Definition of 'pornographic'?

Message

PigletWildebeest · Tue 23 Mar 2004, 12:37 pm

Tom wrote:
PigletWildebeest wrote: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

LOL.
Ahem.
I have a work ethic... ahem... I need my distraction now and again.

Tom · #17 Post by **Tom** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 12:44 pm

PigletWildebeest wrote: LOL.
Ahem.
I have a work ethic... ahem... I need my distraction now and again.

I have to admit I'm no better

But you shouldn't surf the web while working... at least that's what I'm always told

define psb · #18 Post by **define psb** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 2:19 pm

Definition of Pornographic Imaging and Of a sexual Nature:

If its females in slutty poses hinting at, or eluding to voyeuristic viewing. Blond bimbo's who look under 18 but have leather espadrille leg ties. Obvious slash tops that reveal a tiny hint at breasts. Rear views wear a thong divides the cheeks of a bent over female , skirt hoisted and IN YOUR Face bottoms ----- albeit with no pubic hair or sex organs shown.
THESE are acceptable and in no way Pornographic or of a sexual nature?
Is that what the Board of Moderators are saying?

As a female I don't actually find pics Like Glenny4 uses to be offensive.
As a female I don't find a Page 3 newspaper photo offensive.

As a heterosexual female I DO find the judgement of what is ACCEPTABLE to carry a very UNFAIR and UNEQUAL balance. Going by the aforementioned RULES.
Whether that is due to the Moderators being Heterosexual, or not, MALE I pressume! It still seems to be a Rule of double standards. Maybe the suggestion of a Male Sex organ is only offensive to the moderators, and a more explicit suggestion of skanty pantie girls, and what might be on offer, is NOT.

As a female I DO find the Judgement that a Male torso (as shown in the alledged offensive avatar) is Rude, offensive and NOT ALLOWED is both sexist and anti-equal rights!

I would still like to know if the Moderators actually received any complaint,
regarding the Avatar in question, demanding it's removal.

rags · #19 Post by **rags** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 2:47 pm

VERY well spoken!!!!!!

As a heterosexual male, one other comment, I do find the women in Glenny4s avatars UGLY! I found Toms original avatar a lot easier on the eye.

bigboy · #20 Post by **bigboy** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 2:51 pm

rags wrote: As a heterosexual male, I do find the women in Glenny4s avatars UGLY! I found Toms original avatar a lot easier on the eye.

Wow! I knew there was a reason I still liked cloggies

dizzy · #21 Post by **dizzy** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 2:54 pm

PigletWildebeest wrote: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.

Quite agree.
I find the 'girl-pictures' far more disturbing than Tom's, because of the clearly pornographic intention in them (something like that). As when Tom's avatars are much more towards the artistic side of things.
But on the other hand, the moderators have the right to remove whatever they feel is insuitable and we should adjust to their opinion, even though we don't always agree.

Avalon · #22 Post by **Avalon** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 3:11 pm

dizzy wrote:I find the 'girl-pictures' far more disturbing than Tom's, because of the clearly pornographic intention in them (something like that). As when Tom's avatars are much more towards the artistic side of things.

Ah yes, normally it's always men who excuse themselves for looking at naked bodies by claiming it is "art"... It's refreshing to hear a... ahem, 'woman' (well, Dizzy IS female) use the same excuse for a change.

PigletWildebeest · Tue 23 Mar 2004, 3:14 pm

Avalon wrote:
dizzy wrote:I find the 'girl-pictures' far more disturbing than Tom's, because of the clearly pornographic intention in them (something like that). As when Tom's avatars are much more towards the artistic side of things.
Ah yes, normally it's always men who excuse themselves for looking at naked bodies by claiming it is "art"... It's refreshing to hear a... ahem, 'woman' (well, Dizzy IS female) use the same excuse for a change.

well, she has a point you know.
A naked body is not the same in every context. Sometimes it's not about sex. Or is this an alien concept ?

Avalon · #24 Post by **Avalon** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 3:17 pm

PigletWildebeest wrote:A naked body is not the same in every context. Sometimes it's not about sex. Or is this an alien concept ?

Well yeah, but where do you draw the line then again (I hate these kinda discussions...)? Cos someone may see a naked body and say it is art and not really get turned on by it. While someone else does get turned on by it, keeps on staring at it too and then, when being caught, claim he/she was just admiring "art"...

Are you sure none of you men or women are getting turned on by Tom's "piece of art"?

dizzy · #25 Post by **dizzy** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 3:17 pm

Avalon wrote:
dizzy wrote:I find the 'girl-pictures' far more disturbing than Tom's, because of the clearly pornographic intention in them (something like that). As when Tom's avatars are much more towards the artistic side of things.
Ah yes, normally it's always men who excuse themselves for looking at naked bodies by claiming it is "art"... It's refreshing to hear a... ahem, 'woman' (well, Dizzy IS female) use the same excuse for a change.

I wouldn't exactly call it an excuse.
I am interested in photography and pictures of the human body is often just that. Pictures of human bodies. It's a great object to photograph, IMO.

dizzy · #26 Post by **dizzy** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 3:20 pm

Avalon wrote:Are you sure none of you men or women are getting turned on by Tom's "piece of art"?

Does it matter if people sitting alone in front of their screens get turned on by a picture?

Avalon · #27 Post by **Avalon** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 3:21 pm

dizzy wrote:Pictures of human bodies. It's a great object to photograph, IMO.

IMO???

Do you happen to have some "artistic" photos of some of your girl friends then per chance that you're willing to share?

dizzy · #28 Post by **dizzy** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 3:24 pm

Avalon wrote:
dizzy wrote:Pictures of human bodies. It's a great object to photograph, IMO.
IMO???

Do you happen to have some "artistic" photos of some of your girl friends then per chance that you're willing to share?

Oh, please.

In my opinion bodies are beutiful. In my opinion a rotten piece of apple is not. You may feel different, of course. Hence the whole discussion about the avatar.

Tom · #29 Post by **Tom** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 3:25 pm

Avalon wrote:Well yeah, but where do you draw the line then again ?

That is my question as well.

Images taken from pornographic movies are fine but these few pixels are too much?
And as if that wasn't bad enough, the displaying of a naked ass is absolutely acceptable?
It doesn't make any sense to me.

PigletWildebeest · Tue 23 Mar 2004, 3:25 pm

dizzy wrote:
Avalon wrote:Are you sure none of you men or women are getting turned on by Tom's "piece of art"?
Does it matter if people sitting alone in front of their screens get turned on by a picture?

yes, that's not the main issue.
If sex is on your mind, you'll get turned on by a photo of Neil dressed up as the pope. But is my avatar then pornographic?

Is the photo meant to
a) tease?
b) be beautiful?
c) make you think of sex?
d) make you think that the person in that particular picture desperately wants to have sex, preferably with you?
If it's c or d I think the pornography hypothesis has a case.

But then that's personal.
People find a whole lot more photos pornographic if they feel that there are no photos of naked bodies that are not about sex...