DIscussion

For the last few days at Artalyst.. there has been quite a discussion going on in the forums. It had to do with one member getting upset because of a couple photographs that were put in the gallery that were of a woman's behind. He not only was upset, but he went to the lengths of calling the photos: Soft Porn.

I do admit that they should be classified NSFW (Not Safe For Work) and the images will be put in a separate section... but soft porn? I think he went a little too far, but it brought up some very interesting conversation.



Here are some of the better excerpts:
(I'm not going to correct anyone's spelling here.. just so you know)


T: There just isn't any wholesome sites any more, without fail, someone wants to exploit the human body under the idea of art and in turn, limmit those who can view it. Why can't we keep it pg13? Why do we have to creep up into R?

Admin: not telling you how to raise your children, but (I believe) that children should always be monitored while on the internet. even programs like web nanny and such can always be bypassed by a kid with any computer skills.

T: I appreciate you setting up the thumb nail situation for the more conservative crowd. Hey, don't missunderstand me, I like nude bodies too, but aiming guns at your own face isn't the smartest thing to do.

L: Soft porn? Here? Where? I'm sorry but I have seen nothing on this site that I would consider soft porn. I've seen some excellent nudes that show a guys chest and abdomen and a womans bum, but you can see more by going to the beach.

T: I guess it's all relative. I suppose Hue Hefner and Billy Grahm would have different ideas about taste. Sorry for raining on you guys' art.


E: ( a 15 year old by the way) T..., im am not tellin you how to raise your kids or anything-heck im still a kid- but if they come across these images, you must tell them to be mature about it and look at it as art and as nothing more.

then he jokingly added ... and cracked me up, by the way: the images on this site are what i am refferring to, but i could understand if this had pictures like some of those pop-ups we all get--whew--and if they get some of those then well.......its ppl using their bodies in an unartful way.....and beat them with the bible until pictures fall onto the floor the quickly set them aflame. just jokin- but do take what i say into consideration and i understand if you disagree we all are entitled to an opinion.

M: (not me by the way) E.... you are very wise for your years. You are very right ( in my opinion) The human body is nothing to be ashamed of.

T: Again, the points being made here in this forum are based on relativity. Some pople have standards, some don't. Some have some standards, some have none. It all depends on a persons world view. Some people like chocolate and some like rape, and that is why we must have prisons - because some people see nothing wrong with rape, it's just a celebration of human sexuality. I know the consequences of being raped are far more severe than viewing nude photos, it's not even on the same plain - although Ted Bundy admitted to beginning his sexcapades with harmless nude photos, he obviously didn't end up staying there. Some things promise to serve and please, but only in the end desire to enslave and dominate. But if you have some standards, it's only right to ask if they could be put in place so you can participate without purposely going against personal safegaurds. A person who drives the speed limmit isn't better than the drunk driver, he's just safer - and so is everyone he comes in contact with on the road. I was just hoping to make the highway a bit safer. I still love you people:)

L: w00t... the can of worms just keeps getting bigger and I'm having a hard time not grabbin a fork... I love it.

Admin: it's amazing how "sex" (being so hardwired into our minds, bodies, and souls. the very thing that keeps our species alive) is such a magnet for everyone's attention. whether it be for sex, about sex, against sex, why sex or anything about sex, everyone will chime in. everyone will stay tuned. sex sells.

J: I don't mind the nudes, but my wife is not as openminded as I am. I can understand t..'s concern, if I was to bring up the pix in full view with my wife in here, I would get "that look". I don't find them erotic, just form. There is a picture in this site that I find the most erotic photograph I have ever seen, and the model is fully clothed. Just my thoughts.

Eurydice: (yes, me.. usually quiet in my little corner.. not saying a word.. even I chimed in) I think it's a good idea for us to have a NSFW section since we don't want to get people in trouble at work. That said, I think it has to do with who we are inside .. when I look at the images with a chest or a butt..than the actual picture. I find beauty in them.. and .. yes .. sensuality.
I think j..... hit it on the nail..what you find erotic.. doesn't have necessarily anything to do with being naked... some people get turned on by feet.. should we censor images of feet, too.. heck .. someone could go on a rampage... maybe women shouldn't wear nice shoes... or walk around with bare feet.

When does a butt go from being something natural.. like an arm and a leg.. something you are born with.. to something considered bad. I think it has to do with the person that is looking.. If you find it "offensive" perhaps you may have to look inside and wonder why? ... at what stage does a baby's bottom become -- no longer cute... when the person looking finds something more in it.

I don't like someone saying though, that I lack values or morals because I don't find these images offensive. I'm a good person and don't think my lack of being offended by the human form makes me lack in the values or morals department.

Georgia O"Keefe painted flowers .. flowers that I find both sensual and erotic in their nature. Their forms are very reminiscent of female genitalia... but they are still .. flowers.. I guess you can say.. it's all in the eye of the beholder.

L: To me this thread is going more along the lines of morality rather than artistic bounds. You're making analagies that to my way of thinking are a little far fetched. What do the pictures that spurred this whole thread have to do with sex anyway? When you look at the statue of David, do you feel that they were right in covering his penis with a stupid fig leaf? Or does looking at a penis carved in marble or a picture of a naked buttock on this site bring up suppressed feelings that you have been taught are nasty and dirty and unclean? Only since the introduction of "modern" religion, primarily christianity, has sex and nakedness become the spawn of the devil and something that we should be ashamed of. We also have a huge problem in the media that glorifies the abuse and beauty of such things. On one had in the churches we are taught that these are things that shouldn't be talked about. On the other hand we have media (internet, movies, news, etc.) that deifies sex and violence. What can we expect but the bubbling up of massively suppressed desires. Which then takes us to looking at the very fabric of our society.

Admin: I've always felt the best way to rid society of perverts and oversexed content, would be to allow everyone to go around naked. It would get old really fast.

In the Victorian Era, women weren't allowed to show their ankles or even their bare neck. I don't think there are many people who, today, are quite so aroused by a bare neck anymore.

-------

I would love to hear your opinions on the subject.. any takers?