Nudity: Why are people so damn offended by it?

[manrush]

I wonder why in this country people are so offended by nudity. It simply shows that the human body is beautiful and that we should not be ashamed of its beauty. Nudity is not the same as sex.

[Karthak]

I find it amazing how in american culture people being flayed alive and hung from the roof with meathooks through their feet is perfectly okay (Predator 2), but people scream bloody murder as soon as a nipple is sighted...

[Jetsetlemming]

I've yet to see anyone "Flayed alive and hung from the roof with meathooks" on broadcast TV. The closest thing I've seen is people being shot, and only on cable, which is not yet subject to the fines and rulings of the FCC as it's a pay service, unlike broadcast television which is supported by ads. Cable TV generally self-censors anyway to avoid attracting too much attention to itself, besides the premium channels such as HBO and Showtime.
And the reaction to nudity isn't that severe. In the Jack Nicholson move "Something's gotta give (http://imdb.com/title/tt0337741/)", there's brief full frontal nudity in that as he walks in on the female lead changing, and at one point you see his ass in an open hospital gown, and the movie only got a PG-13 rating.

[manrush]

Isn't European culture the direct opposite? Even the smallest act of violence is enough to set of a moral shit-storm in Europe

[whispering]

Isn't European culture the direct opposite? Even the smallest act of violence is enough to set of a moral shit-storm in Europe
Not really that much, but yea e.g. in finland 28 Days Later has 18 rating, but a soft core porn movie could get a 15 rating. Many finnish movies may have full nudity, but still could get the rating 3. As here the reasons to get a higher rating isnt related to nudity but sex, violence and horror.

[Fred]

I am not sure how serious this question is.

Different people react differently to nudity. The context in which nudity occurs also affects people’s responses.

I think Christianity, as practiced in the beginning of this country’s history, has contributed to the notion that nudity is sinful. There seems to be a belief that because God is “of the spirit”, anything relating to “the flesh” is sinful.

There is also just the issue of formality. I would not describe myself as offended by nudity, but that does not mean I think it is ok for people to walk around naked in public.

[manrush]

Then if the flesh was sinful, Catholic churches wouldn't have so much nude sculptures everywhere.

[Ozero]

I really abhor stuff like saw/hostel, etc... it's not even the violence so much as the joy of suffering in these films.

[Fred]

When I was in Italy, I noticed that not only were there nude sculptures (of men) all over the place, but that the most famous of them also included nude sculptures of children at their feet. Given the rampant pedophilia in the church nowadays, these statues seem creepy to me.

I am not particularly religious, but even if I were, I do not think I could defend the logic of the church in most matters. Regardless, I think church doctrine has had a strong impact on people's perception of nudity.

[manrush]

So? David Hamilton, Jock Sturges, Richard Murrian (of MET Art fame), and Jacques Bourboulon (also of MET ART fame) all photographed girls (who were under 18) in the nude, and books of their photos have been selling.

[Beowulf]

I really abhor stuff like saw/hostel, etc... it's not even the violence so much as the joy of suffering in these films.
I hate them because they're all torture, no plot or character development.

And MR, you pretend you're fine with nudity right up until you run into an 80 year old fat woman letting it all hang out.

[manrush]

I hate them because they're all torture, no plot or character development.

And MR, you pretend you're fine with nudity right up until you run into an 80 year old fat woman letting it all hang out.

Your point being?

[Kaji]

In all fairness on the religion issue here, you're taking the practice of puritanical sects that fled England for religious freedom and comparing them to the Catholic church, from which Puritanism is removed by two schisms (Anglicism schisming from Catholicism, Puritanism schisming from Anglicism).

[Stephy]

His point being that you'll dislike the thought of freedom to expose your body once you come across a scary old wrinkly lady naked. Silly don't you read. ;x

It simply shows that the human body is beautiful and that we should not be ashamed of its beauty.
Clothes. It simple shows the curves, creative styles, and the human body is beautiful underneath and that we should not be ashamed of its beauty. I love my clothes. I also love not seeing people naked. *Shrugs*

Go to a nude beach. Do we have these in Ma? Or even in America? Hmmm

Also I don't think we're exactly offended by it.

[雨]

I still get the impression or "vibe" if you like, from this thread that sex is much, much worse than nudity. Or even comparable with violence.

[Jetsetlemming]

Go to a nude beach. Do we have these in Ma? Or even in America? Hmmm

On private property. Nudist camps, resorts, villages, and vacation grounds, too. Nudity is a big industry. I saw a thing on VH-1, some hair metal band was talking about a concert they did on a nudist camp, and they said it was the most horrific thing they've ever saw, chock full of middle aged fat old people. :knockout:

[manrush]

His point being that you'll dislike the thought of freedom to expose your body once you come across a scary old wrinkly lady naked. Silly don't you read. ;x


Clothes. It simple shows the curves, creative styles, and the human body is beautiful underneath and that we should not be ashamed of its beauty. I love my clothes. I also love not seeing people naked. *Shrugs*

Go to a nude beach. Do we have these in Ma? Or even in America? Hmmm

Also I don't think we're exactly offended by it.

Not really, my position on nudity will not change. I'm not saying clothes are bad. I am talking about the overreaction in society over nudity.

[manrush]

I still get the impression or "vibe" if you like, from this thread that sex is much, much worse than nudity. Or even comparable with violence.

Nope, not even close. Nudity has nothing to do with sex. I never said it was worse than sex. I'm still torn over whether a hot sex scene is better than watching shit blow up. It's a hard decision for a man to make.

[h2orowe]

His point being that you'll dislike the thought of freedom to expose your body once you come across a scary old wrinkly lady naked. Silly don't you read. ;x


Clothes. It simple shows the curves, creative styles, and the human body is beautiful underneath and that we should not be ashamed of its beauty. I love my clothes. I also love not seeing people naked. *Shrugs*

Go to a nude beach. Do we have these in Ma? Or even in America? Hmmm

Also I don't think we're exactly offended by it.
Steph, to be honest, it's just it's annoying that people will throw a HUGE fit if their seven year old hears the word "fuck" or sees a nipple, yet they give the kid G.I. Joes and violent movies/television. It's okay to play soldiers, Bobby, as long as you keep his pants off, and keep the language toned down.

