Porno...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Can pornongraphy be called aesthetically pleasing?

Discuss.

( I will put my views in after a few replies, I am curious I suppose. )

[BuyOurEverything]

Yes.

[mia wallace]

it's surely pleasing - there's no doubt but that :D
but aesthetically sounds kinda strange to me, but i guess u can put it that way if u want... yeah :rolleyes:

dont know

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Explain that Buy Our Everything.

That is just pointless.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Anything can be aesthetically pleaseing, it's entirely subjective.

[canikickit]

Can pornongraphy be called aesthetically pleasing?

If people think it is aesthetically pleasing then I'm sure they are capable of calling it that.
Surely the whole idea behind it is that it is pleasurable to the eye?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well why is something aesthetically pleasing. Lets say in Kantian aesthetics something with a purpose can't be aesthetically pleasing, thus porn is made for a use thus can't be aesthetically pleasing.

[canikickit]

Cars can be aesthetically pleasing, a jacket can be aesthetically pleasing my computer is quite nice looking and so are those fancy Macs.

Porn is made for a use - to be watched. Watching it is dependant on the aesthetics. You're not going to watch pornography if it doesn't turn you on.

I think this Kant you speak of has mental problems.

[BuyOurEverything]

I don't really know how you can defend the statement that something is asthetically pleasing. I belive porn is, is there any reason why it isn't?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Are you serious? Kant, possible the greatest thinker of the the modern age in philosophy, founder of modern philosophy too.

A car can be viewed as aesthetically pleasing when viewed in a certain way outside of its mundaneness or as a tool. Porn is the same, maybe in the right frame of mind it can be aesthetic but essentially it isn't.

Unlike natural beauty like say a tulip we can understand how a car is made thus it loses the sublime i.e. wonder and cannot truly be aesthetic.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 11:31 PM
I don't really know how you can defend the statement that something is asthetically pleasing. I belive porn is, is there any reason why it isn't?
Possibly yes, and it is the task of the philosophy to ask if it is.

[BuyOurEverything]

A car can be viewed as aesthetically pleasing when viewed in a certain way outside of its mundaneness or as a tool. Porn is the same, maybe in the right frame of mind it can be aesthetic but essentially it isn't.

I disagree, a tool can be asthetically pleasing.


Unlike natural beauty like say a tulip we can understand how a car is made thus it loses the sublime i.e. wonder and cannot truly be aesthetic.

I disagree with that also. You seem to be making arbitrary rules about what can be asthetically pleasing and what cannot and not giving any real reason for them. Why can something you understand not be asthetic?

I suppose the real issue here is art. Would you say that art cannot be asthetically pleasing because it has a purpose (ie. to be viewed)?

[canikickit]

Kant, possible the greatest thinker of the the modern age in philosophy, founder of modern philosophy too.

You forgot to mention that he lliked to make love to dead animals.


A car can be viewed as aesthetically pleasing when viewed in a certain way outside of its mundaneness or as a tool. Porn is the same, maybe in the right frame of mind it can be aesthetic but essentially it isn't.

Essentially it is. It's primary basis of existence is to please the eye.


Unlike natural beauty like say a tulip we can understand how a car is made thus it loses the sublime i.e. wonder and cannot truly be aesthetic.

Why not?
Why does the knowledge of how something is created take away from it's appearance?
We know that a seed is placed in the ground, then germinates and grows to become the tulip, does this make it less pleasing to the eye.

So what exactly did Kant say about aesthetics?
What if somethings use revolves around viewing it?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 11:37 PM





I disagree with that also. You seem to be making arbitrary rules about what can be asthetically pleasing and what cannot and not giving any real reason for them. Why can something you understand not be asthetic?

I suppose the real issue here is art. Would you say that art cannot be asthetically pleasing because it has a purpose (ie. to be viewed)?

I disagree, a tool can be asthetically pleasing.

This is a toughie to explain by the way but I'll try. Basically the materiality of the subject affects the mind directly. The structure of experience is down to the human mind. Purposiveness asks that the aesthetic object has no purpose. Beauty is an autonomous attribute of an object that dosent have to be useful. Thus you cannot see something as both useful and beautiful. The pleasure in the aesthetic is merely complemptative and does not produce an interest in the object.
If you can grasp that you will realise that beauty as an autonomous attribute denies the useful aspect of an object thus disallowing something useful to be aesthetically pleasing. This applies mainly say to tools.

Art dosent have a useful purpose as such, it aims to aesthetically please thus is not useful by this line of thought.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

You forgot to mention that he lliked to make love to dead animals.

Do not mock the mighty KANT!


Essentially it is. It's primary basis of existence is to please the eye.

The primary basis of the existence of a car is to drive.
The primary basis of pornography is to arouse and stimulate, that's its purpose.


Why not?
Why does the knowledge of how something is created take away from it's appearance?
We know that a seed is placed in the ground, then germinates and grows to become the tulip, does this make it less pleasing to the eye.

No because we did'nt create the tulip if you get me. That's the wonder.



So what exactly did Kant say about aesthetics?
What if somethings use revolves around viewing it?

It depends, a blackboard's use is viewing it but its purpose and use really is to convery ideas. Like TV.

[BuyOurEverything]

Art dosent have a useful purpose as such, it aims to aesthetically please thus is not useful by this line of thought.

The same could be said for porn. In fact, I believe porn is art.


This is a toughie to explain by the way but I'll try. Basically the materiality of the subject affects the mind directly. The structure of experience is down to the human mind. Purposiveness asks that the aesthetic object has no purpose. Beauty is an autonomous attribute of an object that dosent have to be useful. Thus you cannot see something as both useful and beautiful. The pleasure in the aesthetic is merely complemptative and does not produce an interest in the object.
If you can grasp that you will realise that beauty as an autonomous attribute denies the useful aspect of an object thus disallowing something useful to be aesthetically pleasing. This applies mainly say to tools.


