I'm just curious how *you* define p0rn0gr@phy.

[MomOfOneFunOne]

and ***no pictures please!!!!!****

 

Famously quoted (but paraphrased here) is the notion that while ill defined, we know it when we see it. Well, I freely confess that I am a total prude in this area and want to call too much (as defined by me) cleavage p0rn b/c it kind of falls under the objectification clause (that lives in my own poorly defined "what is p0rn?"). So, I'm pretty sure my definition would be far more conservative than most.

 

However, I think there is a standard that most reasonable ppl (yes, well, again defined by me) would agree is p0rn0graphy.

 

I ask this b/c I'v recently b/c involved with a website forum with a member who has what I consider p0rn in her sig line. She is someone who has posted in response to my querries for assistance and seems very nice but I'm just disgusted by the pix in her sig line and am suprised that they aren't *universally* considered p0rn -- and therefore banned. I mean, they are explicit enough that I would think that everyone would consider them p0rn.

 

So, w/o further ado, would you consider this the P-word?

A completely naked man in a posture of . . . well, I think "all sprawled out" would about cover it, with a large water bottle strategically placed.

 

What about a man (or woman, for that matter) in his (tiny) undies, suggestively posed?

 

What about a man in full britches, no shirt, suggestively posed?

 

What about a man in pants but unfastened, suggestively posed?

 

or fully dressed but unbuttoned/zipped

 

or fully dressed and fully buttoned/zipped but suggestively posed?

 

Also, while we all have the responsibility of maintaining custody of our eyes, isn't there a point at which there should be a little mercy for the unsuspecting?

 

thoughts?

 

oh, by the way, the site is just a site, not a naughty site. The only reason I'm not mentioning it is b/c I don't want her to know I'm talking about her . . . she was nice to me. But, I'm sure if she's here she knows. Sorry, lady.

Edited December 3, 2009 by MomOfOneFunOne

[*********]

Well, that's a bit of a tricky question.

 

I don't know that I've ever come up with a definition of p0rnn0graphy. But I do know what I consider to be 'inappropriate'. Any image that is specifically intended to be sexu@l in nature; any image that has the purpose of making you think 'gee, I wonder how he/she looks naked'; that I would consider inappropriate.

 

You know what I do consider p0rn that others might not? Ads that come in our Sunday paper, where stores are trying to sell underwear by having live people model them. I mean, why in the world is it 'ok' for a man to look at a woman in her underwear in a Sears catalog, but it's not 'ok' for him to look at the same exact kind of picture in an 'adult' magazine? It's not. It's wrong. It bothers me. And it bothers my husband. Good grief, I won't even let my boys look through the Kmart ad without going through it and ripping pages out first. I don't want my little boys thinking it's ok to see a woman in her underwear. It's not.

 

Rant over. :)

[i.love.lucy]

I'm not sure what others consider p0rn, but I usually think of anything that explicitly shows men or women involved in s*x acts. But I do have to agree with you, the pictures you mentioned if in a certain context would seem to me to be p0rn. In my mine I think context matters most. I am not bothered by underwear ads, but then again I don't want my husband to stare at them. If I get an ad for pretty nighties or bras, it makes me think - oh, maybe I should get something like that for me to wear for dh. Or it can often make me think - oh, I wish I would look like her in that. So for me those ads are negative in a different sort of way.

 

Our society in general is WAY over-s*xualized. These things never used to bother me that much, but now as the mom of a daughter that likes fashion, I am worried for her self-image. We walked by a full size picture of Miley Cyrus in WalMart the other day with a "come hither" expression, booKs pushed up, cleavage, and a micro-mini skirt that would certainly show her hoo-ha had she sat down. I was appalled. If that was a 25 year old model I might not have even noticed, but SHE'S 16!!!!!!!