Even when video games are being banned for being too violent, take a deeper look at it, most of the games that are getting "banned" have "sexual content". Like people threw a fit about GTA being violent, but when they found out about the sex thing, they called for it to be banned and such. Then there's that Manhunt thing where you can like pull some guys testes off or something, and they want that banned, but movies (like previously mentioned I believe) Hostel and such can get away with equally graphic acts, just on different parts of the body.

[Saitou Hajime]

It's all just a difference in culture and thought; America is more worried about exposing children to nudity and sex than they are about showing them acts of (almost always fake) violence. Other countries have the opposite view on the situation. An example that clearly shows the difference is wrestling: In America, any nudity on the programs gets censored, but acts like getting hit by a steel chair are shown. In say, Germany, however, the nudity is left uncensored, while a "chair shot" is blurred out. Other countries aren't as "uptight" about nudity as America is, just like America's not as wary of violence as some other countries are. It's all a matter of opinion, and there are valid points to both ways of thinking. Also, it's more about keeping sex from younger people than it is about hiding nudity. No, both are not the same thing, but no, both aren't dealt with as strictly.

[Jetsetlemming]

Does Germany seriously censor the image of someone getting hit with a chair? O_o;

[Saitou Hajime]

It was Germany, or another European country. I heard about it a while ago and can't recall with one hundred percent certainty. But yeah, the more "extreme" acts of violence are censored out in some countries, but the nudity is left in.

[kilreli]

Isn't European culture the direct opposite? Even the smallest act of violence is enough to set of a moral shit-storm in Europe
2cents:
maybe its cause of the massive wars in Europe that they dont want wiolence in tv being so mainstream?

and about the nudity thing. maybe ill get into it another time (probably not)

:mario:

[seiji]

Then if the flesh was sinful, Catholic churches wouldn't have so much nude sculptures everywhere.
You know all those nude sculptures with discolored fig leaves covering their penises? Yeah, guess who unmanned them. :rolleyes:

[Azrael]

Ah, I remember when I was all self-conscious about nudity. Living in Japan will change a lot about a person. Americans do seem to have rather conservative views on nudity.

[Daishikaze]

It was Germany, or another European country. I heard about it a while ago and can't recall with one hundred percent certainty. But yeah, the more "extreme" acts of violence are censored out in some countries, but the nudity is left in.

Wasn't Germany, no problems showing a chairshot. However, they censored alot of scenes in John Woo's film, Hard Boiled because of the violence.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Japan is marvelous for the lack of mainstream censorship. You can see partial nudity, violence, and swearing (in English) on TV. Not so odd.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

No offended.

More like ashamed.

I saw myself in a full body mirror once :(

[manrush]

Earlier on this thread, I mentioned David Hamilton and Jock Sturges. Both were photographers who photographed young girls (from 10 to 18) in the nude. I've seen books by both photograohers. There was nothing pornographic about them, just images of beautiful girls on the verge of becoming beautiful women. Hamilton's work may have been a little sensual, but it was tasteful and showcased the beauty of the human body. Looking at photos taken by both artists don't make someone a paedophile. But due to the paedophilia hysteria in this country, both were nearly arrested for being child pornograohers, which they weren't. It always seems to be that at any mention of nudity, there is a connection to sex. Fortunately, reason won out. Now Hamilton and Sturges are among the most famous photographers of the nude.

[MNJetter]

I still get the impression or "vibe" if you like, from this thread that sex is much, much worse than nudity. (i.e., sex is not nudity)

Nope, not even close. Nudity has nothing to do with sex. (i.e., sex is not nudity)

What exactly are you arguing against in this reply?

[manrush]

What exactly are you arguing against in this reply?

I was arguing against sex being much worse than nudity.

[Mittens]

I dont understand why people are so 'rawr' about nudity.
Im not religious in the least, but werent adam and eve technically created naked? Not only that, but arent we made in god's image (ergo, intelligent design)? Shit, everyone should be naked by law tbh.

Or you could have an exam that states whether you're 'HAWT OR NAWT' that separates the wrinkly naughties from the slender hawtties. Everyone could feel all the more free, and we'd all enjoy seeing a few nicer curves on the ladues, and hunky dudes just struttin their stuff. I wouldnt say no to seeing boobies on the street in daylight.

[manrush]

I dont understand why people are so 'rawr' about nudity.
Im not religious in the least, but werent adam and eve technically created naked? Not only that, but arent we made in god's image (ergo, intelligent design)? Shit, everyone should be naked by law tbh.

Or you could have an exam that states whether you're 'HAWT OR NAWT' that separates the wrinkly naughties from the slender hawtties. Everyone could feel all the more free, and we'd all enjoy seeing a few nicer curves on the ladues, and hunky dudes just struttin their stuff. I wouldnt say no to seeing boobies on the street in daylight.

Neither would I. Actually, in Toronto, public toplessness is legal. And in New York, I remember there was a photo set dealing with toplessness in that city.

Finally someone gets it. It's true, we were made in God's image. The human body was created to be beautiful, so why shouldn't it be allowed to be shown. If God didn't want us to be naked, we wouldn't have been born that way.

[xtine]

1. It's cold without clothes, and we scratch easily.

2. I don't want to see most other people naked unless I really have to.

3. Nothing wrong with nudity, we should be more comfortable with who we are, but it's hard not to be ashamed when America was founded upon Puritan Christian values.

[Beowulf]

The human body was created to be beautiful, so why shouldn't it be allowed to be shown.
Actually I'm quite horrifying thanks.

We need clothes because there are people on this earth that do not need to be walking around naked.

[Saitou Hajime]

I dont understand why people are so 'rawr' about nudity.
Im not religious in the least, but werent adam and eve technically created naked? Not only that, but arent we made in god's image (ergo, intelligent design)? Shit, everyone should be naked by law tbh.

