Missy Suicide on Pornography

[Icycle]

Hmm, well I don't think Hef was out to creat a porn mag. I think their is alot more to Playboy then people think. It's like Time magazine with a centerfold. I'll admit I don't buy it for the articles, but I can tell you my father did, he's just not the type to drop coin on a magazine just to look at the picture.

Oh, I know what Playboy is. I've been a subscriber for years. Many people who have never picked up a Playboy may not realize how little of it is actually photographs of naked women. Playboy has always been a "lifestyle" magazine, targetted at those who were in, or aspired to high class living. The articles are excellent, and the pictorials are tasteful. If you are looking for, ahem, "pleasure reading", you get a lot more bang for you buck with other magazines. Playboy actually has a lot more in common with magazines like Maxim, Stuff, and FHM than it does with traditional porn magazines.

Even Hustler isn't the best example of pure porn. Sure the pictorials are a lot more numerous, and a lot rauchier. But Hustler still manages to include humor, commentary, and other distinctly non-porn content.

Finally does that make this web site a porn site because, like playboy, the Forum has content that is both of an erotic and none erotic nature. If so, then why are those who are anti porn even here?

That's a question that also comes up from time to time. The place where I work considers it enough like porn that they filter it out. And I'm sure most people would not be comfortable browsing this site at work, or in front of their parents. I think this site is clearly adult-oriented, and those who don't feel comfortable being exposed to adult content should choose not to visit.

I personally don't subscribe to the notion that content can be nicely divided into dirty, nasty, evil pornography, and clean, friendly, good erotica. So to me, the question of whether a particular site is porn isn't a particularly interesting one, since most people asking that question mean something like "morally bankrupt wank material with no redeeming qualities" when they say "porn".

 

[SlaverTickler]

I personally don't subscribe to the notion that content can be nicely divided into dirty, nasty, evil pornography, and clean, friendly, good erotica. So to me, the question of whether a particular site is porn isn't a particularly interesting one, since most people asking that question mean something like "morally bankrupt wank material with no redeeming qualities" when they say "porn".

Well I don't know if you've read any of my stories, but I would be interested to read your thoughts on my work. Right now I am working on a F/* concept where women of wealth and power go to a spa that also doubles as a dungon where they live out their erotic fantasies. It's a Celeb story but I only do that because it's easier then going into a big disciption to what every charatore looks like. I know this is pretty lazy, but I also just love celeb stories... I don't know why, but I do. I also hope (should you choose to read my stuff) that you notice improvement as you go along. They are all located in my achiev.

 

[SmarterthanU]

So to me, the question of whether a particular site is porn isn't a particularly interesting one, since most people asking that question mean something like "morally bankrupt wank material with no redeeming qualities" when they say "porn".

This is an excellent statement and is exactly why I found Missy Suicide's comment to be interesting. Her take on it has to do with the person standing in front of the camera. There's a real difference between looking at a photograph that tells you who the subject is, and looking at a photograph that doesn't care who the subject is. Person vs Object. I would think that this difference would be exceptionally important to women.

If you really think it isn't porn, then I invite you to display in your office cubicle and when the director of HR asks you about it, tell HER how profound you think it is.

If there's no difference in someone's eyes between erotica and porn, then yeah, maybe anything that's sexually exciting is porn. I think anyone would agree that neither erotica nor porn is appropriate for the office.

What I think is fascinating about some views on this subject and the subject of sexuality in general is the reactions I see from some young people. There's a Neo-Victorian attitude among a lot of 20-somethings that's just mind-boggling. Any 40-something who's been around a long time in the BDSM/fetish world knows what I mean (whether they will admit it or not). It wasn't too long ago that young people flooded the BDSM/fetish scene, a lot of them demanding that sexual fetishism was not sexual, that Bondage, Dominance and Sado-Masochism was not sexual - claims that were self-contradictory on their face. Claims that, 30 years ago, absolutely no one in the BDSM or fetish scene would have made. But the claims caught on, because the BDSM/fetish scene was desperate for females, and desexualizing the scene made it much less threatening and therefore far more appealing to young women.

