Definition of 'pornographic'?

[Tom]

Ok, I know a lot of people will find it sad I spent my time doing this, fine. There's always people who either don't care or don't understand some simple matters.
But I for one hate rules that apply to some but not others.
And sadly you won't ever get any answer if you don't dare to ask the question


Since nobody was able or willing to give me a definition of the term, I did search on the net for something useful.

While hyper dictionary simply gives this not very useful definition :

WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [adj] designed to arouse lust; "pornographic films and magazines"

Synonyms: sexy

Other sites came up with more complex interpretations.
frontline
crow magazine

Two lenghty articles with opposing results, but they might be worth checking out.


The conclusion seems to be that pornography either doesn't have a fixed definition or that the mere depicting of a beatiful woman is pornographic.

However I couldn't find anything that would support Steve's claim that my avatar was pornographic and clearly against the forum rules. I think he was refering to point 2. of the forum rules

The posting of Pornography, or links to pornographic web sites is forbidden. Also please do not make posts of a graphic sexual nature. This forum is open to PSB fans of all ages and as such the content should be readable by all.

But what is pornographic?

By definition pornography is: "written, graphic or other forms of communication intended to excite lascivious feelings, arouse sexual excitement". It comes from the Greek word pornographos, writing about prostitutes.

Surely this can't be the definition of pornographic that is used on this forum?
How else could you possibly explain that a full view image of a male bottom is totally acceptable, while a glimpse of flesh is pornographic?
Neither should stills from porn movies be acceptable, but of course they are.
Steve said the avatar in question displayed the (male) genitalia.
I would usually agree that this could be classified as pornographic, but of course no genitalia was displayed in said avatar.
You could only guess from the fact that skin was shown in the region of the groins that it was part of a penis that was visible.
In other words the image in question is no more pornographic than a picture of a woman wearing a tight tshirt.

So the amount of skin displayed in an image is not a factor in defining pornograhy.
Then what is?
Let's try this one:

Pornography is OBJECTIVIZATION

Now it doesn't matter anymore how much or little someone is wearing.
It is now the posing and displaying of a body that defines pornography.

But that can't be the right definition either.
We still have the problem with the porn stills that are not pornographic according to forum rules, or rather according to moderator's taste.

Apparently the 'censoring' of the female breast in certain images is all it takes to make a porn still non pornographic.
But does that really change the nature of an image that according to all definitions is pornographic? I don't think so.

Let's just look at the images in question side by side:

1.

(not pornographic)

2.

(not pornographic)

3.

(pornographic)

4.

(not pornographic)

5.

(not pornographic)

The question remains:
What is the definition of 'pornographic' on this forum?

Now for me there are three possible options as to how this problem could possibly be solved:
1. The moderators come up with a good and working definition as to what is and isn't pornographic
2. Remove and prohibit all images depicting people in non-formal clothing and/or sexually suggesting poses
3. Allow all images as long they are in good taste and of no sexually explicit nature.


As a side note. Several (female) members have pointed out that they find the avatars displaying women in sexually suggesting poses to be sexist.
And although the forum rules state that the posting of sexist content is prohibited and now even complaints have been voiced, this matter has still not been addressed by any moderator.

Now if there's a kind soul out there that can give me an acceptable definition of pornographic I'd be eternally grateful.



I doubt anyone will say anything tho. "We have no opinion on pornography"
Is the simple discussing of the matter pornographic?

[Shopper]

Well Tom, your avatar is not pornographic, but I often access the forums from work and frankly I had to scroll down quickly and subconciously look around to see if anyone was hovering around so you can say that I was embarrassed.

Its always interesting if the avatar one chooses is in relation to ones personality (like Drico's evil grin kid, which is a classic) and esp if one is not too comfy putting their photos for the world to see.

But if the intention is to tell the forum that you are gay and u like ure men muscular and well oiled, then u've done ure job dont take it personally ok

[Undertaker]

I'd say anything showing pubic hair, breasts and down below is pornorgraphic (the front . I can't put d**k because it turns it into 'snowball fight'

Which raises another point! What if anyone's name on here was Dick. It would be edited out. Now that's going overboard.

Dave

[Dipso]

[quote="Shopper"] Well Tom, your avatar is not pornographic, but I often access the forums from work and frankly I had to scroll down quickly and subconciously look around to see if anyone was hovering around so you can say that I was embarrassed. [quote]

The same applies to me as well. I`m sure lots of the posters here access the fora from work or school. It`s nothing to do with prudery.

[Tom]

I'd say anything showing pubic hair, breasts and down below is pornorgraphic (the front . I can't put d**k because it turns it into 'snowball fight'

Which raises another point! What if anyone's name on here was snowball fight. It would be edited out. Now that's going overboard.

Dave

'It's not looking good Richard'

'No pubic hair'.... that basically means no topless guys unless they are clean shaven?

@Dipso & Shopper
Fair enough points but is this wee bit of dark hair really so much worse than porn pics and naked buttoms?

I didn't include the avatar of VeryRelentless but honestly you see more of her breasts than you'll ever see of this guy's 'private area'.

It's absolutely ridiculous to make this one out to be pornographic but the others aren't. They either all are or none.

[Steve Fett]

Ok, I know a lot of people will find it sad I spent my time doing this, fine. There's always people who either don't care or don't understand some simple matters.
But I for one hate rules that apply to some but not others.
And sadly you won't ever get any answer if you don't dare to ask the question


Since nobody was able or willing to give me a definition of the term, I did search on the net for something useful.