If you're going to bring up Adam and Eve as an example, then once the apple was eaten, they became self-conscious, so because of that it shouldn't be law that we're naked, unless you want to take knowledge of the differences between genders away. :P

[Mittens]

If you're going to bring up Adam and Eve as an example, then once the apple was eaten, they became self-conscious, so because of that it shouldn't be law that we're naked, unless you want to take knowledge of the differences between genders away. :P

Unfortunately Saitou, we live in an age where apples dont exactly teach us anything if we eat them. Im using their nudity / created naked as an example, not their story. I eat apples when Im naked and god doesnt exactly set his gargantuan, holy fist down through my roof crying 'NO MITTENS NO, BAD KITTY' in his most godlike voice.

[darighaz]

But that would be AWESOME if he did.

[Trump]

I think he is partially right when he bases it on religion. However, it isn't that nudity itself is bad, but more that sex is bad. Maybe sex only for sex sake is almost animalistic in many church views. Seeing people naked reminds people of sex so it is "bad".

And as a guy, seeing people naked all the time might get uncomfortable if some really hot girl walked by...

[mawande]

At the kindergarten where I teach Wednesday morning, the kids had been out in the flooded fields with their teachers, not really sure why... although the chance to get damp and wet in that weather is up there for me. They were out there in ordinary clothes, rather than the school outfits. The reason for this soon became very clear.

At any rate, after returning from the fields, the kids got to strip down and their teacher hosed off their legs. They stomped around happily in fairly large buckets of water and donned their regular school clothes (and I pity the mothers who'll have to deal with the mud).

And, while I waited for them to get dressed and come in, I pondered my feelings about having 24 buck-naked adorable kids in front of me. Actually, I think I was a little bit shy about it. I don't suffer any pedophile tendencies, but I was mildly curious about the boys. I confined looking to whoever happened to run by as I waited, half-dozing off in the warmth of the day. No one should be surprised to know that (barring that I did not walk around and look at every single child) none of the boys were circumcised. And all of the girls vaginas go the usual direction (referencing the humor of idiots asking about Asian sideways vaginas). I do know from previous experience that this happy indifference to being naked in front of your opposite-sex classmate will cease to exist during grade school. I had a grade-school child protest when a teacher suggested she change out of her stained shirt right there by saying "Goodness, I'm not a kindergartner anymore!"

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

1. I like clothes. I think it was Mark Twain who said "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little to no influence in society" (or something like that).

2. Total agreement on the cold - I live in Wisconsin.

3. Total agreement on not wanting to see naked fat, old people - I live in Wisconsin.

4. If you don't want to connect nudity with sex, that's fine, but put a pretty naked girl in an office and watch productivity go down the tubes.

5. MR brought up the tasteful nude photos of young girls, claiming that it's art so it's ok. What's the difference between art and porn? A government grant.

6. Finally having sex with someone would be a lot less fun if you didn't need any imagination to picture them naked during the anticipation.

[Daishikaze]

I thought this was more a discussion about nudity in the media?

[manrush]

This discussion is about society's perception of nudity, as I stated in the first post. But nudity in the media is also relevant to this.

[RandomPasserby]

If God had wanted people to be nude, He would have created people nude!

ps. Met-Art not porn?!

[Daishikaze]

I see. I think with many people its more about modesty that anything else. Its the old school fire and brimstone types that think nudity is wrong, and IMO, that type of thinking is on the way out. I mean in Europe its fairly acceptable, as is it in Asia too, it seems the last bastion against nudity is in the US.

I don't know if I'm being very clear, I hope I am.

[manrush]

If God had wanted people to be nude, He would have created people nude!

ps. Met-Art not porn?!


It's an erotic photography website. There's a difference between it and porn (in my opinion, at least. For others, it may be equivalent to softcore porn). If there is no penetration involved, I don't see it as porn. MET Art, Hegre Art, MC Nudes, and parts of MPL are more like soft-erotica (the part of MPL that deals with models like Anetta Keys and Sophie Moone is more on the softcore porn side).

[SlickWilly440]

Nudity is not the same as sex.

If you see it and get a hard on then it is.

[Jynx_lucky_j]

So we have to ask ourselves, Why do we associate nudity with sex? I think its most likely that nudity is often a prelude to sex, both in our lives and in media. Also we most often see nude people just before or during sex.

It's my belief that if everyone was naked all the time, or at least a decent percentage of the time you would react no different towards an attractive or unattractive naked person the you would a clothed attractive or unattractive person. The only reason we react the way we do is because we see it so rarely. I would dare venture that if we were naked the majority of the time that we would begin to see clothes as exotic and alluring instead.

[manrush]

If you see it and get a hard on then it is.

It depends on what category of nudity turns you on. I don't get a hardon when I see just plain nudity. Usually if it is really suggestive. When I see a simple nude, I cannot help but admire the beauty.

[crabity]

I don't get it...

if you say people associate nudity with sex, and that's why it's "bad"...
Why aren't people offended by the kissing and the making out in the public? It's just as suggestive of sex if not more... everyone does it shamelessly.





but then mawande
japan is strange as well.
people think it's no big deal about kindergarten kids stripping down naked,
but a couple of years ago, one kindergarten got into huge trouble for forcing two boys to strip in front of the whole class just for wetting their pants.
everyone thought stripping was the problem...but I guess the big deal was singling them out just like every other case.




word from one scientist:
clothes hide the difference between men and women

[amg]

I like clothes. They're fun to take off of your partner


5. MR brought up the tasteful nude photos of young girls, claiming that it's art so it's ok. What's the difference between art and porn? A government grant.

Porn is anything that ceases to be interesting once you finish masturbating

[Trump]

I don't get it...

if you say people associate nudity with sex, and that's why it's "bad"...
Why aren't people offended by the kissing and the making out in the public? It's just as suggestive of sex if not more... everyone does it shamelessly.


But that is where I disagree. I do not associate kissing with sex. Kissing is just a display of affection. Now if you add lots of tongue and roaming hands you move into the realm of sex and I know there are tons of people who would be offended.

