Reading mode: Light Dark

How do YOU define pornography?

Go to last post
I use caps, sparingly, for emphasis, not volume. I would prefer to do bold or underlined, but they don't work here that I am aware of.
Gaetan J. said:
Bogie said:
But, in the abscense of any higher authority, right and wrong are
no longer absolutes, but entirely relative and subjective. And
strictly optional, to the last statute in the law books.
Click to expand...
You dont need to shout

Sorry Bogie, but we wont agree. I personaly believe that people do
not need a higher authority and that most human are good in and of
themself without the need of god or the law.
Click to expand...
It's only when people choose > not

But if we are to attempt to justify such an imposition, we must appeal to something higher than man, or we are just practicing 'might makes right', commonly called majority rule.

In such a system, there is no right or wrong, only legal and illegal. Fear of retribution being the only deterrent to doing your own thing to the extreme.

I personally feel that murder is not only illegal, but it is also wrong. Immoral. So do milliions of others. Moral/wrong are religious terms, at the fundamental level, as they imply an absolute or universal priciple. Illegal is the only term we can use if we discard the absolute.

In a moral world, you suffer/pay for your actions > whetherif
Gaetan J. said:
--
Gaetan J.
'when you assume something you make an ass out of u and me' B.Hill
Click to expand...
--
Sometimes it's better to have loved and lost, than to have loved and won.

'Scenic Virginia Photography'
My Galleries: http://svphoto.home.attbi.com
 
Ok

but i believe it was the meaning of my last post (hearth to tim) ? Hearth being the place where people come to in the house in front of the fireplace to talk and disccuss. I was trying to be funny but hey, I am from Canada, hey

First of, this does not imply that porn is good or bad.

But I was refuting your translation of porneo. Stating that the immorality part aplyed to it by you and many christian was a christian fabrication and not the true meanning of the word. The origine of the immorality part being in one of the aposthle Paul's Letter.

and then that morality is not en absolute but differe from nation to nation.
Bogie said:
Shouting down someone as they make a speach is shoving. Refusing
to allow dissenting opinion is shoving. Resorting to insult and
verbal bullying is shoving.

On the topic of religion, do "Thou shalt not steal", or "Thou shalt
not murder" become invalid, simply because they are written in the
Old Testament? Obviously not, therefore not all that is religious
can be legitamately discounted simply because it IS religious.
MUCH that is religious in origin, is also true.

But I think it would help if you backed off a little on the harsh
rhetoric, and let's have a civil discussion until Phil kills the
thread, though it does directly deal with photography. ;)
Gaetan J. said:
this is a discussion public forum. People try to makes points and
people try to make counter points.
Tim Lozinski said:
Ted B.47613 said:
the fact is that porneo, the greek word, as nothing to do with
immorality except taken in a christian context and translated by
christians. And you are only trying to shove your religious concept
down our throat.
Click to expand...
If anyone is SHOVING anyone, it is you. This thread asked 'how do
YOU define pornography'. Bogie gave his definition in a direct,
but not 'shoving' anything type manner, he explained WHERE he
acquired his belief, what he based it on and the root for that
belief in general terms. Just because his definition/belief is
based on something religious does not discount it from being a
valid definition in answer to the question on which this thread is
based.
Click to expand...
I have nothing against religion. But you cant make a valid point
when the final term is : "god said so" or "it's written in the book"
Ted B.47613 said:
I won't respond to your other posts as you clearly failed to
understand that what you defined was 'hard core porn'.
Click to expand...
I don't fail to understand it, you are assuming things about me
that I did not write. That other post was just to demonstrate that
most what is considered moral or not, legal or illegal is different
from one country to another.
Ted B.47613 said:
Here in the
UK there are no magazines/movies allowed on sale in mainstream with
ANY form of genital penetration (though this changed to allow
'artistic forms' [possible as it might seem to some, I fail to see
how that adds art]).
Click to expand...
why the tought of something like "penetration" seem to bother you
so much ?
Ted B.47613 said:
So, we have no 'hard core' in terms of what
goes on sale. By your definition there is no 'real porn' here in
the UK.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of UK laws. But in Canada or the USA porn, hardcore
or not, is not illegal unless it is obscene. You seem, like a lot
of people, to mix porn and obscenity.
Ted B.47613 said:
Sorry to disappoint you, feel free to pass over us and go
elsewhere in europe :p
Click to expand...
weel, the net is internationnal, since I am aware that "the post"
you seem to refer to contain some text that may not be apropriate
to everyone there was a disclaimer in it and a sufficiently large
"white" zone to prevent people to be offended. Next time please
stop reading at the disclaimer.