Again, I don't agree. I don't really know how to debate this point further. Debating over what is asthetically pleasing and what isn't seems somewhat pointless.

"I think that car is pretty."
"No you don't."

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well lets sit back and see if any new views come onboard.

I am suggesting that a common sense subjective universality defines the aesthetically beautiful. I never gave my personal view on porn by the way.

[canikickit]

What is your perspective on pornography?

It is unlikely that anything as mundane as a hammer or screwdriver would ever be designed as aesthetically beautiful. But if they were, there is no rational reason why they would either cease to function in their intended role as a tool, or why they would cease to be pleasing in appearance when used as tools.


The primary basis of the existence of a car is to drive.

Correct.


The primary basis of pornography is to arouse and stimulate, that's its purpose.

Yes, but it does so true both a visual and aural medium, with minimal story lines to stimulate imagination. My point was the visual element, it is obviously the major factor.

Why is something you enjoy not useful? What is use?
What are these questions?

I feel perhaps, that pornography wasn't the best subject matter for this discussion. Pornography is not a tool, it is a form of expression.


It depends, a blackboard's use is viewing it but its purpose and use really is to convery ideas. Like TV.

Correct, but neither example is actually aesthetically pleasing.
A blackboard's function is basic and their is no attempt to make it pleasing in appearance.
The action on sceen must have some nice aesthetics to keep our attention.

[redstar2000]

Consider the "art deco" furnishings of 1920-1950...wasn't the idea to design things that were useful in a mundane way and yet pleasing to the eye independent of use? A lamp was still a lamp; a couch was still a couch, an ashtray was still an ashtray, etc., but they were "cool" just to look at.

I think it's a very difficult challenge to create something that is both useful and pleasing to the eye...but I appreciate the effort.

These days, it's rather rare.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

I know hwat you mean, those damn half-egg chairs, I want one.

As for porn being aesthetically beautiful... I'm tempted to post some to prove it can be.

Anything can be aesthetically beautiful, I see where you're going geist, but people are too diverse for Kant's theory on this to make any sense to me.

[hazard]

porno is, as far as I can tell, anything that is intentionally designed to be sexually arousing

unless you mean like modern porno as the mag and vid biz

under the proper definition, sure, something that is sexually arousing can also be beautiful

as far the modern industry, as it is capitalist in nature, its focus is upon exploitation so whatever little beauty that may be contained within in it is quickly overrun by the nature of the society responsible for it. as a result, the societal mode is furthur propogated by using porno as a tool to arouse people through the exploitation of others. nd this is, by no means, aesthetically pleasing.

[Floyd.]

Art isn't just aesthetics and concepts it's also intent ant perception of the individual. Pornography is the human form i find that beautiful, horrible and pleasing depending on depiction. Porn is good just so long as those participating want to be doing it. I think porn serves a purpose though, like a doorhandle, its meant to relieve stress, indulge desire and basically get you off. Once you remove the function then it becomes a higher form of art because it has only one pupose... to be art and to be seen as art.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by Comrade La [email protected] 27 2004, 04:16 AM
Art isn't just aesthetics and concepts it's also intent ant perception of the individual.

Aesthetics is the relation of the individual to the art object thus the perception of the individual. Stating that it is also about intent or anything else is not adding anything to the argument.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Having looked at this thread again I think I have a few new ideas if anybody wants to come in on it.

[canikickit]

What's it all about so?
How would you define aesthetically pleasing? Essentially that just mean "nice to look at". Porn that wasn't nice to look at wouldn't be very useful.

[Tiki Man]

Yes. Aesthetics to me is dealing with attraction and stimulation of the mind using certain angles, patterns, colors, textures, and curves.

...All of which can often be found in porn. That's the way evolution wanted it!

But dog porn etc...no, we aren't dogs. We are designed to be pleased by humans.

[che's long lost daughter]

Maybe Kant found making love to animals aesthetically pleasing. But we can't deny that he's really a brilliant man.

[Gunman]

/off topic mode: ON
OK, by reading this thread, ive discovered a thing that is aesthetically pleasing and useful, and that is... a Woman! :D
Its pleasing to look to a hot chick, and she cleans, cook, etc... :P
/off topic mode: OFF

Well, i think Porn is both useful and aesthetically pleasing. So i wonder why Kant thought that something beautiful aint usefull

[scrap metal]

As far as if porn is aesthetically pleasing, it goes along with EVERYTHING else that can be seen, and the simple fact is, you can't account for taste. What you may find a horrible waste of human life and effort, someone else may seen as a master piece.

[gnuneo]

once again we see ivory tower philosphy slicing reality and demanding that that particluar slice (in this case the difference between art and function) is more 'real' than the 'reality' itself, which is ultimately indivisible.

thankfully, geist didnt post page after page of kantian semi-incomprehensible drivel to 'prove' his point.


thank you geist, for that forbearance ^_^

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I would never post too much Kant anywhere, I have enough trouble reading him myself to force it upon anybody else.

Although I have come to the conclusion that porn is not aesthetically pleasing, in that its purpose as such is not to create art but to create sexual visual images for stimulation for masterbation and thus cannot be considered art.

Perhaps erotica can be considered art since it dose not set out to arouse but to appreciate...

[cubist]

its how pornography is applied as a marketing that is the problem,

porno in your home with your GAL/Guy is fine arouse yourselves but in its sleazy capitalist uses on the net, i think its just demeaning and inapropriate but hey its everyones world and not everyone minds being an icon of men jerking off, i just don't like pornography on socialist forumks before anyone kicks off about a certain post i made

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 06:31 PM
Are you serious? Kant, possible the greatest thinker of the the modern age in philosophy, founder of modern philosophy too.

A car can be viewed as aesthetically pleasing when viewed in a certain way outside of its mundaneness or as a tool. Porn is the same, maybe in the right frame of mind it can be aesthetic but essentially it isn't.