[manrush]

I like clothes. They're fun to take off of your partner



Porn is anything that ceases to be interesting once you finish masturbating

That is the best answer that I have ever heard. :rofl:

[crabity]

But that is where I disagree. I do not associate kissing with sex. Kissing is just a display of affection. Now if you add lots of tongue and roaming hands you move into the realm of sex and I know there are tons of people who would be offended.

wait, so does a guy placing his hand on the girl's butt (not her waist) count as roaming? that's disturbing enough >.>

[manrush]

Okay, to make sure we're back in reality, before anyone accuses me of anything, know this; I NEVER said sex was worse than violence or nudity. I said that society mistakenly assumes that nudity = sex and sex = evil, and thus nudity = evil. Violence is much much worse than either nudity and sex. Just wanting to clear up any misunderstandings.

[Zugzwang]

I'm getting this exquisite urge to go running naked down my road with my dick flapping in the wind.

[Psychochink]

Just to add nothing constructive to this thread:

I believe that the level of undress that one is allowed to display should be based on a sliding scale, dependant on one's physical appearance.

Athletic and nubile young women with perky breasts should be allowed (and encouraged) to go anywhere dressed in just a tiny g-string. If Adonis-types want to walk around in a speedo, I suppose that's OK, too.

Fatties (like me), the elderly and otherwise unattractive people should be held to different clothing standards, and hide their shame.

[seiji]

Athletic and nubile young women with perky breasts should be allowed (and encouraged) to go anywhere dressed in just a tiny g-string. If Adonis-types want to walk around in a speedo, I suppose that's OK, too.

Fatties (like me), the elderly and otherwise unattractive people should be held to different clothing standards, and hide their shame.
What about not-so-athletic nubile young women with perky breasts? Should I wear a tube top pulled down? Button my shirts halfway?

As for my personal experience with naked people (figure drawing class), while the hundred-pound petite had some beautiful lines, the hundred-forty-pound one's flexed knees were absolutely mesmerizing. Thus, I propose that people be allowed to reveal their nakedness only to pose under suitable lighting.

[Trump]

wait, so does a guy placing his hand on the girl's butt (not her waist) count as roaming? that's disturbing enough >.>

I would say yes... that counts as roaming hehe

[Psychochink]

What about not-so-athletic nubile young women with perky breasts? Should I wear a tube top pulled down? Button my shirts halfway?

There would be a sliding scale. Obviously, a complete set of regulations would have to be drawn up, in order to help Joe/Jane Public to understand the law and for LEOs to enforce it.

I suggest we set up a Commission. I will give my services as Chairman, but I do expect an exorbitant salary.

[manrush]

Now I've had some pretty outrageous opinions on these forums, but this next one shouldn't be so bad.

I personally think that parents should show artistic and/or simple nudes (like the ones found on DOMAI.com or the ones photographed by David L. Le Beck). Those two kinds of nudes are not pornographic, so parent's won't have to worry about their kids being corrupted. Fathers should show nudes such as these to their sons and get through their heads the message that "this is what a beautiful woman looks like, and I hope you take the time to appreciate how beautiful she is. I hope also take the time to appreciate how beautiful all women are, and respect them." If mothers showed such nudes to their daughters, imagine the confidence boost that will follow. No longer will a growing girl be dissatisfied with her body, instead, she would go everywhere with her head held high, thinking "I am a beautiful woman, and no-one can tell me otherwise."

This is an opinion that I am definitely never backing down from.

[MNJetter]

I took regular trips to the art museum when I was a kid. Saw my first naked man there, if a statue counts.

....just thought I'd share.

[Jetsetlemming]

David?

[Y.T.]

I disagree with Psychochink

Seeing all those nude ugly people would make the better looking ones stand out more, and besides, most people who are just average would feel better.

I've heard it said that one of the most pleasant things that happens to a woman is seeing a woman who's fatter than she is..

I've seen a nudist beach before, and I don't think that seeing paunchy, hairy old men is .. traumatic...

---------------------

I don't think there's anything wrong with nudity, or bare skin. I felt a much bigger sense of 'wrongness' seeing a married US couple, who were barely out of their teens (that is, maybe 20-21). Felt wrong. People I know married at 25-30+.... People seldom marry so soon here.

It's good to be a man. In warm weather, no one really objects to us walking around shirtless .. women can't do that (or don't have the guts to do so)... Heh, it pisses off my sister, she says it's unfair. I tell her that no one is stopping her .. and that on the contrary, men wouldn't really mind if the topfree equality movement achieved its goals..

-----------

MNJetter .. I don't think statues count. They are not really anatomically correct... statues of women usually don't have anything modelled down there, and statues of men overall have the relevant bits scaled way down.
Seems to me so, as far as I can compare with what one observes in dressing rooms and showers at swimming pools.

[manrush]

I took regular trips to the art museum when I was a kid. Saw my first naked man there, if a statue counts.

....just thought I'd share.

And were you scarred for life? If you weren't then it proves that the people who say that nudity is evil and scars and corrupts kids are full of shit.

[manrush]

Do you guys consider nude sites like MET-Art, Hegre Art, and DOMAI to be art or porn? And where is the line between the two?

[CNagy]

And were you scarred for life? If you weren't then it proves that the people who say that nudity is evil and scars and corrupts kids are full of shit.
Since when does an individual case, for or against, prove a wide-sweeping generalization? The more I read your replies, the more sophomoric you appear.

You can't prove that anyone who says something is evil is "full of shit." Good and evil are subjective. You can't say without a doubt that there aren't kids out there being corrupted by nudity. A discussion about why people feel a certain way is a great subject for debate-- but it isn't something you can say proves one thing or another.

[manrush]

But seriously, where is the line drawn between art and pornography?

[CNagy]

It's all relative. Pornography is obscene, and it doesn't have a lot of value as art. That said, I guess it is whatever someone finds obscene to their sensibilities.

Personally, I would consider suggestive yet tasteful posing to be erotica, while graphic depiction would be more pornographic. Suggestive yet tasteful would exclude poses that expose the genitals in conjunction with sexual acts, as well as graphic depiction of sexual acts that do not show genitalia. Implied sexual acts would be erotica. I'm not going to give examples.

Depictions of naturalism or nudism would neither constitute erotica nor pornography, but a photographed or painted nude could be erotica depending on the pose and expression.

