HOME | DD

darkmatterzone In reply to 95101 [2006-04-12 16:15:19 +0000 UTC]

Certainly there are different standards for different communities. For instance, in some Middle Eastern societies, a woman could be arrested or beaten merely for revealing her hair or for wearing makeup in public. Pornography is loosely defined as an image intended for prurient interest, without artistic merit. If we define porn as any depiction of human sensuality or sexuality, then we'd better start hiding the art of all the great masters, starting with Leonardo Da Vinci! And since the definition of porn has to do with intent, then is it the artist or the viewer who is guilty of pornographic thoughts?!!!

I once dated a girl from the Middle East. She was fascinated with a national beauty pagent that was being shown on TV. I said that I didn't want to watch it because it was phony and of poor taste. She, a person with a University Degree in Physics, thought it was wonderful that the contestants were parading across the stage in their swimsuits.

"Why", I asked. Her answer was, "Because they can!"

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

95101 In reply to darkmatterzone [2006-04-12 16:48:09 +0000 UTC]

Oh, and I couldn't resist commenting on these:

"And since the definition of porn has to do with intent, then is it the artist or the viewer who is guilty of pornographic thoughts?!!!"

The intent of child porn is bad. The guilt lies both in the viewer AND the artist. That point is moot.

and

If we define porn as any depiction of human sensuality or sexuality, then we'd better start hiding the art of all the great masters, starting with Leonardo Da Vinci!

And we're not defining it as such. Nice try, though!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

darkmatterzone In reply to 95101 [2006-04-12 17:18:52 +0000 UTC]

Oh, so it is you (or I) who defines pornography? Nice try.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

95101 In reply to darkmatterzone [2006-04-12 17:19:47 +0000 UTC]

Nah, mate. I didn't define. Webster Dicitonary and Wikipedia did that for me, thanks.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

95101 In reply to darkmatterzone [2006-04-12 16:45:17 +0000 UTC]

Haha! That's hilarious that you draw your parralels between two extremes.

I'm familiar with how the Taliban conducted their hypocrisy and injustice.

Pornography is not loosely defined. Try this: [link] ornography

And this: [link]

In it's original meaning, 'pornography' meant 'writing about prostitutes', so you can write a artistic poem about prostitutes that may warrant your merit, mate, but it's still writing about prostitutes.

So you're saying that because you can, you should?

It was a nice try, but fell far short of a coherent explanation to why this chic is clutching her breasts in mixmatched lingerie and undergarments. Don't get me wrong; I love women as much as the next (straight) guy. But the image looks like a border between Maxim and Penthouse. But that's cool. To each his own.

Good luck on the next shoot.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

darkmatterzone In reply to 95101 [2006-04-12 17:03:25 +0000 UTC]

The reference to Wikipedia shows that, in fact, porn is very broadly defined. While the etymology of the word pornography, itself, relates to prostitution, that does not mean that anyone involved in pornography or anyone accused of being involved in it, has anything to do with prostitution. For instance the word "assassin" comes from a Muslim order known as the Hashshashin, and means "people who use hashish." Yet, I'm sure that there are many assassins who have never touched hashish! The standards for pornography differ from country to country and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; thus, it is loosly defined.

This woman is clutching her breasts because she wants to; because she wants to express herself that way. Many men want to control women and how they choose to express themselves. She does not need to wear matched clothing if she chooses, nor does she have to meet any standard which men place on her. I've never looked at Maxim and it's been decades since I've looked at a Penthouse. But if you say that's where the image falls, maybe you have experience in those matters...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

95101 In reply to darkmatterzone [2006-04-12 17:22:39 +0000 UTC]

Interesting how you keep drawing sources from the Middle East. Curious, that.

I won't argue semantics with you. Pornography is, quite clearly, easy to recognize when you see it. No pun intended, but it's true. This photograph has little artistic merit to me, as a portrait photographer. It may to you, as your grade of photography, but that's the core of "to each his own". Hence my original comment "looks porn-ish"

As for my experience in those matters, sure. That was almost funny. But not.

If she wants to express herself by clutching her breasts, then that is interesting in itself. I doubt it's other women that want to control her and how she express' herself. She seems to fall right into that loop where she's fullfilling (conveniently) how many men see women.

Good job, on that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

darkmatterzone In reply to 95101 [2006-04-12 18:04:54 +0000 UTC]

Ho-hum. I'm bored.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

95101 In reply to darkmatterzone [2006-04-12 18:05:15 +0000 UTC]

Cheers.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0