If it looks like a duck,.....

[critter]

Bob,

<BR><BR> Since this discussion started with the idea that this image was

pornographic and shouldn't be here, I'm slightly confused as to why the

debate isn't about what is or isn't pornographic - the entire tone of the

discussion is such that the basic assumption is pornography = offensive and

should be removed. That was what kicked off this discussion. Besides the

mislabeling the image, by the original poster, I think I've adressed why I don't

think pornography is offensive. Strikes me as on topic. <BR><BR>

The who is fairly obvious - those who moderate the site. Again, it's somewhat

annoying to keep harping on the fact of removal. No one questions that. We

are simply arguing the rather shallow definition Chris offered as a standard.

<BR><BR>

And in response to your point # 1, it doesn't follow that not censoring anything

equates to an attitude of nobody is qualified to judge the merit of anything, nor

would it matter. The desire to let ugliness stand in public view is often a more

potent reminder of what is appropriate and lofty in our human pursuits. The

fact of Hitler or racism, unexpunged, is often curative in the early seeds of

similar attitudes. Part of a communities power is in recognizing the face of

evil. I'm not so sure the dualistic concept you offer is the only path. Which is

again, my voice in a community and not any attempt to alter policy. But I do

think it belittles a more critical view that tends towards point 1, to presume it's

a view embracing relativism and chaos. It simply isn't. It's a very simplistic

reduction of the argument that vomit should be censored. And frankly, art (not

photo.net) is often charged with making us face the ugly in life. <BR><BR>

One gripping photograph from the evolution of photography is the vietnam

civilian being caught in the moment of being shot in the head. Not pleasent

in viewing, but then who said knowledge is pleasent. Hell, just watch the

discovery channel. Lambs don't lie down with lions. They become dinner.

 

<BR><BR>Chris,

 

Chris,<BR><BR>

I'm familiar with this strange device you call "dictionary". And yet I still

disagree with you. Why, because I don't find your, (or it's) definition to be

accurate. As I've redundantly stated, I don't think a vulva in the context of an

image of a naked woman is explicit. They have them. This isn't a beaver shot.

that's a different debate. And I've seen many a mesh swimsuit shot that is far

more explicit and intent on arousal than the image you decry as

pornographic. I do know what the word means, I simply don't think it's

applicable to the example you used. We disagree. Duh.<BR><BR>

You sound remarkably like someone who wishes pornography swept under

the rug. I take it that you find photo.net to be a loftier place than a mere porn

site, which communicates a basic thought that sexuality expressed in art is

somehow tainted and base. Having nothing else to go on, perhaps my

assumption is wrong, but if it looks like a duck...<BR><BR>

I think the weight of my thoughts convey my education and experience. I'm

certainly uninterested in a bodily excretion contest (How's that, bob?) And I

disagree - Most "highly educated" folks I know both swear and enjoy a pithy

indulgence in common vulgarity when more logical appeals meet deaf ears.

Sometimes, indulging the vernacular is an appropriate response to the vulgar

obscenity of someone compelled to bleed "This is porn, boo" and it carries

more weight in the discourse - to all, excepting those who find such thoughts

informative and civil.<BR><BR>

Hmmm - I didn't realize those were statements of braggado. The first was

simply a statement about my experience drawn from an empirical sample of

women I've known and loved and what I saw as a common element. The

second was hyperbole - exageration for effect meant to Illustrate that we all do

this and to lace that common human experience with a veneer of something

that doesn't adress that is silly, inauthentic and misses the point of artistic,

versus conformist, expression. My point was that intimacy and sexuality are

individually defined and part of what makes good art is recognizing and

focusing on those idiosyncracies, rather than stereotype all of our

experiences by a legal or dictionary definition. One biblical quote has

dogged me my whole life - We all see through a glass darkly. I take that to

heart.<BR><BR>

Thank you for implying I'm a pig. I do like a dirty rutting in the obscene desire

