# Free PORN...NUDE women and more



## Battou

Excellent..... Now that I have all the perverts like my self gathered neatly in one place.....

Nude photography and pornography are different, We all know this, we all can tell at first glance for the most part. I would like to start a discussion on the touchy subject of what makes porn, porn and nude photography art. 


Pornography is the representation of the human body and/or sexual activity and is often rather explicit, but this is not always the case. Nude photography is representation of the human anatomy and sexuality with high-art aspirations and is generally rather tame, however this too is not always the case.  

So How is it that two forms of imagery that are by definition so similar be so different? What are the determining factors?

Please, by all means share any and all opinions and knowledge you may have.


*EDIT* For all the mod staff who receive reports from "report first read later users" I give my formal apology.


----------



## lostprophet

damn you and your promises of free porn!!!

I was about to bin this thread then noticed your name as the poster


----------



## Battou

lostprophet said:


> damn you and your promises of free porn!!!
> 
> I was about to bin this thread then noticed your name as the poster



As you prolly alredy noticed a wave of spam has started too just prior to the thread, I my self reported two tonight alredy. I did this to drive up the view count in an effort to get a wider range of posters and their thoughts and opinions.


----------



## lostprophet

yeah I noticed, and cheers for the reports. keep this to yourself but when I ban a spammer I generally have a big grin on me chops when I hit that magic button 

I don't really have anything to add to this topic as I'm shoot wildlife more than anything and they are always naked! 

Bob Carlos Clarke has nothing on me


----------



## Battou

lostprophet said:


> yeah I noticed, and cheers for the reports. keep this to yourself but when I ban a spammer I generally have a big grin on me chops when I hit that magic button
> 
> I don't really have anything to add to this topic as I'm shoot wildlife more than anything and they are always naked!
> 
> Bob Carlos Clarke has nothing on me



PM inbound pertaining to my actual stance on reports, but back on to the topic.

I am one of the staff who decides wether or not artwork is permissable on Fan-Art Central, on this site we permit nude art works but not Hentai (or pornographic drawings/illustrations), this neverending debate as to what is porn and what is art has created a major grey aria in our policy and it's enforcement as well as an uncertanty in wether or not we are going to accept nude photography on PL partly due to fear of loosing sponcers. With the bulk of pornographic works being photographic, I figure I have better chance of solid discusson asking the question to a forum for photography as the one on drawing site went nowhere fast.


----------



## ilyfel

I think most attractive naked people art or not is sexy...


----------



## cpd23

I must say I can not give a cookie cutter answer. When I see a a nude art it gives me a feel beauty and form.  I spend time thinking about the lighting and the thought behind he image.  Porn however is just an image.


----------



## JerryPH

This is a topic where as many photographers that answer, thats how many opinions you can get.

I am somewhat old fasioned. For me, I think the line comes when exposing the genetalia. This is not art. One can have beautiful nude photographs, but it doesn't have to be explicit or overly obvious.

The better nudes elicit thoughts of lighting, strong positive emotion, character. Porn elicts in me the desire to dry heave, then move on.


----------



## Garbz

Hahahah I was too going to gloss over this but then I thought hangon Battou is common here isn't he?

Anyway a one sided relation ship is that x rated photos (photos showing actually sexual acts) are Porn. No they won't be art even in the wildest stretch.

R rated photos on the other hand (not showing actual sexual acts but instead just depicting the naked form) can be both. I guess the true art comes down to the same thoughts of snapshot vs proper model shots which also pay attention to some creative expansion of the "art" rather than just throwing a bunch of umbrellas and softboxes at a naked person. At the risk of sounding like a deviate myself: http://www.met-art.com/ (Definitely not safe for work!!!!!) is a fine example of art. When I see those photos the first thought is still related to the model, but you can't help but admire careful poses well thought out lighting and some wonderful camera work.


----------



## Alex_B

I am very disappointed now ...


----------



## ShaCow

so no pics?


----------



## DHammer

For me its a simple, and you never really have to think is it this or is it that. On first impression does Beauty come to mind or Lust. I think if the photo conveys the beauty or sensuality then its art. If it encites lust then its pornography. Now that said people see things differently, generations see things differently. You may have a hundred people look at the same photo and fifty think its and fifty think its pornography. And using my own beauty/lust judgements, there are people who think porn is beautiful.

The writer of this post pleads the rights of the fifth ammendment when it comes to his personal opinion of pornography.


----------



## Alex_B

DHammer said:


> For me its a simple, and you never really have to think is it this or is it that. On first impression does *Beauty *come to mind or *Lust*. I think if the photo conveys the beauty or sensuality then its art. If it encites lust then its pornography. Now that said people see things differently, generations see things differently. You may have a hundred people look at the same photo and fifty think its and fifty think its pornography. And using my own beauty/lust judgements, there are people who think porn is beautiful.
> 
> The writer of this post pleads the rights of the fifth ammendment when it comes to his personal opinion of pornography.



But often, both *beauty *and *lust *come to my mind. And since both feelings are quite different in nature, you cannot really compare them or weight them and say it is more of one than of the other. So with this definition at least I personally would be stuck.


In my own personal small world, I am very pragmatic with the definition
:

*Pornography *for me starts, when the image either explicitly depicts sexual activity, or depicts human bodies (or parts of them) which are apparently sexually aroused.

If the image does not show it explicitly, but implies it or hides what is apparently there, then I call it *pornish *(not to be confused with _Cornish _which refers to a small stretch of land in the South West of England )

Under my definition I would even go further and distinguish between artsy pornography (extremly rare, hardly does exist at all) and "cheap" pornography (the vast majority). But this will be highly disputed by others


----------



## lostprophet

to me there is only one kind of porn


----------



## Rabieshund

If it gets you hard then it's porn. Simple as that. 

Edit: lostprophet those lenses suck ass lol! I have them all!


----------



## Alex_B

lostprophet said:


> to me there is only one kind of porn



Someone remove this post please!!!

:lmao:


----------



## Alex_B

Rabieshund said:


> If it gets you hard then it's porn. Simple as that.



Hmm, that would mean this world is full of porn .. everywhere.


----------



## Rabieshund

You pervert, getting hard all the time.


----------



## JerryPH

lostprophet said:


> to me there is only one kind of porn


 
Thats not porn... thats just pure sex. 

Who's little kit is this anyways?


----------



## lostprophet

its a canon promo photo


----------



## Big Mike

This is a very old issue but it seems to always be pertinent.

I believe it was a US politician who said: "I can't give you a definition of pornography, but I know it when I see it"
This goes well with the people who have said that there will be as many different opinions as people who comment.  
In one sense, you can argue that the viewer's own beliefs will have just as much influence on how they perceive the image, as the image itself.  Some people find a naked woman's breast to be pornographic...and they can be portrayed as such...but on the other hand, breasts are a natural and  essential part of the human body...and how can that be offensive to anyone?  Can this same argument be applied to the entire human body?  Genitalia are a natural and essential part of the body...why should it be 'evil' or 'unnatural' to see them?

A great site (NSFW) is domai.com.  The site features photos of naked women but they strive to be distinguished from porn.  They instead celebrate the divine beauty of the female body and the way it looks so natural without the hindrance of clothing.

One photographer, Igor Amelkovich, pushes the limits between what some people consider porn and what others feel is art.  Some of his photos include genitalia...some rather explicitly...but the lighting and aesthetics are world class, which makes a strong argument for it being art.

In the end, I think that some things are clearly porn and some things are clearly not porn...some things are in between and it's up to the viewer to determine how it's perceived.  Nudity doesn't even have to be part of the equation.


----------



## Battou

DHammer said:


> you never really have to think is it this or is it that.


