Bullets 'n' Babes

romerojpg wrote:I am talking about ART books that are PORN!

Obviously these aren't aimed at the masses but there's nothing stopping average Joe Wanker from buying them is there?

You cannot show a man fisting another man or himself! in a UK porno mag, but these art books you can! hows that for you.

Well, I certainly haven't seen those books, but I'm sure you're right about the content, and if so, that's gross hypocrisy...

Look about and you will find loads, even amazon.co.uk features loads!

Ha-Ha! I clicked those links, and yeah, they look like porn. Does Amazon normally prohibit porn though?

it is Porno for non masses and normal people will never see them ever, just posh toffs they are ussually classy puics apprently classed as art, only a total wanker would take them as atr! they are 100% porno.

I think the point is though that the massess CAN see them IF they wanted to. They just either choose not to or aren't aware of them. It's not the same as prohibiting certain types from seeing pornography on a class basis, which is what it sounds like you're implying.

Nudity alone doesnt equal porn Brad It is possible to have non sexualised nudity.

romerojpg wrote:Shaven Beauty Mystery
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 81-0142064

Shaven Angels 2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 81-0142064

I don't see fisting mentioned?

Markgway wrote:Hardly. I mean you could call Playboy SOFTcore because you sometimes see between the pubes. And, of course, when I use the term "porn" I'm talking about Hardcore.

I do, "softcore porn" and not at all because you see between the pubes because it's sole existence is to turn someone on. If Playboy isn't soft porn what is?

Going by Mordib's and (I think) Kermode's argument that 9 Songs isn't solely their to turn someone one hence makes it therefore not porn. The fact it may turn someone on is not relevant to it being porn or not.

Markgway wrote:Nudity DOES NOT equal porn, Brad. Please provide me with a definition which says otherwise.

I never said it did. What I did say was was how nudity is portrayed could be porn or not as the case may be.

I already have. I provided a link to what the dictionary says which backs up my and Mordib's points.

Markgway wrote:In the US it's been allowed in cinemas since the early 70's.

I can't talk about the UK but in the US it was very much illegal except in registered sex shops and sex cinemas. I should've been more clear.

Markgway wrote:I think the point is though that the massess CAN see them IF they wanted to. They just either choose not to or aren't aware of them. It's not the same as prohibiting certain types from seeing pornography on a class basis, which is what it sounds like you're implying.

Exactly!

grim_tales wrote:Nudity alone doesnt equal porn Brad It is possible to have non sexualised nudity.

Show me where I said it did?

I never said fisting was in them books I have no idea where to find them art books but beleve me theres all sorts ion these type of books, they were just an example

I think you have to be an adult to buy porno mags etc.. these art nbooks as they are atr dont require said rules. The thing is gerorgous photos appear in Playboy and some porno mags, and are they art? they are not treated like art, they are porno. Atr Books are porno to me and people who read them know this, just read a few of them reviews of them books to see how ridiculous these people who buy them are.

Torsten Seidel's "Shaven Beauty Mystery" contains girlish women. The impression of girlishness isn't solely due to the shaven pubes. Seidel portrays these girls in beautiful black-and-white photos, often shot out of doors in natural settings.
The girls have flowers on their skin or sit, immersed in dreams, on the shore of a lake, gazing wistfully at their own reflections. The photographer consciously contrasts these scenes with symbols of mortality and death. The models' gazes are frequently turned away from the camera, but that only enhances the models' mystical, nymph-like expressiveness.

Beautiful bodies, perfectly integrated into their surroundings.

Read, its PORNO for interlectuals

Your last smily says it all 8)

Hey this thread has got quite deep, a bit like the anal fisting in them books

(but it keeps the site busy I am sure)

Brad, look in the thread where Mark said "Nudity does not equal porn" but you said "Actually it does.. its the intention behind it". So in your eyes does Page 3 and Playboy/Adult Channel etc (sexualised nudity for sure) mean porn? That is softcore though (what I've seen anyway.. )

I should clarify, nudity per say doesn't equal porn but Playboy and Page 3 does.

grim_tales wrote:So in your eyes does Page 3 and Playboy/Adult Channel etc (sexualised nudity for sure) mean porn? That is softcore though (what I've seen anyway.. )

Firstly the adult channel is hardcore Playboy is softcore just to clarify.

