COMMENTS:
It depends on how you view it -- the intentions. One man's porn is another man's art.
The human body is disgusting and unnatural, and we should make every attempt to hide it. We're not animals.
You are both right.
Nudity is innocent; we are born naked. It depends how it is depicted. I'm sure most people have an inner radar that tells them whether they are looking at something natural or something pornographic.
There's a world of difference between sensuality and pornography.
by mojo on Fri Oct 08, 04 9:01am
[+]
The word pornographic applies to artifacts (pictures, films, etc.) created for sexual arousal. The body is not an artifact.
The human body is a beautiful thing. It is only the associations with which we've slapped it that cause some groups to label it obscene.
What kind of world do we live in where nudity is considered obscene and our most common forms of entertainment revel in murder, gunfights, explosions, and other forms of violence?
There is nothing pornographic about bare breasts. Nurturer of life. Giver of sustenance.
Show off those ta-tas, ladies!
Stewie, Applerod... LOL!
Only if the orfices are shown
Mojo is a heretic! BURN HER!
Imagine ALL human beings just get naked and never wear anything from now on.....PARADISE!
I reckon that would be a very beautiful world!
Applerod it depends on whose body. If the body is hideous looking, then I agree. If the body is presentable (i.e. the person takes care of their body with grooming and is reasonably fit), and the person is nude in an appropriate place where nudity is allowed, what is the problem? It depends whose body is nude. If the person has the physique of
an extremely overweight person, then I would not want to see it. The same applies for extremely underweight. Anoerxic types should leave it on.
If the person is only slightly overweight (chubby), is slightly underweight (thin), or within the normal weight range, then I guess it's ok. When I mean slight (I
mean within 5 lbs of their acceptable normal weight range for their height and bone structure and sex).
Stingray - I was being sarcastic. ;)
I was merely ridiculing the perverse, puritanical "morals" that have corrupted Americans' attitudes towards sex and the human body.
And, to be honest, I really don't care WHO walks around nude! If it's a body that is unappealing to me, then I just won't look at it. And to be honest, I am attracted to women with some meat on their bones. (To me, it's like a sign of fertility) I don't think fat people are disgusting.
Ok, I don't think fat people are disgusting necessarily, but I wouldn't want to look at them naked. Some meat is fine, but I'm talking about being fairly overweight. I guess it depends on how that weight is carried. I think you asked how the Canadian political system works on another ballot. Basically,
there are federal parties, and they vy for seats. The party candidate with the most votes wins the seat.
It's possible for someone to win a seat with less than 50% of the total ballots cast. The party with the most seats usually governs in a majority government (greater than or equal to 50% of the total seats won), or in a minority government (less than 50% of the total seats won, as
is the case is now). The leader of the governing party is the Prime Minister. Generally, elections are held every 4 years or so, but that can vary. Canada doesn't have a set date for elections, like you do in the USA (i.e. first November Tuesday every four years).
I guess the saying one's man trash is another man's
treasure might apply in this case, depending on how you look at it. :-)
it depends, if the person is hot then it is porn, if it is an ugly person than it is just photograpy
You are talking about two different things here, chum...p.
Nude photography, is about form and usually involves just one person in the photograph.
Pornography involoves sexual content and usually more than one person.
I see myself naked every morning and there is nothing sexy about that
If you can't look at a naked body without getting a boner you need to get out more often.
For something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
An appeal to "prurient" interest is an appeal to a morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex.
The first test to be applied, therefore, in determining whether given material is obscene, is whether the predominant theme or purpose of the material, when viewed as a whole and not part by part, and when considered in relation to the intended and probable recipients, is an appeal to the prurient interest of the average person of the community as a whole, or the prurient interest of members of a deviant sexual group, as the case might be.
So you can see that something others might find offensive isn't always offensive to everyone.
Nude bodies are not pornographic when presented in an artistic, tasteful fashion, but people look better with clothes on, even the so-called good-looking ones.
Voted : It's not porn, but it should be kept away from children
I know sometimes nude designs is art, but I don't think it should be shown to children. I went to a local museum and they had a display of private parts showing nipples, penises, ect and my mom wouldn't let me see it and I sure wouldn't let my kids look at it.
|
