawn is a borderline case. “ Do you know the photographs of Robt. Maplethorpe?
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrBT9LbrkBUTxsA.zNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBsa3ZzMnBvBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--?_adv_prop=image&fr=aaplw&va=robert+mapplethorpe+photography
If one looks only at his photographs of the male organ, one might call them “just pornography,” but taken together with the main body (pun intended) of his work, the male member bits might fall into the twilight area between art and pornography.
Do you know the paintings of Georgia O’Keefe? Some say that they are of flowers. Some say they are pornographic representations (albeit highly stylized) of female reproductive organs. Some people are so literal that they don't see the similarity at all. Possibly in the gray area.
17 Oct 14
Originally posted by SuzianneWake up Little Suzie,
I bet they also say they do not own a sex toy, either.
the movie’s over,
it’s four o’clock,
and we’re in trouble deep.
What’re we gonna tell your Moma?
What’re we gonna tell your Pop?
What’re we gonna tell your friends when they say
“Ooooo, LA LA!”
18 Oct 14
Originally posted by moonbusAn American "artist" has produced an inflatable sculpture that rather neatly pulls together a number of the threads in this discussion. Apparently he said he was inspired both by Christmas trees and sex toys. I'm pretty sure this isn't art...
I agree with you that “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” was offensive to tastes when it was published at least partly for the broaching of class boundaries, but also because a woman had allowed herself such liberties (libertinage) as men had been assumed to allow themselves (namely, to have affairs). The explicitness of the lovemaking was secondary. Similarly, in “A ...[text shortened]... Some people are so literal that they don't see the similarity at all. Possibly in the gray area.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29658502
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
19 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtwhy dont you think its art?
An American "artist" has produced an inflatable sculpture that rather neatly pulls together a number of the threads in this discussion. Apparently he said he was inspired both by Christmas trees and sex toys. I'm pretty sure this isn't art...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29658502
