Saturday, February 27, 2010

On Pornography By Roger C

On Pornography

By Roger C

There are many definitions of pornography. So many in fact that I hesitate to add one more. But not having seen this definition before, I will hazard yet another definition and then provide rationale for it's use.

Pornography is the term used to demean the beautiful women and their supporters for the production and distribution of either partially clad, or fully undressed beautiful young women celebrating their beauty in various poses.


1. The use of the term pornography is pejorative. There is not a single instance that I can think of where the term is used to describe beauty, art, or celebration of women in any positive sense. Since this is universally true without regard to those using the term it follows directly that.

2. The only possible reason for pejorative use is to demean the women. Ironic isn't it? They decry the use of pictures of beautiful nude women as demeaning to the women. Huh? Let's run that one by again. They demean the women and the pictures of them and claim that it is the self abasement of the women and their colleges in production and distribution. That is a double standard if one ever existed. It is not a long path of tortuous logic. It is by inspection.

3. The irony extends even further. If Sports Illustrated puts out an issue where the women are clad only in paint that looks like a bikini, that is not porn. No, that is art and the women are acclaimed beautiful models and paid handsomely. I do not begrudge either those who create these ideas, the magazine or the models. I only ask for some level of parity in the standard. If it OK to pose nude, with a bit of paint on, for Sports Illustrated, then what is the difference between that and posing for Domai? It is clear to the most uncritical observer that there is no difference. Perhaps it is the poses they are in, not the state of undress.

4. While it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a professional artist to say that the painted Sports Illustrated nudes are professionally and tastefully presented. May I ask, how did you expect the organization of any capitalist magazine to present the models? Your suggestion of anything else would be met with derision and laughter by the publishers. Now that we have broached the topic of poses, let's examine poses in more detail.

5. Pose is very much a matter of personal taste. As a parallel example, I remember clearly when the miniskirt became popular. Before that, women in general thought it unbecoming to be so UNclad as to present themselves publicly in an abbreviated mini skirt. Today, the only negative comments I have heard about the miniskirt is the appropriateness to display a given pair of legs. If the legs are too heavy or disfigured, then it is considered inappropriate. My, my, how things change. So if clothes and legs are a matter of personal taste, is it possible that the poses assumed by the wearer are also a matter of personal taste?

6. For an older generation among us, the presentation of legs (especially well formed legs) in the crossed position is far preferred. The position of having the legs together and parallel or even slightly spread is to be avoided. I presume that the appearance of an undergarment will cause uncontrollable rage in the observing males? :-7 While it may be presumed, it is like other unvalidated theories. The predicted behavior has not been observed.

7. Since it is not observed to cause untoward reactions, one can legitimately question. What about poses without the miniskirt or the undergarments? Without any question there is no area more in controversy than the poses of nude, beautiful women. The assumption is that some poses are not acceptable. This fallacy of thinking was long promoted by the magazine Playboy, who for years wound not display the pubic hair of a woman on their pages. Getting to the point, some believe that the display of a woman's labia and vulva is vulgar. While I can personally testify that a woman's vulva is attractive, I can accept that some may not hold to that standard. On the other hand, large breasts to me are unattractive and should not be displayed without careful thought. Yet, I venture that most observers find the appearance of large breasts attractive. My personal view is that if large breasts are the standard of beauty, that you and Hugh Heffner both have your taste all in your mouths.

Which brings me to the final point, if we differ on the display of large breasts, is it any surprise that we differ on the display of other parts of the beautiful nude woman? And if we differ legitimately as purely a matter of taste, how is it that one pose gets labeled pornography and the other art? I suggest a truce. I won't call your large breasted women gross if you don't call my women's labia pornography.

1 comment:

Jan said...

Interesting discussion.

To me the question is, does the intention of the producer matter, or the effect on the consumer?

I personally think porn is content produced to sexually arouse (and doesn't have to feature beautiful women or even women at all).
I don't see anything bad or wrong with material that is designed to arouse. Enjoying sexual arousal is key to the survival of species like ours.
But because a lot of people aren't confortable with sexuality, the more porn is explicit, the greater the number of people will be that won't be able to handle it.

Now what is art? I suppose art is what's produced to provide aesthetical pleasure.

But even in art anything that may arouse will freak out prudes. The line between porn and art is thin/grey anyway. Who knows why it has been produced? And God knows artists are often very horny guys/gals. :-)

I like porn. Porn has always been there for me. And art makes the world more beautiful. Doesn't matter to me which is which.