View Topic
  Message Boards : Sexual Issues : View Topic : 42 Posts, Page 1 of 3
  HomeNewNoticesHot TopicsPollsStats Login / Register
 
Porno Pornography Eroticism Art Nakedness
 
# 1 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 15:38
 
crystalc
Godlike!
11198 POSTS SINCE 2009
 
47 YO MALE FROM DUBLIN
 
I have got a telling once on the boards by an admin and a mod warning for posting images which they regarded as porn but I regarded as tasteful art. Some of the most beautiful images is the human form but some of the ugliest images are also the human form as in exploitative pornography.

But I am not cribbing about the telling's I got for posting those images, I respect this site and like the way it is, I certainly would not like to see porno posted here liberally. So I pose a question what is regarded as a permitted image. What would you regard as a permitted image.

Edited By Thomas, 15 May 2010, 16:57

Reply
 
# 2 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 15:43
 
elat
Nanauatzin
20113 POSTS SINCE 2004
   
48 YO MALE
 
*finger twitches*

Reply
 
# 3 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 15:47
 
crystalc
Godlike!
11198 POSTS SINCE 2009
 
47 YO MALE FROM DUBLIN
 
Elat said :
*finger twitches*


What has you so excited.

Reply
 
# 4 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 15:56
 
ShemKK
Immortal
997 POSTS SINCE 2009
 
43 YO BI MALE FROM KILKENNY
 
4john said :


What has you so excited.


Twitchy finger syndrome ?

Reply
 
# 5 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 16:23
 
Mystic Zig
Administrator
46277 POSTS SINCE 2002
    
39 YO STRAIGHT MALE FROM DUBLIN
 
4john said :
So I pose a question what is regarded as a permitted image. What would you regard as a permitted image.


The only person who can answer that is Thomas, as its his site and his rules.
Why don't you just mail him if your not happy with the many posts he has already made on the subject.

Personally i think it does not take very much common sense to tell the difference between art and porn. If it was my site and my income was at risk from losing advertisements due to certain content i think id b able to tell very quickly what was OK and what was not so maybe you need to look at i from that angle.

Reply
 
# 6 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 16:27
 
crystalc
Godlike!
11198 POSTS SINCE 2009
 
47 YO MALE FROM DUBLIN
 
Loosey said :


The only person who can answer that is Thomas, as its his site and his rules.
Why don't you just mail him if your not happy with the many posts he has already made on the subject.

Personally i think it does not take very much common sense to tell the difference between art and porn. If it was my site and my income was at risk from losing advertisements due to certain content i think id b able to tell very quickly what was OK and what was not so maybe you need to look at i from that angle.


I see I didn't look at it that way

Could you please lock it up as that answers my question.

Reply
 
# 7 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 16:53
 
Was Faust
Eris
8236 POSTS SINCE 2004
 
29 YO STRAIGHT MALE
 
4john said :
I have got a telling once on the boards by an admin and a mod warning for posting images which they regarded as porn but I regarded as tasteful art. Some of the most beautiful images is the human form but some of the ugliest images are also the human form as in exploitative pornography.

But I am not cribbing about the telling's I got for posting those images, I respect this site and like the way it is, I certainly would not like to see porno posted here liberally. So I pose a question what is regarded as a permitted image. What would you regard as a permitted image.


Why are ugly human images suddenly not art?

Reply
 
# 8 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 16:57
 
Derrida
Hermes Trismegistus
10561 POSTS SINCE 2009
    
30 YO GAY MALE FROM DUBLIN
 
In a sense, one person's porn is another's art - the lines can become blurred. For example, one of the classical tenets of pure aestheticism is that the image must not provoke desire in the subject.

Reply
 
# 9 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 17:09
 
LoversWager
Myself
3186 POSTS SINCE 2009
 
26 YO GAY MALE
 
I have to agree with Derrida, at least I think I am agreeing he may have meant something entirely different but I believe that there are many images which could be both artistic and pornographic.

Reply
 
# 10 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 17:15
 
crystalc
Godlike!
11198 POSTS SINCE 2009
 
47 YO MALE FROM DUBLIN
 
faust said :


Why are ugly human images suddenly not art?


They are art but they are disgustingly ugly and disturbing, that in itself is not a reason to ignore them...Your question has me stumped I have to think about it...

Reply
 
# 11 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 17:19
 
shattered
Crazy Poster
94 POSTS SINCE 2010
 
29 YO LESBIAN FEMALE FROM DUBLIN
 
I agree with you the other day a friend said they were offended by a photo on Gaybeau.ie of a silhouette picture of a penis thru shorts. I thought it was saucing yet tasteful but thats not how they saw it. I was surprised.
atlasshrugged said :
I have to agree with Derrida, at least I think I am agreeing he may have meant something entirely different but I believe that there are many images which could be both artistic and pornographic.

Reply
 
# 12 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 17:24
 
dubsteve
maximus
10633 POSTS SINCE 2006
    
37 YO GAY MALE FROM DUBLIN
 
Derrida said :
In a sense, one person's porn is another's art - the lines can become blurred. For example, one of the classical tenets of pure aestheticism is that the image must not provoke desire in the subject.


i agree,everyone has different views on things, also some people may be a bit more prudish than others, or some not into art maybe that may deem anything naked wise as porn.

Reply
 
# 13 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 17:34
 
Shaggy
Internet Sensation
55653 POSTS SINCE 2004
  
30 YO MALE
 
Surely it's just common sense.

Posting a gaped hole is not pretty or art no matter how you pose!

Reply
 
# 14 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 17:42
 
scuzzlebutt
Ox
6123 POSTS SINCE 2003
 
43 YO MALE FROM GALWAY
 

Reply
 
# 15 : Saturday 15-5-2010 @ 17:45
 
Gadjo
Godlike!
4460 POSTS SINCE 2009
    
46 YO GAY MALE FROM CAVAN
 
shattered said :
I agree with you the other day a friend said they were offended by a photo on Gaybeau.ie of a silhouette picture of a penis thru shorts. I thought it was saucing yet tasteful but thats not how they saw it. I was surprised.


Often I find that the more explicit a picture is, the less erotic it is. If you leave a bit for the imagination, then the imagination comes rushing eagerly in and - drawing on all that person's memories and experiences - puts the icing on the visual cake.

ReplyWebsite
 
Prev 123Next