Unlike natural beauty like say a tulip we can understand how a car is made thus it loses the sublime i.e. wonder and cannot truly be aesthetic.
The "natural beauty" of a tulip is there for no other reason to attract bees to it to help in pollenate. The tulips "beauty" therefore is it's "mundaneness as a tool" Thus the aesthetic beauty of the flower has no more relevance than the beauty of a car, or pornography, or any other art.

Hence the term "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

We are talking about art, the relation of an object to humans

Hence my criteria still stands, the flower has no specific function to man, also it is not a manmande tool.

The flower also is attractive to bee's, the reason flowers are colourful etc. is to attract bee's.

[Sabocat]

The question was can porno be considered aesthetically pleasing. I believe it can be, just as surely as any art form. Purpose shouldn't exclude aesthetics. Van Gogh's Starry Night isn't aesthetically pleasing because it's purpose was to convey an artists feelings and emotions?

You stated...


Well why is something aesthetically pleasing. Lets say in Kantian aesthetics something with a purpose can't be aesthetically pleasing, thus porn is made for a use thus can't be aesthetically pleasing.

Hence my response with regards to the tulip.

Perhaps the better question is what exists without any purpose that is aesthetically appealing to a human?



Although I have come to the conclusion that porn is not aesthetically pleasing, in that its purpose as such is not to create art but to create sexual visual images for stimulation for masterbation and thus cannot be considered art.


Then you're not watching the right porn... :lol:

I contend that if a person does anything and he/she considers art, then it is art. How do you know if the producer and actors of a particular porn consider it art? I don't consider a lot of performance art aesthetically pleasing to me, but yet concede that the artist creates and considers it as art.

[Funky Monk]

Are we adequately differentiating porno and erotica?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Van Gogh's Starry Night isn't aesthetically pleasing because it's purpose was to convey an artists feelings and emotions?

But it was made, created as a work of art. It's purpose is to be art, to be aesthetically pleasing. But this is a widely different purpose than say a hammer which is made with one intent to be used to hammer things.


Hence my response with regards to the tulip.
Perhaps the better question is what exists without any purpose that is aesthetically appealing to a human?

What are you on about, we are talking about aesthetics which is man's study or relation to art, it has to be about humans.



How do you know if the producer and actors of a particular porn consider it art? I don't consider a lot of performance art aesthetically pleasing to me, but yet concede that the artist creates and considers it as art.

You feel that way because you know it was created for the purpose of art, to be art. Erotica is created for this purpose, that is the dividing line between art and pornography which is created for stimulation thus it has a purpose, is a tool in essence and cannot be art.

[Guest1]

Erotica is created for this purpose, that is the dividing line between art and pornography which is created for stimulation thus it has a purpose, is a tool in essence and cannot be art.
I've seen a porn vid that I consider very much art.

Just cause it serves a purpose does not make it not art.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

But thats my whole point it does, if something is designed to be art that is its purpose, if something is designed for another purpose it loses its artistic value.

There is no attempt to make porn art so its not art. There is a concious decision to make erotica art so it is thus art.

What makes porn artistic in your opinion?

[Mano Dayak]

it can, under certain circumstances.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Elaborate.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:44 AM
But thats my whole point it does, if something is designed to be art that is its purpose, if something is designed for another purpose it loses its artistic value.

There is no attempt to make porn art so its not art. There is a concious decision to make erotica art so it is thus art.

What makes porn artistic in your opinion?
It was lesbian porn, but it was very tasteful.

We're talking very much art. No cheesy story line, slow, sensual movements, no sound, just the music, baby oil and two women in a masterpiece.

Other than that, there is this woman porn director who tries to make her porn art, I don't remember her name but I saw a documentary on her. Her work was definitely art though. She skipped the usual porn shit and went for the sensual. She knew what really was beautiful about women, not just tits. Appreciating the body to the fullest extent, neck, ears, back, things normal porn doesn't pay much attention to.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Thus you are talking about erotica and not pornography, she wanted it to be art so it is art.

[Pawn Power]

yea i guess it is depending on which porno, their are so many i guess some could be artistically visual

[canikickit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:44 PM
if something is designed to be art that is its purpose, if something is designed for another purpose it loses its artistic value.
Something which looks good is not necessarily incapable of performing a function.
Something which has been created with "the conscious use of creative imagination" does not automatically become unusable for any practical use.

Different buildings can be built in ways which are decorative or illustrative, yet these buildings still keep people warm, provide shelter, etc., etc.

Why does something which is designed for "another purpose" (i.e. arousal, pleasure) lose its artistic value? There is still a craft and design to these films, which can appeal to people on an intellectual level, and on whatever other level people wish it to, whether it involves sheep or not.

True, its purpose may not be "to create art" or "a critical look at postmodern postmoralismistic spheres of Greek influences", but it can still have an artistic appeal.

Much music is made for people to dance to, I believe that the measurement of how much you want to dance to it is, its artistic value.

What is it that makes The Cheeky Girl less talented than, Outkast for example?
Or whatever example might apply to you personally.


There is no attempt to make porn art so its not art.

Who says there is no attempt though, and what makes it true?
Why does it arouse people? Obviously people like the ways it looks, and if you've ever been sad enough to watch Eurotrash, or the crap they always have on Sky One, such as "Porno Valley", you will have seen that the directors do make a conscious effort to capture beautiful images which appeal to their audience.

[elijahcraig]

I pretty much agree with Geist on this one. Porno is not aesthetically pleasing. It plays to the emotions, not the aesthetic mind.

[canikickit]

What is aesthetically pleasing and what makes it so?