In the end, it is all very individual.

[manrush]

Cool. In my personal view, pornography is anything that involves penetration of some kind. Exposing of the genitals without any sexual acts is considered by me to be sensual nudes/soft erotica. Also I consider tasteful implied sex to be erotica/sensual nudity.

I see your point on it being individual.

[Black fist]

And were you scarred for life? If you weren't then it proves that the people who say that nudity is evil and scars and corrupts kids are full of shit.
Goatse type nudity or fat bastard with salt and pepper chest hair might scar someone though.

[erbiumfiber]

Then if the flesh was sinful, Catholic churches wouldn't have so much nude sculptures everywhere.


Maybe I'm going to different Catholic churches, but the ones I've been to (America, Europe, Japan) don't have any nude statues (after the fall from Grace, Adam and Eve covered their nakedness, as has been mentioned). The closest you get to naked is Jesus hanging on a cross with just a loincloth. Granted, I have seen a few hot Jesuses in my time as well as a positively gay Jesus (blond wavy hair, blue eyes). Ahem. But I digress.

For example, you will never see the Virgin Mary naked. Ever. Or her husband, Joseph. Or any of the apostles. You might get a semi-naked cherub but that's about it. Even baby Jesus is "wrapped in swaddling clothes."

Now, in Catholic countries (Italy, France) there are plenty of naked statues and paintings but I don't think any of them were for the inside of a church (to go into St. Peter's in Rome, you can't have bare shoulders or wear shorts- the rules may have changed, but that's how it was a few years ago. And no hugging and kissing the opposite sex- they really police that, again, I digress...).

[Candyvan Stan]

Isn't European culture the direct opposite? Even the smallest act of violence is enough to set of a moral shit-storm in Europe

Not at all. Only in Germany extremely violent video games are banned or modified, and a very, very small amount of video games have been banned in the UK (can count them on one hand).

But Germany does not at all represent western Europe in any way.

I've noticed many Americans seem to think Europeans are very sensitive towards violence. Which (as much as I think it should be) isn't at all true.

[Jetsetlemming]

Not at all. Only in Germany extremely violent video games are banned or modified, and a very, very small amount of video games have been banned in the UK (can count them on one hand).

Yeah, but unless you have 15 hands you can't for the movies banned in Britain. :P There are 74, nd those are only the Video Nasties, infamous horror movies. Most of them have since had their band removed with heavy edits of the content, but 14 of the original "Video nasties" are still banned.
You're being a bit dishonest to downplay the censorship of Britain and Germany. UK's Certifications and Germany's Indexing goes beyond just videogames, and a good number of the violent media that DOES get released in these countries, especially Germany, are forced to be edited. For example, The Darkness, a recent 360/PS3 game, was delayed for German release because they demanded the violence be toned down and in particular the "heart eating" mechanic replaced with a "soul eating", gore replaced by the main character sucking up a green fog cloud instead.

[Trump]

I don't know, it seems fairly simple to me...

Pornography (from Greek πορνογραφια pornographia — literally writing about or drawings of harlots) is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal, similar to, but (according to some) distinct from, erotica.

So if you have a naked woman simply for the sake of having a naked woman I would consider that pornography. If you have a work of art that uses a naked woman to show some other point (many religious works), it would not be pornography.

[Candyvan Stan]

Yeah, but unless you have 15 hands you can't for the movies banned in Britain. :P There are 74, nd those are only the Video Nasties, infamous horror movies. Most of them have since had their band removed with heavy edits of the content, but 14 of the original "Video nasties" are still banned.
You're being a bit dishonest to downplay the censorship of Britain and Germany. UK's Certifications and Germany's Indexing goes beyond just videogames, and a good number of the violent media that DOES get released in these countries, especially Germany, are forced to be edited. For example, The Darkness, a recent 360/PS3 game, was delayed for German release because they demanded the violence be toned down and in particular the "heart eating" mechanic replaced with a "soul eating", gore replaced by the main character sucking up a green fog cloud instead.

... I'm being a bit dishonest? The reason I specifically told you guys about the video games was because that's all I know about things being banned in either countries. How should I know which movies get banned in those countries? You might not have noticed, but I don't live in either of them, and no media ever gets banned in the Netherlands as far as I know (often called the most liberal country in the world, by foreigners mind - Dutchmen just bitch and moan). The United States doesn't easily ban things, but it has more banned video games and movies than the Netherlands as far as I know. Then again, I only know of one game that got banned in the US, which was due to sexual content, and most of the US' banned movies were pre-60s, so it doesn't really count.

Also, I don't feel it's 'uncool' for a country to ban certain things. While I disagree with it, I respect Germany's choice to ban certain things with nazi symbols in them. I also understand how games like Manhunt 2 could be banned in certain countries. While I personally think that adults should be able to play whatever they want, games like Manhunt 2 only reinforce the idea to non-gamers that videogames are about senseless death and violence, sadistic torture and gore. I have to admit, though, I'm definitely looking forward to playing Manhunt 2.

[whispering]

and no media ever gets banned in the Netherlands as far as I know
I highly doubt that. Here the ones that are banned are snuff films (also real violence shown as entertainment), child-, violence- (s/m excluded) and animal pornography, rasist incite and blasphemy (It also need a judges ruling for the banning). I doubt that all of those are legal in Netherlands? If something is banned by the law, and doesnt go in a case by case basis. Then "distributors" woudnt even try to distribute that, but it doesnt mean its not banned.

[Candyvan Stan]

I highly doubt that. Here the ones that are banned are snuff films (also real violence shown as entertainment), child-, violence- (s/m excluded) and animal pornography, rasist incite and blasphemy (It also need a judges ruling for the banning). I doubt that all of those are legal in Netherlands? If something is banned by the law, and doesnt go in a case by case basis. Then "distributors" woudnt even try to distribute that, but it doesnt mean its not banned.

Oh, of course. I was talking about fictional violence and nudity. I don't think there's a country that doesn't ban that stuff. And if there is, it should be banned.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

Now I've had some pretty outrageous opinions on these forums, but this next one shouldn't be so bad.

