On Saturday 19 July 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
--- On Wed, 7/16/08, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Oren Beck wrote:
Consider how YOU would write a RFC draft to sever adult from non-adult content !
- Please don't refer to immoral images as "adult"; there are still some
decent adults left, no matter how many damn themselves with this crud.
And to top it all off, why is a photograph of a nude woman "pornography" while a painting of a nude woman is "art"? This distinction has allowed people to get away with all kinds of stuff in the Pornographic Painting Industry. Sculpture too, as you can even see "David's" tallywhacker on half a dozen websites, entirely for free.
It seems you need to review the difference between nudity and porn...
Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
Main Entry: nude 2 a: devoid of a natural or conventional covering; especially : not covered by clothing or a drape b (1): of the color of a white person's flesh (2): giving the appearance of nudity <a nude dress>
Immoral images can be adult, its just in how you present them.
Immoral images are inherently abusive and not appropriate for any audience.
- Standards on how to say "I am porn!" never work because the porn
industry does not want filters blocking access to them. Not only do they *want* children and others to get addicted, they certainly aren't going to participate in something any ISP blocks off entirely without user consent.
Porn filters never work because of the sheer collective lust drive of teenage boys. There could be 100% acceptance of a porn filter and teenage boys would still get access to porn.
Not if they don't know it exists. Your claim depends on incompetent parents.
--- On Sat, 7/19/08, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Saturday 19 July 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
--- On Wed, 7/16/08, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Oren Beck wrote:
Consider how YOU would write a RFC draft to sever adult from non-adult content !
- Please don't refer to immoral images as
"adult"; there are still some decent adults left, no matter how many damn themselves with this crud.
And to top it all off, why is a photograph of a nude woman "pornography" while a painting of a nude woman is "art"? This distinction has allowed people to get away with all kinds of stuff in the Pornographic Painting Industry. Sculpture too, as you can even see "David's" tallywhacker on half a dozen websites, entirely for free.
It seems you need to review the difference between nudity and porn...
Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
"Intent" is often irrelevant. In its original context, and despite lurid pictures and descriptions of sexual activity, the Kama Sutra was not intended to cause sexual excitement, but rather to instruct couples on how to engage in pleasurable sex. Even so, in modern times it is frequently used as a source of pornography.
Other books exist along the same lines, using drawings and non-human figures to present ways of livening up the bedroom (such as this KCLUG list-appropriate set of pictures, http://tinyurl.com/4aqopj). Like beauty, the beholder is the determining factor, determining whether the images are pornographic or artistic.
Of course, there are art forms where the two are inextricably combined, such as designs in body paint (http://www.netnude.com/main/bodyp.html). The website has women who are nude except for body paint, but I would be unable to state that the complex designs on the human body "canvases" aren't art.
Some research I did for this indicates that while modern artists regard nudes in life drawing classes to be good for learning how to better draw, paint, and sculpt clothed human forms, they also generally think that modern finished nude art works are more voyeuristic softcore porn than art. Nudity may have been mostly art in the Greek, Roman, and Renaissance periods, but now art nudes are largely regarded as softcore porn.
Which further blurs the line between "adult images" and "immoral images".
Main Entry: nude 2 a: devoid of a natural or conventional covering; especially : not covered by clothing or a drape b (1): of the color of a white person's flesh (2): giving the appearance of nudity <a nude dress>
Art is supposed to cause a reaction in the audience. Nudity in art these days is regarded more as voyeuristic softcore porn, meaning quite simply that it is rare that a modern nude artwork is done for a reaction other than a sexuality-based reaction.
Immoral images can be adult, its just in how you present them.
Immoral images are inherently abusive and not appropriate for any audience.
So a devil having sex with a penguin is inherently abusive and not appropriate for any audience? How about Tux painting a woman wearing only a half-T-Shirt? (http://lwn.net/Gallery/i/ggismall.gif)?
These kinds of comments will only add to Linux's "anti-sex" image, as described by this website ("adult" images throughout, though no nudity beyond one woman only wearing body paint):
Linux and Sex: Debunking the Myth http://tinyurl.com/5t8mmm
Leo Mauler wrote:
--- On Sat, 7/19/08, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Saturday 19 July 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
--- On Wed, 7/16/08, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Oren Beck wrote:
Consider how YOU would write a RFC draft to sever adult from non-adult content !
- Please don't refer to immoral images as
"adult"; there are still some decent adults left, no matter how many damn themselves with this crud.
And to top it all off, why is a photograph of a nude woman "pornography" while a painting of a nude woman is "art"? This distinction has allowed people to get away with all kinds of stuff in the Pornographic Painting Industry. Sculpture too, as you can even see "David's" tallywhacker on half a dozen websites, entirely for free.
It seems you need to review the difference between nudity and porn...
Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
"Intent" is often irrelevant. In its original context, and despite lurid pictures and descriptions of sexual activity, the Kama Sutra was not intended to cause sexual excitement, but rather to instruct couples on how to engage in pleasurable sex. Even so, in modern times it is frequently used as a source of pornography.
Other books exist along the same lines, using drawings and non-human figures to present ways of livening up the bedroom (such as this KCLUG list-appropriate set of pictures, http://tinyurl.com/4aqopj). Like beauty, the beholder is the determining factor, determining whether the images are pornographic or artistic.