 There are occations where one is in a position where they need to, Please review post 1035903



DHammer said:


> The writer of this post pleads the rights of the fifth ammendment when it comes to his personal opinion of pornography.



My Ideas on this are just plain screwed up I don't have a clear cut opinion to one side or the other, I look at litterally gigs of both. I like both sides of the coin evenly. Due to my contributions in the world of cartoon porn I see the artwork aspect of both sides despite not considering porn art. To put it bluntly I don't know how to describe the diffrence but I do see it.


----------



## monkeykoder

I think the main difference is the purpose of the person taking the picture.


----------



## Mike Jordan

monkeykoder said:


> I think the main difference is the purpose of the person taking the picture.




While the photographer may have one intention of why he or she took the picture... it's really the viewer that decides if it's art or porn.  Just as the viewer decides if an image is good or bad.  Photographers have a tendency to forget that when they don't get the responce they were looking for.  

Mike


----------



## Antithesis

I was told there would be punch and pie.


----------



## doobs

lostprophet said:


> to me there is only one kind of porn


\

Amen to that!


----------



## ShaCow

lostprophet said:


> to me there is only one kind of porn



haha, if you walked around with that thing at the back, someone would call the cops! looks like a blooming rocket launcher!!


----------



## Alpha

Stop talking about photography and pornography as if they're mutually exclusive. Even using graphic physical interaction, erect penises, etc as markers for where "art" ends and pornography begins, the line has been blurry for a long time. Do what you like. Respect your work at the end of the day.


----------



## dpolston

monkeykoder said:


> I think the main difference is the purpose of the person taking the picture.



I'm not sure that is necessarily true. I worked in a studio that offered nude photos as part of the session and most of my clients _wanted and asked for_ these done for their significant others. While we took these photos often, we rarely thought them to be pornographic. We only had one client (to my knowledge) that wanted to "feature" her lower girl parts, and frankly, those photos didn't turn out well because if the way the studio was set up. 

On a side note to one of the posters: I never ever became aroused while shooting these shots. Nudes are probably one of the most technically demanding shots you can take. You can use clothes and fabric in a real portrait but no amount of camera magic can ever turn a nude size 16 into an image looking like she's a size 6.


----------



## Alex_B

MaxBloom said:


> Stop talking about photography and pornography as if they're mutually exclusive. Even using graphic physical interaction, erect penises, etc as markers for where "art" ends and pornography begins, the line has been blurry for a long time. Do what you like. Respect your work at the end of the day.



This is getting close to what i said, that art can be porn and the other way round. but the combination is rare IMHO.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Battou said:


> Nude photography and pornography are different



This is a fallacy. 
There is no difference at all - all are photography and should be seen as such.
Where the difference - and distinction - lies is in the mind of the viewer.
Pornography is a consensus of opinion in Society. Different Societies have different definitions of what constitutes pornography.
Personally, I judge pictures on their merits, not on their content.
I find the work of Elmer Batters (Not Work Safe if you Google) to be witty and fun even though it was considered verging on pornography at the time.
I'm still making up my mind about Andres Serrano (definitely Not Work Safe! Do not go hunting for him if you are easily shocked or offended). He is trying to make what would normally be called pornography into what can only be called Art. He certainly challenges Social norms and pre-conceived notions - he blurs the boundaries.


----------



## monkeykoder

To me art comes into the picture when what you portray is more than what most people would see.  If I see a picture of a naked woman and I feel something other than a desire for that woman be it sadness or happiness or disgust (at something beyond the face value of the situation) I consider that art if all I see in the picture is the objects in the picture it isn't art no matter what it is of and how well it is composed.


----------



## Alpha

Perhaps this goes without saying to anyone familiar with his work, but one need only look at Mappelthorpe's more notorious nudes to understand that "pornography" can be art.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

MaxBloom said:


> one need only look at Mappelthorpe's more notorious nudes to understand that "pornography" can be art.



I have two copies of one of his books. One published in the UK, one in France. Identical except that the UK version has five images removed 'on the advice of the DPP'.


----------



## Alex_B

Hertz van Rental said:


> I have two copies of one of his books. One published in the UK, one in France. Identical except that the UK version has five images removed 'on the advice of the DPP'.



At one point in my life, that was my job ... removing porn images/censorship :lmao:


----------



## fido dog

In MY mind...........

A) Nude Art.
B) Erotica.
C) Good 'Ol Porn.....Triple X Stuff.:hail:

I think it's very personal to each person and each situation. There is a difference between a well lit and artisticly shot photograph and a donkey jack hammering Jenna Jameson in the back nine.

I've always thought that if you can't show it to your mom....it's porn.


----------



## fido dog

Alex_B said:


> At one point in my life, that was my job ... removing porn images/censorship :lmao:



Commie!!


----------



## JIP

Hertz van Rental said:


> This is a fallacy.
> There is no difference at all - all are photography and should be seen as such.
> Where the difference - and distinction - lies is in the mind of the viewer.
> Pornography is a consensus of opinion in Society. Different Societies have different definitions of what constitutes pornography.
> Personally, I judge pictures on their merits, not on their content.
> I find the work of Elmer Batters (Not Work Safe if you Google) to be witty and fun even though it was considered verging on pornography at the time.
> I'm still making up my mind about Andres Serrano (definitely Not Work Safe! Do not go hunting for him if you are easily shocked or offended). He is trying to make what would normally be called pornography into what can only be called Art. He certainly challenges Social norms and pre-conceived notions - he blurs the boundaries.


 
I don't want to interject somerhing new here but I did a fearch on Serrano http://www.artnet.com/usernet/awc/a...202827&gid=424202827&works_of_art=1&cid=74183 and WOW!! if you can get past some of the more offensive stuff (and that is in the eye of the beholder) the "americans" series are some oretty awesome portraits.


----------



## Mike_E

It seems to me that the difference between porn and art is that if it reminds you of animals in rut then it's porn.


----------



## fido dog

Mike_E said:


> It seems to me that the difference between porn and art is that if it reminds you of animals in rut then it's porn.



Or a donkey unloading on an asian chick in a basket......:lmao:

Sorry........I couldn't help it!!


----------



## fido dog

JIP said:


> I don't want to interject somerhing new here but I did a fearch on Serrano http://www.artnet.com/usernet/awc/a...202827&gid=424202827&works_of_art=1&cid=74183 and WOW!! if you can get past some of the more offensive stuff (and that is in the eye of the beholder) the "americans" series are some oretty awesome portraits.



WOW!! I'm sorry, but I have never heard of him before..:blushing: I feel embarassed. What incredible stuff. I did an auction report on artnet and you better have some serious cash to get ahold of one. Stunning!


----------



## fido dog

I think the biggest problem with nudes and porn is finding a willing subject with the same ideals and expected outcome.


----------



## kundalini

I thought this was spam until I noticed the Battou started it and there were 39 replies.

This topic reminds me of the old joke asking the difference between erotic and exotic.  Something about one uses the whole chicken.

The point being that *it is in the eye of the beholder. PERIOD.*

I think the American public, in general, are so anal retentive that they can't see the forest for the trees.  Pornography is an expression that evokes primal intensions with little regard to the left side of the brain.  Art, on the other hand, requires the viewer to interperlate the image and decide for themselves of its' value.

It's a very thin line, gossamer in fact, the difference.  Isn't that the constant struggle we humans endure in our day to day lives?  Each of us have our own set of values.  But isn't it a great day when we can agree to disagree?  Your values may not be mine, but I don't hold that against you.  Can you do the same?


----------



## Mike_E

Desmond was great, but have you tried playing along to Unsquare Dance from Time Further Out?

Funny thing is that people have the same right to be offended as they do to offend.

Live, Laugh, Love-- or don't.