Again, this is a public forum, open to everyone for discussion. If
you post in it be prepared to have people who disagree with. The
post you made, to wich I am responding, has nothing to do with the
present discussion. And is just an attack against me.

Just for the sake of coming back to the discussion. What is your
definition ?

"Just because his definition/belief is
based on something religious does not discount it from being a
valid definition"

Here you are making an assumption that because something is
religious, it is then valid. But you also use the word "belief".
Belief cant be discussed especialy since all religion are
considered to be infallible.

Please be welcome in my country, Canada, I am still happy having a
good discussion even if you do not think the same as I do.

--
Gaetan J.
'when you assume something you make an ass out of u and me' B.Hill
Click to expand...
--
Sometimes it's better to have loved and lost, than to have loved
and won.

'Scenic Virginia Photography'
My Galleries: http://svphoto.home.attbi.com
Click to expand...
--
Gaetan J.
'when you assume something you make an ass out of u and me' B.Hill
 
Bogie said:
The confusion about what is or is not 'pornography' comes either
from a desire to practice it or to avoid imposing morality on
others. To accept that the word pornography has any meaning at all
is to accept that morality also has meaning. Something many
photographers and artists are reluctant to do, given the subject
matter that brings in so many precious $$$.

Your statements about my judging and insulting of people are not
quite accurate.
Gaetan J. said:
Are you aware that you just judged every non-religious people as
not having enough judgement to decide what is good and what is not ?

And taking your post in it's whole one can believe that you think
that only religious people can show honesty, integrity and be
ethical.

And you can't put chaos and anarchy together. Anarchy is a
political system where there is not proper government. This do not
imply that there is no order.

And pornography is not 1 greek word. It is composed of 2 word. But
I should not know that since I myself took latin and not greek.
Bogie said:
Pretty soon anything goes, as long as you can get away with it.
There is no right or wrong anymore. Once there is no (accepted)
authority higher than man, law and order are soon to follow. Six
billion different sets of standards, one for each of us. Each
determining what is right and what is wrong, independant of others.
The only logical outcome is chaos and anarchy. Perfect DISorder vs
perfect ORDER.

One has only to watch the news to see just how far gone we are
already.
Thomas Gardner said:
zounzoun99 said:
If you happen to go to Paris and the Musée d'Orsay, dedicated
mostly to impressionists, you'll be able to see a paint called "The
origine of the World" (approximate translation - could also be the
origin of humanity).
This very famous paint represents a woman's pussy.
It's extremely interesting to sit nearby and look at people's
reaction when they discover that paint.
That gives one an idea of of wide the range of perception can be
when facing this situation. I did the test and was amazed.
Click to expand...
Nobody ever said just because you were an impressionist hanging in
an "art gallery" that you weren't a pervert.

It's reported about Michaelangelo's gayness. Is "David" nothing
more than an expression of this thinking?

http://www.seeing-stars.com/ImagePages/ForestLawnGlendaleDavidPhoto.shtml

I think naked artwork is nothing more then an excuse to allow
closeted behavior to "legitamently" come out of the closet without
condemnation.

Why that's not a picture of a naked lady. Why? Because that's art!

Yeah, yeah, yeah! And I died and became stupid.
Click to expand...
--
Sometimes it's better to have loved and lost, than to have loved
and won.

'Scenic Virginia Photography'
My Galleries: http://svphoto.home.attbi.com
Click to expand...
--
Gaetan J.
'when you assume something you make an ass out of u and me' B.Hill
Click to expand...
--
Sometimes it's better to have loved and lost, than to have loved
and won.

'Scenic Virginia Photography'
My Galleries: http://svphoto.home.attbi.com
Click to expand...
Take this as a hint as to the level of debate you are likely to encounter.
You will find some well-worn cliches to be sure.
By the way, does "A stitch in time save nine' or does "Haste make waste"?
I'm still working on that.

Getting back to important issues-- what do you really" think of the 1Ds MAP? ;-)
Tom
--
D60, Sigma 14/2.8, Canon 16-35/2.8L, 50.1.4,
28-70/2.8L, 85/1.2L, 70-200 IS USM
 
I sure wish I could > afford

I will probably settle for a D60 or stretch the get the 1D, if my wife would allow me to live to enjoy it. ;)

I always enjoy a diversion in a debate like this, but usually nothing good come of it, only another chance for everyone to express their opinion and ignore the opinion of others. And sometimes it gets hostile, which I > don't

Hint taken, I think.

