Why is it...

Completely off-topic conversational diarrhea that the rest of the internet won't let you post anywhere because it's so pointless and irrelevant to anything important.
User avatar
MP81
Chronic Spammer
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:34 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Why is it...

Post by MP81 » Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:53 pm

...that a diagram of a certain anatomical part is considered educational,

but a picture of it, is considered porn?

It's very weird how society works, no? 8)

BTW...Since I thought Ven. might wanna know (:P): I thought of that sitting out on my back porch sitting in the sun today...lol...

User avatar
Hellmark
Pissed Off Gimp Farmboy
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:54 pm
Location: O'Fallon, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Hellmark » Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:37 am

Well, typically its the intent that separates the difference. Most nude photos are meant specifically to arouse one sexually. Anatomical drawings are meant to only educate and to not stimulate.

User avatar
Venomous
Site Admin
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Social Deviancy
Contact:

Re: Why is it...

Post by Venomous » Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:03 am

MP81 wrote:...that a diagram of a certain anatomical part is considered educational, but a picture of it, is considered porn?
It's very weird how society works, no? 8)
Oh, don't even get me STARTED...

How about this one... why can a woman's ass, and entire breast except the nipple, be shown in all its naked glory on an ad for deoderant, or skin cream, or panty liners, in the middle of the day on public television, and it's not considered sexual, but in a movie it would boost the rating up to PG or maybe even PG-13?

Or why it okay to display a completely naked baby/infant/toddler from every angle on a commercial for anything from diapers to toilet paper to skin cream, but displaying a naked adult would be pornographic?

And, my all time favorite - why, in our stupid misguided ridiculous society, is it perfectly socially exceptable for men to walk around topless in public, but if a woman tried to do it, it would be considered indecent exposure, a criminal offense?

I think THAT's fucking sexist. Personally, I would like to see naked breasts as much if not much, much more than I would like to see a man's hairy chest. =P
MP81 wrote:BTW...Since I thought Ven. might wanna know (:P): I thought of that sitting out on my back porch sitting in the sun today...lol...
{nods} I come up with my best random thoughts either on the can, or in the shower, myself... =P
- Venomous -

The internet is a tool, and so are most of the people who use it...

Social Deviancy

Renae the Boozehound

Post by Renae the Boozehound » Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:03 am

I'm not going to complain about seeing male chesty goodness... Only when it becomes a huge beer gut.
It is strange what people consider to be pornographic. I was reading a blog where a guy has posted pictures of young boys. Nothing sexually explicit, just boys modelling or whatever. It's not actually the content itself that is 'offensive', but the value/meaning we add on in our own imaginations. And we can't control each other's imaginations... yet. It's pretty much a free for all in there. But yeah. Not too sure where I stand on fillums, though.
Same as with those nude baby ads - why are they perverted? They aren't, but there's this silly paranoia afoot that anything remotely nude is exploitative. Gah! I hate it. I need more energy to rant, though. :twisted:

Stickmyfingerupyou

Post by Stickmyfingerupyou » Thu Dec 22, 2005 6:14 pm

Mmm, Young Boys....

User avatar
Venomous
Site Admin
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Social Deviancy
Contact:

Post by Venomous » Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:03 am

Renae the Boozehound wrote:I'm not going to complain about seeing male chesty goodness... Only when it becomes a huge beer gut.
It is strange what people consider to be pornographic. I was reading a blog where a guy has posted pictures of young boys. Nothing sexually explicit, just boys modelling or whatever. It's not actually the content itself that is 'offensive', but the value/meaning we add on in our own imaginations. And we can't control each other's imaginations... yet. It's pretty much a free for all in there. But yeah. Not too sure where I stand on fillums, though.
Same as with those nude baby ads - why are they perverted? They aren't, but there's this silly paranoia afoot that anything remotely nude is exploitative. Gah! I hate it. I need more energy to rant, though. :twisted:
No, what's perverted is that we live in a society where it's okay to display the nude body of a person aged 0-11 years, and it's okay to display the nude body of somebody aged 18-onwards, but there's this massive social taboo on ages 12-17, almost as if puberty/adolescence is something to be ashamed of/disgusted by/covered up. We (and I mean the collective public "we", pedophiles excluded), think nothing of seeing a naked infant in a TV commercial, or movies which depict naked adults, but who gets to decide at what age a person is to be regarded as sexually arousing, and hidden from the public eye until they reach another predetermined age? Why is a naked 13yr old more "offensive" than a naked 9yr old? Moreso, why is a naked 16yr old more "offensive" than a naked 18yr old?