Of course, there are art forms where the two are inextricably combined, such as designs in body paint (http://www.netnude.com/main/bodyp.html). The website has women who are nude except for body paint, but I would be unable to state that the complex designs on the human body "canvases" aren't art.
Some research I did for this indicates that while modern artists regard nudes in life drawing classes to be good for learning how to better draw, paint, and sculpt clothed human forms, they also generally think that modern finished nude art works are more voyeuristic softcore porn than art. Nudity may have been mostly art in the Greek, Roman, and Renaissance periods, but now art nudes are largely regarded as softcore porn.
Which further blurs the line between "adult images" and "immoral images".
Main Entry: nude 2 a: devoid of a natural or conventional covering; especially : not covered by clothing or a drape b (1): of the color of a white person's flesh (2): giving the appearance of nudity <a nude dress>
Art is supposed to cause a reaction in the audience. Nudity in art these days is regarded more as voyeuristic softcore porn, meaning quite simply that it is rare that a modern nude artwork is done for a reaction other than a sexuality-based reaction.
Immoral images can be adult, its just in how you present them.
Immoral images are inherently abusive and not appropriate for any audience.
So a devil having sex with a penguin is inherently abusive and not appropriate for any audience? How about Tux painting a woman wearing only a half-T-Shirt? (http://lwn.net/Gallery/i/ggismall.gif)?
These kinds of comments will only add to Linux's "anti-sex" image, as described by this website ("adult" images throughout, though no nudity beyond one woman only wearing body paint):
Linux and Sex: Debunking the Myth http://tinyurl.com/5t8mmm
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
I work at a school and administer a content filter, and I just wanted to share my opinions on this rather volatile topic :)
1. Under the strictest interpretations, all nudity can serve as pornography, but not all pornography is nudity. Argue it all you want, but the truth of the matter is that pornography is based on interpretation, making it entirely subjective. This is why most laws/statutes/regulations restrict nudity more than pornography. This is why a Victoria's Secret catalog, which could easily be classified as pornography by definition, is not illegal for children to have. You will find that many people consider them inappropriate for children (male or female), and some see it as inappropriate for all age groups and genders.
2. Morality is completely subjective. Even within the context of a single culture, or even a single religion, we see what is defined as moral, amoral, and immoral changes over time with leadership and popular belief.
3. The reference to "adult" material does not imply that all adults, or even most adults, desire to be exposed to the content. The classification of material as "adult" simply means that the material is intended for an individual who is mature enough to rationally decide whether they wish to be exposed or not. As such, adult material should not be publicly displayed where children, who lack the maturity to make the appropriate decisions, may be accidentally exposed to the material.
4. No content filter is perfect. At this school, the content filter's primary purpose is to prevent accidental or casual access to inappropriate material. It is no replacement for close in-person monitoring of students by teachers, and we review logs daily. The only way to effectively prevent people from obtaining inappropriate material from the Internet is to not have an Internet.
~Bradley
Nudity is cool. Consenting adults doing what they want in their own space is cool. People, and especially the government, need to stay out of other people's business. If Jimmy wants to watch a Thai ping-pong show at 3am (OMG what am I doing up so late?), that's his business.
As far as what "porn" is, it's purely subjective, though I personally could do without the gross stuff (2girls1cup anyone?). I think any argument about what is "porn" and what is "art" is the height of stupidity. It's like arguing who's better, Metallica or Pink Floyd - it's purely subjective.
Feel free to make me laugh with stories of "porn addictions" and so forth.
Jeffrey.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
It seems you need to review the difference between nudity and porn...
--- On Sun, 7/20/08, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
It seems you need to review the difference between nudity and porn...
As far as what "porn" is, it's purely subjective, though I personally could do without the gross stuff
Of course, what is or is not "the gross stuff" is also purely subjective.
Feel free to make me laugh with stories of "porn addictions" and so forth.
I don't doubt that, in much the same way that there are soap opera addictions, "Robot Chicken" addictions, and "Doctor Who" (and spinoffs) addictions, that there are real porn addictions.
The only real difference between all four is that the first three usually don't involve a "morality" which would be offended by the media in question, which is why porn addictions are treated as "bad", whereas experiencing withdrawal symptoms when one misses a soap opera is merely considered an eccentricity. Either all four are (or can be) bad or none of them are (or can be) bad.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't doubt that, in much the same way that there are soap opera addictions, "Robot Chicken" addictions, and "Doctor Who" (and spinoffs) addictions, that there are real porn addictions.
You're correct, in a population big enough you'll find individual cases of psychosis involving just about anything.
My point is that the ones involving "porn addiction", much like those involving "internet addiction", the underlying problem leading to the negative behavior has nothing to do with the stimulus. In other words, the cause of a "porn addiction" isn't the porn itself, but another underlying issue. People with addictive personalities find something to be obsessed about. Normal people can view porn (or surf the 'net) without going psychotic.
Anyhow, I think it's funny when people rail about things like this as I don't see them as a problem. What I do see as a problem are the people that go apoplectic over pornography and such in our media but don't seem to care about violence. What does it say about our society when the morality police don't mind kids seeing violence but go crazy over breasts (Janet Jackson, anyone?). My kid is two months old and he's seen boobs a lot. I'm willing to bet everyone in this country has seen boobs and weren't hurt by it.
I think if we all saw more boobs and less violence we'd live in a better world. :)
Jeffrey.
-
Bradley Hook -
Jeffrey Watts -
Leo Mauler -
Luke -Jr