Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > People Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 3, 2005, 12:18 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
ferny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,866
Default

Shall I take down the picture of a box of matches I posted in the "other photos" forum? I mean, kids could be setting fire to their house as we speak!

No porn is posted in this thread. Just two photos of a naked woman. What do I class as porn? Anything visual with the intent of sexual arousal. Do these pictures arouse me? No. I can see it's a good looking woman. But I'm looking at the form rather than the meat. If you understand me there. Could a young boy (or even girl) find this exciting could it be porn in their eyes? Of course. But kids get excited by their favourite singer on TV wearing a short skirt or no shirt. They wouldn't come to a photo forum to look for that sort of thing. And as I said, there is worse on TV in the form of gyrating dancing thrusting their pelvis' at 3pm so I don't think finding this type of photo is any worse.

If anyone is confused about what porn really is, I'm sure I could put google to work and find some sites for you.
ferny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2005, 12:43 PM   #42
Member
 
dalick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 69
Default

I agree. Is there anything rude about them? Not at all. They are just lovely photos. AlthoughI do prefair the second one, very artistic. At university I do a lot of life drawing classes, for me its everyday life seeing naked people fat or slim, black or white naked. Although some people at the class are shocked at viewing a naked human body. Its like they have never seen anyone naked
dalick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2005, 2:15 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 184
Default

Kalypso

You did this deliberately didn't you, just to get folks talking. Boy did it work.

Happy NUDE year indeed.!!!!!!!

BTW, if she had knickers on would this thread gone as far.?

Just a thought.

cheers

Mart.

Did I get the last word, did I, did I. :-)


mf_blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2005, 2:50 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
digcamfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,422
Default

Hey, yoose guys!!!

As all balloonists say to each other...

"Cant we all just...lighten up?"

Go here for a new(duh)alternative.

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=83

150+ lookers with nary a reply!

:blah:


digcamfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2005, 3:32 PM   #45
kex
Senior Member
 
kex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,022
Default

nice discussion going on here.

I probably can't add anything which wasn't said before. But I'd like to sum it up as I see it:

- nudity is not porn

- children see/know more than you guess

- if you make such a fuss about the first picture I can only guess that people who feel offended by it are a little uptight; I say that without any offense to anyone here in the forums, but what is the model in the first shot doing which is immoral? (As I see it, it's all about moral values and them being learned by the parents.)
If it wasn't about morality, what is it then?

- the shots posted by kalypso in this thread are as works of art as any previous thread of kalypso. He's just using another media.
See, others paint nude people or they even modulate them and there's no discussion about that being seen by a child.

So are you afraid of reality or what?

Just my 2 cents.
kex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2005, 7:29 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 378
Default

All right, I will add my two cents here.

"Obscenity" as defined by American law is:

(1) a depictionof specific body parts, sex acts, etc (you can basically guess the list)

(2) appealing to the "prurient interest" (i.e. sexual arousal)

(3) that is "patently offensive", and

(4) when taken as a whole, lacks serious political, artistic, literary, or scientific value judged by contemporary community standards.

(I think I've gotten the whole test... but it's been a while)

"Obscene" things may be banned in America, and such materials trigger different legal disclosure and protection requirements in the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), the Communications Decency Act, and others. (It's when Congress tries to regulate "indecent" materials on the Internet that they often get in trouble with the Supreme Court). There would certainly be items individuals would label as "pornographic" (which I would argue would be anything qualifying under #2 of the above test) but would not be obscene. Some Robert Maplethorpe art may be pornographic (as well as offensive) but is not obscene.

Certainly the first image isn't particularly "good" art (by Kalypso standards) but it would be difficult to say that it lacks any serious value. Additionally, the other standards aren't met.

Much of art and photography celebrates the human (especially the female) form. Because photos are more realistic (and are not from "known" artists) many people balk at their dissemination to all ages. (See the episode of The Simpsons where Marge attempts to ban Itchy and Scratchy but argues that all students should see Michalengelo's David when it comes to Springield--her pro-censorship Itchy friends are also pro-censorship with David). Frankly, since the image is not obscene (or, in my opinion pornographic), Steve (and the moderators) may decide what to do -- and my guess is that the market forces indicate that such images would be allowed (since more people are not offended by then than are worried about their children seeing them).
perdendosi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2005, 9:47 PM   #47
Member
 
ghubbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 38
Default

Time to weigh in? (Perhaps I should have the good sense to leave the hornets nest alone, but being who I am I can't resist a good moral argument.:G)

I am trying to figure out what I think of this photo...

By my own personal definitions...
(can't define 'em, but I know 'em when I see 'em!)

Porn? Mild at most, but I would only rate it PG.
Art? Nope. Lacks that certain flair. (#2 has it though!)
Erotic? Hmmm. A little, but not nearly as much as #2.
Obscene? Not even close.
Rude? Not a bit.
Stimulating? Certainly she is!
Just aphoto of an attractive woman who happens to be nude.

As for the above post by perdendosi, why try toview thisthrough the filter of "American Law"? This is, after all, the "world wide" web and many countriesare much less conservative than the US. If this entire discussion took place in Europe, well, it just wouldn't be an issue. Wouldit? I like to think so, anyway.

Anyway, if anyone is worried about their kids viewing this, best make sure they don't surf alone (there's too much XXX at theirgoogletips) and also make sure they don't have an email address or they might be enticed 47 times daily to have something enlarged!!!

Keep 'em coming, Kalypso!
Cheers! Glenn

ghubbers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2005, 10:48 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
Darrell1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 227
Default

Many people seem to be missing the point. The point is not whether or not this is porn. It is whether or not it is on a site viewed by children. For what it is worth, I have no problem with my boys viewing picture #2. It is very artistic. Picutre #1 is just a naked girl.

Now, I am not a prude. Nobody likes to see naked women more than me. :-)

...this is about KIDS....

Now, with all the replies that follow, PLEASE SHARE WITH US YOUR KIDS AGES AND IF YOU MIND THEM VIEWING #1... If you don't have kids, please share that too so your comments can hold the little value that they should. (humor)

Darrell
Darrell1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2005, 11:14 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

The point is some people are prudish, have a hangup, and can't seem to control their kids.

I have kids(growed) and young grand kids and I do not and never have worried about them viewing a nude image.

I am far more disturbed by the number of parents who allow their kids to use the net unsupervised, and expect everyone else to pander to heir prudish hangups by censoring their posts. Take responsibility for your own offshoots.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2005, 11:24 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
Darrell1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 227
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
I am far more disturbed by the number of parents who allow their kids to use the net unsupervised, and expect everyone else to pander to heir prudish hangups by censoring their posts. Take responsibility for your own offshoots.
Ok, I was trying a bit of humor and you are getting rude. I do use parental software. My kids do not surf unwatched. The question is can we feel safe with them on Steve's Digicams. That is all!

Don't take personal shots at me. I have not specified whether or not I am offended. Remember, this is just a FRIENDLY discussion.

Darrell :blah:
Darrell1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:02 AM.