I personally think that parents should show artistic and/or simple nudes (like the ones found on DOMAI.com or the ones photographed by David L. Le Beck). Those two kinds of nudes are not pornographic, so parent's won't have to worry about their kids being corrupted. Fathers should show nudes such as these to their sons and get through their heads the message that "this is what a beautiful woman looks like, and I hope you take the time to appreciate how beautiful she is. I hope also take the time to appreciate how beautiful all women are, and respect them." If mothers showed such nudes to their daughters, imagine the confidence boost that will follow. No longer will a growing girl be dissatisfied with her body, instead, she would go everywhere with her head held high, thinking "I am a beautiful woman, and no-one can tell me otherwise."

This is an opinion that I am definitely never backing down from.


Little kids should know what adult human bodies look like, but what you're suggesting is just kinda weird. I had a book when I was a kid about the human body and sexuality. The pictures in the book were just drawings, but I knew what women and men looked like. If my parents wanted to show me art, they'd do just that - regardless of the nudity it may have included.

But I went to that DOMAI website, and just from the first few pictures it looked like porn. The first picture that popped up was a very young looking naked blonde woman next to a pool. Umm, yeah - I don't consider that to be all that tasteful, really.

And all you mention is showing both boys and girls pictures of only naked women. Why shouldn't they see pictures of male nudes as well? If the father shows his son pictures of women, why shouldn't pictures of men be shown to young girls?
And as a girl, I can tell you that showing a little girl pictures like the ones I saw on DOMAI and saying "you'll grow up to look like this one day" would be more damaging to the self-esteem than anything else. And do you really think that if a father showed that website to his young son that it wouldn't just become masturbation fodder?

Yes, I believe children should grow up with a healthy attitude about nudity and their own bodies, but it certainly wouldn't be accomplished by showing them only pictures of nubile young girls.

[Duke Luke of Juke]

I find it amazing how in american culture people being flayed alive and hung from the roof with meathooks through their feet is perfectly okay (Predator 2), but people scream bloody murder as soon as a nipple is sighted...
I also find it both amazing and disappointing.

[manrush]

Little kids should know what adult human bodies look like, but what you're suggesting is just kinda weird. I had a book when I was a kid about the human body and sexuality. The pictures in the book were just drawings, but I knew what women and men looked like. If my parents wanted to show me art, they'd do just that - regardless of the nudity it may have included.

But I went to that DOMAI website, and just from the first few pictures it looked like porn. The first picture that popped up was a very young looking naked blonde woman next to a pool. Umm, yeah - I don't consider that to be all that tasteful, really.

And all you mention is showing both boys and girls pictures of only naked women. Why shouldn't they see pictures of male nudes as well? If the father shows his son pictures of women, why shouldn't pictures of men be shown to young girls?
And as a girl, I can tell you that showing a little girl pictures like the ones I saw on DOMAI and saying "you'll grow up to look like this one day" would be more damaging to the self-esteem than anything else. And do you really think that if a father showed that website to his young son that it wouldn't just become masturbation fodder?

Yes, I believe children should grow up with a healthy attitude about nudity and their own bodies, but it certainly wouldn't be accomplished by showing them only pictures of nubile young girls.

How can it be porn? That website has nothing but nude women posing in a natural environment. No sex whatsoever. How can it not be tasteful? It is just a simple nude. No sleazy sex, no nothing. Just nudity. And that is not enough to be considered "masturbation fodder." And if it does, then that's the problem of the boy. And besides, what is so tastess about a nude girl standing near a pool. How is that sexual? Hell, the website even states that it's not porn.

The newsletters on that site talk about how men came to see the beauty of the woman for what it truly was, and there are leters to the creator by women who were previously insecure about their body images, but began to see themselves as beautiful. And from what I've read in the newsletters, the girls in DOMAI aren't all of a certain body type.

I invite you to read every newsletter and make your own decision. Actually, I invite you to read every word on the site.

As for showing artistic male nudes to girls. Doesn't sound like a bad idea.

Oh, and I'm still not backing down from what I said.

edit: I'm sorry if I sound a bit harsh in what I said above. I am in no way condemning you for your opinion. Everything you've said is a legitimate concern, so thank you for bringing it up :D

[Jetsetlemming]

If you think those "Art" websites are anything but porn, you're kidding yourselves. The entire reason they exist is for horny people to look up the pictures. Random pictures of naked people doesn't just automatically have an artistic justification because nobody's having sex, just because. The whole reason it's put up on a pay to view website with ads to other porn sites is not for "art appreciation".
And showing porn stars to little kids does nothing good for their self esteem or knowledge. :blank: What kind of logic is that? The way anatomy is typically explained, through drawn pictures with body parts and organs labeled, is a whole lot more sensible.

[manrush]

Have you actually been to DOMAI? I have. I've seen nothing pornographic about it. And I've seen the links. None of them were to porn. And if there are horny people who want to get off to the picture, then that's their issue. It's not what the site was designed from. I've read the mission statement of DOMAI word for word. I've read all the newsletters. The site's creator states that his site is not porn. My common sense says it's not porn. Artistic and simple nudes are further from porn than you can imagine. Once again, this is my personal opinion. (The models on art site like DOMAI or David. L. LeBeck's site are not pornstars).

But I see your point. My own definition of what's art and what's porn is very narrow.

Some people will get aroused at the sight of a nude body. But can't someone also get sexually aroused at the sight of a fully-clothed woman in a suggestive pose? Jynx mentioned something about clothes being "exotic and alluring" to people who grew up surrounded by nudity.


But anyways, the reason I asked this question, because I wanted to start a debate and hear different people's definitions of what is art and what is pornography.

edit: had to delete some of the rant because I was repeating myself.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

How can it be porn? That website has nothing but nude women posing in a natural environment. No sex whatsoever. How can it not be tasteful? It is just a simple nude. No sleazy sex, no nothing. Just nudity. And that is not enough to be considered "masturbation fodder." And if it does, then that's the problem of the boy. And besides, what is so tastess about a nude girl standing near a pool. How is that sexual? Hell, the website even states that it's not porn.