This is one topic I have more than enough energy to rant about. I believe in freedom of choice, and simple "all or nothing" policies. I don't believe the government should have the right to decide what ages of people are okay for me for me to see naked on public media, and what ages I should be made to feel like a criminal for looking at.
- Venomous -

The internet is a tool, and so are most of the people who use it...

Social Deviancy

User avatar
Hellmark
Pissed Off Gimp Farmboy
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:54 pm
Location: O'Fallon, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Hellmark » Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:27 am

In the US, no nudity on tv, and the only underaged nudity that is seen as semi ok is of infants, and even that isn't easily gotten away with (most places won't develope film and may even call the cops if you turn in some film with naked babies.)

User avatar
Venomous
Site Admin
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Social Deviancy
Contact:

Post by Venomous » Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:30 am

Hellmark wrote:In the US, no nudity on tv, and the only underaged nudity that is seen as semi ok is of infants, and even that isn't easily gotten away with (most places won't develope film and may even call the cops if you turn in some film with naked babies.)
Well, I guess the digital camera industry must be booming there then! =P

The USA has always been reknowned for having a very low sex, high violence mindset in its media, though. Other countries, like Japan for example, are exactly the opposite. Australia leans more towards the US standards (like in everything), but not so extreme... yet.
- Venomous -

The internet is a tool, and so are most of the people who use it...

Social Deviancy

User avatar
Hellmark
Pissed Off Gimp Farmboy
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:54 pm
Location: O'Fallon, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Hellmark » Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:01 pm

High violence? Here, you're not supposed to show someone dying outside of natural causes on regular tv (cartoons I think are an exception). On instantanious mortal wounds, the camera has to pan away, and stuff like that.

User avatar
MP81
Chronic Spammer
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:34 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Post by MP81 » Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:04 am

A Film Person In The New King Kong Movie wrote:Is the film going to have boobies? Every movie needs boobies!"

Hero of the Day
Desperately Bored Loser
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Contact:

Post by Hero of the Day » Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:09 am

check it out
Danny from Consumption Junction tells what the movie is missing

User avatar
Venomous
Site Admin
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Social Deviancy
Contact:

Post by Venomous » Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:57 am

Hellmark wrote:High violence? Here, you're not supposed to show someone dying outside of natural causes on regular tv (cartoons I think are an exception). On instantanious mortal wounds, the camera has to pan away, and stuff like that.
Well dude, I might point out, you DO happen to live in the middle of nowhere, in some fuckin' hick town surrounded by cornfields smack in the mid-south Bible Belt... I know the USA has some generalized standards, but then again, what they show in your local drive-in theatre may not be the same cut they show in New York or California... =D
- Venomous -

The internet is a tool, and so are most of the people who use it...

Social Deviancy

User avatar
Hellmark
Pissed Off Gimp Farmboy
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:54 pm
Location: O'Fallon, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Hellmark » Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:30 am

Bible belt is south and to the east of where I live, plus I am going by FCC standards, which is national. Local stations aren't really supposed to edit the footage, just elect whether or not they want to air it.

User avatar
MP81
Chronic Spammer
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:34 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Post by MP81 » Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:09 pm

The FCC sucks.

Hero of the Day
Desperately Bored Loser
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Contact:

Post by Hero of the Day » Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:54 pm

Hellmark is right on that the FCC is wierd. Hell remember the nipple incident.
However the problem goes deeper than that. It is society as a whole, we are becoming a country of censorship, where all it takes is one person to say they are offended by something. The leadership listens because the people with the power are slightly left of ultra conservative. Just look at all the trouble Howard Stern got into on the radio. Everything now is focused on family values and decency and protecting kids, all these people are feeding their kids this shit, which means the next generation is liable to be even heavier into censorship. Well I say FUCK YOU to the censors, because the First Amendment gives me the right to free speech, and does not say anything about offending people

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests