Porn makes me ejaculate all over my desk. Can God do that?
Winner.

That would make an awesome sig.
Porn makes me ejaculate all over my desk. Can God do that?
Well, "Porn" is a subjective label that's meant to be derogatory.
There are many people who would define something like Nymphes et Satyr as Porn.
Nifty! Yet another thread in Misc devolves into the usual intolerant religious vs. the intolerant anti-religious discussion.
And I was hoping for a joke thread.![]()
I'm not sure that's the case.
It seems to me that, properly understood, pornography is an objective label. Like all labels, it can be misused, and frequently is misused: but abusus non tollit usum.
To borrow the definition from Wikipedia: "Pornography is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer." It has a particular content and a particular purpose.
This is what allows us to distinguish between Michelangelo's David, and, say, Mike and Joe Suck David's Meaty Cock.
I think it also cheapens the purpose of the art in question. If it's meant to be a beautiful rendering of power, design and aesthetic, it succeeds. If it makes a girl all sticky, then can it not also succeed in accomplishing another goal? But by calling it 'porn' we take away it's primary value, I believe.There is nothing explicitly sexual about the former, even though it depicts a nude man. And, far from intending to sexually excite the viewer, it was intended to overawe the viewer--to embody the city of Florence, and to impress the viewer with the beauty and power and majesty of the city and its rulers.
One could argue, I suppose, that the statue is indecent--on the grounds that the genitals, for example, should always be kept hidden from view. But that wouldn't make it pornographic. If it did, every flasher would be a pornstar. Anyone who called it 'porn' would be committing a definitional fallacy.
Locker Room Lolitas 3. Totally, totally worthless. Bushy mustaches and aviator sunglasses everywhere. Not what I anticipated.Similarly, porn can actually fail in its intended purpose: I'm sure we've all seen bad porn at some point. And on the other hand, people are often aroused by things that were never intended to be arousing.
Agreed.This is why authorial intention is so important. If we go strictly by consequences, then every woman who inadvertently exposes more skin than she intends would be a stripper. There's that definitional fallacy, once again.
And they'd be wrong, for the reasons I outlined above.There are many people who would define something like Nymphes et Satyr as Porn.
As Orwell said, we must always be on guard against the abuse of language.
I think I saw that one...um, at a friend's house. He's gay and likes that kind of thing that I don't. I don't like that kind of thing. He's gay. But I don't like that kind of thing. He thought it was Star Trek VI and he was wrong. He's gay and he was wrong, because not only do I not like that kind of thing, he's gay and he does. Like that kind of thing I mean, not that I would know what he likes because he's gay and just likes that kind of thing, not that there's anything wrong with it, but I don't.![]()
There's frolicking naked women and a satyr. I strongly suspect the artist intended a sexual component.And they'd be wrong, for the reasons I outlined above.There are many people who would define something like Nymphes et Satyr as Porn.
As Orwell said, we must always be on guard against the abuse of language.
This is what I mean. The term not only focuses on one aspect of the art, but establishes that one aspect as a negative.I think it also cheapens the purpose of the art in question. If it's meant to be a beautiful rendering of power, design and aesthetic, it succeeds. If it makes a girl all sticky, then can it not also succeed in accomplishing another goal? But by calling it 'porn' we take away it's primary value, I believe.
This is what I mean. The term not only focuses on one aspect of the art, but establishes that one aspect as a negative.
Tom Lehrer said:Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut,
If it's uncut,
and unsubt- le.
I've never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."
Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they're hard core.
(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)
Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.)
All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)
I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
thy.
Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,
Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.
Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don't let them take it away!
There's frolicking naked women and a satyr. I strongly suspect the artist intended a sexual component.![]()
But this is what I mean; it's great art, it's beautiful and it's sexual but calling it Porn is insulting. The term Porn is used as an insult.
Ok, Ok
Camelopard, J. Allen and RJDiogenes quit all the smarty pants philosophical talk I'm trying to get my tug on and your killing the mood.
But the brain is the most important sex organ, after all.Camelopard, J. Allen and RJDiogenes quit all the smarty pants philosophical talk I'm trying to get my tug on and your killing the mood.
It can't be used for good in any way.
Forget all the artsy-shmartsy justifications posted on the last three pages. When it all comes down to it, at the end of the proverbial day, it's about masterbation.
Does anybody download/buy/rent porn NOT to jerk off with it though?
Does it have other uses?
Whoa, cool down there. Don't be insulting, please.Forget all the artsy-shmartsy justifications posted on the last three pages. When it all comes down to it, at the end of the proverbial day, it's about masterbation.
You know--you should actually read people's posts before you say things like this.
(You can read, can't you?)
If you do that, you might actually contribute something interesting to the discussion--instead of just flailing away at a straw man, and making yourself look like a fool.
It's spelled "masturbation," BTW. That's a common mistake among the poorly-educated.
It can't be used for good in any way.
And there we have our first wrong answer, as any psychologist can tell you.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.