----------



## kundalini

lostprophet said:


> to me there is only one kind of porn


 
Does morning wood count as pornagraphy?????  If so, please plug your eyes and close your ears.  I would like to ask the first three rows in front to please take three steps towards the rear while I unleash the beast!


----------



## newrmdmike

i think that the difference may lay in the intent with which the image was created rather than the actual image.

porn would be created for soley the purpose of some type of sexual gratification right?

anything with purposes outside sexual arousal only, or with an intent in evoking thought about censorship or something would not be pornography.

but if you viewed these images side by side out of context without ever hearing or reading anything about them i think many would be indistinguishable.


----------



## Iron Flatline

What newrmdmike said. I am too lazy to actively contribute to such a beaten horse of a thread, but yeah...: 

My definition is informed by the assumed original intent of the creator.


----------



## Mike_E

As long as we are talking about porn, what about the gratuitous depiction of suffering?  That seems to me to be more more readily pornographic. (substitute morbid obesity or any other human or animal malady)


----------



## Don Simon

Mike_E said:


> As long as we are talking about porn, what about the gratuitous depiction of suffering? That seems to me to be more more readily pornographic.


 
Guess the question there is, when is it gratuitous? Who decides? Some people aren't happy with the direction some horror movies have taken lately; you see a lot of critics talking about "torture porn"... course most of the time they don't bother to define or explain why, but the use of that word "porn" helps devalue the work and suggest there can't be any more serious interpretation. It implies that people might take pleasure from it but it's a wrong or perverse form of pleasure, being neither harmless popcorn entertainment or more highbrow aesthetic appreciation. Which of course is what critics have been saying about horror films since they existed, but still... it's only recently that I've seen them being commonly referred to as "porn". When the viewer doesn't like what they see, calling it "porn" is a convenient way of quickly devaluing it... when critics say that a photograph or film is "porn" then often they're implying that there's something morally and/or socially inadequate with both the viewers and those who produced it. Or to put it simply, "I don't like it, and if you do then you're weird". 

Sorry for taking the thread off on another little tangent


----------



## raydius

I think one way to  differentiate porn from art is by how the model is being portrayed.  If the model or model's body is being glorified, praised, honored, appreciated then it is art.

If the model is being exploited or used it is porn.  If they are positioned in a way that is obviously meant to arouse sexual behavior with no attempt by the photographer to create an interesting play of light and shadow on the subject, or attempt to use negative space and composition in an artful way then it is porn.  This becomes more true if the photographer has many similar photos shot in this manner and how the photographer tries to distribute them.


----------



## JIP

I think what it is depends on one thing only and that is what the shoter is trying to say and even then it is subjective.


----------



## RMThompson

I too stand in the "pornography is in the eye of the beholder" camp. No matter what picture is taken, everyone is going to SEE it differently. 

Recently I was trying to get my horribly underrated website off the ground, and I sought the help from someone in my area. As it turned out he was a photographer too, a Christian photographer, and agreed to create my website if I agreed to help with with some weddings and what not.

We had a small dispute over how much work I would have to do... (the contract he drafted said if all of it wasnt done in 3 months time, then I owed for the ENTIRE site regardless of how much work ive done prior).

ANYWAY - after a few days of 'cooling off' I was eager to get back to work. He then emailed me and told me he "prayed" about working with me and was led by God himself to NOT associate himself with a PORNOGRAPHER.

The funny part was, at the time he wrote that I had never photographed an entire nude woman, and the work HE had seen was more like this:







Now, I don't consider that porn, and you might not... but HE did. I wrote him back and told him in so many words that he was the one with the issue if he could not view the female form without finding it vulgar, and that was that.

STILL, I was floored. I felt guilty... was I REALLY making PORN? Sure, a lot of it may be SEXY, but PORN? SO I asked around, and I came to the conclusion... porn is in the eye of the beholder.

That's not to say I will shoot anything. By my own rule, I do NOT shoot "porn", but it's MY rule, so I make the definition, and to me, no matter how artistic (porn can be artistic people!!!), sometimes you can just tell that PORN is PORN.

Most of what's on www.met-art.com is porn. It's the way the legs are spread wide, or the way the girl is bent over. If it doesn't seem natural outside of sex, its porn to me.... but that's just ME.

Anyway, I guess the visuals weren't neccessary, but... this thread was lacking something! LOL


----------



## Battou

It's a beautiful shot,


----------



## monkeykoder

Art is in the eye of the artist.  It is an expression of the soul, if someone finds it pornographic, it isn't any less of a piece of art.


----------



## craig

Porn is about f¨ç?© as opposed to making love. Porn can be harmless and a great marital aid. Problem is that it can go dark very fast. If you are not mature porn can evoke certain feelings that are not healthy. For example some folks look at porn, get drunk, then take advantage of women. 

We have to look at images in their context. As artists we understand that. Not sure how normal people look at it. Maybe it is our job to school them by being great editors?

Love & Bass


----------



## Battou

craig said:


> Porn is about f¨ç?&#710;&#732;© as opposed to making love. Porn can be harmless and a great marital aid. Problem is that it can go dark very fast. If you are not mature porn can evoke certain feelings that are not healthy. For example some folks look at porn, get drunk, then take advantage of women.
> 
> We have to look at images in their context. As artists we understand that. Not sure how normal people look at it. Maybe it is our job to school them by being great editors?
> 
> Love & Bass



That is an interesting thought, I simultaniously posted this on site for Adult/pronographic drawings/illustrations (H-Art or hentai) and got almost a mirroring of resopnses (Minus all the camera porn ) I am kinda curious as to the responces in a community with little to no art relation.


----------



## craig

Keep us posted for sure. In this case I think your role as editor is heavy. Only answer is use your best judgement and say a small prayer.

Love & Bass


----------



## RMThompson

craig said:


> Porn is about f¨ç?© as opposed to making love. Porn can be harmless and a great marital aid. Problem is that it can go dark very fast. If you are not mature porn can evoke certain feelings that are not healthy. For example some folks look at porn, get drunk, then take advantage of women.


 
I couldn't disagree more. Their has to be a predisposition towards this type of behaviour. No one just goes "crazy" and start abusing women because the evil porn!!!


----------



## JerryPH

Porn will not make most into abusers, no more than video games will make our children into mass killers or make the average well balanced person into a serial killer after watching a CSI marathon over a weekend. That is just rediculous.

What ever it was this abberant behavior was already well established and there way before hand.  Time for the people that claim that as an excuse for their mistakes to grow up and accept responsability for their actions.


----------



## DSLR noob

Okay I'm a little pervy and I didn't read through the thread to see if anyone else is like this but................

When I know I am about to look at nude art I'm always giddily in my head start thinking "Hey I get to see a naked person" for some reason every single time and I know that may be a little disgusting of me to say about someobody's creative vision on art but it gets better. When my eye actually sees the image for the first time I am awestruck by the shear beauty or creativity behind it and all the primal lustful feelings erase themselves instantly. In some cases I will see both how beautiful it is and how great the body looks at the same time, but with porn it's just the body only nothing ever comes to mind like "wow what a great source o flighting for this angle, it really adds contrast".


----------



## craig

RMThompson said:


> I couldn't disagree more. Their has to be a predisposition towards this type of behaviour. No one just goes "crazy" and start abusing women because the evil porn!!!



I agree to disagree.

Luv And Bass


----------



## Meysha

Well I just wanted to throw my 2c in coz I haven't seen many girls in this thread yet. ;-)  hmmm does that say something about me? hehe

Porn for me is sexual. Nude photographs aren't about sex, they're about beauty. (for me)

Although, that said, I guess after looking at a nude photo for a bit and after getting over that 'beauty' bit at the start, it might get a bit sexual inside my head.

Aww see now I've gone and contradicted myself. Damn porn getting me all in a tizz! hehehe.

