View Single Post
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 31st May 2007, 03:03 PM
Da_Gambla Da_Gambla is offline
Meister Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 137
WTGs: 0
WTGd at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 74
Thanked 144 Times in 66 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 800
Rep Power: 12
Da_Gambla is a splendid one to beholdDa_Gambla is a splendid one to beholdDa_Gambla is a splendid one to beholdDa_Gambla is a splendid one to beholdDa_Gambla is a splendid one to beholdDa_Gambla is a splendid one to beholdDa_Gambla is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesuvio View Post
Unless it was done in some peculiarly gratuitous way, no, it's not pornographic. Playboy having a slot where you can get pictures of naked girls for certain combinations, or a video of a girl doing a striptease - that's pornographic. I don't really see the connection.
Very well then, and I appreciate your answer.

That is where we clearly differ... I do feel that all nudity is just nudity... until someone puts a hand or other object in the wrong place, then it is instant porn.

I very clearly have in my mind what criteria must exist for nudity to cross the line into porn. I wonder if you might explain yours? What exactly is gratuitous nudity? In the movie scene mentioned, the producer could have -easily- edited out the breast shot entirely, so why isn't this nudity considered gratuitous?

I just feel that if you gave a committee 500 nude photos of every variety (no sexual depictions), and had them try to label each one either porn or not-porn, they would go nuts inside of 10 mins! I don't know how you would go about creating a standard for this...

- Keith
__________________
Just for fun, I'm trying out this new sig. Let me know what you think.
Reply With Quote