So now the honest sexuality that the previous generation worked so hard to deliver to the next generation is, in many ways, rejected. My suspicion is that it's a reaction to the belief that sexual freedom was directly responsible for mommy and daddy splitting up, and so sexual freedom is bad.

It follows, then, that people want to insist that there are few, if any, distinctions to be made between nudity and pornography. If you want to see the absurdity inherent in this, just consider this - by that line of thinking, L.A. Ink is pornography the second we see female nipples.

Another argument is that erotica-for-profit is pornography. By that line of logic, half of the world's art is porn. This is really scary to me. The idea that women cannot come together and enter into a collective project to make an artistic statement about sexual empowerment, using erotica as a medium, without the project being dismissed as pornography - well, let's just say that the last place I'd expect to see that idea expressed would be a sexual fetish forum.

 

[LindyHopper]

There's a real difference between looking at a photograph that tells you who the subject is, and looking at a photograph that doesn't care who the subject is. Person vs Object. I would think that this difference would be exceptionally important to women.

Yes, it is important. But that distinction, to me, is inherent in the image, regardless of who is supposedly "driving" the vision.

Though I don't completely disregard the artist's intention when I'm appreciating art, I'm generally of the opinion that the art should speak for itself. If Michaelangelo or Rembrandt had been motivated solely by money, that would not diminish their talent in my eyes, nor the effectiveness with which they presented that talent in their works. Similarly, I will be no more impressed with a 9'x13' canvas painted in solid blue just because I know the artist has spent his entire career pursuing that perfect shade.

If there's no difference in someone's eyes between erotica and porn, then yeah, maybe anything that's sexually exciting is porn.

I think the difference is more about connotation than denotation. Both are intended to be sexually exciting, but erotica is "tasteful," and porn is "disgusting." The problem, in my opinion, is a society that's so uptight about sexuality that it felt the need to come up with a less yucky word for stuff that turns people on. This Puritanical attitude is the same force that causes people in the BDSM world, and the tickling world, to feel the need to distance themselves from their "fetish," claiming that when they do it, it isn't sexual.

I tend to think that any material created and/or used primarily for sexual gratification is porn. But that means that my "porn" is different from another person's "porn," because we aren't turned on by the same things. A home video of a parent playfully tickling a child has no sexual significance to most people. But around here, because the context is a forum devoted to tickling as a fetish, it's child pornography. It all depends on where you're coming from.

Similarly, some people might consider Suicide Girls art. Some might consider it porn. I wouldn't say either group is wrong. Art, like porn, is subjective.

It follows, then, that people want to insist that there are few, if any, distinctions to be made between nudity and pornography. If you want to see the absurdity inherent in this, just consider this - by that line of thinking, L.A. Ink is pornography the second we see female nipples.

Yes, I agree that's silly. The notion that that there is some objective line we can draw between porn and not porn is flawed. Sometimes, it's hard to decide even when you're looking at it... like when you're looking at Suicide Girls.

As far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't be a particularly important distinction to make (at least, I wish we lived in a world where this was true). "Pornography" is just a word, representing a subjective opinion.

Another argument is that erotica-for-profit is pornography. By that line of logic, half of the world's art is porn. This is really scary to me. The idea that women cannot come together and enter into a collective project to make an artistic statement about sexual empowerment, using erotica as a medium, without the project being dismissed as pornography - well, let's just say that the last place I'd expect to see that idea expressed would be a sexual fetish forum.

What's wrong with women coming together to create pornography? Is that something only men can do? In addition, what's wrong with making money? Would the Mona Lisa be worth more, or less, if someone put a price tag on it? Would Suicide Girls be erotica if they didn't charge a membership fee, but since they do, it's porn?