I've done some pretty controversial work recently. Anyone remember that toilet photo? It wasn't a nude, but I had some people tell me it was pornographic, and others congratulate me on how great a portrait it is.

So it's all in the eye of the beholder, for me, but i guess a line to draw could be, if it's sexual it's porn. which seems to be what a few people have said.


----------



## Battou

Meysha said:


> Well I just wanted to throw my 2c in coz I haven't seen many girls in this thread yet. ;-)  hmmm does that say something about me? hehe
> 
> Porn for me is sexual. Nude photographs aren't about sex, they're about beauty. (for me)
> 
> Although, that said, I guess after looking at a nude photo for a bit and after getting over that 'beauty' bit at the start, it might get a bit sexual inside my head.
> 
> Aww see now I've gone and contradicted myself. Damn porn getting me all in a tizz! hehehe.
> 
> I've done some pretty controversial work recently. Anyone remember that toilet photo? It wasn't a nude, but I had some people tell me it was pornographic, and others congratulate me on how great a portrait it is.
> 
> So it's all in the eye of the beholder, for me, but i guess a line to draw could be, if it's sexual it's porn. which seems to be what a few people have said.



I remember a toilet Photo but I do not remember who it was posted by, I'll have to look and find it to see if the one I am thinking of was yours.


----------



## Meysha

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84232


----------



## Battou

Meysha said:


> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84232



Yup that is the one.


----------



## RMThompson

craig said:


> I agree to disagree.
> 
> Luv And Bass


 
Agreeing to disagreeing is not enough in this case. That sort of predisposition towards pornography, or other things like video games, rock music, etc, breeds an enviroment of hate and censorship.

Here is one example:

http://www.physorg.com/news5758.html

It shows that there is no strong link between video games and violence. I am positive that the same lack of evidence would be apparent between pornography and abusers towards women.

You're original post was ignorant, to say the least.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams

RMThompson said:


> Agreeing to disagreeing is not enough in this case. That sort of predisposition towards pornography, or other things like video games, rock music, etc, breeds an enviroment of hate and censorship.
> 
> Here is one example:
> 
> http://www.physorg.com/news5758.html
> 
> It shows that there is no strong link between video games and violence. I am positive that the same lack of evidence would be apparent between pornography and abusers towards women.
> 
> You're original post was ignorant, to say the least.



Whoa there, just because it's in the number one spot on a Google search doesn't make it irrefutable fact.  Try this, which weighs in at number two:

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

It's from the American Psychological Association, so it might be a little dry at times, but this is the information in psychology textbooks.  

Subjects like this are going to have "proof" to support each side, with each side constantly trying to debunk the other.  I thought Craig's comment was oversimplified, but it's true that similar links have been found between frequent pornography-viewing and attitudes of aggression and objectification towards women.  The thought of running Google searches to provide documentation to back up this argument simply wearies me.  I just wish people wouldn't be so quick to call others ignorant for having different opinions.


----------



## craig

RMThompson said:


> Agreeing to disagreeing is not enough in this case. That sort of predisposition towards pornography, or other things like video games, rock music, etc, breeds an enviroment of hate and censorship.
> 
> Here is one example:
> 
> http://www.physorg.com/news5758.html
> 
> It shows that there is no strong link between video games and violence. I am positive that the same lack of evidence would be apparent between pornography and abusers towards women.
> 
> You're original post was ignorant, to say the least.



Hey now. I love pornography and violent video games just as much as the next person. My posts are far from ignorant. Shame on you for suggesting such a thing. Out of respect for the original post and poster I will PM you my thoughts.

Love & Bass


----------



## Sw1tchFX

to me, for something to not look porny it needs to be carefully composed and lit. None of the on camera direct flash BS. 

I'm talking studio set up. 

I can't recall an on-location nude that I like off the top of my head either. 

Porn is about the genitalia and the act of sex, nude photography is about _form_.


----------



## shaunx

hey buddy sorry to say this .we all know that this is a decent site and all this activities make others feel disgusting.so please for god sake,dont put this kind of things.:thumbdown:


----------



## shaunx

that was good craig.i liked it..:thumbup:


----------



## abraxas

From a definition standpoint, pornography is anything that is created to cause sexual excitement or arousal. ...
www.coolnurse.com/sex_glossary/glossary_p.htm

art, expression, implication, speech, suggestion, or writing which appeals to the base or sensual desires of a person and is contrary to the established moral code of the society; materials that appeal to prurient interest of the average person, applying contemporary standards of the community ...
www.asisonline.org/library/glossary/p.xml

ìWriting intended to provoke feelings of lust in the reader. Such works are often condemned by critics and teachers, but those which can be shown to have literary value are viewed less harshlyî (ìGlossary of Literary Termsî).
english.montclair.edu/isaacs/605LitResearch/litermFA02.htm

Sexually oriented material that is not considered acceptable to the viewer; the same material when judged subjectively acceptable is often referred to as "erotica."
www.4sexual-pleasure.com/definitions.html

creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire 
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

-


----------



## RMThompson

Aquarium Dreams said:


> Whoa there, just because it's in the number one spot on a Google search doesn't make it irrefutable fact. Try this, which weighs in at number two:
> 
> http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html
> 
> It's from the American Psychological Association, so it might be a little dry at times, but this is the information in psychology textbooks.
> 
> Subjects like this are going to have "proof" to support each side, with each side constantly trying to debunk the other. I thought Craig's comment was oversimplified, but it's true that similar links have been found between frequent pornography-viewing and attitudes of aggression and objectification towards women. The thought of running Google searches to provide documentation to back up this argument simply wearies me. I just wish people wouldn't be so quick to call others ignorant for having different opinions.


 
I said this is ONE example... 

The fact remains that viewing pornography does not lead to violence in regular people. We are talking about a 3.9 BILLION dollar industry. It isn't 1% of society that is watching this stuff, but a much larger portion than people want to admit.

Most people have this stigma associated with pornography of a creepy middle aged guy with stacks of DVD's and magazines in a basement, but the truth is that pornography is probably more than often viewed casually, and even used as a couple/marital aid. 

The argument that watching porn leads to violence is just ridiculous.


----------



## RMThompson

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html 
Some more information.


----------



## Lorielle99

if you intend it to be art, then it is art. after all thats what art is, merely opinion and the artists point of view. that simple. and as for "if it gets you hard its porn" is bull. there is a lot fo art out there that is highly erotic. and a lot of porn that is not.


----------



## Mrsforeman1

If the model is willing to do it:
It's PORN
If she doesn't want to do it:
It's ART
At least that what you tell her.


----------



## Harmony

Hmmmm... We were asked to draw the line between nude work and porn?

Some would argue that there IS no line. Porn is meant to arouse lust. From what I am hearing, those who DO look at nude work look at lighting and etc. But that doesn't leave out the fact that there is a naked person as the subject of the picture. Many people don't agree with this because of either personal beliefs or religious convictions. 

I do not look at nude work or porn, so I am unable to state what feelings are 'aroused' in me when I look at pics, because I don't. 

To be honest, once I get married, I want to be pure for my spouse, and I want my spouse to be pure for me. I don't feel that plastering my nude body on pictures keeps me pure. I also don't feel that looking at nude bodies in pictures keeps me pure either.

My respectful 2 cents.


----------



## Sideburns

Garbz said:


> Hahahah I was too going to gloss over this but then I thought hangon Battou is common here isn't he?
> 
> Anyway a one sided relation ship is that x rated photos (photos showing actually sexual acts) are Porn. No they won't be art even in the wildest stretch.
> 
> R rated photos on the other hand (not showing actual sexual acts but instead just depicting the naked form) can be both. I guess the true art comes down to the same thoughts of snapshot vs proper model shots which also pay attention to some creative expansion of the "art" rather than just throwing a bunch of umbrellas and softboxes at a naked person. At the risk of sounding like a deviate myself: http://www.met-art.com/ (Definitely not safe for work!!!!!) is a fine example of art. When I see those photos the first thought is still related to the model, but you can't help but admire careful poses well thought out lighting and some wonderful camera work.