[pandora]

Oh you knew I'd comment on this :D all right,

First lies in the defination "pornography" as opposed to "art" or even "erotica"
That which is designed towards the defination "pornography" is designed to show disrespect to the individual souls, essences, and physical manifestations of body that are engaged in sexual acts to create this gamut for the market.
The defination of porn, is that it must be abstract with no "CONNECTION" or "FEELING" between those being portrayed and those who are "OBSERVING."
Those who observe pornography demand that they be allowed to view without responsibility or feeling towards those whom they are viewing. In fact they reduce "those" they are viewing to "that" which they are viewing.
The consequence of this is to supposedly somehow protect those who are viewing from personal responsibility for "that" or in reality "those" which they are viewing.
This need was born out of feelings of "guilt" imposed by the CHURCH and it's rules for conduct in and outside of marriage.
To protect those who are viewing from the responsibility of commiting such acts, don't forget much pornography was developed to it's present extent in CATHOLIC societies such as Italy and France, where confession was present.
By seperating the subject from the observer, the observer could call themselves morally "safe" but THE REALITY IS THIS IS NOT TRUE, THE OBSERVER AND THE OBSERVED HAVE A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP, ESPECIALLY IN THE MARKET,
whereby THE CONSUMER< a sick thought to the notion of bodies, a bit cannibalistic in this sense, which in fact it can be< IS PURCHASING SERVICES from the actors or actresses. You are engaged in the process.

THis is also true in "erotica" and "art" but the viewer submits more to the process, they recognize themselves as a consumer, and look for a product which has the traits they admire in themselves, often beauty or bravery in the actors or actresses portrayed. The models are encouraged to show emotion, in fact often the photographer will snatch unexpected photos to catch real emotion from the subject.

It is extremely subjective. The subject affects the viewer, and often the artist or photographer is profoundly affected by the subject to the point they can change their lives positively or negatively. If you research the lives of photographers who took sexual subjects photos often they were so absorbed in their subjects that they engaged in drugs, or became depressed by them, or even involved with them sexually as life partners.

The artist no longer sees the subject as abstract, but as a human being
Because of this the artist demands we see them as human as well
Because of this the portrayer or artist is affected by the subject on a deep profound level.

Pornography is designed to shut down this connection to make the power of the subjects usually women, involved harmless, therefore any harm must be turned in on the actress or actor themselves, and this does occur often resulting in drug use or suicide, but it also affects the disposition and morals of the viewer and INCREASES the depersonaification of the sexual act in The Western World.
In America especially young men especially are able to seperate their bodies from their emotions to varying degrees ending in unhappiness and often alcoholism.
According to Asian Sex Workers, American clients can be especially cruel, and see them more objectively as objects rather than human, in engaging in acts that they may have seen in porno but are not in reality pleasureable as experimentation.
ANyhoo, it&#39;s a very difficult problem, and one that is difficult to pin down.

[elijahcraig]

That which is designed towards the defination "pornography" is designed to show disrespect to the individual souls, essences, and physical manifestations of body that are engaged in sexual acts to create this gamut for the market.

I don’t agree with this.

Pornography is designed to bring pleasure, not repression; you can call it degrading, but it was not designed for the purpose of degradation of women (and men). And I don’t believe it to be so.


According to Asian Sex Workers, American clients can be especially cruel, and see them more objectively as objects rather than human, in engaging in acts that they may have seen in porno but are not in reality pleasureable as experimentation.

I’m not certain there should be a difference between an “object” and a “human” when it comes to sexual desire. You can “cloak” any “nice words” you want over it—it’s still the making of a human into an object to please yourself, a natural human act.

[refuse_resist]

The porn industry is definatly a form of exploitation.

[elijahcraig]

Life is an exploitation.

I can make any statement like that, and justify it.


How is porno especially exploitive?

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 12:14 AM

That which is designed towards the defination "pornography" is designed to show disrespect to the individual souls, essences, and physical manifestations of body that are engaged in sexual acts to create this gamut for the market.

I don’t agree with this.

Pornography is designed to bring pleasure, not repression; you can call it degrading, but it was not designed for the purpose of degradation of women (and men). And I don’t believe it to be so.


According to Asian Sex Workers, American clients can be especially cruel, and see them more objectively as objects rather than human, in engaging in acts that they may have seen in porno but are not in reality pleasureable as experimentation.

I’m not certain there should be a difference between an “object” and a “human” when it comes to sexual desire. You can “cloak” any “nice words” you want over it—it’s still the making of a human into an object to please yourself, a natural human act.
I don&#39;t agree with this, although erotica I would say is designed to bring pleasure, pornography in general, although not true for gay porn always, has a misogynistic tendency, as a way of reducing the object to simply that.

So that the viewer does not have to see them as human but non-human so that they can mastrabate without feeling guilt from "cheating with" or "being with" or "contributing to" anything with that person.

The reality is that this is not true, that there is a living breathing worker behind the camera lens, but the object of pornography is to abstract from this and think that these people are either non-existent or unconsequencial.

In true intimacy there is conscienceness of the exchange, but there is always an exchange, all our actions affect our mind and our inter-relations with others. Objectification does effect our relationship with others.

[Valkyrie]

By the way.. I&#39;m in the wrong thread... :P Where&#39;s the thread about if porn will be in a communist society?

Found it.. in theory&#33; I&#39;ll just move my comment over there.&#33; Sorry..

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:17 AM
Life is an exploitation.

I can make any statement like that, and justify it.


How is porno especially exploitive?
I was refering to the porn industry, not porn itself.

[cubist]

i have seen a porn vid called fist of fire, its artistic yes but not good it would fair as comedy better than art,


the way you describe art is so damn liberal, aslong as you find it good to the eye its art, great. So if i enjoy films of people hacked to deadth real people i should be allowed to have it, SNUFF IS PORN SNUFF IS WRONG BUT PORN is art so its okay, if you like looking at men and women for artpurposes fine, but most people look at it to jerk off if you think women being used as objects of masturbation is accceptable in society then fine,

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 06:02 PM
i have seen a porn vid called fist of fire, its artistic yes but not good it would fair as comedy better than art,


the way you describe art is so damn liberal, aslong as you find it good to the eye its art, great. So if i enjoy films of people hacked to deadth real people i should be allowed to have it, SNUFF IS PORN SNUFF IS WRONG BUT PORN is art so its okay, if you like looking at men and women for artpurposes fine, but most people look at it to jerk off if you think women being used as objects of masturbation is accceptable in society then fine,
What kind of socialist are you when you see no problem with things that degrade the society?