Ted

PS: I think it's "A stitch in haste keeps the doctor from wasting the apples". But I've been wrong before. ;)
Tom Melanson said:
Take this as a hint as to the level of debate you are likely to
encounter.
You will find some well-worn cliches to be sure.
By the way, does "A stitch in time save nine' or does "Haste make
waste"?
I'm still working on that.
Getting back to important issues-- what do you really" think of
the 1Ds MAP? ;-)
Tom
--
D60, Sigma 14/2.8, Canon 16-35/2.8L, 50.1.4,
28-70/2.8L, 85/1.2L, 70-200 IS USM
Click to expand...
--
Sometimes it's better to have loved and lost, than to have loved and won.

'Scenic Virginia Photography'
My Galleries: http://svphoto.home.attbi.com
 
Bogie said:
a question about 'erotic' in one post, but you never replied when I
answered it, albeit, with one of my more long-winded posts. ;)
Click to expand...
Hi Tedaka,

Yes, I answered you, but apparently sent it into cyberspace while thinking I had posted it ;-(

Probably not worth repeating it, ...basically I gave you some lip(in a reasonably friendly manner, I thought) for diving right into the Bible when I specifically stated in my subject-line " Leaving aside books (which define things FOR us)".

As
Ted B.47613 said:
you may be able to tell, I've had no caffeine today, so I have
managed to remain civil and restrained.

I think I'm actually getting better at that! About time.
Click to expand...
I have noticed that on several occassions, ...actually tried to tell you this by private mail awhile back,, but my address for you is no-longer good (How's the witness-protection program going? :-)

Anyway, ...congratulations on the successful effort! :-) Good on ya!

Larry
Ted B.47613 said:
lhsmith said:
Thomas Gardner said:
lhsmith said:
And what would you call a photo taken to be deliberately
suggestive/arousing, ...but WITH some artistic merit? :-0

Larry ;-)
Click to expand...
Creative porn:-) But still a sow's ear.
Click to expand...
I think the value judgement is clear here. "Any thing deliberately
suggestive/arousing is somehow, by-definition,
bad/sinful/dirty/unacceptable, etc (pick one or several ;-) i.e.
no-such-thing as "good" porn.

As they say, one man's ear is another man's purse. (Hmmm. ...sounds
a little strange!)

Larry
Click to expand...
--
Sometimes it's better to have loved and lost, than to have loved
and won.

'Scenic Virginia Photography'
My Galleries: http://svphoto.home.attbi.com
Click to expand...
 
lhsmith said:
Thomas Gardner wrote:
I think the value judgement is clear here. "Any thing deliberately
suggestive/arousing is somehow, by-definition,
bad/sinful/dirty/unacceptable, etc (pick one or several ;-) i.e.
no-such-thing as "good" porn.
Click to expand...
Sure it's a value judgement. Just like you make a value judgement when you say it isn't porn.
 
...where I say it isn't porn ;-) ( I'm not even sure what "it" you're referring to)

If you mean "anything deliberately suggestive/arousing, etc ...", I didn't say it wasn't "porn", ...I just suggested that it wasn't NECESSARILY "bad/dirty/sinful, etc."

Thanks,
Larry
Thomas Gardner said:
lhsmith said:
Thomas Gardner wrote:
I think the value judgement is clear here. "Any thing deliberately
suggestive/arousing is somehow, by-definition,
bad/sinful/dirty/unacceptable, etc (pick one or several ;-) i.e.
no-such-thing as "good" porn.
Click to expand...
Sure it's a value judgement. Just like you make a value judgement
when you say it isn't porn.
Click to expand...
 
lhsmith said:
It's when people start deciding for everyone ELSE that the sparks
start flying.
Click to expand...
And you seem to be trying to decide for me because my thinking differs from your point of view. I notice that you didn't answer my posed question above.

Also, I notice that there aren't any naked guy pictures. How come? Don't guys qualify as art today? When all the images are by guys taking images of gals, the view point is very clear. If it were nothing more than the human body, then you would not mind showing it at a church or at your Grandmother's house. But you would do neither. When images are of both sexes equally by the same photographer then there might be a hint of truth but when it's clearly one sided then it causes one to think that the protesting party is being disengenuous.
Larry H. Smith said:
How proud?
Click to expand...
Some people feel no shame.
Larry H. Smith said:
I think a little exploring would surprise you as to just how much
the "different strokes" idea applies to real life :-)
Click to expand...
As opposed to I don't have a clue.
Larry H. Smith said:
A visit to Voyeurweb.com will show you thousands of "proud" people
showing off their "family photos".