for actual conversation, and yes, I quite enjoy it. So perhaps I am. I'm sure

you meant it as a barb, but then, I like honest, no holds barred expression. I

have a basic faith in knowledge not being scarry and a trust in truth winning

out over fear and neurosis.<BR><BR>

Not sure what damage this image does to photo.net, but I wasn't part of those

previous discussions. I jumped in over your comment, which I found

damaging to my particular photographic pet project - Integrating sexuality into

the image of a person. As I've stated, I found your less than 10 word

comment obnoxiously intrusive into that discussion and I responded with my

own fangs out and thirsty for blood. It strikes me as odd that obnoxious

behavior is supported when it agrees with a more traditional more. But dare

to yell back, why that is just uncouth.<BR><BR>

And in case you haven't noticed, I'd much prefer exchanging ideas than pithy

insults. But until you recognize why your comment was offensive to me, I'll be

happy to lob back and forth more BS that misses the point and engages in

some intellectual version of arm wrestling or a bar fight. I recently had a

rather nice discussion with someone who called an atypical photograph of an

ass (ie, no face included) "lame". In the process of discussing it - heatedly, no

doubt, I got out of it a deeper understanding about why the image resonated

with me and how it merged my conscious ideas with my ever developing eye.

<BR><BR>To me, that's the point of this site. Contentious defense of one's

ideas. The contentious bit is a more refining fire, because, unlike academic

discussion, it forces a more immediate and gutteral response. Pleasentries

have their place, but I've learned more from the all out brawl than the refined

dialogue. Perhaps it's a stylistic thing. <BR><BR>

And again to Bob, <BR><BR>

Prune as you see fit. I will still find it sad that you feel it is necessary. I tend to

find the good, bad and the ugly informative. It strikes me that the role of the

moderator is to not be the parent, but more of the Solomon wisdom that

recognizes the benefit in allowing adults to draw their own conclusions from

sometimes less than pleasent debate, tempered with an eye towards gently

urging the discussion towards a point. But I'm long past needing daddy to

help me distinguish right from wrong, nor do I need protection from offensive

discourse. As I've stated, I'm a great believer in the truth will win out.

Sometimes that struggle towards it is unpleasent, Sometimes some vomit

gets on your shoes. And as one who is concerned with the responsibility to

moderate the fray, I hope you err on the side of wisdom rather than caution.

Often the most passionate arguments are the most informative, despite the

bursts of ugliness. At least, that's my experience. And at the end of the day,

when the dust settles, the intellectual sparring forms a seed of respect that

woldn't exist outside of the engagement.

[jyjensen]

Then what about this...

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=221623

[jyjensen]

...and this...

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=207230

[bobatkins]

The first one is fine. The second one is history.

[andrew_buzzell]

Recently, I wrote a very long paper on feminist approaches to the censorship of pornography. I *was* very sympathetic to the view that conceptually tight definitions of both porn and art are problematic, and that, assuming a general presumption against censorship (along broadly Millian lines), it should not be censored.

 

However, having read mounds of feminist positions, pro and con censorship, my view changed. What I found was an concerted attempt to define pornography not in terms of the content of the image, but the causal network in which the image exists. A pornographic image is produced via the inequality of women and itself symbolically and sometimes causally reproduces the inequality of women. I can't find the quote right now, but one women remarked along the lines that, "Pornogrpahic images can become the graphic record of the hardest period in a women's life, a time when conditions around her disempowered her and degraded her" She was speaking to the economic disparity between the producers of porn and the actors. Millions of pornographic images are produced every month, and the vast majority of these women receive very little money for this.

 

Women such as Andrea Dworkin and Helen Longino (among others) have argued forcefully, and I think convincinly, that the fundamental feature of pornography is the domination of women, both invidually and as class in society. They cite the *harmfulness*, both in the presence and the production of pornography, as the feature of pornography that justifies its censure. To the extent that pornography harms women, it is fit to be controlled.

 

Note that this sort of approach turns the whole U.S. Supreme Court notion of 'appealing to prurient interest' upside down. Instead the attitude is, 'to hell with morality - censure porn because it directly and quantifiably harms women'.

 

I am sympathetic to this view, and now consider an image porngraphic to the extent that it demeans and individual woman, and women in general. I'm not going to unpack the entire argument here, but will note that there is an interesting issue of agency here - that indivudual consent can be questionable in certain social contexts.

 

The photo in question, while technically poor, does not strike me as pornographic in this sense. I can't imagine talking to women and hearing them tell me they feel it demeans, or represents the domination of women. I have seen images here that elicit this view.

[ajpn]

Erotic yes, porn no. If she would have been standing in front of a sand dune all of you geezers would have went, "Well now, isn't that wonderful art." Give me a break. Just because the penis is hanging out on Michelangelo's David, does that make it porn? I think not. If her hands were down there splitting the kitty then we may have been talking.