Untitled

Carlos--

 

Is this a language issue?

 

No; the issue isn't anatomical sex parts. The issue is sticking things in them to titillate and claiming it's not porn.

 

Remove the food and I would say this would be fine as a nude on PN. But presented this way, it's porn. And kids shouldn't find it staring back at them when they merely click on 'top-rated photos' to see the VERY top rated photo--which is what happened last week.

"No; the issue isn't anatomical sex parts. The issue is sticking things in them to titillate and claiming it's not porn."

 

What you are 'seeing' is evidently a product of your own fevered imaginings. Nothing is "sticking" in anything here. Lettuce, tomato, cheese and sesame seeds, Chip, that's it. If that's "titillating" to you, then that's your business, but it is not pornography.

 

You claim, as do most busybodies, to be looking out for the interests of "the children," but you need to put your own house in order first.

What would you suggest?

 

No arrests; perversions; illegal activity; divorce; bankruptcy; court cases; and so on. Exactly what is it in my day to day that needs such acute improvement? This photo is porn. That's independent of my opinion of it.

 

Want my opinion? It's clever. It's original. It's unaesthetic. But that doesn't change the fact that it is porn.

 

Tell us a little about your 'house'.

OK, Chip, Kids? well, kids are our responsibility, yap, and your kids were in touch with a single "click". Then? So what? Sometimes I wonder that you're worried because they ask questions to you about it and you don't have the answers, or you are embarassed about the answers you have. Well my friend, that's normal, If you could hear the questions of my little son... but, you know, its very healthy for them and for us, because I'm obligued to be wise and fair, and on the other hand I'm learning a lot about common sense hearing the thoughts of this amazing boy. Come on Chip, answer their questions and later ask them about their opinions, know their thoughts, fears and wishes, but not under the pressure of your moral parameters. They are independent persons, it could be healthy if you know their way of thinking. Perhaps you'll be surprised. Don't you?

At all, again, a vagina is a vagina, a substantive, and a vagina condimented is a vagina performing culinary arts. So simple.

A sex organ is a sex organ.

 

This is a sex organ with food stuck into it.

 

That's not what nature equipped you (or someone else) with.

 

Do you get it YET?

Chip & Kevin, what do you understand by porn?

With due respect, I have reached the point in my life where I feel my time is important, and my comments are neither frivolous nor worthy of said interpretation. As such, in conducting this illustrative dialogue, it is incumbent upon you to take a few moments to see what has been said and what it means.

 

In the absence of that, such attempt at dialogue is persiflage, you are unlikely to learn anything, and PN fails to live up to its defined mission, IMO.

 

It is fatuous that we are having this discusion at this point.

 

I feel badly for the art of photography when we have reached a point in the technology where we can have such vapid cacaphonies of mere chatter on a pornographic photo.

 

Learn. Ask. Previsualize. Create.

 

Chip, Bill, Darius, who ever you are, don't you take quite a godly position when you preach your doctrine here. Is it really so hard to understand that not all people think alike, that values are different from person to person, people have different gods and many none. The success of this photo tells the democratic opinion of PN-members. Art, porno, moral, pure words, that's all they are.

I am, indeed, going to impose the requirement for reading and thinking, as opposed to some goofy emphasis on repeating.

 

If you can't read and think then don't respond.

 

Yep. I feel very comfortable imposing that. You should too.

You are really starting to babble here.If you wish to be more conservative than others in your interpretation of art, so be it. Please do not try to influence my interpretation. Get off it! This is not porn! This photo is of poor taste in my opinion but others seem to find something here. Let dead dogs lie. Move on. Protect your children from the world. Ingnorance is bliss so it has been said. Oh... and please stop proofing everyone's grammer. Some folks here are writing in English as a second language. Have some respect! As for thinking... your thoughts scare me.

Jim,

 

If my thoughts scare you then please re-assess your emotional mechanisms for dealing with reality. Best regards.

Jim,

 

If hip hop culture is an example of "English as a second language" then we ARE in real trouble.

 

'Ludacris' is a person. Not adjective.

 

I trust that anyone deemed capable of discussion in this educational forum knows the very basics of grammar--that is, the distinction between a noun and adjective.

Wow Chip. You are quite a tool. There's hip hop culture for you.

 

People like you be dangerus. You be like self ritecheus. You be thinkin' your shit don't stink.

 

Well.. the smell is foul. Done conversing with you. You seem incapapable of constructive communiction. People like you never hear others though they pretend to. Yours is a high horse. Careful. It is a shame you can not see yourself for what you appear to be. Maybe you should do some reading yourself. Look back at what you have written. Talk about emotional baggage. Maybe you should do some reassessing yourself. Have fun playing with yourself. Later.

