View Full Version : ok we are having a debate in my office...
manu1959
03-06-2008, 07:27 PM
porn or art......you can see any thing so ........
even courts (supreme court included) can't figure this out, there is a national standard and a local standard of prurient interest.
i think it is going to depend on the person. personally, the girl lying down gives me some wood, where the painting doesn't. some might leap up and proclaim, ha!, the wood makes it porn. so art can't arouse you?
manu1959
03-06-2008, 08:05 PM
even courts (supreme court included) can't figure this out, there is a national standard and a local standard of prurient interest.
i think it is going to depend on the person. personally, the girl lying down gives me some wood, where the painting doesn't. some might leap up and proclaim, ha!, the wood makes it porn. so art can't arouse you?
the rubens was painted hundreds of years ago...what was it then....
the rubens was painted hundreds of years ago...what was it then....
i don't know, my wood wasn't around then
i don't see a problem if art does arouse me. is art only to passify that sense of my body, yet awaken all others?
diuretic
03-06-2008, 08:23 PM
Can it be defined by purpose? Okay obvious I know. The photographer has taken a photo of a provocatively posed naked woman, it's artistic indeed but what is the intent of the photographer? The Rubens was painted by a master, probably a commissioned piece, the purpose may have been to paint a nice picture for someone to hang in their palace. I don't know which Rubens this is because I'm not educated in art and I think the only one I know is the "Judgement of Paris". Anyway, Rubens has a rep for painting buxom women, one would think that that form was considered desirable so it probably was designed to provoke more than an intellectual response.
I know, let's just call them both erotica and be done with it :coffee:
Lizabeth
03-06-2008, 08:30 PM
The test is that to be pornography it must have a prurient interest in sex - Neither seem to fit the test to me . . . I say it is Art.
I believe it was Justice White who had a movie theater built in the Supreme Court building and his reason was simply . . . I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it.
The test is that to be pornography it must have a prurient interest in sex - Neither seem to fit the test to me . . . I say it is Art.
I believe it was Justice White who had a movie theater built in the Supreme Court building and his reason was simply . . . I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it.
who decides the test? local, national, world? courts compromised of lawyers?
and you are right, he did say that, did that resolve the issue? no, it left the window on the issue more open than it was before....
Mr. P
03-06-2008, 08:54 PM
I vote art. For me, it would be porn if there was some type sex act occurring.
actsnoblemartin
03-06-2008, 08:55 PM
it is porn.
Because you can see naked thingies. :dance:
porn or art......you can see any thing so ........
Dilloduck
03-06-2008, 08:56 PM
porn or art......you can see any thing so ........
If more people take offense by just looking at it than those that don't, it's porn.
If more people take offense by just looking at it than those that don't, it's porn.
a billion china men can't be wrong....
Lizabeth
03-06-2008, 09:00 PM
who decides the test? local, national, world? courts compromised of lawyers?
and you are right, he did say that, did that resolve the issue? no, it left the window on the issue more open than it was before....
I believe Justice White was the only jurist to understand the standard and test will change with the times. Look at the life and times of Bettie Page. Excellent example of how even when hearings were being conducted in Washington the standard changed and her photos were and are considered mild.
That was a published opinion by White and it was pretty funny at the time. Everyone joked he just wanted a reason to watch porno.
Dilloduck
03-06-2008, 09:05 PM
a billion china men can't be wrong....
Sure they can----they can be wrong about what's porn in other cultures.
I believe Justice White was the only jurist to understand the standard and test will change with the times. Look at the life and times of Bettie Page. Excellent example of how even when hearings were being conducted in Washington the standard changed and her photos were and are considered mild.
That was a published opinion by White and it was pretty funny at the time. Everyone joked he just wanted a reason to watch porno.
Sure they can----they can be wrong about what's porn in other cultures.
so how can either of you define porn v art?
is it really one culture says? or is it the changing times?
Dilloduck
03-06-2008, 09:12 PM
so how can either of you define porn v art?
is it really one culture says? or is it the changing times?
yes---it IS what culture says it is. That's my point.
Lizabeth
03-06-2008, 09:41 PM
so how can either of you define porn v art?
is it really one culture says? or is it the changing times?
Of course it is Culture and that changes with the times.
For me I look at what we consider today to be pornographic - the only thing that is really restricted is Child Pornography. If culture and the "spirit" of the times dictate what is restricted, it is a scary thought that some day Child Pornography might not be considered so bad.