The whole point of a socialist society in part is that individuals are no longer allowed to fulfill their selfish desires to the point that they endanger others in the society.

True this is a point where communism has gotten bent by past communist and current communist governements, therefore it is all the more important that individuals who are willing to set perimeters do so prior to the formation of the new society based off of the lessons of the past.

Communism, from my understanding is that things that exploit workers or heavily pollute the environment for the many for the comforts of the one will have to be abandoned.

Snuff movies and violent porn definately qualify

[cubist]

you didn&#39;t read that properly di you?

i was saying how annoyed i am that everyone thinks porn is ART, and thus is acceptable

i do not support it at all i have that video becuase a mate gave it too me saying watch this it will make you cry, it made me laugh so hard i cried, but its sick and i wouldn&#39;t buy it


the way you describe art is so damn liberal, aslong as you find it good to the eye its art, great. So if i enjoy films of people hacked to deadth real people i should be allowed to have it, SNUFF IS PORN SNUFF IS WRONG BUT PORN is art so its okay?(i needed a question mark there didn&#39;t i), if you like looking at men and women for artpurposes fine, but most people look at it to jerk off if you think women being used as objects of masturbation is accceptable in society then fine,

and maybe i should have added but i dont

[pandora]

Where in the heck did I say porn is art? I think erotica which is made by companies that are worker controlled is okay, and guess what there aren&#39;t brutal rape scenes, its a lot more fun. Go figure. Of course you have to watch real couples having sex for fun rather than all that other crap, but whatever.

Not my thing but it&#39;s there, there are also liberated erotica mags like "Off our Backs" etc that are created by women. "Taste of Latex" etc.

Try refining your taste, an upgrade would be a good thing.

[Palmares]

Porn is not art. It can be though, if the intention is there (and that isn&#39;t a guarantee).

Aesthetics has to do with &#39;beauty&#39;, and for me, porn has to do with relieving sexual tension (from the desire to "propagate the species"). It may be the case that the two can overlap, but they are not exclusive. The best way I can describe it is simply, I thought (and still do) my ex-girlfriend was beautiful, but I didn&#39;t overwhelmingly want to &#39;mate&#39; with her. Holding her was what I wanted. In contrast, there are girls out there with womanly hips, supple breats, and a nice face (not &#39;beautiful&#39;), who I would overwhelmingly desire to have sex with.

On to the Kant-animal thing, I know Nietzsche routed a horse, but what did Kant &#39;do&#39; as such?

[dark fairy]

hehe porn... i don&#39;t know i just think porn is funny

[Chad King]

Bah&#33; Its all about how you look at it and perceive it, which is what makes art, art.

Now, ultimately porn is either photographs of a woman or movies about people having sex. Does anyone here consider, say... "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" a work of art? Someone probably does, but what seperates LoTR from, say... Debbie Does Dallas? Theyre both movies that took some take on a situation and brought it to film.

Am I saying porn is artistic? No, I could really care less, Im just trying to say its all about perception and if someone finds are in porn, fine, so be it, you probably wont change their opinion.

Hell&#33; Again, its all about how you look at it, I used to think Ansil Adams wasnt a good photographer, all he was doing was taking pictures of crap in nature, but again, its all in how you look at it... given there is some bad porn out there, doesnt mean its all bad, just like their are some bad, crap movies out there, doesnt mean theyre all bad and un-artistic...

[Palmares]

Art is subjective. "A matter of taste." But it isn&#39;t as simple as that, as art also is judged by forms - like techniques, imagery, colour, shading, etc. Art is also extended through revolutionary art, like cubism and surrealism.

So... yes it is subjective, but not absolutely.

[Chad King]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 08:42 AM
Art is subjective. "A matter of taste." But it isn&#39;t as simple as that, as art also is judged by forms - like techniques, imagery, colour, shading, etc. Art is also extended through revolutionary art, like cubism and surrealism.

So... yes it is subjective, but not absolutely.
Who says its all about technique? Is there some person above defining something that is artistic for me? No.

Me? Im a writer, but I feel that what I am working on is not artisitc at all, I believe art is something taken from the mind and tangible, such as a painting. Now, given a book is tangible, it doesnt show raw emotion that a painting or sculpture does.

Now, underneath how I myself view art, porn is not art.

So again, you talking about "revolutionary" art forms doesnt mean shit to me, so yes, it is all subjective. Ultimately no one can define art for every single person on the face of this planet.

[Palmares]

I&#39;m not defining art for you. Noone is. What I meant by forms has to do with what many (not all, and obviously not you) accept as characteristics of what is art (whether &#39;good&#39; or &#39;bad&#39;). Just because it is subjective doesn&#39;t mean there aren&#39;t people out there that all agree that certain forms constitute art.

You may think porn is not art, but others do. That&#39;s all I&#39;m trying to say.

[Chad King]

I&#39;m not defining art for you. Noone is. What I meant by forms has to do with what many (not all, and obviously not you) accept as characteristics of what is art (whether &#39;good&#39; or &#39;bad&#39;). Just because it is subjective doesn&#39;t mean there aren&#39;t people out there that all agree that certain forms constitute art.


Im not trying to say youre defining art for me, sorry if I came off as being brash...



You may think porn is not art, but others do. That&#39;s all I&#39;m trying to say.


Thats what I was trying to say, but somehow we got sidetracked.

And all I was trying to say, is that just because people "accept" it, doesnt make it set in stone, again, like we both said, its about how its viewed and taken in. Hell, art and religion are pretty much the same to me when looking at it in that light...