 

I'm sporadically on a weight-loss forum where they will use pin-up girls to represent their new selves. Sometimes it's too much. But having a sig line with men in it is way too much. I'm not sure I understand why a woman would have that.:confused:

[OnTheBrink]

For me, hard core is people engaged in a sex act, genitals showing, very blatant.

 

Soft core is pretty much anything rated R in a movie, sex acts simulated. Or the suggestive print ads where people are either scantily clad, or looking as if they're undressing, or entangled in suggestive poses.

 

Just my definitions, others, I'm sure, will differ.

[Big Buckin' Longhorn]

So, w/o further ado, would you consider this the P-word?

 

A completely naked man in a posture of . . . well, I think "all sprawled out" would about cover it, with a large water bottle strategically placed.

 

What about a man (or woman, for that matter) in his (tiny) undies, suggestively posed?

 

What about a man in full britches, no shirt, suggestively posed?

 

What about a man in pants but unfastened, suggestively posed?

 

or fully dressed but unbuttoned/zipped

 

or fully dressed and fully buttoned/zipped but suggestively posed?

 

 

thoughts?

 

 

 

I would not consider any of the above to be porn.

 

Not necessarily in good taste for a signature line, as I wouldn't want to be defined as the kind of person who has "beefcake on the brain" 24/7, but not porn, in MY opinion.

 

I think of porn as real sex or simulated sex acts.

 

When I think of not necessarily porn, but still obscene, I think of genitalia showing, not including breasts, which don't much bother me.

 

I am sure this would be considered a very liberal definition by some, but that's the one I work with.

[Crimson Wife]

Nudity that's intended to be sensual as opposed to scientific or artistic (i.e. Michaelangelo's famous statue of King David).

 

Folks who are scantily clad or who have objects strategically covering their genitals & breasts are definitely inappropriate and vulgar but I wouldn't term that p***

[QueenCat]

So, w/o further ado, would you consider this the P-word?

A completely naked man in a posture of . . . well, I think "all sprawled out" would about cover it, with a large water bottle strategically placed. YES

 

What about a man (or woman, for that matter) in his (tiny) undies, suggestively posed? YES

 

What about a man in full britches, no shirt, suggestively posed? NO

 

What about a man in pants but unfastened, suggestively posed? ?

 

or fully dressed but unbuttoned/zipped ?

 

or fully dressed and fully buttoned/zipped but suggestively posed? NO

 

Also, while we all have the responsibility of maintaining custody of our eyes, isn't there a point at which there should be a little mercy for the unsuspecting? Yes

 

thoughts?

 

oh, by the way, the site is just a site, not a naughty site. The only reason I'm not mentioning it is b/c I don't want her to know I'm talking about her . . . she was nice to me. But, I'm sure if she's here she knows. Sorry, lady.

 

It's a subjective matter. Without knowing what words you are talking about, it's impossible to really answer.

[Michelle T]

I'd consider them tacky, suggestive, maybe risque, but not p0rnographic.

 

It's hard to define p0rn, as different people have different attitudes. I'd generally define it as something that shows graphic s*xual action, and is intended to have a s*xual response.

 

The term "soft p0rn" is often used for material that isn't hardcore, graphic stuff, but still intended to arouse.

Michelle T

[stripe]

I don't think *merely* being unbuttoned/unzipped is porn; sometimes a person just forgot to zip up his/her pants or a button comes unpopped, you know what I mean? I also think some things are definitely negotiable; the idea of having an object blocking does remind me at least of those paintings of Adam and Eve with a fig leaf; I think most people see a difference between that and girly mags. Furthermore, all nudity is not explicit -- such as medical textbooks; diagrams of a vasectomy technique or directions for getting a good latch don't strike me as "raunchy." And I am not sure I am ready to say that that fully dressed but "suggestive" is porn. It may be suggestive, but a winking, fully dressed man is not X-rated in my book.

[Ravin]

Porn is anything I feel compelled to put in the "adult box" up in the closet lest DD or DSS's see it.