(Of course we know that all those people have morals far inferior
to ours! :-)
Click to expand...
I don't know about your values but yes they are inferior to my values. I'm not going to degrade my value system because a bunch of perverts want to act in this manner.

Just to give you a clue. Going further with this discussion will serve no purpose as our opinions differ.
 
lhsmith said:
...where I say it isn't porn ;-) ( I'm not even sure what "it"
you're referring to)

If you mean "anything deliberately suggestive/arousing, etc ...", I
didn't say it wasn't "porn", ...I just suggested that it wasn't
NECESSARILY "bad/dirty/sinful, etc."

Thanks,
Larry
Click to expand...
It's your choice to split hairs.
 
I certainly don't want to put words in Paul Pope's mouth, but I believe you misinterpreted his statement. In my opinion, he meant to say that the definition of pornography holds little to no value for him -- a picture is a picture. He just shoots what makes money.

The same argument is going on in astronomy circles -- is Pluto a planet or not. Some would argue, "Who cares?" and just take pictures of it whereas others make a big deal about definitions.

I believe Mr. Pope is more a photographer than a lawyer and feels time is better spent taking (or editing) the kinds of pictures you like, or the kinds that make you money, rather than debating jargon.

On the other hand, on a forum such as this, I believe, all other definitions aside, does the photo violate the spirit of posting rules? Whatever your personal opinions are, some restraint in testing the boundaries of posting etiquette is prudent, is it not? Otherwise, we may have to suffer the idiocy of a whole gamut of arbitrary rules specifying what is appropriate and what is not.

We could spend lifetimes debating where the edge of a shadow lies (and, methinks, there is merit to this) or simply stay in the shade!

Just my opinion, though -- please forgive me if my interpretation is way out of line! : )

--
Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !
Pics courtesy of me and my Canon G2 (when it decides to focus, that is!)

: )
 
...attempting to communicate clearly. Sometimes this requires a sharpening of the pencil.

Understand you're not interested.

No problem.

Over and out!

Larry
Thomas Gardner said:
lhsmith said:
...where I say it isn't porn ;-) ( I'm not even sure what "it"
you're referring to)

If you mean "anything deliberately suggestive/arousing, etc ...", I
didn't say it wasn't "porn", ...I just suggested that it wasn't
NECESSARILY "bad/dirty/sinful, etc."

Thanks,
Larry
Click to expand...
It's your choice to split hairs.
Click to expand...
 
Thomas,

I don't disagree with your closing remark about further exchange between us being pointless. So this will be my last response to your posts.

In fairness, however, since you remarked that I failed to answer your question "above", I've come back here to "above", to correct that omission ;-) (This does not mean that I expect you to come back and answer those of MINE that you ignore in your "split-hairs'"post.)

Now that I am here, I find 3 or 4 questions, so I'll try to deal with each:
Thomas Gardner said:
It seems the lesbian quotient is being left out as this is a
lesbian photograph. Guys aside, any lesbian's want to weigh in on
the pornagraphic/sexually arousing aspect of the photograph?
Click to expand...
Answer: CAN'T answer, ...not a lesbian. Don't know whether they want to weigh-in.
Thomas Gardner said:
Also, does anybody want to see their Mother, sister, grandmother,
wife to be, captured in this sort of pose for the world to see in a
public display?
Click to expand...
Answer: Yes, somebody does. I've seen the photos, and mentioned a link, if you really want to know.
Thomas Gardner said:
Hi guys, want to see a picture of my female family
member?
Click to expand...
Answer: No thank you.Not nude ones. You would hate me forever for seeing them.
Thomas Gardner said:
How proud would you be as a father, son, brother or grandson?
Click to expand...
Answer: Of what? (Is this a trick question? ) As a father, I am proud of my kids. As a son, I am proud of my parents. I am not a brother, ...can't answer this one ;-). as a grandson, I am proud of my grandparents.
Thomas Gardner said:
I think most don't think it past their own personal pleasures.
Click to expand...
(not a question.)(previously addressed, anyway)

There were also a few questions in your closing post. I'll try to answer a couple from what I recall, w/o going back to check:

There ARE nude men photos. Like the others, you simply have to look for them, in order to see them (sounds fair to me, ...DON'T suggest that you do.)

Wouldn't show such photos/appear nude at Grandmother's house, at church, etc. because I'm aware that these particular people would find it offensive.That would be rude. This consideration is simply a courtesy, and a respect for their feelings.Has nothing to do with whether-or-not they SHOULD be offended.(also because I don't do these things anyway :-)

Can't remember any more questions, ...sure we are way past having fun now anyway.