No offense, but met-art is high end snobby porn...ahahah



Harmony said:


> Hmmmm... We were asked to draw the line between nude work and porn?
> 
> Some would argue that there IS no line. Porn is meant to arouse lust. From what I am hearing, those who DO look at nude work look at lighting and etc. But that doesn't leave out the fact that there is a naked person as the subject of the picture. Many people don't agree with this because of either personal beliefs or religious convictions.
> 
> I do not look at nude work or porn, so I am unable to state what feelings are 'aroused' in me when I look at pics, because I don't.
> 
> To be honest, once I get married, I want to be pure for my spouse, and I want my spouse to be pure for me. I don't feel that plastering my nude body on pictures keeps me pure. I also don't feel that looking at nude bodies in pictures keeps me pure either.
> 
> My respectful 2 cents.



That is a very beautiful sentiment.  I hope that it isn't lost on the rest of the world, and you can find someone like that.


----------



## Big Bully

Hey I think I am like the 3rd girl to respond to this thread... Alright!

Nude photography is mainly based on the lighting and shapes that the body makes. 
(this site is not work safe!)
http://www.tommyedwards.com/gal_portfolio.htm
In this site, Tom Edwards mainly focuses his attentions on lighting and how the body is shaped. Even in the couples pictures, there is nothing truely sexual happening in the pictures. The focus is on the shapes of the body, and the abstract images the light creates. All in all his pictures are beautiful. 
I personally think that porn has a *WOW *factor to it. That met-art site deffinately had the WOW factor going for it. I guess if a girl is showing her genitals full boar, in a position only her OBGYN and her partner should see.. then it is considered porn. 
But like in Mapplethorps pictures, there is nothing wrong with those, even though some of the men had errect penis'. They didn't show the guy going wild or anything. The pictures didn't even show the whole entire guy, just part of the body, the hard/firm muscles and well to complete the image he was after, what better way to signify what he was getting at than to have the errect penis?! I think the way Mapplethorp portrayed those images was very tasteful. 
But I also think that porn has to do with how a person is raised. I know that there are people in my family and my husbands family that would think that Tom Edwards pictures are inappropriate, crude, and porn. Where as I am on the artistic side and his images are pure art to me. So... I am going to have to agree with the general consensus here and say, it is in the eye of the beholder. No matter the intent of the artists, there is always going to be someone who is offended and calling it porn.


----------



## Big Bully

To further my point... I personally have been told that these images are pornographic, and should not be shown to public.... But they are images that one would see in a dance club or even at a swimming pool..

So my point which is Battou's point, is where is the line and who draws it. Oh and don't worry the pictures are work safe...

You as artists.. how about you decide....
BTW I know, the glare on the stomache is bright, and neon and the girl needs a tan... but that is beside the point.. lol


----------



## BigRC

By definition pornography is obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit. - By that definition, that would make half the movies put out by Hollywood, and over half the music put out by record labels pornography (by my opinion).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pornography&x=0&y=0

Someone once told me that art is anything that grabs your attention for more that 15 seconds.  I'm not sure about most people, but it usually takes me about 3 minutes to... umm... just kidding. On to the real answer.

I think there is a fine line between the two.  Pornography has gained a mainstream acceptance in the last 25 or so years, mainly due to the accessibility and anonymity on the internet.  It's our "dirty little secret".

The people behind the curtain want to keep nudity and sex "taboo" to the public because sex sells, and we (Americans) live in a capitalistic society.  The dollar is worshipped more than God.  Marketers know this, and they use the primal instinct of all animals (sexual intercourse) to entice people with their products.  You see this in advertisements, soap operas, music videos, etc.

If we as a whole did not allow the government to regulate our sexuality as human beings, we wouldn't think so negatively about sexuality or sexual intercourse being used in pieces of artwork.  As long as sex is "taboo", marketers and capitalists will exploit that fact, and degrade the act making it less "artful".

The fact that two human beings in the act of primal and natural behavior being photographed (even if you can see penetration) is automatically labeled as pornography is ridiculous.  Love making is the most pure and natural act animals can engage in.  I believe somewhere in the distant future, the full human body and/or sexual intercourse will be used to make wonderful works of art.  After all, sexual intercourse is an art in itself....


----------



## Josh66

BigRC said:


> I believe somewhere in the distant future, the full human body and/or sexual intercourse will be used to make wonderful works of art.  After all, sexual intercourse is an art in itself....


Isn't that true today?  Nude art has been around for a very long time...


----------



## Battou

O|||||||O said:


> Isn't that true today?  Nude art has been around for a very long time...



nude art yes, however the act of intercourse in imagery has always been very quickly dismissed into the relm of porn.


----------



## Trenton Romulox

I don't know if you could determine whether or not something is porn or art without knowing the creator's purpose for the shot. If there purpose was sexual stimulation, the shot is porn. Or is it? I mean, really, I don't think there is a clear cut answer for this, and there never will be. It's not only in the eye of the beholder, whether a shot is porn or art, but it's in the eye of the creator. I mean, there's no way to determine 100% either way, not to me at least. There's my two cents.


----------



## Josh66

Battou said:


> nude art yes, however the act of intercourse in imagery has always been very quickly dismissed into the relm of porn.


Well, I don't know if you would consider it porn or art (doesn't really seem like porn to me), but there are depictions of intercourse that go pretty far back too.  I think it's pretty safe to say that sex acts have been displayed as art recently too.


----------



## BigRC

O|||||||O said:


> Well, I don't know if you would consider it porn or art (doesn't really seem like porn to me), but there are depictions of intercourse that go pretty far back too.  I think it's pretty safe to say that sex acts have been displayed as art recently too.



You are absolutely correct, but I meant accepted in the mainstream by the masses.  Sorry, I should have worded that better.


----------



## Battou

O|||||||O said:


> Well, I don't know if you would consider it porn or art (doesn't really seem like porn to me), but there are depictions of intercourse that go pretty far back too.  I think it's pretty safe to say that sex acts have been displayed as art recently too.



I personally would be taking a lot of individual facets into consideration, I love both types of the imagery and spend a lot of time viewing them, how ever my personnel preferences are not the wether I call it porn or nude art. I stand in a position where I may have to make a decision on society's point of view. Many times (though not always) such an image displayed as art is deemed porn by society.


----------



## Josh66

Battou said:


> I personally would be taking a lot of individual facets into consideration, I love both types of the imagery and spend a lot of time viewing them, how ever my personnel preferences are not the wether I call it porn or nude art. I stand in a position where I may have to make a decision on society's point of view. Many times (though not always) such an image displayed as art is deemed porn by society.


I don't think it really matters what society's point of view is.  Art has many faces, and not all will be liked by the masses.


----------



## Battou

O|||||||O said:


> I don't think it really matters what society's point of view is.  Art has many faces, and not all will be liked by the masses.



Yes, but some one among those masses could quickly kill our funding, I started this thread to work on getting a general concensus as to how I could draw a line with out violating the tearms of agreement with sponcers but also at the same time allow all forms of creative works at the same time.


----------



## BigRC

Battou said:


> Yes, but some one among those masses could quickly kill our funding, I started this thread to work on getting a general concensus as to how I could draw a line with out violating the tearms of agreement with sponcers but also at the same time allow all forms of creative works at the same time.