Secondly yes and that's "exactly" what I said, so what's your point?

bradavon wrote:I do, "softcore porn" and not at all because you see between the pubes because it's sole existence is to turn someone on. If Playboy isn't soft porn what is?

That's fair enough. I mean, sexualised nudity, yeah, that's softcore. I just think talking about hardcore "porn", which is what most people mean when they say porn, and then bringing in softcore clouds the issue a little and takes us away from the central arguement. But yes, Playboy is softcore porn. Even though the idea of Page 3 Girls is to titilate the male viewer, I think it's a stretch to call it "porn". I think to be classified as porn there has to be something at least approaching explicit in the material. Otherwise a simple photo of any attractive clothed woman that turns you on could be regarded as porn! To be honest, it's not something I'd really thought about before, so you caught me off-guard with it. I don't even read The Sun!!

Going by Mordib's and (I think) Kermode's argument that 9 Songs isn't solely their to turn someone one hence makes it therefore not porn. The fact it may turn someone on is not relevant to it being porn or not.

That's not what Kermode was saying. I got the impression he felt that the pretentions of art were excuses used by the filmmakers and the BBFC to seperate like from like and that the film should be treated no differently than regular porn (ie cut or given an R-18). I thought that came across quite strongly. I know Mordib's opinion is as you state, however.

I already have. I provided a link to what the dictionary says which backs up my and Mordib's points.

Yeah, but I countered those. Even you admitted that yourself. Have you forgotten?

I can't talk about the UK but in the US it was very much illegal except in registered sex shops and sex cinemas. I should've been more clear.

OK. In the UK it wasn't even allowed in sex shops until a few years ago.

bradavon wrote:Firstly the adult channel is hardcore Playboy is softcore just to clarify.

There's no hardcore allowed on UK television. Even on encrypted subscription channels. It's all softcore or borderline hard.

bradavon wrote:I should clarify, nudity per say doesn't equal porn but Playboy and Page 3 does.

grim_tales wrote:So in your eyes does Page 3 and Playboy/Adult Channel etc (sexualised nudity for sure) mean porn? That is softcore though (what I've seen anyway.. )

Firstly the adult channel is hardcore Playboy is softcore just to clarify.

Secondly yes and that's "exactly" what I said, so what's your point?

There's no hardcore in the Playboy specials or those cheesy AC series like Sam Gets Her Girl

When did I say there was Grim? In fact I said the opposite.

Otherwise a simple photo of any attractive clothed woman that turns you on could be regarded as porn!

Nope as a clothed women (or man for that matter) wouldn't be sexually explicit and more than likely it's reason for existence wouldn't be to turn said person on. That is the big difference!

A naked man or woman is not porn but a naked man or woman portrayed in a way designed to turn you on is porn. If as Mordib says "9 Songs" wasn't designed to turn you on then no it's not porn. The fact it may or does is besides the point.

Even you admitted that yourself. Have you forgotten?

Yep . I only admitted to agreeing on one point.

bradavon wrote:Nope as a clothed women (or man for that matter) wouldn't be sexually explicit and more than likely it's reason for existence wouldn't be to turn said person on. That is the big difference!

I think we're going round in circles here. You're arguing with stuff that you agree with me on!! I KNOW that the images need to be explicit to be pornographic. I just said that!! lol Glamour shots of Page 3 models are of course designed to turn men on but that doesn't make them pornographic because they're not coupled with explicit imagery. Playboy is softporn because it is explicit enough and the intent is arousal. Anything less than Playboy and you'd be hard-pushed to call it porn or any kind. We know what hardcore is, right? The debate is what is porn. I say porn is hardcore and that the two are interchangable because it's virtually impossible to watch hardcore sex and NOT be aroused - unless it's your Gran or something!?! You say "purpose". There can be no other purpose for hardcore than sexual arousal. In itself there is nothing that hardcore gives you emotionally or intellectually that softcore simulated sex doesn't. The only exception might be a proper proportionate documentary on sex which is academic and believeably designed not to illicit a sexual response.

A naked man or woman is not porn but a naked man or woman portrayed in a way designed to turn you on is porn. If as Mordib says "9 Songs" wasn't designed to turn you on then no it's not porn. The fact it may or does is besides the point.

If the purpose of cumshots, penetration and masturbation in 9 Songs are not for sexual titilation... then WHAT IS IT FOR? That's the million dollar question isn't it?

Yep . I only admitted to agreeing on one point.

*Cough* BACKTRACKER *cough*