See you at some other topic,

Respectfully,

Larry
 
Their IS but it doesn't bother me .... I have no problem shooting porn except for technical issues.

I'm not a god bothering saviour of the world out to protect the masses from the evils of the reality of human sexuality because human sexuality holds no repressed fears for me. I'm happily married (yes to a model) a father of two beautiful daughters (who I would not condesend to make choices for until they are educated enough to choose for themselves) and run a quite successful business I have no fears of hell and damnation for I think if any god that exists would damm someone like me then it can't be the same god that any Christian teachings I've ever heard is talking about.

I'm just out to make a dollar and a cent in the photography business makes no difference to me what I'm photographing ... I just happen to have a skill with product (in a production line sense) and Glamour (which you think is porn).
Bogie said:
Paul Pope said:
I don't define it ....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Who cares? pornography is pretty well a known term by most people why even bother defining it ... its always going to mean different things to different people.

For me the difference between "Glamour" and "Porn" is about $4000 a day ... plus film or shot rate of course :-)
Bogie said:
Pornography is 'sexually immoral material'. Fornication (Porneo)
is 'sexually immoral behavior'. I had made them equivalent terms,
which they clearly are not.
Bogie said:
The Greek word from which we get the word 'pornography' is also
translated as 'fornication' ("pornication"), and 'sexual
immorality'. in the Bible. The origin of the word 'fornication' in
the English language is also obvious.

I think that should make it clearer.
Jamie W said:
There was some good discussion of this issue in another thread,
based on this photo:
http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=414110

However, specifically relating to photography and art I felt the
issue was worth a thread on its own.

As with most anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I
think this can be a very healthy dicussion and I appreciate views
of others, despite whether I agree or not.

In my view, the photo in question is not porn, though I could be
conviced to conceed that it may be right up on the line. Webster's
defines porn as "the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause
sexual excitement." Seems to me that the definition hinges, at
least in part, on the word INTENDED. So, to a certain degree, the
intent of the photographer and the purpose of the photo must be
considered. One could make a very legitimate argument that this
photo is really nothing more than a "non-traditional" portrait of a
couple.

However, some folks feel that any image that contains nudity is
porn. I respectfully disagree. To me, photos become porn when there
is NO artistic merit, and sexual acts/poses are displayed for no
reason other than for the suggestive nature itself. I do not think
that is the case with this photo (or others like it).

I would be interested to hear more views on this point. As one
Supreme Court Justice famously wrote, "I cannot define pornography,
but I know it when I see it." So true.

--
Jamie W.
Canon D60
Film? What do you mean, film?
Click to expand...
--
Sometimes it's better to have loved and lost, than to have loved
and won.

'Scenic Virginia Photography'
My Galleries: http://svphoto.home.attbi.com
Click to expand...
--
Sometimes it's better to have loved and lost, than to have loved
and won.

'Scenic Virginia Photography'
My Galleries: http://svphoto.home.attbi.com
Click to expand...
 
Pornography is a pejorative term that moralists use to describe photography they don’t like. If the meaning of a word depends on your perspective I say the word has no meaning at all. (Although I admit some words that depend on perspective, like "left" and "right", have some utility.) A picture is only a picture - you judge it however you like. I would rather try to define art.

As for the photo in question I find the color and saturation manipulation very interesting in it's effect and the way it disguises some ugly shadows. I don't like the composition, and, personally, I don't like any picture with people in it who have their mouths open.
 
Pornography is the description or display of certain sexual acts that are restricted (or fully prohibited) by the law.

The exact content and also extent of what is considered "legal" or what is "protected" differs from country to country, culture to culture, era to era.

Personally, I think these laws make sense in order to protect certain groups of people. My concern is the protection of people on the supply side in the market for pornography (children, for example). I consider this much more important than regulating the "demand" side (=who shold see what at what age and so on).

Andi

--
http://www.andreassteiner.net/photography
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
How do I make my film photos less "digital"?
Replies
16
Views
83K
alex_virt
A
B
Folder Mania! How do you manage your pic folders and files?
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
vyusseem
V
T
Myths about RAW and JPEG -- A thorough (read: long) list.
6 7 8
Replies
150
Views
29K
Bob A L
B
T
Photo Framing Techniques, Part 2
Replies
10
Views
233
tokyoaaron
T
L
Are People More Paranoid Than 10 Yrs Ago? What Do You Do?
6 7 8
Replies
143
Views
5K
Streakshooter
Streakshooter

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top