[Palmares]

Thanks for the clarification. I understand what you are saying more now.

I have a question though. What kind of writng do you write if it isn&#39;t artisitic? Is it factual, like history or something?

[Chad King]

Im working on two auto-biographical titles based around two huge turn arounds in my life, one is from a few years ago that Im still ironing out due to several changes in writing style. Im a huge Jack Kerouac fan...

Im also a poet... actually, I hate to use the term poet, more of like a spoken word "R-rated, angry Allen Ginsberg" as I got called when I was on my roadtrip reading my works in bars.

Im also working on a small "pulp" novel as friends call it, but Im not going to say a lot about that, sorry ;)

[rebelgames]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 11:56 PM

The same could be said for porn. In fact, I believe porn is art.
woah woah woah
there is a big fuckin difference between art and porn.

[DaCuBaN]

woah woah woah
there is a big fuckin difference between art and porn

Why?


You may think porn is not art, but others do

Be rational: What difference is there? If the &#39;actors&#39; in the porn production are willing participants, and some people get pleasure from it, then why should we have a problem?

Let us make a comparison: Pablo Picasso vs Pornography. Personally, I find the latter to be far more aesthetically pleasing - but that&#39;s the point is it not? Taste is subjective&#33;

[Kobbot 401]

I dont know how you can get off on porno. Maby movies, but come on, how do you get off on pics, stories, and audio taps of people fucking (even though the porno background music is sweet)?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I dont know how you can get off on porno.

Errr... very easily?


Maby movies, but come on, how do you get off on pics, stories, and audio taps of people fucking (even though the porno background music is sweet)?

I don&#39;t know about audio tapes (maybe you&#39;re thinking of phone sex?) but I find all mediums have their individual merits. Pictures and drawings go for instant gratification or merely suggestion, while stories leave a lot more to the imagination (And are often free).

[Kobbot 401]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 11:31 PM

Errr... very easily?



I don&#39;t know about audio tapes (maybe you&#39;re thinking of phone sex?) but I find all mediums have their individual merits. Pictures and drawings go for instant gratification or merely suggestion, while stories leave a lot more to the imagination (And are often free).
Very easy, eh. And are you next going to admit that you have never been with a woman. After you have the real deal, movies and that shit just dont cut it. Its like reading a book, or going to the movie about the book. The one thats more emersive (movie/real dead) is so much better.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Very easy, eh. And are you next going to admit that you have never been with a woman.
It&#39;s true, I&#39;ve never &#39;been with&#39; a woman... Although I have made love to a woman.


After you have the real deal, movies and that shit just dont cut it.

If that was the case then the porn industry would be out of business.


Its like reading a book, or going to the movie about the book. The one thats more emersive (movie/real dead) is so much better.

Whatever happened to using your imagination?

[DaCuBaN]

After you have the real deal, movies and that shit just dont cut it. Its like reading a book, or going to the movie about the book. The one thats more emersive (movie/real dead) is so much better

I don&#39;t follow your logic, I&#39;d rather dip than choke, but I&#39;d rather read than watch. I don&#39;t see this as a contradiction....


are you next going to admit that you have never been with a woman

No, but it&#39;s been a long time <_< That said, I don&#39;t have any real use for pornography.... I have enough self control to live without, and merely walk around with balls the size of watermelons ;)

[Kobbot 401]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 12:16 AM
If that was the case then the porn industry would be out of business.
Most porn flixs are now the same shit over and over agin. If you have seen one you know what all of them are going to be like. Its the same thing from Naughty Nurses, to Hot at Work. The porn industy stays aflot because there are a lot of showlow guys in the world that can only get off on smut.

[Kobbot 401]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 12:18 AM
I don&#39;t follow your logic, I&#39;d rather dip than choke, but I&#39;d rather read than watch. I don&#39;t see this as a contradiction....
Thats just you man. If you dont like to have real sex over watching it, good for you. Im not you mom, Im sure as hell not going to tell you how to jerk it.

[DaCuBaN]

Kobbot you&#39;ve got me back to front here, although I think that was my colloquialism&#39;s that did it :rolleyes:

Dip=sexual intercourse
Choke=masturbation

With this in mind what I said was I&#39;d rather have sex than masturbate, yet I&#39;d rather read a book than watch a film. Hence, I don&#39;t follow your logic...

[elijahcraig]

It&#39;s true, I&#39;ve never &#39;been with&#39; a woman... Although I have made love to a woman.

I&#39;ve heard about you...that you love to suck your mother&#39;s toes a great deal.

You make me sick. Literally.

[Kobbot 401]

Ya the book thing was bad way of putting it. I personally like books over the film versions. What I mean is..... um .... fuck cant think.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I&#39;ve heard about you...that you love to suck your mother&#39;s toes a great deal.

You make me sick. Literally.

Oh elijahcraig, so full of bile and vitriol, so lacking in love of his fellowman.

Doth elijahcraig have love for himself? from his very writings, it is clear that he hath none.

[Rex_20XD6]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 11:07 PM
Can pornongraphy be called aesthetically pleasing?

yeah in the right contexts.

[Kobbot 401]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 01:04 AM
Oh elijahcraig, so full of bile and vitriol, so lacking in love of his fellowman.
Ya he dose lack in love for is fellow man but not for his fellow woman. And thats a whole lot more then you have even had with your fellow hand.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ya he dose lack in love for is fellow man but not for his fellow woman. And thats a whole lot more then you have even had with your fellow hand.

Kindly shut the fuck up.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Dont make me merge this with that pedantic thread.

[Edward Penishands]

Pick up a gun and off the pig&#33;

http://www.kingdomcum.com/03/sa/10.jpg

[pandora]

Notice that there is a porn place in Chiapas right across from a place supporting store representing women´s solidarity. Completely insults there power. Conviently placed next to women who challenge everything and who demand honor and respect and put their lives to it.
Not only was it not lost on me,
the mockery is glaringly honest to anyone who sees it. More later.