I can prove this is a great photo and it is not porn:

 

Look how many comments it evoked, both postive and negative.

 

How much thinking? How much laughter? Maybe some titillation? Anger? Delight? Some people are aroused by shoes but shoe ads are not porn. The vast majority of views would not consider this erotic though perhaps shocking or outrageous.

 

Don't stop with this theme until you have sold billions and billions. [Hmmmm, I wonder which is greater, the number of these being shown on the internet or the number of these at McDonalds? Which do we eat more of?]

 

As for kids, if your 14yr old cant find porn on the net; then porn is the least of his problems. When it comes to sex, 14 yr olds are active learners and self starters?no one has to nag them to do that homework. At 14 they are finding porn and they arent looking for it on Photonet.

 

If this sight is about art you want to welcome all photographers to put up there are unfettered. If you do like it, rate it low, but fair. Either way, all pix should be viewed with trying to understand the intent of the photographer and to see why they felt this was an image that they thought was great.

 

When you start attacking people artistic creations it just spawns flame wars and discourages people from their most creative work then they leave to find where they can express themselves. If the people that are the real creative artist leave; what do you have then? The cost of art is putting up with bad art. If you ban what you think is bad art, then you have also banned good art.

 

But, remember arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded.

 

Apparently the image is now on the 'big board' of a well-known porn website. This was brought to my attention, and I confirm it is there. I had nothing to do with it whatsoever. In fact, I wish the photographer much luck in having it removed. Considering many of the people here made especial efforts to make this THE TOP RATED PHOTO on photo net--and it remains amongst the top rated photos for the month- I believe we have a huge problem on THIS web site, and it is time to clamp down on pornography here. But frankly, your efforts at making this prominent must have led, IMO, to it being picked up by a porn site.

 

At least the 'definition' of the image's category is an academic one.

 

I am appalled that some of you have made especial efforts to use this forum to personally attack my integrity and validity. My concern was for the mission of PN as an educational tool. Perhaps it succeeded, in that your fatuous sense of ambiguity of:'what is porn and what is art' is now a bit moot. It is time you did some soul searching of your own.

Hi Chip,

 

You did a bit of attacking yourself about their integrity and validity. What makes you think you can do to them but they can't do to you.

 

Looks like while they do sole searching, you should do some "are you really that self righteous reasoning".

 

Just my opinion.

 

By the way... I think the members of this sight have to focus on the fact that the ratings represent weather a picture is a good one and not just a funny one.

 

But then that's just my opinion once again.

I am not a great fan of junk food thou!! but this one is a clever one MK!

Jonathan--

 

I'm sure I'd pay some attention to your pure opinion if you spelt 'WHETHER' correctly.

 

Then again, I just read Huck Finn again for the 5th time, so spelling tain't need to be sivilized...but it usually is a pretty good filter.

 

 

Tut tut Chip. You also missed the 'sole searching' error.

Human kind never stops to surprise me... Chip, am I understanding right that you are afraid that a 14 year old kid sees this picture but you wouldn't have complained had it been a picture of an african kid with a gun, or a war scene or any of the other images which really show the crudest aspects of ourselves?

 

Come on....

 

I'll be extremely bold, but I'd like to share with you a little piece of advice: analyze WHY you are so much affected by such an image (or any other), trying not to blame the picture, or the photographer, or anyone else, but rather from a personal, internal point of view; no tricking yourself with the big words you obviously can say so well.

 

Else, leave it as it is...

 

Jou

Hi Chiped,

 

Maybe when I get to your age my spelling would/will have improved; but tell me Chip, doo (or is it do) you find that arrogance comes with age and wisdom as well?

 

Thanks for the spellling corrrections, one more point PN can advertise "spelling corrections by Chip or maybe they can call it a Chip Check.

No Jonathan;

 

Arrogance is within the purview of the young and inexperienced. As opposed to the knowledgeable and wise. I am not in the former. Best wishes and best of luck.

'Sole- searching' at least was pun-worthy;-)

Hi Jou,

 

Why would I be threatened by porn?

 

I am certainly not afraid of 1's and 0's....

 

No; porn is fine. But it's not fine on PN without a screen, because people elsewhere can be arrested for viewing the top-rated photo, not knowing it will reveal a porn image. And kids should be blocked from porn. But hey--I said that. Why not go and READ what others have said.

 

 

"I'll be extremely bold, but I'd like to share with you a little piece of advice: analyze WHY you are so much affected by such an image (or any other), trying not to blame the picture, or the photographer, or anyone else, but rather from a personal, internal point of view; no tricking yourself with the big words you obviously can say so well."

 

--------------

 

OK, am have finished analysing. CONCLUSION: Image is not registering any impact. Sorry.