#1 August 19th, 2004 07:27 PM

farmer039

Member

Porn defined

I have read several comments about what is an is not porn. One that was especially INTERESTING said, "if a man doesn't wank off on it, it isn't porn."

OK. So much for the insight into how I was feeling that day. Maybe I wouldn't wank at anything that day? Maybe I am really tired? Men can have headaches too.

Perhaps a pose postion will illustrate my understanding.

From the archives of past nude art, it is clear that the face on legs spread view of a woman, Vulva exposed or not. was seldom used. And from personal acquantances of women who take their emotional roots from that time, they won't pose in that pose either. I just isn't nice. Artistic? Miles away.

To look at this site, a great many women self select that pose. It is widely choosen today as an artistic means of self expression. OK, the picture taking instructions may help a little. It seems most unlikely that a simple set of instructions would be so influential on a majority unless it were an accepted norm.

Which gets to the heart of the question. What is the norm for porn. If the norm for poses and thus "porn" has changed. I would propose that the norm is determined by some influence that changes with time. If it is a time based variable. I therefore conclude, this is not a question of what is or is not art. Rather it is some socially based norm.

To illustrate further, many aboriginal tribes are bra less. Personal comfort issues aside, how could such a cultural norm occur? Could it be the preference of the viewer for uncovered breasts? Perhaps it was the preference of a dominant male ... like the chief? Yet in western culture, if the president or prime minister would even admit to liking uncovered breasts that would be the end of a political career. It also seems very  unlikely to me that few of them do not like such a view. They just can't admit to it.

Which is likely the core of the issue. What can we admit to without scorn or humiliation?

Happily many wonderful and beautiful women are not only admitting to but proclaiming their beauty without shame. Could a man admit to enjoying it?

That is the definition of porn.

Wanking??? G.A.L. a large majority of men do it. And they don't need a naked woman to achieve their purpose.

Farmer

video_dogs

Member

Re: Porn defined

The generally understood definition of pornography derives from parsing its Greek root: 'written of whores'. ISM girls are not whores, though they are being paid to show themselves without clothing. Their poses resemble the poses struck by women in photographs once used to advertise the oldest profession, and what is interesting about ISM is the extent to which ordinary plain girls next door, when given the chance, will utilise exactly the same postures as porn-models when trying to impress the 'boy next door'. This might mean one of two things: that the human nude when put in front of a camera will only assume one of a few set poses; or that ISM poseurs are largely unoriginal. The site's "artists" (a disingenuous term: "artistes" would be better as the site has much more in common with the Moulin Rouge than the Tate) don't emulate the life-model so much as the lap-dancer. Porn is best understood as the great art-form that began its life in 1829 when the first photographs were taken in Paris. Great photography is always erotic, whatever the subject, and while much of the photography on ISM is little better than holiday snappery, it is always erotic. People who sneer at porn are usually talking about something other than pictures of naked ladies. ISM tries to take the stigma out of porn by giving the ladies the camera, but of course it can do nothing to neutralise the 'male gaze' that views the image, and so really doesn't get porn off the hook where the feminists are concerned, nor can it really create guilt-free porn. But guys love to gaze, and girls love to pose. And pious presbyterian puritan seduction-haters will always fail to stop them doing it to one another. What gives the lie (on ISM) is the comments the girls make about themselves, which are almost always identical to one another: airy-fairy, noncey-poncey, romantic, self-absorbed, conceited twaddle, which suggests a certain gap exists between the 'softness' of what the girls think they're doing and the likely 'hardness' of the effect on viewing boys' minds.

farmer039

Member

Re: Porn defined

I can agree with that reply as accurate and conventionally derived.

The definition proposed was one that stems from views of self. This is a logical extension since the women self select, self pose and self record. I submit that is a fundamental change in the view of self. "What we can admit to without the stigma of personally accepting" puritanical condemnation. Restated, the puritanical judgement is emotionally rejected.

As to the hardness effect from viewing, again it the framework of the observer that determines the result. I would submit that the desire to pose and observe are genetically hard wired. Howerver, the larger issues of societal impact and judgement of the acts, are tied to our observation frameworks.

Thus the judgement, this is art or the extreme alternative judgement, this is porn, derives more fundamentally from our self views.

I personnally and cognitively choose, this is art. It is my choice because the effects of mentally accepting puritanical condemnation are broadly seen as diminishing worth, ability to function and grow. These effects are on both the male and female members who adopt them.

As a conclusion of the above rationale, it's not the pose honey. It's the sweetness of the honey.
[COLOR=navy]

red_kola

Member

Re: Porn defined

I think it is pointless even discussing this site using terms like porn. Porn is an exploitative medium. Everybody here is here through choice. If something you see here is sexy, then it is erotica. If not, then it is nudity/naturalism. But those labels can only be put on by you. It is, as with most things, subjective...

As a off tangent, but humorous aside I offer you:

"Erotica can use feathers but Porn will use the entire chicken..."

Head

Member

Re: Porn defined

I think it is pointless even discussing this site using terms like porn. Porn is an exploitative medium. Everybody here is here through choice. If something you see here is sexy, then it is erotica. If not, then it is nudity/naturalism. But those labels can only be put on by you. It is, as with most things, subjective...

As a off tangent, but humorous aside I offer you:

"Erotica can use feathers but Porn will use the entire chicken..."

Only a pretty chicken.

farmer039

Member

Re: Porn defined

Everybody here is here through choice.
"Erotica can use feathers but Porn will use the entire chicken..."

The point about choice is central to my above post. And in fact clearly makes the point that one of the important choices is not to allow negative or stereotyped judgements to affect the way we see ourselves.

The mere mention of a word causes misunderstanding?

The joke about feathers was good. Thanks.