I don't think it's wrong to call Suicide Girls porn, if the creators and/or viewers intend for it to be arousing. I think it's the "dismissing" part of the package that's the real problem, as if porn is beneath art and cannot have artistic merit. Why shouldn't the two coexist?

 

[SmarterthanU]

Yes, it is important. But that distinction, to me, is inherent in the image, regardless of who is supposedly "driving" the vision.

There's where it gets sticky. What's inherent in the image, i.e., what one takes away from the image via mere observation, is subjective. The vision of the artist is objective. If it's art, there is some intent, there's a statement. I think that makes a difference, some people think it's all the difference. Where the two merge - where the viewer comes to understand the message - is context.

Though I don't completely disregard the artist's intention when I'm appreciating art, I'm generally of the opinion that the art should speak for itself.

That's impossible, because art exists in context, not in a vacuum, you know? Art has relevance in context with culture - art can only make a statement in that way.

I think the difference is more about connotation than denotation. Both are intended to be sexually exciting, but erotica is "tasteful," and porn is "disgusting."

I completely disagree, because some of the best, most important art ever created was described as "disgusting." People fall into that trap when they impose value judgments on art, as opposed to understanding that it is art which exists to impose value judgments on us. Or, perhaps more accurately, to force us to impose value judgments on ourselves.

The problem, in my opinion, is a society that's so uptight about sexuality that it felt the need to come up with a less yucky word for stuff that turns people on.

No, I don't think so. That's not the pure definition of 'pornography,' where pornography lacks serious artistic or political merit. I think that as the two terms go, they have more to do with levels of sexual explicitly than anything else.

Almost This Puritanical attitude is the same force that causes people in the BDSM world, and the tickling world, to feel the need to distance themselves from their "fetish," claiming that when they do it, it isn't sexual.

I think it goes beyond that, actually - hence my Neo-Victorian theory. My impression is that young people are having lots of sex, but have managed to suck the sexuality right out of it. Sexually suggestive dress isn't about sex. Fetishism isn't about sex. Sex isn't about sex.

I tend to think that any material created and/or used primarily for sexual gratification is porn. But that means that my "porn" is different from another person's "porn," because we aren't turned on by the same things. A home video of a parent playfully tickling a child has no sexual significance to most people. But around here, because the context is a forum devoted to tickling as a fetish, it's child pornography. It all depends on where you're coming from.

Well, now I know that you know what I mean by "cultural context," so that's good. I'd need to know what you mean by "gratification" to be able to comment on this point. If you mean, specifically, material created specifically for masturbatory purposes, that goes to artist intent and vision. If you mean material used for that purpose, then almost everything is porn.

Similarly, some people might consider Suicide Girls art. Some might consider it porn. I wouldn't say either group is wrong. Art, like porn, is subjective.

I assume that you are saying here that porn cannot be art. I think that would be very difficult statement to defend unless you employ a very narrow, pure definition of porn, which you don't seem to employ. I also think that anyone would hard-pressed to defend the statement that SG is not art.

What's wrong with women coming together to create pornography? Is that something only men can do?

I would argue that there's nothing wrong with it, and no, it isn't something only men can do.

Would Suicide Girls be erotica if they didn't charge a membership fee, but since they do, it's porn?

No?

I don't think it's wrong to call Suicide Girls porn, if the creators and/or viewers intend for it to be arousing.

That means that you believe that anything intended to be arousing is porn. By that analysis, most TV commercials are porn.

I think it's the "dismissing" part of the package that's the real problem, as if porn is beneath art and cannot have artistic merit. Why shouldn't the two coexist?

Well, that's what I think, because I believe that, by the most commonly used definition of 'porn,' pornography can be art. For example, the film "Deep Throat" is widely held to be art. But if you define pornography as appealing solely to prurient interest (lacking artistic or political merit), then porn cannot be art, by definition. But I think there are actually very few cases of actual pornography under that definition.

