When is nudity acceptable & what counts as pornography?

[Plekhanov]

This thread is prompted by the Tolerance is tolerance, but I'm gonna kick some ass! and the HOS thread link and the parting shots threads it spawned Link1 Link2 and also to a lesser extent the current breastfeeding in public threadLink.

Now I don’t want to reopen the any of the arguments about board politics present in those threads what I would like to do is examine the arguments about how much skin people can show in public, what can be shown in sex ed material & what is and isn’t pornography.

[General Zod]

way i see it, pretty much anything shy of showing genitals should be acceptable in public, male or female. long as they're showing it willingly, why should i give a fuck?

though as far as the porn issue goes, well, if you can wank to it it can be considered porn, but there's alot of shit out there people can and will wank to, so it's highly subjective.

[Zero]

To me, it's porn when there's some sort of sexual stimulation involved. As for nudity... no big deal. I REALLY don't understand why the society here in the US has such a big deal with tits. I found it horrifically ironic when, during the superbowl, people complained less about the show of violence then the show of a tit. A part of the human anatomy that babies have quite intimate contact with is seen as so evil when viewed by todlers... wierd...

[Frank Hipper]

As to sex education, I don't know how it's possible to educate without at least a drawing of sex organs. From there, it gets into percieved differences of degree.
I can't see how it can be seen as an education if you're going to limit the comprehensiveness of it, either.
As an example, if you're going to limit sex-ed to missionary position heterosexual relations you're going to have people learning by trial, and sometimes dangerous, error.

As to pornography, I think that a graphic portrayal of sex acts is what determines it. Just because it's erotic or stimulating doesn't mean it's porno.

As to nudity in public, I can't think of *any* objective argument for outlawing it, but "objectivity" and "the public" aren't words that mix especially well. Must mollify the public to a certain extent, that's just basic.

Toplessness for both sexes should be allowed, but I personally wouldn't be overly comfortable with just any person's nasty asshole being exposed to contaminate my breathing space with dingleberries.

[salm]

As to nudity in public, I can't think of *any* objective argument for outlawing it, but "objectivity" and "the public" aren't words that mix especially well. Must mollify the public to a certain extent, that's just basic.

Are there any objective arguments for outlawing porn or sex in public? Personally i can´t see what kind of harm is done if two people have sex on a sidewalk.

[SirNitram]

To me, it's porn when there's some sort of sexual stimulation involved.

That's rather a ridiculous proposition. A bikini is porn?

[Zero]

To me, it's porn when there's some sort of sexual stimulation involved.

That's rather a ridiculous proposition. A bikini is porn?

Oh, no, I don't mean just anything that triggers arousal. By that, anything could be considered porn, depending on who you are. But I'm not very good at defining such things... perhaps the only thing woth pornography is intent. I won't go any further into the matter.

[AniThyng]

Next question - how old must a person be before he/she can "willingly" expose themselves? I believe I have heard of cases in the UK where even photos of children in bikini's was considered to be bordering on "child porn", so I would like some clarification on this? Like the infamous 15 year old charged with distributing photos of herself - where does one draw the line with regards to consent to be naked?

[Keevan_Colton]

Like the infamous 15 year old charged with distributing photos of herself - where does one draw the line with regards to consent to be naked?

Actually, lets be precise here...she was charged for posession of photographs of herself.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Are there any objective arguments for outlawing porn or sex in public? Personally i can´t see what kind of harm is done if two people have sex on a sidewalk.

Well, if I saw two hot people fucking each other on the side walk I sure as hell wouldn't be looking at the road Perhaps to prevent accidents?

[Montcalm]

Mainstream Movies May Go All The Way In Sex Scenes

We are talking about this on that board,and i think that could count as porn/prostitution.

[wolveraptor]

Are there any objective arguments for outlawing porn or sex in public? Personally i can´t see what kind of harm is done if two people have sex on a sidewalk.

Well, if I saw two hot people fucking each other on the side walk I sure as hell wouldn't be looking at the road Perhaps to prevent accidents?

Yes, it'd be a classic case of disrupting the public peace. That's why you aren't allowed outside in a pink-polka-dot fetish suit and a bullhorn carrying John 16 signs. It infringes on the right of others to enjoy themselves in public spaces. Similarly, two people making love, whether hot or ugly, will always disrupt the public peace, the former being too distracting, and the latter being too disgusting.

perhaps the only thing woth pornography is intent

Intent may not be the best defining factor for porn. When a hot girl deliberately dresses sluttily to pick up a guy, is she being pornographic?

[Uraniun235]

Pornography is the depiction of sexual behavior with the intent of sexually stimulating the viewer.