Well, if that's the case, I'd go with a cookie cutter regulation.  No genitalia, and no blatant exploitation of the act of sexual intercourse (be sure to give examples, if you leave it up to assumption you're asking for trouble).  Then if changes need to be made, so be it.


----------



## Josh66

Battou said:


> Yes, but some one among those masses could quickly kill our funding, I started this thread to work on getting a general concensus as to how I could draw a line with out violating the tearms of agreement with sponcers but also at the same time allow all forms of creative works at the same time.


I don't think you really can draw a firm line for that purpose.  We all (well, most of us...I hope) instinctively know what we can post here, and what will get us in trouble - but how do you define that and put it in writing?  I don't think you can.


----------



## Battou

BigRC said:


> Well, if that's the case, I'd go with a cookie cutter regulation.  No genitalia, and no blatant exploitation of the act of sexual intercourse (be sure to give examples, if you leave it up to assumption you're asking for trouble).  Then if changes need to be made, so be it.



That is basicly where I am sitting at right now, it's just not in black and white simply because even that pushes or exceeds some tearms. The way I did this the thread in the manor I did is simply because the ideologies of the group are more important to me at the moment than the what yall think others ideologies are. This way if I have to break some tearms I will have an educated reason as opposed to just cunsensus of assumption. As well as to learn just how acceptable they really are with out comming right out and giving them.

*EDIT*


O|||||||O said:


> I don't think you really can draw a firm line for that purpose.  We all (well, most of us...I hope) instinctively know what we can post here, and what will get us in trouble - but how do you define that and put it in writing?  I don't think you can.



That's why I brought it up for discussion, I don't think I can either but I feel it needs to be done in order to survive as what the site was ment to be.


----------



## Josh66

BigRC said:


> [...] be sure to give examples [...]


That oughta be interesting...


----------



## Big Bully

As in terms of the human body I think that we (American's) are uptight because we typically don't see it. The human form is always covered, unless you are lucky enough to find a nudist beach or camp, or hotel. (And they do exsist in our country) In Europe you have public nude beaches, and I don't know about the rest of Europe, but I know that Denmark has page 9 in their newspaper. So the nude form in your society is norm. If the US had more nude beaches and that was acceptable then I really don't think the naked form would be such a big deal, and the porn industry would actually go down. 
It is just like the guy in Atlanta said I think on page 1, when he even thinks of looking at a picture of a naked girl he gets excited. I think that is due to the fact that we, even with our "Britney Spears, Linsey Lohan, Paris Hilton" wannabe's are truely a covered nation. Which is sad, because the human body is an art form in itself.
But if you need a cookie cutter answer on what is classified as "porn" or not. Leave it simple just like BigRC said, Porn is classified as showing a sex act, or genitalia male or female. 
If you leave it up to a persons "best judgement" you will have those that will want to push the envelope. People always toe that line, and try to push it farther and farther. Which is half the reason porn is somewhat acceptable in todays world. Like I said I have had people tell me that the pictures I posted above, are considered porn, and indecent. So if you draw a line, stick to it. But keep it simple.


----------



## ShePaintsOrange

Elmer Batters, wasn't he the foot fetish guy?
We used to sell his photo books in a store that I worked at, they came 'packaged' in a nylon stocking.

I don't think you can say that by showing genitalia that it makes it pornography.  At a dinner party a photographer friend had her new prints spread out over the table, we were all trying to figure out how she took these wonderful abstract prints, turns out they were close ups of her girlfriends genital piercings.  Now my friends are pervy enough to eventually figure it out, but to the average viewer, they just looked like wonderful black and white abstracts.  Frankly, if I could afford one of them, I would purchase it and hang it above my sofa, none of my elderly neighbors visiting for a cup of tea would ever be the wiser.


----------



## karissa

Battou said:


> *EDIT* For all the mod staff who receive reports from "report first read later users" I give my formal apology.



Haha! I clicked on it thinking it was spam that hadn't been reported yet.


----------



## Big Bully

ShePaintsOrange said:


> Elmer Batters, wasn't he the foot fetish guy?
> We used to sell his photo books in a store that I worked at, they came 'packaged' in a nylon stocking.
> 
> I don't think you can say that by showing genitalia that it makes it pornography. At a dinner party a photographer friend had her new prints spread out over the table, we were all trying to figure out how she took these wonderful abstract prints, turns out they were close ups of her girlfriends genital piercings. Now my friends are pervy enough to eventually figure it out, but to the average viewer, they just looked like wonderful black and white abstracts. Frankly, if I could afford one of them, I would purchase it and hang it above my sofa, none of my elderly neighbors visiting for a cup of tea would ever be the wiser.


 

I think eventually people would figure out what the pictures are, it just might take some people longer than others to do so.


----------



## Fiendish Astronaut

It's time to wheel out the Bill Hicks quote - the greatest comedian of all time...

_"Supreme Court says pornography is anything without          artistic merit that causes sexual thoughts, that's their          definition, essentially. No artistic merit, causes sexual          thoughts. Hmm... Sounds like...every commercial on          television, doesn't it? 

You know, when I see those two twins          on that Doublemint commercial? I'm not thinking of gum."_


----------



## Josh66

I realize that there are probably a lot of underage (<18) members on here, but wouldn't making it an 18+ only forum solve all of these problems?  Short of that, I don't see how you can have a nude section without imposing limitations that would ban a lot of legitimate art.


----------



## Battou

O|||||||O said:


> I realize that there are probably a lot of underage (<18) members on here, but wouldn't making it an 18+ only forum solve all of these problems?  Short of that, I don't see how you can have a nude section without imposing limitations that would ban a lot of legitimate art.



Welcome to my world  Making the site 18+ will completely destroy the original intention of the site. 

Inbound PM


----------



## Big Bully

Battou said:


> Welcome to my world  Making the site 18+ will completely destroy the original intention of the site.
> 
> Inbound PM


 
I agree, look at how many teenagers we have on the site, who are as addicted and involved with photography as we are. 


I guess one thing you could do, like one of the other forums that I am on, is make a section that is strictly 18 and up, and you have to ask to be a member to that section. That way the mods can see the age of the person who is making the request and grant or deny the request. 
That way we don't have nude photography on the open forum but those who want to discuss it can, without worrying about younger eyes.
Just a thought.


----------



## ScottS

Big Bully said:


> I agree, look at how many teenagers we have on the site, who are as addicted and involved with photography as we are.
> 
> 
> I guess one thing you could do, like one of the other forums that I am on, is make a section that is strictly 18 and up, and you have to ask to be a member to that section. That way the mods can see the age of the person who is making the request and grant or deny the request.
> That way we don't have nude photography on the open forum but those who want to discuss it can, without worrying about younger eyes.
> Just a thought.


 
Sounds like a good idea to me.


----------



## Big Bully

ScottS said:


> Sounds like a good idea to me.


 

Yeah I have one or two rolling around in there somewhere.. They come out every once and a while.. lol


----------



## monkeykoder

:salute:


----------



## Big Bully

monkeykoder said:


> :salute:


 


Lookie-there! I got a salute!!


----------



## ScottS

Big Bully said:


> Yeah I have one or two rolling around in there somewhere.. They come out every once and a while.. lol


 
Yup believe it or not I sometimes post pictures!

Ok I will not Hijack this thread... I'm done posting.


----------



## Battou

Big Bully said:


> I agree, look at how many teenagers we have on the site, who are as addicted and involved with photography as we are.
> 
> 
> I guess one thing you could do, like one of the other forums that I am on, is make a section that is strictly 18 and up, and you have to ask to be a member to that section. That way the mods can see the age of the person who is making the request and grant or deny the request.
> That way we don't have nude photography on the open forum but those who want to discuss it can, without worrying about younger eyes.
> Just a thought.