 

This does not include Playboy magazine, or any R or NC-17 rated movies we own, or erotica that is only written, not pictured.

[SonshineLearner]

I think part of it is culture, intention and use. So, I was just beside myself that my dad took my 11 year old daughter to Italy. He thought, just a few days before they left, to call and ask me what I had told her about males. Wanted to point out that they would be seeing n*des in detail...sculpture and paintings... and I was fine with it. If he had been taking her to .... say .... the Playboy Mansion... that would be different... he wouldn't do that... I wouldn't allow it.... but to me... great sculptures and paintings are different. I may feel that they were ok .... even if done now... if they are done with reverence towards the body.

Carrie:-)

[Daisy]

It's amazing to me how the definitions vary so widely. I'm a G-rated kind of gal and so is my husband (thankfully).

 

For me soft p0rn is semi-nudity. I think most of the bathing suits on the beach fall under the term soft p0rn. Victoria Secret catalog, swimsuit issues, etc. are all soft porn, imo. The huge half naked guy on the billboard in front of Aeropostale (sp??) in the mall is soft p0rn, imo. Romance novels fall in this category to me. I might would even place them under just p0rn depending on the descriptions. I do feel slightly different about fine art but even with that we are selective in what we choose to view.

 

Regular p0rn to me is anything that contains nudity, male or female.

 

Hard core p0rn would be the act of s*x and anything deviant.

[JeneralMom]

I would not consider any of that p0rn. To me p0rn is very specially full frontal nudity for sexu@al purposes (i.e Playb0y/P@ygirl), or depiction of actual intercourse. Sure those other things are tacky, but not p0rn.

[Mrs Mungo]

I consider pornography to involve actual suggestive nudity and/or explicit sex acts. I wouldn't consider any of the things you mention pornography. Soft core porn involves simulated sex acts or mild nude poses. Hard core pornography shows actual penetration.

 

I do not consider bathing suits, cleavage or an unbuttoned shirt to be pornographic in any way. I don't automatically class all works of art (including photography) that involve nudity as pornography.

 

I didn't consider any of the photos recently posted in the hot men thread to be pornographic.

 

We do have *some* responsibility to society at large to protect people against pornographic images. There are state and federal government definitions that work for me. I do *not* think other people have a responsibility to protect you from more than that.

 

If you don't like seeing those sorts of images, I'm sure there are plenty of forums that don't allow them.

 

eta: Most forums also allow you to turn off images. You could use firefox and block all images, loading only those you want to see. You have a responsibility to shield *yourself* when those options are out there instead of expecting others to conform to your standards.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Mrs Mungo

[Suzanne in ABQ]

I would classify most of them as inappropriate, some of them as rude (since the viewers have not chosen to view them in this context), and one of the (the first example) as crude.

[Scarlett]

thoughts?

 

 

 

Without reading any other replies, I would have to say that pornography to me is nakedness or sexual activity intended to incite improper sexual thoughts and feelings.

[Greta]

I think of porn as real sex or simulated sex acts.

 

That has always been my understanding of the word as well. Depictions of nude or scantily clad bodies may be any number of things ranging from suggestive to inappropriate to obscene, depending. But *I* do not think of them as "porn". That definition would result in many beautiful and respectable works of art being classified as porn, and I don't think that's fair. Porn, to me, means the depiction of a sexual act, not just the depiction of a human body. Obviously, others will disagree. As always. ;)

Edited December 3, 2009 by GretaLynne
spelling

[Greta]

This does not include . . . erotica that is only written, not pictured.

 

That's interesting. I would put all depictions of sex acts, whether verbal or visual in nature, into the category of "porn" and wouldn't have thought to separate out written materials as something different. I wonder if any two people here will come up with the same definition. :D

[Sputterduck]

It is it meant to be taken in a sexual context, it is porn. If a person is looking at it for sexual gratification, he is using it as porn, even if it wasn't meant to be.