The newsletters on that site talk about how men came to see the beauty of the woman for what it truly was, and there are leters to the creator by women who were previously insecure about their body images, but began to see themselves as beautiful. And from what I've read in the newsletters, the girls in DOMAI aren't all of a certain body type.

I invite you to read every newsletter and make your own decision. Actually, I invite you to read every word on the site.

As for showing artistic male nudes to girls. Doesn't sound like a bad idea.

Oh, and I'm still not backing down from what I said.

edit: I'm sorry if I sound a bit harsh in what I said above. I am in no way condemning you for your opinion. Everything you've said is a legitimate concern, so thank you for bringing it up :D

Oh sure it's not porn - it's just pictures of random naked beautiful women, who are naked for no other reason than for men to appreciate the beauty of their bodies...for a small fee.

Art should tell a story, and these pictures tell me nothing. It's "artsy" porn, and that's all. Just because the website says it's not porn doesn't mean it isn't. I went back, and I saw a picture of a girl who had obviously gotten waxed - because pubic hair isn't natural? Pubic hair is usually removed for the visual and sexual satisfaction of her partner. So what kind of story does a girl who just got a bikini wax tell me?

I don't care what the website says - I read the newsletters, and sorry but I'm not convinced. It's porn, plain and simple.

[manrush]

Well, if you're not convinced, then you're not convinced. I see the beauty on DOMAI itself as an art. But for me it's art, and for you it's porn. We all have our individual opinions? So can we agree to disagree? :)
What about anyone else's opinion on what is art and what is porn?

On a side note: Why isn't there any damn consensus as what constitutes art and what constitutes porn? Why does it always have to boil down to individual opinion and point-of-view? Why can't it be so clear-cut? Will people ever agree what is art and what is porn?

Was it a stupid question to ask in the first place? Was I naive if I expected a straightforward answer to such a question?

update: by this time I stopped caring about my opinion in the art/porn battle. I need to go by what the majority thinks.

[PopCulturePooka]

Just a cursory glance over DOMAI (haven't been for years) shows pictures much the same as any playboy centrefold or soft core web porn girls site (and I know web porn girls, friends with some big webmasters in the area).

[manrush]

Is my definition of porn wrong then? And I don't want any "it's up to individual opinion" Just a straight-up "yes" or "no" answer. I've become tired of giving my opinion, because I realise now that my opinions piss people off. You know how I said that there was one opinion that I would never back down from. Guess what, if my reasoning is proven wrong (i.e. a majority of posters here disagree with me), I will back down from this opinion and take back any opinion that I ever made.

[PopCulturePooka]

There is no clear cut definition, even the courts find it hard to agree.

But look at DOMAI's front page girl right now and that pic. Tell me how its ANY different to a playboy pictorial or nataliesparks.com?

[Y.T.]

How can it not be tasteful? It is just a simple nude. No sleazy sex, no nothing. Just nudity. And that is not enough to be considered "masturbation fodder."

I don't follow..

Any depiction of even non-nude beautiful female form can be considered .. fodder. At least, I bet most men find it easier .. with the depiction...

I still don't understand what are you all arguing about. Some porn might be art, people are horny,
all of those things are pretty obvious .. next time you'll be arguing whether water is wet, or just non-dry.

[Trump]

Maniacal Russian (or whatever your name is) there is nothing wrong with your opinion. As long as you recognize it is only an opinion and don't try to force it on other people, that's fine. Somewhere along the way though you seem to imply everyone should share your opinion and things go downhill from there. So just back off a little and everything will be fine. Recognize that people can have different opinions and leave it at that.

Back to the topic at hand. Who said porn couldn't be artistic? Who said porn was always people having sex? Personally, if the woman is naked solely for the sake of having a naked woman, I would consider it porn. You know all of those poster girls in skimpy bikinis? Hooters swimsuit calandars? I'd consider that porn too. Just because it is porn does that make it bad?

That website you are talking about (I haven't been, you know, don't want to get fired) is a porn site. I've seen sites like it before. The guy can say whatever he wants to try and justify it to himself that it isn't a porn site. Does that change what it actually is? Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Really, let the site owner fool himself into thinking whatever he wants. However, don't be like that guy and fool yourself too just because you are afraid of a word.

[manrush]

Maniacal Russian (or whatever your name is) there is nothing wrong with your opinion. As long as you recognize it is only an opinion and don't try to force it on other people, that's fine. Somewhere along the way though you seem to imply everyone should share your opinion and things go downhill from there. So just back off a little and everything will be fine. Recognize that people can have different opinions and leave it at that.

Back to the topic at hand. Who said porn couldn't be artistic? Who said porn was always people having sex? Personally, if the woman is naked solely for the sake of having a naked woman, I would consider it porn. You know all of those poster girls in skimpy bikinis? Hooters swimsuit calandars? I'd consider that porn too. Just because it is porn does that make it bad?

That website you are talking about (I haven't been, you know, don't want to get fired) is a porn site. I've seen sites like it before. The guy can say whatever he wants to try and justify it to himself that it isn't a porn site. Does that change what it actually is? Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Really, let the site owner fool himself into thinking whatever he wants. However, don't be like that guy and fool yourself too just because you are afraid of a word.


Right, sorry once again. I wanted to see what other people thought. I'm not afraid of porn, I just have a narrower view of what porn is. Look, I know it's porn. I just always find it hard to admit that everyone else is right. And they are right. (The name's Peter, btw).

Who says I'm afraid of porn? I'm not.

[manrush]

There is no clear cut definition, even the courts find it hard to agree.

But look at DOMAI's front page girl right now and that pic. Tell me how its ANY different to a playboy pictorial or nataliesparks.com?

In the natalie sparks site, the wording, but to me it seems more into the sensual /soft-erotica realm. Playboy is too airbrushed and plastic for my tastes, and the wording is blatantly sexual,and it seems clear to me that, from the pics that I've seen, the models seem to have tit-jobs(and it does have an amateur sex section). DOMAI is a little bit different in that the models and the poses look more natural and carefree (more similar to super-old-school Playboy). While I don't consider DOMAI or the other two sites to be porn, screw what I consider. They're porn.

