Can we talk about porn?

[Kevy Baby]

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"

[Strangler Lewis]

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.

[flippyshark]

I had two older brothers whose private collections taught me everything I needed to know. It was mostly Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, and (for some reason, this seemed like the most subversive of the lot) National Lampoon.

When I got older and encountered the hardcore stuff (first via the extremely seedy Pussycat Cinema located not far from my college campus, later through the magic of video rentals), I found that the majority of it had exactly the wrong effect - it was the opposite of erotic for me. This goes triply so for the ghastly circus act/ freak show sites that seem to proliferate on the brave new world of the web nowadays.

I used to just adore the softcore arty European stuff that played on Cinemax. Just enough entertainment value that I could pretend I had more than one reason for watching. Yep, I like my smut with a plot.

Call me wimpy, but that's as much as I care to say about this topic.

[Alex]

The very first image of a topless woman I remember seeing was in a copy of National Lampoon. She was holding a large wheel of gouda cheese (I don't remember the context, just the picture).

In the seventh grade I traded my VHS copy of one of the early WrestleMania's for two Playboy centerfolds, once of which was one of the Price is Right models.

But when it comes to "pornography" our society seems to take a view similar to profanity.

It is ok to make someone think it but not make them see it or hear it. So you can say "f*ck" in the newspaper, which makes all of you mentally think the word but not to actually print the word. Same with graphic sex. I certainly learned more at a young age about the mechanics of sex from Jean Auel than from the pornography I'd seen.

[Morrigoon]

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.

[Morrigoon]

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]

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.

[Kevy Baby]

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.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

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.

I wonder about that, those artists can be a rather randy bunch. Botticelli destroyed a number of his nudes after a religious conversion. The Catholic church periodically covers or uncovers the genitalia of it's sculture (with occasional chisel blows). If you go back to the real classics, i.e. the Greeks, their admiration of the human form almost certainly included lustful intent.

[RStar]

I thought Pornography was pictures and video of nude people. Period. Is there a broader definition?

Granted, some nude photographs, paintings and sculptures are generally considered art (some will always consider it only porn). Also partial nudity in films is considered art.

But if it is a novel can it be considered "pornographic"?