While hyper dictionary simply gives this not very useful definition :

WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [adj] designed to arouse lust; "pornographic films and magazines"

Synonyms: sexy

Other sites came up with more complex interpretations.
frontline
crow magazine

Two lenghty articles with opposing results, but they might be worth checking out.


The conclusion seems to be that pornography either doesn't have a fixed definition or that the mere depicting of a beatiful woman is pornographic.

However I couldn't find anything that would support Steve's claim that my avatar was pornographic and clearly against the forum rules. I think he was refering to point 2. of the forum rules

The posting of Pornography, or links to pornographic web sites is forbidden. Also please do not make posts of a graphic sexual nature. This forum is open to PSB fans of all ages and as such the content should be readable by all.

But what is pornographic?

By definition pornography is: "written, graphic or other forms of communication intended to excite lascivious feelings, arouse sexual excitement". It comes from the Greek word pornographos, writing about prostitutes.

Surely this can't be the definition of pornographic that is used on this forum?
How else could you possibly explain that a full view image of a male bottom is totally acceptable, while a glimpse of flesh is pornographic?
Neither should stills from porn movies be acceptable, but of course they are.
Steve said the avatar in question displayed the (male) genitalia.
I would usually agree that this could be classified as pornographic, but of course no genitalia was displayed in said avatar.
You could only guess from the fact that skin was shown in the region of the groins that it was part of a penis that was visible.
In other words the image in question is no more pornographic than a picture of a woman wearing a tight tshirt.

So the amount of skin displayed in an image is not a factor in defining pornograhy.
Then what is?
Let's try this one:

Pornography is OBJECTIVIZATION

Now it doesn't matter anymore how much or little someone is wearing.
It is now the posing and displaying of a body that defines pornography.

But that can't be the right definition either.
We still have the problem with the porn stills that are not pornographic according to forum rules, or rather according to moderator's taste.

Apparently the 'censoring' of the female breast in certain images is all it takes to make a porn still non pornographic.
But does that really change the nature of an image that according to all definitions is pornographic? I don't think so.

Let's just look at the images in question side by side:

1.

(not pornographic)

2.

(not pornographic)

3.

(pornographic)

4.

(not pornographic)

5.

(not pornographic)

The question remains:
What is the definition of 'pornographic' on this forum?

Now for me there are three possible options as to how this problem could possibly be solved:
1. The moderators come up with a good and working definition as to what is and isn't pornographic
2. Remove and prohibit all images depicting people in non-formal clothing and/or sexually suggesting poses
3. Allow all images as long they are in good taste and of no sexually explicit nature.


As a side note. Several (female) members have pointed out that they find the avatars displaying women in sexually suggesting poses to be sexist.
And although the forum rules state that the posting of sexist content is prohibited and now even complaints have been voiced, this matter has still not been addressed by any moderator.

Now if there's a kind soul out there that can give me an acceptable definition of pornographic I'd be eternally grateful.



I doubt anyone will say anything tho. "We have no opinion on pornography"
Is the simple discussing of the matter pornographic?

good on you for speaking your mind - I'm with you, there have been faaaaarrrr too many slutty girly pics here, but the first "gay" looking one and all hell breaks loose. There is something fishy here methinks

[shamelessbehave]

These pics Tom showed are sexy to me,but not pornographic.

[fredot]

These pics Tom showed are sexy to me,but not pornographic.

Totally agree !! And even if we are in OFF topic, do you remember the problem with Being Boring videos ?

[Steve Fett]

if you can't have slutty guy pics then you SHOULDN'T be allowed to have slutty girl pics. Can't be one or the other. I am not offended by either, but only allowing the girly pics seems to be a little bias methinks

You must draw the line and not be a hypocrite...

[PigletWildebeest]

I think the difference between what's erotic and what's pornographic is a very personal one.
It would seem so anyway.

If I were at work I'd be more embarrassed coming across the slut-avatars than the oiled chest ones. Because those women seem to scream "take me, it's what I'm here for" and Tom's bodies... well, they're just there, they don't do anything. There for the beauty that is the male form (ahem).

If someone were to post a picture of a female torso like that, or a female backside it would be the same. Far more erotic than pornographic.
In my humble opinion.

[bigboy]

I'm with you, there have been faaaaarrrr too many slutty girly pics here, but the first "gay" looking one and all hell breaks loose. There is something fishy here methinks

Exactly. You should read my post in the split avatar thread now in off-topic. It's most definitely a moderator double-standard thing.

Why can't we have some gay moderators on this board?


UPDATE: the thread is now called Moderating Double Standards?

[Steve Fett]

I'm with you, there have been faaaaarrrr too many slutty girly pics here, but the first "gay" looking one and all hell breaks loose. There is something fishy here methinks

Exactly. You should read my post in the split avatar thread now in off-topic. It's most definitely a moderator double-standard thing.

Why can't we have some gay moderators on this board?

hehehe, like i said earlier - I smell censorship in the air and it reallllllly smells

AND.....wasn't it funny that it was Ok to have pics of the whole Janet tit thing last month...if it was a discussion about some guys ahem, then would it be a deleted topic. I think the answer would be yes.l

[bigboy]

Funny how the moderators all appear to be 100% hetero on a board inspired by two men who are 100% homo, isn't it?

[Steve Fett]

Funny how the moderators all appear to be 100% hetero on a board inspired by two men who are 100% homo, isn't it?

how ironic.

[Tom]

If I were at work I'd be more embarrassed coming across the slut-avatars than the oiled chest ones.

If I was at work I probably wouldn't even know about the avatar as I would be working rather than surfing the net and hang around some chat sites.
No offense but... you know