am i the only person who associates boobs with porn anymore?

I agree. But then I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the images in question are pornographic. Inappropriate, possibly. Pornographic, no way.

In the simplistic sense, yes. But then this hinges on the rationality of the person publishing the image.

To be honest, I don't think the debate here is really about porn anyway. I don't think manhy would argue that the images are pornographic. To me, the debate is more about how we view nudity and how we react to it.

 

bwahaha...and now i've set the argument off i'm leaving for the weekend...

i'll just leave you with a bill hicks quote or two...since he was mentioned....

"lets just clear this up now...what causes sexual thought...drumrolll....having a dick..."

"supreme court defines pornography as anything without artistic merit that causes sexual thought...sounds like every commercial on television doesn't it?"

 

You mean you have sexual thoughts about anyone with a dick?!?

 

Ok, I was referring to pornography in general there, I don't think there's anything pornographic in those pics either, should have made myself clear...

I don't really see how a debate about nudity can be separated from a debate about porn as so many people see it as the same thing. That's the problem with a discussion on pornography, it's such a rambling topic you just end up going round in circles.
As far as how we view nudity goes I think we're (we meaning people in general here, not anyone specific) much too scared of it, that's probably not helped by being told that we're ugly and disgusting to the opposite sex if we don't buy [insert product here] every time we turn on the TV, read a paper or even just walk down the street.

 

Just one point to make abotu what you said Dok about the naked breast being seen as an erotic/sexual image.

Indeed it is seen as a sexual image but however so is an un-errect penis... however the regulations on using an image of an un-errect penis on television is that after the watershed it may be shown.. however NOT errect ones. ...Does that mean after the watershed images of non-stimulated vaginas can beshown?

And also you say the image of a topless man is not perceived to be sexual when i diss agree.
look at all the "fire men" callenders.. and the "posing images" of men. One strong theme (aside from greased up ab's) is the toplessness of them. The fact is it is still seen as an erotic and sexual image if its inted to however just walking down the street it is not. That perspective should be, and could be used towards the female chest too.
There was a time when showing your ankles in public was a sexual act. So how did we go from full length thick cotten, ankle covering skirts to micro mini's being deemed as socially acceptable? It was a slow process but over time it happened.
And this has created far more freedom for women and people to do as they please with how they look. Be it in a fashion, rebelion, or uniform sence.

...this wasnt me fighting against what u said, more just bringing up points to consider.... please dont shout at me :S ...feeling fragile

 

LOL, DoctorAtomik, I think JOsie was making the point that we are at some point expected to entertain and act on sexual thoughts. You can't really escape from hormones and nature etc.

I think the question of children (under 14/16/18? different countries, different rules) viewing pornography is a little past it's sell by date. First off, you have to decide whether it's sex or nude/semi nude people that is the first pillar of porn, if you like. To be fair, infants and children are going to be naked, and see naked people anyhoo, so that threshold should be passed before puberty.

To think that children aren't devious little people who misbehave and have a look at the things they're sheparded away from by overprotective elders is naive on the grown-ups part.

They'll talk about sex in the school-yard and listen to their older brothers or sisters. And in our society nakedness is a very real part of sex, because it's simply not normal in most other situations. Although it's quite obvious when nudity and sex don't quite go together, like on a beach or a nudist camp (although sex does happen in these scenarios, they're recognised as being places where nudity is accepted/encouraged while sex is, well, not).

If I'm allowed to breed under our upcoming regime I'd gradually expose my children and growing youngsters to nudity (not mine, gorgeous artistic piccys) as normality and help grow into more sexually mature teenagers and young adults (and thus being cooler in their social circles for getting an early fuck or two ). I'd let them go off and find some actual sexual footage, or the real stuff, although I'm thinking as if I had a son (instinctively)...with both they'd need to know about STD's an' all, but a daughter, well, I'd let her mother educate her to be fair.

But my children would be more mature than me; I like tits. A lot. If you feel like posting pictures of yours or your friends tits on the net, go ahead. You know whoever finds them will be well chuffed

 

i don't know, this is just how i feel...but if the person(s) intends it to be sexual, i will see it as sexual, but if the person(s) view it as natural, and are not bothered and do not see it as sexual i don't see it as sexual.

what i'm saying is, if people are just doing something they see naturaly, as long as it isn't to the extreme, then let it be anyways, the more boobies the better!!!!

 

I don't agree. I think it's entirely possible to separate the pron/nudity debate. Porn is intended to sexually arouse, and as such, it should be reasonably easy to isolate from casual nudity. Porn and erotica..... not that's a much more subtle distinction!