[Individual]

Pandora... I agree.

So don&#39;t you find it quite ironic that our local "Radical-Marxist-Feminist" represents the two of these:

"We have no tradition in our culture for showing respect to anything sexual. We don&#39;t promote erotic education. Our health care establishment barely has a clue about our sexual bodies. Our political system finds sex to be a fine whipping boy. The gossips and preachers are our typical sex advisers, and their tone is usually damning, rarely daring."---pg. 13, Full Exposure, Susie Bright.

Toys in Babeland (http://www.babeland.com/home/)

I wonder if babeland is considered oppressive to women? :huh:

Along with her "Exotic Dancers Alliance" avatar. I always find this quite ironic and contradicting seeing her "woman empowerment" and Marxist beliefs, yet advertising exotic dancers (which "degrade" women mind you).

Maybe I misinterpreted your "motive" SenoraChe, so don&#39;t jump down my throat. However I found this very ironic.

[DaCuBaN]

Slightly off topic, but this will never cease to crack me up...

http://www.babeland.com/page/TIB/PROD/men-top-picks/YV335040

:lol: :rolleyes:



With the lid on, this discreet male masturbation toy resembles an over sized flashlight, but twist the lid off and a sumptuous pink mouth appears. The soft creamy Cyberskin filling of the pliable tube is the most tantalizing fleshy texture imaginable. Just about every woman who works at Babeland has said, "if I had a penis, I would definitely want one of these&#33;"

&#036;63.00

[Soul Rebel]

Its actually not contradicting. Ive stated many, many, many times that i am a very Pro-Sex feminist. I believe that womyn should be empowered and take control of their sexuality. This does not mean giving into western ideas of sexuality, but new ideas of sexuality of equality, choice, and respect.

And my avatar is not in any way contradicting to my beliefs. As a feminist and a woman i believe in the decriminalization of prostitution because it is safer for womyn and gives them more control of their job. I also believe that womyn who are exotic dancers should be unionized, which is what the EDA is. I support any movement by any sex worker to unionize and make their job safer. These jobs can be degrading to some. There are more issues involved in the sex industry than many of you are away of. Its not just about "stereotypical" views held by those in the US. These womyn are workers. Many take pride in their work and enjoy what they do. Try reading "whores and other feminists", "live sex acts," or "bare." you will see what the reality of sex work is.

I still dont see how you see my quote and the link contradictory or ironic. if anything they work very well together. i just dont think you actually understand the quote. By understanding that quote, you would understand the link as well.

[Kobbot 401]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 09:35 PM
Slightly off topic, but this will never cease to crack me up...

http://www.babeland.com/page/TIB/PROD/men-top-picks/YV335040

:lol: :rolleyes:


wow..... um have you tryed one of these befor and thats how you know the site.... wow.

Why would you want one of them anyway, are you that repulsef that you cant get a real woman to suck you dick? Im not directing this to you, DaCuBaN, but just to the genral audiance who are in the market to these kinds of "toys".

[Soul Rebel]

It has nothing to do with be repulsive or not being able to get some at all. Its just about satisfying yourself. Being able to satisfy yourself often leads to some of the best sex you can imagine because you know your body and what gets you off. And sex toys often do make sex better between the people engaging in it. So sex toys are for increasing pleasure in both men and womyn- not just for those considered to be "repulsive".

And ToysInBabeland is an awesome place. Its owned and run by womyn and specialized in toys for womyn. I also love them for advocating safe sex in the way that they do. They really make it a sexy thing, where as others tend to make it look like such a hassle (which it is not).

[Kobbot 401]

I am a late night TV rat. One of the shows I watched gose into the depths of the Internet and finds funny/stupied/weird stuff and shows them to people. They had a man on the show who said at one point a senator wanted to ban masterbation, anel sex, and any other forms of sex that would not potentialy create a baby. This senators name is now a sex term that means the frosty mixture that comes out of you ass after getting a load droped in.

[Kurai Tsuki]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 05:35 PM
Slightly off topic, but this will never cease to crack me up...

http://www.babeland.com/page/TIB/PROD/men-top-picks/YV335040

:lol: :rolleyes:


That&#39;s hilarious :lol:

[dark fairy]

oh man i&#39;ve seen these before... i went to a naughty gril party and yeah they had those in the catalog... but hehe i don&#39;t know i think for somereason that having that pull and suck on your dick would hurt that suction {sucion} {i can&#39;t spell} has to hurt right??? i don&#39;t have a penis so i wouldn&#39;t know...

[Fabi]

Aesthetic purpose is a purpose. Saying it is above emotional purpose is nothing but Western-stuck-upness.
Actually, I don&#39;t like the term pornography. Much like prostitution it can only exist in a society that disregards sexuality. I read the first four pages or so of the thread, and also a couple of Senora&#39;s posts, and also do agree that she did not contradict herself.

Saying that pornography is disrespectful doesn&#39;t mean that material of any kind depicting sexual acitivity is to be looked down upon or disrespectful per se. Also I do not mind watching porn. In most cases it is not the porn that is disrespectful, but the way people view the people involved.

We don&#39;t need words and theories and morals and all those evil constructs. All we need is that we do not force people to do things. Then all things that happen will be voluntary. Most of us are very violent people, manipulative at the core, in all the little details in life. If we are disrespectful all day long, of course on a higher level, things will also turn out to be exploitative and disrespectful. Just because a woman stars in a porn movie that does not mean I disrespect her. In fact the idea that naked women on film enjoying themselves (if they do that is, jebus cwist) is disrespectful, is a very misogynist idea, depriving women of the right to choose their own actions and enjoy (and have one to begin with) their sexuality.