There is always the possibility that I'm just weird/insane. That has crossed my mind mutiple times, believe me.

[OliveButtercup]

Uh to your main question, I don't care what people do as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Having said that, I have more ladies in the gym showers buck-assed naked than I'd care to.

[manrush]

Meh, what can you do? I guess they're less self-conscious than us guys. I mean, when I went to gym, everyone showered with their bathing suit on. And no, we never "size each other up".

[Trump]

I avoided gym like the plague in school. First, it was stupid and a waste of time, second I live in Florida and it was damn hot outside!

[OliveButtercup]

The gym I'm talking about is not a high school gym. It's a public athletic club, so there are all sorts of women that shower there. (old, obese, anorexic-looking, hairy)

[Trump]

Heh, I avoid the locker room at the gym I have a membership at too. I change at home or in the car. It's just easier and faster that way.

[Y.T.]

Easier ? Faster ?

I doubt it. Certainly, it's not easier in car. Does your car have a shower, too ?

[manrush]

But in the art vs. pornography debate, who should I listen to? Who is right? My own opinions and interpretations are just not credible enough for me. I need someone to tell me the bullshit-free truth.

[Jetsetlemming]

Just accept the definition of purpose. :P Porn is to get people off, art is to get people off... mentally. :3

[whispering]

But in the art vs. pornography debate, who should I listen to? Who is right? My own opinions and interpretations are just not credible enough for me. I need someone to tell me the bullshit-free truth.

Personally i consider erotic art of a form of softcore pornography.

I've always considered pronography having sexually intimidating elements in it. Wiki says it pretty well "Pornography, sometimes shortened to porn or porno, is, in its broadest state, the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief.". That Domai site was pretty much softcore for me, not so much cause of the nudity, but cause of the poses. But it isnt really that explicit stuff. A good example of non pornographic nudity would be the Dove commercials (http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=vilUhBhNnQc).

[manrush]

Personally i consider erotic art of a form of softcore pornography.

I've always considered pronography having sexually intimidating elements in it. Wiki says it pretty well "Pornography, sometimes shortened to porn or porno, is, in its broadest state, the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief.". That Domai site was pretty much softcore for me, not so much cause of the nudity, but cause of the poses. But it isnt really that explicit stuff. A good example of non pornographic nudity would be the Dove commercials (http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=vilUhBhNnQc).

For some twisted reason, I consider Maxim, Stuff, and FHM to be porn. Considering the content of the magazines, is it fair to call them porn? I find the pictures in those mags to be more explicit than the pictures found on DOMAI.

I personally tend to see DOMAI and Laurie Jeffrey's work as the photographic version of a nude painting or sculpture (I have a personal belief that the female form is a beautiful work of art, and that it is meant to be appreciated for its beauty, and not just lusted over. The male form has a more weathered and rugged beauty to it, like the edges of a canyon, or a shoreline facing the North Sea).

Edit: I take back what I said about Maxim, Stuff, and FHM. They're not porn.

[manrush]

Is it true that porn for women is a well-muscled sensitive guy lovingly holding a puppy/kitten/child or a well-muscled sensitive guy cooking? Or a well-muscled sensitive guy crying during a chick flick? :P

about the definition of pornography: this is why I define porn in the narrowest of terms, in this case, something that is meant to sensually or sexually arouse someone (I don't think DOMAI is enough to arouse someone, even in the slightest bit. Maybe it's just me, because I don't get aroused when I see just a nude body in a pretty relaxed, natural pose) and has no other aesthetic value (which sensual art and erotic art both have). In a broad sense, you could say that fine art nudes, simple nudes, sensual nudes, and erotica all fall under the softcore category. I just don't use the broad sense.

So would this be correct? Probably not, but you be the judge.

softcore: sex is depicted as something absolutely beautiful
hardcore: sex is depicted as being something raw, raunchy, and cheap.

[manrush]

art is to get people off... mentally. :3

People can do that now?:watson:

[whispering]

Maxim Playboy etc are softcore, obviously you dont yet know what Hardcore really is :P You cant invent a 1-100 scale of how explicit something is, theres Softcore and theres Hardcore.
Is it true that porn for women is a well-muscled sensitive guy lovingly holding a puppy/kitten/child or a well-muscled sensitive guy cooking? Or a well-muscled sensitive guy crying during a chick flick? :P
At least all the female friends i know enjoy regular porn. Here the porn that is marketed to couples is not too Hardcore, more like the stuff that e.g. Adam & Eve pictures does. There are some female directors that have produced porn only the women customers in mind, but the market is pretty small. Havent seen if it really is even any diffrent form the rest.

[manrush]

Just accept the definition of purpose. :P Porn is to get people off, art is to get people off... mentally. :3

But doesn't that also depend on the individual?

[manrush]

Maxim Playboy etc are softcore, obviously you dont yet know what Hardcore really is :P You cant invent a 1-100 scale of how explicit something is, theres Softcore and theres Hardcore.


And why not? I'm just not convinced yet.

[Duke Luke of Juke]

I need to find a way to make people watch me walk around naked. Only a few, very select people have seen me in my natural glory, and somehow I just feel like my nude body is the sort of gift that could one day heal the world.


But srsly, I'm not offended by nudity, unless their nude body is in physical contact with my own body, and if they have testicles.

[manrush]

I need to find a way to make people watch me walk around naked. Only a few, very select people have seen me in my natural glory, and somehow I just feel like my nude body is the sort of gift that could one day heal the world.


But srsly, I'm not offended by nudity, unless their nude body is in physical contact with my own body, and if they have testicles.

So it should be a law for people, especially those of the female persuasion, to view you naked? Is gasping in awe mandatory or opitional? :knockout:

[Duke Luke of Juke]

Let's not make this about me.

[Trump]

I just fail to see how a site devoted entirely to the viewing of naked women, soley because they are women and naked is not pornography.

[stsparky]

So let's sum up.

Ugly people need to cover up; Beautiful people don't.

[manrush]

I just fail to see how a site devoted entirely to the viewing of naked women, soley because they are women and naked is not pornography.

And I fail to see how it is pornography. I thought porn was about sex, not nudity.