 

But there will always be people who view any type of nudity as porn and because of that it comes under the banner of porn, the object has ben changed by the observer.

I don't think that to say "porn is intended to sexually arouse" covers the subject of porn by a long shot. Even something that isn't intended to be arousng can arouse and that arousal makes it into porn, even if it's only porn to the person who gets aroused.

 

I personally would vote for this.

 

Not sure what your point is. That society is hypocritical? I agree.

But again, that's a gross simplification. Of course there are contexts in which male toplessness can be perceived as erotic, but this is the exception to the rule. If a topless man walks down the street, most people wouldn;t even think twice about it. If a topless woman walks down the street, most men are thinking "mmmmmm..... breasts!". The two are viewed differently, rightly or wrongly. Partly I believe this is down to the way society has treated the female form - as something to be covered up and hidden - but it's also partly because the femal form in inherently more sensual. Also, men are more predatory sexually than women. We react (generally) on a much baser level.

If you want to argue that the breast is the same as the male chest, then think of this: Get your tits out in public, and most men will respond to them sexually. Try it. Look at how many people on this topic have commented on how they'd like to see more breasts. Think this is just aesthetic appreciation?

Well I agree. I don't think that the breasts are doomed to remain hidden if society opts for a different approach, and I think that this is probably the healthy path for us to take. But like I said, my point is not that this is good or bad.... but rather that it's complicated.

Think about this: how many women use their breast sexually? I'm not saying this is bad, but it happens. Most women are aware of the sensual power of their breasts, and take advantage of this when trying to dress accordingly.

 

Then we have a different understanding of the meaning of porn. By your definition, a paedophile looking at images of fully-dressed children transforms that image into porn. I don't agree with that. Such an example would be the observer treating an innocent image as porn. It doesn't make the image porn.

Then you're talking about something entirely subjective, and anything by this definition could be described as pornographic so long as someone found it stimulating sexually. No offence, but that's so abstract that it's just pedantic.

 

Hmm, I'm not doing very well at explaining myself today!

in that situation the image itself isn't porn but it IS being used as porn, there is a line being drawn between the intent of the image itself and the intent of the person looking at the image, both sides play a part in describing something as porn.

If you want to take it to the other extreme then imagine some one showing you a picture of a couple having sex with all the 'bits' shown and telling you it's not intended as porn, does that stop it being porn?

well, when we're talking about things like paedophiles, nudist beaches etc it's a long way from being pedantic, I was expecting the argument to be applied within reasonable bounds...

 

I agree. But the debate was about whether naked breasts are inherently pornographic, and your argument was that porn/nudity are inherently linked in any debate. My point was that we can fairly safely say that a simple naked breast is not, in itself, pornographic. What's the problem?

That's not the subject that's under discussion though. We were talking about casual social nudity. Clearly threre are examples at the extreme end of nudity that may or may not be pornographic. But then I'd argue that if the film-maker had not been filming the content with the intent that it should arouse, then it's not porn. It's a graphic depiction of sex that could be used as pornography if a person so desired.

Are you suggesting that nudist beaches are pornographic?

Well this all stems from my comment that we could reasonably assume that a simple depiction of casual nudity wasn't the same thing as pornography. A comment which I..... ummmm.... expected to be applied within reasonable bounds. It's you who've sought to extend the debate into what does and does not theoretically constitute pornography!

 

The point is that pornography isn't something that can be defined by anyone other than the individual, in which case a naked breast is more likely to be pornography than the ikea catalogue say.

lol, nah, I wouldn't have thought so, just the idea of an over 60 playing beachball in the nud does quite the reverse for my arousal! I was just referring to topics bought up earlier in the thread.

yeah I have taken it to the extreme ends of the debate, I was just wanting to explore a few ideas on what is and isn't pornography

 

Rubbish. You're confusing two distinct issues. Porn can quite easily be defined. You're not talking about an objective concept of pornography though, you're talking about the intent of the observer. From that perspective, nothing can be defined, because everything varies according to subjective experience.

This is why I argue that you're creating an abstract debate that borders on the meaningless. You could justifiably argue that it's impossible to define what a person will interpret in a pornographic fashion, but that's an entirely different thing to defining pornography.

 

i think the naked body is beautiful and to each their own,i also believe that MY body is my temple and should treat it as such. BOOBIES IS PORN!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I like boobies, I don't care if they are in porn or out of porn, I still like them and I like porn too.

Does this make me a bad person? I hope so

 

The prosecution rests its case! Paul is proof that men will always respond sexually to bared titties

 

Oh I'll respond to just about anything ... even the wind changing direction can have an effect at the right time.