On a side note: Sexuality is way overrated anyway, and the idea that you may not put matters into your own hands, and that masturbation can never be as satisfying as sex with another person is very egoistic and strange. Why should I make myself depend upon strange satisfaction as opposed to self-satisfaction?
I don&#39;t need anyone to feed me, or help me put on my clothes or have someone buy and choose my clothes for me - Then why is it that I should have someone satisfy my sexual desires? I am the one best to know what books I like - I don&#39;t want others to take control. I am the one best to know what I want and need, why should I in any area let someone take control?

I can watch movies with other people, I can watch movies by myself. I can make music alone and with others, I can have sex with myself and others. Okay, ramble-mode off. ;)

[Ziggy]

http://www.babeland.com/page/TIB/PROD/men-top-picks/YV335040
oh man, when i was in new york in june i split from my family (dad was doing photography and my mom and sister were shopping) and took the subway down to the lower east side and went to babes in toyland (that store just simply kicks ass and the women that work there are very nice too). I was doing some shopping and the woman who was helping me pulled that out and started showing how it worked and all that, i tested it on my fingers. very nice :lol:


oh man i&#39;ve seen these before... i went to a naughty gril party and yeah they had those in the catalog... but hehe i don&#39;t know i think for somereason that having that pull and suck on your dick would hurt that suction {sucion} {i can&#39;t spell} has to hurt right??? i don&#39;t have a penis so i wouldn&#39;t know...

well i&#39;m sure any guy will tell you if you maturabate too much it starts to get raw, can get very raw actually :rolleyes: ... it basically does what a hand does just softer and smoother.

[Fabi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 02:29 AM

well i&#39;m sure any guy will tell you if you maturabate too much it starts to get raw, can get very raw actually :rolleyes:
I guess that&#39;s one of the advantages of not having undergone male genital mutilation (aka circumcision). :blink:

[Ziggy]

you know, they never asked me if i wanted it cut off. where was my say in the matter of chopping off my foreskin&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

everyone goes haywire when its fgm but no one gives a shit about mgm&#33;

[choekiewoekie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 01:35 AM
Saying that pornography is disrespectful doesn&#39;t mean that material of any kind depicting sexual acitivity is to be looked down upon or disrespectful per se. Also I do not mind watching porn. In most cases it is not the porn that is disrespectful, but the way people view the people involved.


Exactly&#33;

And it depends on the defenition of porn i think. There&#39;s a lot to tell about seks and spirituality. I guess some people could talk porn into spirituality, may sound strange, but if you are good with words... You can make it cult, you can make it spiritual.. I think you can make porn a lot of things, depends on the definition, depends on the blabla around it.

And porn live... for that matter, i don&#39;t feel there is someting wrong with being a prostitute. Here in my country it is even legal and the job is also in the labor exchange. Just a job. And i feel that a person going to a prostitute, when not being disrespectfull, isnt doing something wrong to the prostitute as well. (maybe...to his home. but thats something else.maybe)

I mean it is not the porn itself, it is the way you handle it.
And ofcourse also how the persons in the porn are being treated, but thats really subjective.

[Fabi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 08:59 PM
And ofcourse also how the persons in the porn are being treated, but thats really subjective.
And it becomes kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy: As long as porn is being viewed as something bad, of course the actors and actresses will be treated badly. Avoiding/boycotting/banning porn will not make it go away, it will only make abuse more likely, because vulnerable people with not many other job choices at the end of the social ladder will end up having to fill in those sexual gaps, provided by social taboo.

Oh, I have a cd-rom with a couple of poems with me. See you all in some poetry thread. ;)

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 12:51 AM
Pandora... I agree.

So don&#39;t you find it quite ironic that our local "Radical-Marxist-Feminist" represents the two of these:

"We have no tradition in our culture for showing respect to anything sexual. We don&#39;t promote erotic education. Our health care establishment barely has a clue about our sexual bodies. Our political system finds sex to be a fine whipping boy. The gossips and preachers are our typical sex advisers, and their tone is usually damning, rarely daring."---pg. 13, Full Exposure, Susie Bright.

Toys in Babeland (http://www.babeland.com/home/)

I wonder if babeland is considered oppressive to women? :huh:

Along with her "Exotic Dancers Alliance" avatar. I always find this quite ironic and contradicting seeing her "woman empowerment" and Marxist beliefs, yet advertising exotic dancers (which "degrade" women mind you).

Maybe I misinterpreted your "motive" SenoraChe, so don&#39;t jump down my throat. However I found this very ironic.
Sorry SenoraChe,

I was otherwise... committed, so did not check in with this for awhile.
These statements above are not ones I condone.
I am a very sex positive former dancer myself and very much believe that erotica has become a political whipping post.
HOWEVER, the majority of pornography that is in the MAINSTREAM porno channels is misogynistic and damaging to sexuality of men and women in the images it portrays.
More often then not it involves power issues that degrade the sex of the women or often in male gay porn the "bottom"

This continuation of imposed power issues in sexuality create a sexuality that is competetive, capitalist, misogynistic, and increases disrespect of women and other interest groups.

Organizations like babes in toyland, exotic dancers groups, and other women&#39;s erotica groups have been trying to re-empower women&#39;s erotica.

In ancient societies throughout the world from China to India to Persia to Pagan societies women&#39;s sexuality was seen as beautiful and even spiritual as in Tantric sects.

In India the temple dancers were the top of society. I do not believe in caste structures though that recreate hegemony, but that all women and men have a beautiful creative sexual curiousity that has been siphoned and stolen into a grotesque format where it is barely even recognizable as sexuality, all the beauty has been stripped from it too the barest form, it has been mutated into a continuation of the capitalist power structure whereby oppressed men can take their anger out on their spouse or significant other rather than generating that energy towards the system of slavery that should be the object of blame.

This connection is one that media moguls and marketing does not want us to make, for if we remember the true essential beauty of our sexuality we no longer are as apt to look to external materialistic objects for satisfaction or to provide worth.
Pandora