Keep in mind, I asked for the thoughts and Ideas so I could develop Ideas on how to please everyone to employ on a site not related to TPF in anyway other than the base intrest of Photography. The bulk of this is not necessarily forum related but gallery related.

We would first need a relyable age varfication system.

I have actually thought about that and will employ it in the event it becomes necessary, The section would be easy enough to accomplish. We have filtering systems in place that will either block an image with a warning thumbnail or hide it from view completely pending the users preference, However there is no way of stopping individual users from setting their preferences to view the material on their own (kinda sorta a given). My original idea was to apply one of the filters to the category itself but that is apparently impossible to code..........

*false edit*
Wile typing that I got me an idea that may work. Perhaps the line lies in a group desition.

On the sibling sites there are public forum for abuse (suspected copyright violations and whatnot) Perhaps I could modify this practice for suspicion of porn. 

For example say you are browsing with your filters off and come across something you would consider porn. You go over the the sites forum and place the report and then the staff put it up to a panel of several viewers and get the general concencus of a group. If the image is deemed porn by the majority it is delt with accordingly and if the majority find it to hold artistic merit it is left alone.

Trial by jury of peers so to speak, in theroy this process could stand in a court as valid effort to not permit pornography/explicit adult material and maintain the interest of artists in the event an affiliate decides to claim we are in violation of terms, I think.


----------



## monkeykoder

theringlord.org/forum/ just counts the age you put on your profile and requires you to e-mail an administrator.


----------



## Big Bully

Battou said:


> Keep in mind, I asked for the thoughts and Ideas so I could develop Ideas on how to please everyone to employ on a site not related to TPF in anyway other than the base intrest of Photography. The bulk of this is not necessarily forum related but gallery related.
> 
> We would first need a relyable age varfication system.
> 
> I have actually thought about that and will employ it in the event it becomes necessary, The section would be easy enough to accomplish. We have filtering systems in place that will either block an image with a warning thumbnail or hide it from view completely pending the users preference, However there is no way of stopping individual users from setting their preferences to view the material on their own (kinda sorta a given). My original idea was to apply one of the filters to the category itself but that is apparently impossible to code..........
> 
> *false edit*
> Wile typing that I got me an idea that may work. Perhaps the line lies in a group desition.
> 
> On the sibling sites there are public forum for abuse (suspected copyright violations and whatnot) Perhaps I could modify this practice for suspicion of porn.
> 
> For example say you are browsing with your filters off and come across something you would consider porn. You go over the the sites forum and place the report and then the staff put it up to a panel of several viewers and get the general concencus of a group. If the image is deemed porn by the majority it is delt with accordingly and if the majority find it to hold artistic merit it is left alone.
> 
> Trial by jury of peers so to speak, in theroy this process could stand in a court as valid effort to not permit pornography/explicit adult material and maintain the interest of artists in the event an affiliate decides to claim we are in violation of terms, I think.


 

That is a really good idea, trial by jury, I mean geez that is how the courts work. But you have to have rules like if you have a 50-50 split (hung jury) or close calls with the jury. Like saying if the jury of peers have a 50-50 split then it gets booted as porn, or something to that effect. Or maybe you should ask your sponsors what they consider to be pornographic. That might help you with some sort of guidelines.


----------



## Big Bully

monkeykoder said:


> theringlord.org/forum/ just counts the age you put on your profile and requires you to e-mail an administrator.


 

That is how idahoturbodiesels.com works too.. They go by the age you put in your profile, and if you aren't old enough to view the "backroom" then said person is SOL, and does not get admittance.


----------



## Battou

Big Bully said:


> That is a really good idea, trial by jury, I mean geez that is how the courts work. But you have to have rules like if you have a 50-50 split (hung jury) or close calls with the jury. Like saying if the jury of peers have a 50-50 split then it gets booted as porn, or something to that effect.



I would take an uneven panel approach to prevent the 50/50 split and act on one vote the the majority side.



Big Bully said:


> Or maybe you should ask your sponsors what they consider to be pornographic. That might help you with some sort of guidelines.



This has not eluded us, however I prefer to have a backup plan on our end set by those who actually have an interest in the field just incase. With this material the bar is gonna get pushed no matter what we do. The better we cover our asses the better we will be in the long run.


----------



## Big Bully

Battou said:


> I would take an uneven panel approach to prevent the 50/50 split and act on one vote the the majority side.
> 
> 
> 
> This has not eluded us, however I prefer to have a backup plan on our end set by those who actually have an interest in the field just incase. With this material the bar is gonna get pushed no matter what we do. The better we cover our asses the better we will be in the long run.


 

Good idea, its always better to have a few back up plans. There are always going to be those people who toe the line, and try to push it.


----------



## jstuedle

JMO, but the site has been fine the way it is. You want to see that stuff, there are plenty of other forums. We don't need it here, this is a great general forum. As has been mentioned, art is in the eye of the viewer. With the general membership here, why not leave this forum at least PG-13?


----------



## Big Bully

jstuedle said:


> JMO, but the site has been fine the way it is. You want to see that stuff, there are plenty of other forums. We don't need it here, this is a great general forum. As has been mentioned, art is in the eye of the viewer. With the general membership here, why not leave this forum at least PG-13?


 

Battou is talking about a different forum, not this one and has said that more than once. He isn't trying to change this forum.


----------



## jstuedle

Sorry, this thread has so many posts, I haven't kept track of the twists and turns. I apologize for being slightly ignorant. My bad.


----------



## Big Bully

jstuedle said:


> Sorry, this thread has so many posts, I haven't kept track of the twists and turns. I apologize for being slightly ignorant. My bad.


 

It's alright, I got confused too awhile back. Everyone is allowed to have a bad every now and again.. This was just yours.. lol
It's all good!


----------



## Joves

Well as far as regulating content I would use the posters as, being the ones that set the bar. They could vote on what was going too far. It may get some angry in both directions but, would be the safest of all. Most age verification is a pain in the @ss to tell the truth. They usually require a credit card for that purpose. Unless you make a general forum then make a subscription part for say $25 for life time. That should keep the kiddies out.


----------



## Battou

Big Bully said:


> jstuedle said:
> 
> 
> 
> JMO, but the site has been fine the way it is. You want to see that stuff, there are plenty of other forums. We don't need it here, this is a great general forum. As has been mentioned, art is in the eye of the viewer. With the general membership here, why not leave this forum at least PG-13?
> 
> 
> 
> Battou is talking about a different forum, not this one and has said that more than once. He isn't trying to change this forum.
Click to expand...


Well It started as a means of gathering the general consus of TPF thoughts on the difference between porn and nudes and kinda evolved into this as my intentions for my use of the information grew clearer.




jstuedle said:


> Sorry, this thread has so many posts, I haven't kept track of the twists and turns. I apologize for being slightly ignorant. My bad.



Not a problem, you are not the first. 

Hell the copy of this thread I have posted on other sites either faild or got deleted. Periodic misunderstandings are not a big catastrophy. 

As a matter of fact one of the copies got deleted despite the mod of the particular site who deleted it having a crysal clear understanding....now that aggrivated me a little.



			
				River said:
			
		

> Hi there,
> 
> Your thread encouraging people to discuss a topic that is not G rated was removed. Please review our Terms of Use.
> {link to Tearms of use}



So far this is the only one that hasn't collapsed totally


----------



## WildSpirit

Hi,

I have this exact dilema - I am a female photographer, and my main business lies with erotic photography.

I have had more than 100 shoots, and only one of them would I consider "porn" ( it was a couples shoot and they requested more intimate pictures) 

Most women come to me wanting to feel beautiful, sensual and mysterious. Not one woman has ever asked me to make her look like  a porn star.

I do take photgraphs including genitalia ( mostly male) but I just consider it nude, not porn? 

