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 ! 
>>>> 1. 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

--- 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.