Untitled

porn is when 2-3-100 people are making love and the images shown are real explicit. This is ANATOMY, any child should learn what a vagina is. It's helpful for the future. I wouldn't want my son to be 18-20 years old and not knowing how a female's genitals and even breasts look like... :)

AGAIN--with feeling (a cadenza from Oct 23...)

 

It is fatuous to state this is not pornography, given that it is on a porno web site. (Someone placed it up in October after it hit PN.)

 

I sure didn't put it there

 

PN is not a porno site. So porno doesn't belong here.

 

OK?

 

Get it?

 

Got it?

 

Good!

It is fatuous to consider Martin's image to be porn; the image above was also found on a porn site; I sure didn't put it there. Both images are placed as a joke and are not porn.

 

It is ridiculous to consider Martin's image as porn.

 

lovely photo....very creative

I am new to PN. Just followed the link kindly provided by some "righteous" PN member.Love what I saw.Thank you.

Porn ? No. Creative ? Most certainly. Shocking ? Not really. Offensive ? Not at all.

 

Any lasting value ? About 15 seconds.

chip... me thinks thou protest too much!!

martin... cut the cheese!

For all the closed minded i have a solution....

Let photo net add an http-meta tag with the category NUDE to al the nude pictures in this category.

So, when your child tries to view this kind of thing, the filter that THE PARENTS SHOULD SETUP will kick in and show them nothing.

 

 

For me, this picture is ART, and a kid will not know what is seeing, except if it has viewed porn before.

This image is many things. One thing it is not. It is not porn.

 

There is no intent to sexual arousal in the image. It's just funny.

 

I would have no problem with a child seeing this image. If they could tell what

it actually is, then, the image doesn't show them anything new. If they can't

tell what it is, then, there's really no harm, now, is there?

 

I feel sorry for your son. Such a backwards, close-minded approach to the world, at least

for those under 18.

 

Your tautological reasoning for calling this image porn. because it happened to appear on a

porn. site is an absurd example of sophistry.

 

What's next, Chip? Trying to ban "Volvo" as a brand because it sounds too much like

"Vulva" and kids could be harmed by the term as it could be related to pornography?

 

Do I think this photo deserves the high marks it has received, probably not. It has some

artistic value, some humor value, and, shows reasonably good technique, but, does not

seem particularly outstanding in any of these areas.

 

However, I did enjoy the image, and, I appreciate Martin posting it here.

 

I think it is entirely appropriate.

It's amazing that a photo can generate so much discussion.... porn, not porn.... jeez. Well, I suppose I'll join the fray and throw in my own 2 cents. Martin, I think this photo is amusing, but of questionable taste (at least here in the States). I won't rate it, because I don't think there's really a fair way to rate this one. However, if I did, it would be 6 for originality, 4 for aesthetics. 6 because it's definitely original. 4 because it's neither ugly nor beautiful... just amusing.

"Well Kevin, in many states that would allow DSS to come in and take them out of the home for their protection. And I agree."

 

Dear God, help us if you really believe that. This photo isn't even erotic, let alone pornographic. It's humourous though.

 

"In many states, showing porn to minors is sufficient basis to pull them out of the home.

 

I agree with this approach."

 

If you honestly think that any 12 year old can't find porn all on his own, or that most 12 years old haven't found porn all on their own then you are out to lunch. I guess the state will have to take away, and ruin the lives of, *most* people's kids.

 

"I am not aware that sexual organs with food stuck in them qualify as anatomical parts."

 

If they aren't anatomical, what are they? You've got to be kidding.

 

 

"I feel very out of place, frankly."

 

Then go away and read an Ann Coulter book.

 

"Remove the food and I would say this would be fine as a nude on PN. But presented this way, it's porn."

 

So you're argument is that a titilating image of a shave vulva is not porn unless you add food and make it look like a hamburger? Are you serious?

 

 

 

 

 

Her bikini waxing is grown out. She should switch to laser hair removal so she won't have that problem ever again. After all, no one likes hair in his food.

 

Just a tip for the future. ;)

 

Love,

Maria

Didnt that start a firestorm (a while back)?? I love the shot... One of the best giggle ones I've seen... The thing that came to my mind was; what was the models reaction to the ermmmm ummm construction? ;)

!! :(

"So photonet has finally become a porn site...indeed, a very perverted one.

 

Tell me again why this is NOT pornographic?

 

I had just recommended photonet to my son's digital photography class. And this pops up as the 'top photo'.

 

Really inexcusable."

 

Thats not the first nude in photo.net whats in excusable is trying to impose your conservatism on this artisticly diverse community. Also, you may want to consider that it may be disrespectful to the photographer and the 99% of the people whom liked it. Oh and by the way be less reckless about suggesting sites to your son and his peers, most firewalls would have blocked the content. I think you like it.

"okay so today we're going to stick lettuce tomatoes in your vagina and we're going to sprinkle sesame seeds on there. And your going to have to shave it all off."

 Thank you for that one, Juha.

 --Lannie

Have It Your Way