I find the naked body amazing and beautiful. It is interesting to light and fun to do. 

One thing I find restricting is the inability to go outdoors as often as I would like ( due to client shiness or nudity laws) 

I think that the difference in porn verses art is technique, lighting, and the goal behind the photo. I want you drawn to the photo, not instantly turned on by it.

In any case, it is VERY hard to share you work for CC on the net without coming across as some kind of pervert. I'd LOVE a forum for nude/erotic photography, but I am afraid of the weirdo's it would also attract. 

I like conversing with intelligent professional photographers with a great eye for art, not some old lonely man getting his jollies from my photos 



Ainslie


----------



## Big Bully

Battou said:


> As a matter of fact one of the copies got deleted despite the mod of the particular site who deleted it having a crysal clear understanding....now that aggrivated me a little.
> 
> 
> 
> So far this is the only one that hasn't collapsed totally


 

I find it sad that there are some people out there that think we need to live in a G-rated world... How boring would that be?!


----------



## Big Bully

WildSpirit said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have this exact dilema - I am a female photographer, and my main business lies with erotic photography.
> 
> I have had more than 100 shoots, and only one of them would I consider "porn" ( it was a couples shoot and they requested more intimate pictures)
> 
> Most women come to me wanting to feel beautiful, sensual and mysterious. Not one woman has ever asked me to make her look like a porn star.
> 
> I do take photgraphs including genitalia ( mostly male) but I just consider it nude, not porn?
> 
> I find the naked body amazing and beautiful. It is interesting to light and fun to do.
> 
> One thing I find restricting is the inability to go outdoors as often as I would like ( due to client shiness or nudity laws)
> 
> I think that the difference in porn verses art is technique, lighting, and the goal behind the photo. I want you drawn to the photo, not instantly turned on by it.
> 
> In any case, it is VERY hard to share you work for CC on the net without coming across as some kind of pervert. I'd LOVE a forum for nude/erotic photography, but I am afraid of the weirdo's it would also attract.
> 
> I like conversing with intelligent professional photographers with a great eye for art, not some old lonely man getting his jollies from my photos
> 
> 
> 
> Ainslie


 
I completely agree. And you don't want to immediatly turn off/away the viewer from the photo either. I think there is a fine line, and most photographers can pull it off too.


----------



## Mesoam

listen point blank..

porn you want to yank your crank to

nude photography something you don't


----------



## Big Bully

Mesoam said:


> listen point blank..
> 
> porn you want to yank your crank to
> 
> nude photography something you don't


 

Wow! That is blunt.. But you have a point.


----------



## brileyphotog

In regards to the difference between art and porn, I defer to Justice Potter Stewart, who once so eloquently and succinctly put it: "I know it when I see it."

I can't remember which thread it was, but someone posted two of the most erotic images I have ever seen, and his model was fully clothed. So eroticism alone definitely can't make it not art. $.02


----------



## panocho

Didn't have patience enough to read all posts; only about half of them. So excuse me if I'm a bit lost here.

I tend to agree with those who say it's in the eyes of the one who watches. In itself, an image is just an image. Only afterwards someone "classifies" it one way or another.

About the so-called distance between art and pornography, what shall one do with the work of, say, Jeef Koons? The most explicit sexual images of himself and his wife (a well-known porn actress, no less) explicitly done and shown as works of art (or, at least, of an artist). I guess one could easily say that is pornography AND art, why not?


----------



## CanadianMe

I was the Curator of an Erotic Art Gallery in Toronto several years ago. That very question was what ended my relationship with the Gallery owner. I then ran a small gallery of my own with my wife and featured some local photographers  and two from the Chicago area. This question was why I finally gave up. First try finding a host that doesn't give you a hard time or cost a lot of money to host anything with nudity in it. It was all porn to them, some refused to host and some wanted a lot of money. Then there were the constant fight with local residents calling the art porn. Then during one exhibition I had held, it was raided and then a fight with the cops, then the politicians. A very good friend from the States had moved here and ran a magazine of B&W photographic erotic alt sex. Work in it was just beautiful, but same fights as me. but he also had other issues with sending them across the border and having shipments seized as pornographic, he fought and eventually won but it ruined the magazine financially. I fought tooth and nail to keep my gallery afloat but at some point it was costing way to much, because no matter how many fights I won there was always another. My point is most people cannot discern between the two and rarely try. Penthouse is porn, Man Ray is art. Playboy is soft porn, Eric Kroll's Fetish Girls is hard core art. It is not an answerable question as much it is all a matter of perspective. And with the ignorance of the masses, ignorance always wins out. I have nothing against porn but I just don't see the eroticism in it, in Erotic art I see the eroticism in it. Only stipulation is the models are of consenting age and they have a choice to consent.


----------



## panocho

CanadianMe said:


> It is not an answerable question as much it is all a matter of perspective. And with the ignorance of the masses, ignorance always wins out. I have nothing against porn but I just don't see the eroticism in it, in Erotic art I see the eroticism in it. Only stipulation is the models are of consenting age and they have a choice to consent.



You're right about the perspective issue. And I guess that's what makes the problem impossible to solve.

I think the only line that can be drawn with consensus is that between erotism and pornography, and that line is basically the difference between explicit and implicit. But no lines can be draw to separate what is and what is not art. Anything can be art, pornography as well.


----------



## kidchill

Ok, this may make total sense, or none at all.  My 10th grade English teacher (yah it was a while back, but he truly was an artist...ya-know the whole alcoholic sob story deal and all that) used to say that the difference b/n pornography and art of that form is victimization.  There IS a victim in porn and there IS NOT in art.  It makes sense, but how you would apply that kind of abstract thinking to regulation on an art site is totally beyond me.  With all of the discussion about it, I would say just keep the genitalia out and don't worry about it.  I seriously doubt anyone will be bouncing around the forum just looking for porn and on the flip side I doubt anyone wanting to see art will really allow porn to sit on the forum that long.  Of course, then again, most of us came into this thread because of the title......We're all a bunch of perverts. HeHe


----------



## Battou

CanadianMe, You sound like the kind of person I would like to have handy. I am curious as to your thoughts on this post


----------



## THORHAMMER

if shes hot, then its porn and I can afford to have it framed !!! 

if shes like 10 feet tall and too skinny with less breasts then sigourney weaver on a diet,  then its something I definitely cant afford anyway, call it art...


So, back to the subject, where are the fake art gallery links !! 

:lmao:


----------



## Battou

THORHAMMER said:


> if shes hot, then its porn and I can afford to have it framed !!!
> 
> if shes like 10 feet tall and too skinny with less breasts then sigourney weaver on a diet,  then its something I definitely cant afford anyway, call it art...
> 
> 
> So, back to the subject, where are the fake art gallery links !!
> 
> :lmao:



There are actually a couple in here. (to the best of my knowledge)


----------



## Scurra

My take on all this centres around gratuitousness.

When you look at a nude or pornographic image does the presence of the nudity strike you as unnecessary, or does it add something to the image. 

I know that for pornography to achieve its goal nudity for the most part is necessary, but thats not really what i'm trying to get at here.

While obviously this is always going to be about personal opinion of the subject matter, I think I would be confident in saying that for myself the difference between nude as art and nude as pornography is the point at which it becomes less about beauty and more about titillation. 

And I think this can be reinforced by saying that I am a straight guy, and I can appreciate both male and female nudes as art. Whether it be the curves of a woman or the more angular musculature of a man, they can both be beautiful. However when the line is crossed into pornography the concept of looking at a naked man repulses me. I think probably because of the more explicit nature of the imagery, the loss of beauty and the focus more on the act rather than the form.

I guess thats all I have to say on the matter,

P.S. I have nothing against gay guys, or girls for that matter, just thought i'd say that!


----------

