Lounge of Tomorrow
Page 5 of 21 « First < 34 5 6715 > Last »
Show 500 post(s) from this thread on one page

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)
-   Lounge Lizard (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Can we talk about porn? (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=4699)

Morrigoon 11-11-2006 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonliner
We have serious discussions about religion, politics and a myriad of other topics but what about porn? It's a subject that's been on my mind of late.

We hear a lot about protecting kids from the evils of the Internet and specifically porn. In general the order of the day is the total eradication of pornography from life.

However at a certain age, I'd be more concerned that my kids were not looking for porn. I think we are hitting that age with my older one.

At that age I just sunk into my dads closet and looked at his stacks of Playboys but what about today's generation? They have the Internet. Holy crap some of the sites you find there are just evil. I really don't want his first erotic images to come from www.HappyHorseJumpers.com if you know what I mean. It seems like the nastier a site is the easier it is to find. I can't (and don't want to) filter everything.... I might just have to subscribe to the Playboy or Penthouse site and leave the password just lying around (ie taped to the front of his monitor). Of course if any of the other parents around here find out they saw "porn" on my kids PC and I knew about it we'd be toast. It's a dilemma I tell you.
Why don't you just hit the newstand, leaf through a few (purely for your son's protection, of course), find a couple you find most "normal" and give them to him? If ya haven't had "the talk", it's perfect opportunity to open up that particular line of dialog.

Bornieo: Fully Loaded 11-11-2006 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by €uroMeinke
I think there certainly are some gender differences for porn. I think most is made as a male masterbatory aids, readymade visual fantasies. Most straight porn rarely shows more than a guys penis in frame, making it easy to identify as one's own (especially if larger or girthier - for this is all fantasy afterall). I think most contemporary porn has dispensed with pretense of plot and goes straight into the act - I suspect this also is geared to men, who in viewing porn are all ready to masterbate, and probably not in much need to have something, "get them in the mood."

This brings us an interesting point, that you all could run with if you wish, what could be defined as porn? YOu have your "in your face" shot porn, you have the oddball stuff (crapping, animals, etc) then you have the mags and the periodicals (Playboy etc.) where its nothing more than body shots.

SO I think, when it comes to introducing it to your kids, if you were so inclined, I think there are some personal choices as to the very wide types of material that could be considered "porn."

IMHO.

Morrigoon 11-11-2006 02:29 PM
I think porn is defined by a combination of exposure and intent to titillate.

You can have exposure without intent to titillate, such as classical sculpture in a museum, whose purpose is to admire the human form, not inspire a stiffy.

Or you can have intent to titillate without exposure, such as the Song of Solomon.

But when you have both exposure (or graphic description) of body parts, AND intent to titillate, such as Playboy or the latest novel from Jude Devereaux, then I think that qualifies it as porn.

Speaking of which... I wish more boys read romance novels at an earlier age. It would sure clue them in on women a bit...

Bornieo: Fully Loaded 11-11-2006 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrigoon
But when you have both exposure (or graphic description) of body parts, AND intent to titillate, such as Playboy or the latest novel from Jude Devereaux, then I think that qualifies it as porn.

Speaking of which... I wish more boys read romance novels at an earlier age. It would sure clue them in on women a bit...
Well, I've read and written romance and I'm still clueless. But, hey, I'm a loser anyway...

I think though, when you get into Romance novels, and Playboy or Jude Devereaux, I think the leans more towards the headed of Erotica. To my mind just about anything to do with sexuality is "titillating" but IMHO I consider porn to be the "sweaty close ups with fluids" and Erotica to be a beautiful woman lying naked on a bed or a short story or a romance novel.

BarTopDancer 11-11-2006 02:51 PM
What ever happened to giggling over the naked women in National Geographic?

Moonliner 11-11-2006 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by €uroMeinke
I suppose in this digital age, parents may need to worry more about kids stumbling across their own home-made porn...
PGP 512bit Encryption with a 27 character mixed case key phrase.

I don't think so. Errr, not that we have any of that of course...

Strangler Lewis 11-11-2006 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by €uroMeinke
I think there certainly are some gender differences for porn. I think most is made as a male masterbatory aids, readymade visual fantasies. Most straight porn rarely shows more than a guys penis in frame, making it easy to identify as one's own (especially if larger or girthier - for this is all fantasy afterall). I think most contemporary porn has dispensed with pretense of plot and goes straight into the act - I suspect this also is geared to men, who in viewing porn are all ready to masterbate, and probably not in much need to have something, "get them in the mood."
I think this is also a function of the fact that porn producers stuff their actors with Viagra to make sure they're good to go bigger, harder and on cue. Hence, no foreplay or "plot". And, pity the poor fluffers.

Kevy Baby 11-11-2006 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bornieo: Fully Loaded
This brings us an interesting point, that you all could run with if you wish, what could be defined as porn?
Well, you could go with Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's definition: "I know it when I see it"

Kevy Baby 11-11-2006 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrigoon
Speaking of which... I wish more boys read romance novels at an earlier age. It would sure clue them in on women a bit...
No, it would give them the same distorted view of reality that Playboy, et. al. does.

Just as pornography can give one unrealistic expectations on how a partner behaves in bed, the romance novel can provide unrealistic expectations on emotional relationships.

Ghoulish Delight 11-11-2006 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevy Baby
Well, you could go with Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's definition: "I know it when I see it"
Actually, that would be obscenity, as distinguished from non-obscene pornography.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:11 AM.
Page 5 of 21 « First < 34 5 6715 > Last »
Show 500 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.