Gadget (fmr Marine)
03-06-2008, 10:00 PM
I don't know, Rubens, Boticelli and such were just painters (photogs) of their day.
They depicted the beauty of the women of their time....and most men of the time would have "gotten wood" over the nakedness of voluptuousness of their models. It was porn for their time....only the puritanical beliefs of judgemental society hangs tags of porn on such imagery....and all the accompanying guilt that goes a long with it.
I say it is just a beautiful image of a woman....nothing more or less...hardly porn, but probably not the best images to have on a computer screen at work for all the "politically correct" and sensitivity trainers to ogle.....
manu1959
03-06-2008, 10:08 PM
I don't know, Rubens, Boticelli and such were just painters (photogs) of their day.
They depicted the beauty of the women of their time....and most men of the time would have "gotten wood" over the nakedness of voluptuousness of their models. It was porn for their time....only the puritanical beliefs of judgemental society hangs tags of porn on such imagery....and all the accompanying guilt that goes a long with it.
I say it is just a beautiful image of a woman....nothing more or less...hardly porn, but probably not the best images to have on a computer screen at work for all the "politically correct" and sensitivity trainers to ogle.....
in europe....no one looked twice at this stuff....
in american both of these are demeaning to women.....
Gadget (fmr Marine)
03-06-2008, 10:17 PM
in europe....no one looked twice at this stuff....
in american both of these are demeaning to women.....
In every country in the world except the US and religious fundamentalist states (like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.....). Of course, the punishment for it in the US is not quite as harsh in the middle east......but it is true, that most of the rest of the world if fine with sensual images, nudity and sexuality......we live in a repressed society (from that perspective), in my opinion, and it sounds like your's as well.
manu1959
03-06-2008, 10:23 PM
In every country in the world except the US and religious fundamentalist states (like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.....). Of course, the punishment for it in the US is not quite as harsh in the middle east......but it is true, that most of the rest of the world if fine with sensual images, nudity and sexuality......we live in a repressed society (from that perspective), in my opinion, and it sounds like your's as well.
what is strange in my office several women have pics of half clad men as screen savers ....so i put up the rubens and this chick side by side and the same women got all pissed off.....pretty funny
Dilloduck
03-06-2008, 10:26 PM
what is strange in my office several women have pics of half clad men as screen savers ....so i put up the rubens and this chick side by side and the same women got all pissed off.....pretty funny
wait--you REALLY didn't expect them to see the comparison, did you ? :laugh2:
manu1959
03-06-2008, 10:28 PM
wait--you REALLY didn't expect them to see the comparison, did you ? :laugh2:
no i did it for the shock value and i was bored......then the girls started sending me e-mails with naked pics in them.....i am so going to jail.....
Dilloduck
03-06-2008, 10:28 PM
no i did it for the shock value and i was bored......then the girls started sending me e-mails with naked pics in them.....i am so going to jail.....
LMAO--now you've done it !!! :laugh2:
manu1959
03-06-2008, 10:37 PM
LMAO--now you've done it !!! :laugh2:
what is a guy to do.....
Dilloduck
03-06-2008, 10:38 PM
what is a guy to do.....
Hey I'm with ya--woulda done the same thing---we can't help it---just ask any woman. :laugh2:
Mr. P
03-06-2008, 10:40 PM
no i did it for the shock value and i was bored......then the girls started sending me e-mails with naked pics in them.....i am so going to jail.....
Of women I hope.
manu1959
03-06-2008, 10:42 PM
Hey I'm with ya--woulda done the same thing---we can't help it---just ask any woman. :laugh2:
truth be told i was hoping i would get written up and have to take some time off for harrasement training.....i am exhusted and dont want to use my vacation time....:laugh2:....i was also going to use my ..."i was born this way....no one would chose to be like this....you need to be more accetping and tollerant of my behaviour..." defense...
manu1959
03-06-2008, 10:43 PM
Of women I hope.
yep.....with notes like...isn't she hot.....my wife says they are fantisizing that that that is them naked in front of me.....:laugh2:....
Mr. P
03-06-2008, 10:49 PM
yep.....with notes like...isn't she hot.....my wife says they are fantisizing that that that is them naked in front of me.....:laugh2:....
I might agree with her. That's a very real possibility, so to stay outta jail/court...don't respond. :laugh2: Really.
yes---it IS what culture says it is. That's my point.
Of course it is Culture and that changes with the times.