 

[LindyHopper]

What's inherent in the image, i.e., what one takes away from the image via mere observation, is subjective. The vision of the artist is objective. If it's art, there is some intent, there's a statement. I think that makes a difference, some people think it's all the difference. Where the two merge - where the viewer comes to understand the message - is context.

The artist could be lying, or mistaken. Or deceased, or otherwise be unable or uninterested in communicating. The art is what's present, and the viewer is the one looking at it. What the viewer understands from the art is what it means to them, regardless of what the artist may have intended.

That's impossible, because art exists in context, not in a vacuum, you know? Art has relevance in context with culture - art can only make a statement in that way.

Yes, but you don't need the artist's POV to understand the cultural context. I know the social and sexual context for Suicide Girls, because I live here now, too. If I disagree with their take on the state of the world, that will change my appreciation of their creations.

I completely disagree, because some of the best, most important art ever created was described as "disgusting." People fall into that trap when they impose value judgments on art, as opposed to understanding that it is art which exists to impose value judgments on us. Or, perhaps more accurately, to force us to impose value judgments on ourselves.

Oh come on, did you somehow get the impression that I agree with dismissing anything "disgusting" as porn? 🙄 Please. I was commenting on what I believe the terms "pornography" and "erotica" are for. In fact, I think the word "erotica" is intended to impose a value judgment on pornography (that it is "disgusting"), as well as a value judgment on the people who purchase erotica (that they are "tasteful"). I am of the opinion that the word "erotica" gained popularity as a way to make pornography more marketable to women, who have been acculturated to be out-of-touch with their sexuality.

No, I don't think so. That's not the pure definition of 'pornography,' where pornography lacks serious artistic or political merit. I think that as the two terms go, they have more to do with levels of sexual explicitly than anything else.

I know. I just disagree with getting hung up on those definitions, because I think they carry more connotative meaning than the definitions convey. I also believe that there are many creations, such as "Deep Throat," that transcend such narrow definitions.

My impression is that young people are having lots of sex, but have managed to suck the sexuality right out of it. Sexually suggestive dress isn't about sex. Fetishism isn't about sex. Sex isn't about sex.

Well, sometimes they aren't. Suggestive dress can be about empowerment, or exploitation. Fetishism can be about the psychology of control. Sex can be about emotional connection. Who are you to impose your value judgments on these behaviors, these "artistic creations," of other people? 😀 They're the artists, you're the viewer. Only they know what they truly intend; only their vision is objective. 😉

I'd need to know what you mean by "gratification" to be able to comment on this point. If you mean, specifically, material created specifically for masturbatory purposes, that goes to artist intent and vision. If you mean material used for that purpose, then almost everything is porn.

I wouldn't consider the Sears Catalog to be porn just because some pedophile masturbates to it. I wouldn't consider Brokeback Mountain to be porn, even if some people find it sexually exciting. Still, I don't think you need to evoke "artist intent" to make these determinations. I believe the non-porn-ness of these two examples is inherent in the product, regardless of what a minority of viewers may take from it.

I assume that you are saying here that porn cannot be art.

I said no such thing. I asked, "Why shouldn't the two coexist?" stating that the belief that "porn is beneath art and cannot have artistic merit" is the real problem. I believe that no sharp distinction exists, which is why I am unwilling to label Suicide Girls "porn" or "not porn," or "art," or "not art."

I think that would be very difficult statement to defend unless you employ a very narrow, pure definition of porn, which you don't seem to employ. I also think that anyone would hard-pressed to defend the statement that SG is not art.

Dunno. Ask Scarlett Moon, if you can find her. Otherwise, try drew70 - they're the same. 😉

That means that you believe that anything intended to be arousing is porn. By that analysis, most TV commercials are porn.

I think if you jack off to a TV commercial, then for you, it's porn. I'm saying that "porn" is in the eye of the beholder; it's not something that an artist does, or does not, create. Referring to my earlier example above, I don't consider the Sears Catalog and Brokeback Mountain to be porn, for me. For someone else, they may be. And that's just fine - it's no skin off my nose, or that of the artist.