[salm]

Yes, it'd be a classic case of disrupting the public peace. That's why you aren't allowed outside in a pink-polka-dot fetish suit and a bullhorn carrying John 16 signs. It infringes on the right of others to enjoy themselves in public spaces. Similarly, two people making love, whether hot or ugly, will always disrupt the public peace, the former being too distracting, and the latter being too disgusting.

Which would mean that fucking in public shouldn´t be punished harder than wearing said fetish suit. I could live with that.

[AniThyng]

Which would mean that fucking in public shouldn´t be punished harder than wearing said fetish suit. I could live with that.

What if the people fucking in public are underage, i.e., too young to be "consenting" to expose themselves in a sexual manner? What about minors witnessing the act, which might be, oh, i don't know, erotic enough that it is porn in any normal sense of the word? Or are we presupposing that this is also a world where minors can purchase/view porn legally as well?

[Guardsman Bass]

Which would mean that fucking in public shouldn´t be punished harder than wearing said fetish suit. I could live with that.

What if the people fucking in public are underage, i.e., too young to be "consenting" to expose themselves in a sexual manner? What about minors witnessing the act, which might be, oh, i don't know, erotic enough that it is porn in any normal sense of the word? Or are we presupposing that this is also a world where minors can purchase/view porn legally as well?

Well, first off, the definition of what would be considered "erotic" enough to be unacceptable to show to minors is fairly subjective; we have plenty of people here in Utah who find wearing a bikini outside of a swimming to be too "objectionable" for children.

As for my opinion, I believe that the acceptable amount of nudity should be as long as the actual genitalia are not exposed (penis, testicles, or vagina), since those would probably, in almost all circumstances, count as sexual stimulation bordering on the pornographic. I have no objections, though, to either asses or breasts, particularly since the breast does not necessarily have to have sexualization attached to it (aka breast-feeding).

[salm]

Which would mean that fucking in public shouldn´t be punished harder than wearing said fetish suit. I could live with that.

What if the people fucking in public are underage, i.e., too young to be "consenting" to expose themselves in a sexual manner?

That´s an entirely different matter. If they´re too young to consent, well, duh, then it´s obviously wrong.

What about minors witnessing the act, which might be, oh, i don't know, erotic enough that it is porn in any normal sense of the word? Or are we presupposing that this is also a world where minors can purchase/view porn legally as well?

See my first post in this thread. If you have reasons that prove that seeing sex is harmful for kids please post them.

[AniThyng]

That´s an entirely different matter. If they´re too young to consent, well, duh, then it´s obviously wrong.

See my first post in this thread. If you have reasons that prove that seeing sex is harmful for kids please post them.

I brought up this question because IIRC, feel free to correct me if I am wrong - the age of consent for sex can be as low as 13 in some places, but it is also illegal to say, photograph 13 year olds in sexual situations - if an activity can be entirely public, why can't it be also photographed? Or perhaps it can and I am wrong, but i notice a lot of porn and voyeur sites make a big deal out of asserting all thier models/victims are "above 18." So why 18? Why not 16? or 13? or whatnot? What is the cut-off?

I personally don't think seeing normal, ordinary sex is inherantly harmful to children - though I might be concerned about fetishes and potentially unsafe sex acts that need proper instruction to do safely - but yes, sex ed is supposed to make this a non-issue, I know.

I am not saying that it is bad for minors to witness sex - that is a minefield I am all to happy to stay out off myself - but there are enough parents who would rather not their children be exposed to sex/porn and would be disturbed by their inability to control thier children's exposure short of preventing them from *public* places. But am I correct in assuming then, that you have no objections to allowing minors to purchase or view pornography?
[and if sex =/ porn , how would we define it for the purposes of allowing/disallowing in public? intent?]

[Lusankya]

I imagine that if we were in a society where sex in public places was considered acceptable, then we would have just about reached a point at which porn was irrelevent or just a matter of taste or production.

If it were acceptable in public, then two people having sex would be no different than two people pashing is now.

[wolveraptor]

Sex might lose some of its appeal if it were that commonplace. Do you think we should place some restrictions on its publicity if only for that reason?

Qt: Do you think two people walking around naked whom are steamily hot should lose the right to complain about being stared at?

[AniThyng]

All the hoo-haa regarding that cleavage thread, about photos on a webboard, sums up for me why this whole public nudity, nevermind sex thing just isn't going to work out properly.

[dragon]

If I want nude I'll just go to the local swimming pool where the ladies sun bathe topless or I'll go to the co-ed nude saunas (gotta love Germany). Hell there even nudity in the afternoon soaps here. As for sex in public places as long as they are not hurting any one I don't see the big problem after all we are mammals.