grillot Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 to David McCracken -- if you are going to tell us what the good Lord intends, you should read your bible. There are very specifically reasons why we are to wear clothes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grillot Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 continuing.. PN is a microcosm of our worldwide society .. there are 7/7s and 3/3s (remember 1s and 2s dont count) and everything in between. There is little to do with truth, facts and logic (although Brian does a good job trying to keep this community organized with the latter two... but at the end of the day, PN and the worldwide society largely base their votes, decisions, etc. on emotion, whim, whimsy, and what feels good at the moment - all this feeds the downward spiral of ethics, morals that we see. I could go on, but won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrell_m Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Praise the Lord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namurray Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 A woman's body is the most wondrous and beautiful work of creation; or of evolution depending on your point of view. How could its tasteful display be classed as pornographic? I would think it only becomes pornographic if it is displayed in some indecent act. The photo in question might be considered distasteful but not pornographic. By the way, I think women's minds are every bit as wondrous as their bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanb Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 "Some nudes I understand. But this?" I'm interested to know why you've singled that particular image out. How is it worse than others in his portfolio? You say you understand some nudes - which ones? And how do they differ from this one? I'm genuinely intrigued as to how you reached the conclusion that this particular shot has crossed a line that the others haven't. For what it's worth, I think it's great work and would be delighted if my efforts were half as good (got some, but not posted any here yet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrell_m Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Neil-'A woman's body is the most wondrous and beautiful work of creation; or of evolution depending on your point of view...' I wonder how a woman's body is more wondrous, beautiful etc etc than that of a mans? Or a panther's. And do you mean all women? I saw my granny get out of the bath once and to be honest a gazelle leaping gently through the glade had the edge in the beauty and wonder stakes there. I know its getting off topic (although not totally) but have to ask you if you put an age/sex limit to your wonder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neild Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I always thought porn was when a woman's nipples were covered by bright red or yellow photoshop'd stars? This looks tasteful by comparison... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namurray Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Darrell, you make a very valid point. Yes of course there are limits which I would be hard pressed to define. I suppose my statement comes more from my primeval male brain patterns than any logical analysis. With regard to animals being wondrous etc. my main interest is horse racing photography. I find the thoroughbred race horse in full racing action a wonderful and magnificent sight. I also like to photograph birds, many of which are exquisitely beautiful. What I was trying to say was, that of all creatures in their prime, woman is the most wondrous and the most beautiful. Thanks for the comment Darrell, it makes me think a bit deeper about my original statement. All the best, Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimknowles Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 it might be considered a bit gynecological but hardly pornographic by most. nevertheless - it is ALLOWED to be displayed here where as many of my far far far less gynecological and far far far less pornographic photos are not. if Im able to upload one here for an example I shall, otherwise - just use your imagination - a tight shot of a clothed woman's rear. IS N O T ALLOWED here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertdarmali Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 James: I rate that picture 4/4 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_sew Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 There are many valid points made. Does this picture fit the guidlines of PN? Is this person underage?, drugged?, coerced into having this photo taken and displayed? Indellibly it is the photographers responsibliity to insure that a "code of decency is followed and it adheres to the guidlines setforth by PN". It is also the photographers responsilbity to respect the rights of the model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_dimarzio Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 <<By the way, I think women's minds are every bit as wondrous as their bodies.>> Wait for your first divorce and post that again... Oh, the pic, definitly not porn, can I say that I like porn, and yes, I think that good porn has to have "artistic merit" or it wouldn't be viewed? Porn is like picking your nose, don't do it in a meeting with a customer. Kind of a sexy shot, but it boils down to almost to voyuerism of an upskirt after a workout, for me. I guess Photonet is for everyone, and all tastes. There was a LF photo posted here of a guy doing a girl from the rear, most critiques really liked it, one critique liked the motion blur of the guys swinging nuts. I thought it was a waste of a 2 dollar sheet of film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_sew Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 How about this<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wade_rose Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 I THOUGHT PORN WAS WHEN SOMEONE WAS DOING A SEXUAL ACT maybe if she was fingering herself.. it mitebe porn to some people or disgusting isnt it part of life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 <I>"How about this"</I> <P> You must be joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timothy_eberly Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 "Oh gosh! Timothy is sexually aroused by a photograph of a mostly clad woman! Run for the hills! How can photo.net be held accountable for your imagination?" <br><br> That's it, attack me instead of my point. Brilliant. NOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namurray Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Good point re my statement on womens' minds. Notice I only said "wondrous". Definition= "causing surprise or awe". That might still fit in with your own view. All the best, Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayme Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Entertaining discussion :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkwiatkowski Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Entertaining it is, indeed. I mean the discussion... and the photo in questios as well... Definitely not a porn, to my taste. I wonder if you are familiar with www.met-art.com - You might find many great examples of photos on the very edge of art and porn. Wow, I can imagine the dispute... To John Running: Keep shooting & sharing. Some people need your inspiration ;)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william_bone Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 No, it's not porno. It's just one photographer's expression and creativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfrey43 Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 I notice a lot of the negative responses come from viewers in the United States. As an American I am proud of our freedoms, yet I notice that when it comes to nudity, sexuality and the like, we are backwards in our views. Many other races and countries have a more laid back view of the human form. They praise it as God's work of art. It is not covered, hidden and spoken about in whispers. I tend to think this is a mild photo of a partially clad attractive woman. It does not offend me. In fact I like the photo. Nice work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now