For me I look at what we consider today to be pornographic - the only thing that is really restricted is Child Pornography. If culture and the "spirit" of the times dictate what is restricted, it is a scary thought that some day Child Pornography might not be considered so bad.
so then, there is no definition of porn v art. if it is time and culture, then the defintion never stays the same.
Dilloduck
03-06-2008, 10:58 PM
so then, there is no definition of porn v art. if it is time and culture, then the defintion never stays the same.
I think there are defintions of both but the definition of pornography is more dependent on the culture from which it is viewed.
I think there are defintions of both but the definition of pornography is more dependent on the culture from which it is viewed.
then the definition is fluid, e.g., dependent on the "eye of the beholder"
Pale Rider
03-06-2008, 11:40 PM
Picture on the left, porn. Picture on the right, art.
gabosaurus
03-06-2008, 11:43 PM
According to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision, which still stands:
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489;
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
manu1959
03-06-2008, 11:44 PM
Picture on the left, porn. Picture on the right, art.
interesting....what about this....
Dilloduck
03-06-2008, 11:48 PM
interesting....what about this....
That's a helluva lot of cottage cheese ! :laugh2:
hjmick
03-06-2008, 11:48 PM
How about these?
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/hjmc3rd/touchbright.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/hjmc3rd/jessicaRabbit.jpg
hjmick
03-06-2008, 11:49 PM
One man's art is another man's porn.
Dilloduck
03-06-2008, 11:49 PM
How about these?
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/hjmc3rd/touchbright.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/hjmc3rd/jessicaRabbit.jpg
can't tell---they have their clothes on . :coffee:
manu1959
03-06-2008, 11:52 PM
can't tell---they have their clothes on . :coffee:
not in my head......
hjmick
03-06-2008, 11:53 PM
Yeah, that Jessica Rabbit, shoulda drawn her nekked.
manu1959
03-07-2008, 12:00 AM
Yeah, that Jessica Rabbit, shoulda drawn her nekked.http://www.disneypornland.com/disney/jessica_rabbit_nude.htm
have fun....
http://www.disneypornland.com/disney/jessica_rabbit_nude.htm
have fun....
howz the office debate?
manu1959
03-07-2008, 12:24 AM
howz the office debate?
i let my staff win......
manu1959
03-07-2008, 12:46 AM
http://www.disneypornland.com/disney/jessica_rabbit_nude.htm
have fun....
hjmick seems to have gone missing...........:laugh2:
hjmick
03-07-2008, 01:05 AM
hjmick seems to have gone missing...........:laugh2:
Nah, went to watch a show. The funny thing was, I had found that page just before you posted the link. Didn't like it, would prefer Disney artists do the work, for the continuity and all...
manu1959
03-07-2008, 01:06 AM
Nah, went to watch a show. The funny thing was, I had found that page just before you posted the link. Didn't like it, would prefer Disney artists do the work, for the continuity and all...
ya....the nipples are a bit disturbing.....
Pale Rider
03-07-2008, 04:15 AM
interesting....what about this....
Art... kinda nasty fat asses, but art.
I look at it this way... if I hired a model to photograph, then told her, OK, we're going to do some nudes, take off your clothes, OK, now get in bed, ya, put your arm like that so I can see most of your tit except for the nipple, yeah, and now poke your ass up in the air like a female cat in heat... great. I think a picture like that just screams sex. I'm naked... I'm in bed... I've got my ass all up in the air ready for you to have your way... yeah, that's smutty. That's porn.
The other stuff you've been digging up from who knows where, wow, kind of nasty depictions of women, but obviously art bro.
diuretic
03-07-2008, 04:15 AM
what is strange in my office several women have pics of half clad men as screen savers ....so i put up the rubens and this chick side by side and the same women got all pissed off.....pretty funny
Double standards aren't unknown.
On edit - and neither are double negatives. I hate it when I do that, makes it all complex.
Ok trying again.
Hypocrisy. There, that's better.
Classact
03-07-2008, 07:09 AM
The last time I was in Germany commercials for bras on TV were commonly starting with a woman nude from the waist up and then she puts the bra on and comments on how great the "bra" is. Women, men and boys see absolutely no sexual relationship between the nude woman in this depiction.
A clay pot with intricate design is discovered... a plastic cup with even more intricate design is produced... the design is art... the pot or cup is utility.
Based on the above the quality of the brush strokes on the painting is the art and not what is on the painting and the picture quality of the hot babe must be judged on the quality of the photography.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.