Originally posted by no1marauderI would think the beliefs, morals, etc etc would weigh in on what is prurient. So it still is based on opinions. What is healthy and what is perverse?
The "community" is RHP users. Is their any evidence that the average user here finds the exhibition of a female breast to be "prurient"? I don't think so.
EDIT: Here's a legal definition of "prurient interest":
PRURIENT INTEREST - A morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p106.htm
2 edits
Originally posted by Ice Cold"(a) whether the 'average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
I would think the beliefs, morals, etc etc would weigh in on what is prurient. So it still is based on opinions. What is healthy and what is perverse?
Does looking at a photo of a beautiful woman with one breast exposed show "A morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex"?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOk, let's say I am Joe Average Guy. To me no, that isn't vulgar or sick. But I realise I am not the final authority. I think the community as a whole needs to sort this out.
"(a) whether the 'average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Does looking at a photo of a beautiful women with one breast exposed show "A morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex"?
Thanks for your time in replying to my thought.
Originally posted by Ice ColdSay some more about what it means to "sort this out"? What suggestions do you have?
Ok, let's say I am Joe Average Guy. To me no, that isn't vulgar or sick. But I realise I am not the final authority. I think the community as a whole needs to sort this out.
Thanks for your time in replying to my thought.
Originally posted by kirksey957Any image, video or text which causes arousal.
This thread is meant to compliment the forum moderation thread where this issue came up. A Supreme Court justice once said he didn't know how to define it, but knew it when he saw it. Can we do any better here? Share your thoughts.
Sometimes you hear people adding "with no artistic merit." But this is obviously false, because artistic merit can't be objectively measured, and a state of arousal can.
This leads to various problems.
If one has just had three orgasms, the level of explicity in the images, video or text will need to be increased for it to be labelled pornography.
On the other hand, the Venus de Milo would be more than sufficient on other occasions.
To quote Tom Waits: "I'm so damned horny, even the crack of dawn better be careful around me!"
What I personally think, is that the question shouldn't be: What is pornography, but we should be asking ourselves: What's wrong with being aroused?
Nothing. It's part of being human.
Originally posted by shavixmirArousal is in the mind of the behoulder. I believe that the intention of the creator of a video, text or picture is an important factor to determine wether it is pornographical or not.
Any image, video or text which causes arousal.
Sometimes you hear people adding "with no artistic merit." But this is obviously false, because artistic merit can't be objectively measured, and a state of arousal can.
This leads to various problems.
If one has just had three orgasms, the level of explicity in the images, video or text will need to be ...[text shortened]... sking ourselves: What's wrong with being aroused?
Nothing. It's part of being human.
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2No. That would rule out unintentionally creating pornography.
Arousal is in the mind of the behoulder. I believe that the intention of the creator of a video, text or picture is an important factor to determine wether it is pornographical or not.
Arousal can be measured. Brain activity, wetness and in my case 23 cm's (okay... there might be some artistic licence in that last remark).
You can switch your comment around. I could photograph explicit sex, but not have the intention of creating pornography. Yet lots of people would still be aroused by it and would label it as such.
No, intention can have nothing to do with it.
Which brings me back to my question... what's wrong with being aroused?
Originally posted by shavixmirBy your definition, 'pornographic' would not be an attribute of the work, and it would be meaningless to talk about pornographic work. Even when linked to the work it is often hard to determine wether it is pornographic or not. Ever read 'The seven minutes' by Irving Wallace? It is a fiction novel that addresses the issue nicely in my opinion (don't expect a masterpiece though).
No. That would rule out unintentionally creating pornography.
Arousal can be measured. Brain activity, wetness and in my case 23 cm's (okay... there might be some artistic licence in that last remark).
You can switch your comment around. I could photograph explicit sex, but not have the intention of creating pornography. Yet lots of people would still ...[text shortened]... hing to do with it.
Which brings me back to my question... what's wrong with being aroused?
As for your question, there is nothing wrong with arousal in itself, but the individual should have the control (or lack of if that is what he/she likes). Personally, even if it was not against the ToS, I wouldn't come to this chess site and expect to find material meant to induce arousal.
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirAbsolutely, I agree with you 100%. Hell, I'm all for nude beaches etc.
What I personally think, is that the question shouldn't be: What is pornography, but we should be asking ourselves: What's wrong with being aroused?
Nothing. It's part of being human.
BUT
As a parent as well, I want some control over what my daughter is exposed to until she is mature enough to understand.
As I said before: I want to decide when - I don't want YOU to decide in a chess site forum...
This is the problem we are faced with here.
I see arguments along the lines of "But 13 year olds see worse things on the TV".
That's not the point. If some parents do not have, want or can control the content their kids are exposed to - that doesn't bother me in this context. I want that control for my daughter until I decide to talk to her about this. Period.
We try to have open forums, but some control is necessary.
Suddenly some Playboy links pop up, next thing you know people are linking to a couple of girls and one receptacle...
1 edit
Originally posted by CrowleyWhat if exposing your 13 year old to pornography is healthier for her than not doing so?
Absolutely, I agree with you 100%. Hell, I'm all for nude beaches etc.
BUT
As a parent as well, I want some control over what my daughter is exposed to until she is mature enough to understand.
As I said before: I want to decide when - I don't want YOU to decide in a chess site forum...
This is the problem we are faced with here.
I see argumen pop up, next thing you know people are linking to a couple of girls and one receptacle...
I'm sure some parents think it's responsible to slap their children, ground them or lock them in basements, I surely can't be held responsible for every silly whim one or other parent thinks is right?
It would seem to me that violence is worse for a child than arousal.
EDIT: but back to the point of the thread... what's pornography, to which my answer is everything with certain contexts, so what's so wrong with arousal that you want to keep your 13 year old daughter so protected from it?
Originally posted by shavixmirI don't want to shield her from it - BTW, she's only a month old today - I just want to be the one to broach that subject with her, not some fat British geezer on the Internet.
what's so wrong with arousal that you want to keep your 13 year old daughter so protected from it?
Originally posted by Ice Coldthere is a law in the US about blog type websites etc... that users must be at least 13 years of age, hence the argument.
I think this thread is an excellent way to air it out.
I would like to see the minimum age be stated clearly in TOS, not implied as it seems to be at present.