What do you consider porn to be? (NSFW, obviously)

[OnTilt]

Pornography is the depiction of the sexual act, for the purpose of titillation. Hence the difference between "softcore" and "hardcore". It's all pornography, but one has explicit depiction of certain sexual organs and one does not. Hence also the difference between nudity or sexual depiction for the purpose of displaying art, and XXX videos (even XXX videos with, say, a plotline or high quality production, for instance Cleopatra or the more modern(ish) Irreversible).

With that in mind, none of the OP pics are pornographic. They are all immodest to one degree or another, however. And immodesty can be damaging as well, in some cases approaching the level of explicit pornography.

I'd have a serious problem with A and B, and possibly D, if the site explicitly took a line against perverse titillation.

From where do you get this definition?

[Kalarion]

Pornography is the depiction of the sexual act, for the purpose of titillation.

So you don't consider vore fetish art to be porn?

I do, because the intent of vore is depiction of a depraved sexual act (that is, sexual stimulation from the act of cannibalism/dismembering). In the same way I would consider most BDSM to be porn.

[Xenich]

Ask yourself this question...

Would you allow your daughter who is under age to dress or be naked around males?

If your answer is no, then it is likely because your sub conscious is telling you, yeah.. it is slanted at producing a sexual reaction.

If you see nothing wrong with your daughter dressing and being naked as such, then slap the shit out of yourself.

[Kalarion]

Pornography is the depiction of the sexual act, for the purpose of titillation. Hence the difference between "softcore" and "hardcore". It's all pornography, but one has explicit depiction of certain sexual organs and one does not. Hence also the difference between nudity or sexual depiction for the purpose of displaying art, and XXX videos (even XXX videos with, say, a plotline or high quality production, for instance Cleopatra or the more modern(ish) Irreversible).

With that in mind, none of the OP pics are pornographic. They are all immodest to one degree or another, however. And immodesty can be damaging as well, in some cases approaching the level of explicit pornography.

I'd have a serious problem with A and B, and possibly D, if the site explicitly took a line against perverse titillation.

From where do you get this definition?

Dr. E. Michael Jones. Which should be good enough for everyone here, but let me dig around and see if I can find a dictionary/catechistic definition that agrees with me.

[Anon]

You guys do know that your security guy sees everything you browse right? I mean, EVERYTHING and it is all logged for however long they like to keep it (which is pretty much indefinitely for companies these days).

Pro-tip (don't surf anything at work that isn't work related, don't use the work access points with your private devices)

Yes browsing this forum or anything else in the internet using work's internet is a significant risk.

Some people like me can access the forum while at work with his own internet though so it's safe. Though now you need to be double secured (nobody looking at your pc/cellphone screen) considering NSFW images in random places are a thing that can happen.

[OnTilt]

Pornography is the depiction of the sexual act, for the purpose of titillation. Hence the difference between "softcore" and "hardcore". It's all pornography, but one has explicit depiction of certain sexual organs and one does not. Hence also the difference between nudity or sexual depiction for the purpose of displaying art, and XXX videos (even XXX videos with, say, a plotline or high quality production, for instance Cleopatra or the more modern(ish) Irreversible).

With that in mind, none of the OP pics are pornographic. They are all immodest to one degree or another, however. And immodesty can be damaging as well, in some cases approaching the level of explicit pornography.

I'd have a serious problem with A and B, and possibly D, if the site explicitly took a line against perverse titillation.

From where do you get this definition?

Dr. E. Michael Jones. Which should be good enough for everyone here, but let me dig around and see if I can find a dictionary/catechistic definition that agrees with me.

Please do, because every church resource or even modern dictionary definitions, define it much more broadly than depictions of the act.

[WhiteShark]

I do, because the intent of vore is depiction of a depraved sexual act (that is, sexual stimulation from the act of cannibalism/dismembering). In the same way I would consider most BDSM to be porn.

I agree with this, but that wasn't clear from your original statement:

Pornography is the depiction of the sexual act, for the purpose of titillation.

The sexual act means something far more specific than a sexual act; furthermore, if vore counts because it is for sexual stimulation, why does exhibitionism not count?

[Gregz]

[Xenich]

Pornography is the depiction of the sexual act, for the purpose of titillation. Hence the difference between "softcore" and "hardcore". It's all pornography, but one has explicit depiction of certain sexual organs and one does not. Hence also the difference between nudity or sexual depiction for the purpose of displaying art, and XXX videos (even XXX videos with, say, a plotline or high quality production, for instance Cleopatra or the more modern(ish) Irreversible).

With that in mind, none of the OP pics are pornographic. They are all immodest to one degree or another, however. And immodesty can be damaging as well, in some cases approaching the level of explicit pornography.

I'd have a serious problem with A and B, and possibly D, if the site explicitly took a line against perverse titillation.

From where do you get this definition?

Dr. E. Michael Jones. Which should be good enough for everyone here, but let me dig around and see if I can find a dictionary/catechistic definition that agrees with me.

See, that it is difficult on D for me. It is designed obviously with the intent to pronounce the body parts and so technically this would be under the concept of trying to produce a sexual reaction, but while I would say it is something that is too sexual and should not be encouraged for children, I also have to consider that is a fat big boobed woman in tight clothes porn? Is it without taste? Sure... but porn?

I guess it all comes down to context, in terms of D, it is designed specifically to promote a sexual reaction, so technically, even though she is clothed, it could be considered a very mild form of porn. I guess in the same way as a fully clothed woman in baggy clothes bending over in a provocative manner could also be considered such. This is something I think yes, should be an 18 or older position and is something you wouldn't want to have children being around, as well as something you wouldn't want another female to see at work due to its obvious contextual presentation.

So, yeah.. gonna change D to porn, though would this be considered as well? Similar sexual nature, and reveal for the most part.

[Kalarion]

I do, because the intent of vore is depiction of a depraved sexual act (that is, sexual stimulation from the act of cannibalism/dismembering). In the same way I would consider most BDSM to be porn.

I agree with this, but that wasn't clear from your original statement:

Pornography is the depiction of the sexual act, for the purpose of titillation.

The sexual act means something far more specific than a sexual act; furthermore, if vore counts because it is for sexual stimulation, why does exhibitionism not count?

Because exhibitionism is not a sexual act. It's certainly sexual in nature however.

From where do you get this definition?

Dr. E. Michael Jones. Which should be good enough for everyone here, but let me dig around and see if I can find a dictionary/catechistic definition that agrees with me.

Please do, because every church resource or even modern dictionary definitions, define it much more broadly than depictions of the act.

Just in case I'm not being clear here, I'm not trying to argue there is no sexuality involved in these pictures (which I would suppose to be the source of most churches' stance against NSFW content in general). Nor am I on Team NSFW in general. But pornography is a specific form of deviant sexual depiction, and I think it's worth preserving it that way.

[OnTilt]

But pornography is a specific form of deviant sexual depiction, and I think it's worth preserving it that way.

I agree that the meaning is specific and should be preserved. I disagree only with the definition you've settled on.

I'm still confused why you consider vore to be porn, since cannibalism isn't normally a sexual act. If the difference lies in it's intention of generating sexual feelings, then surely A B and D fall into this category as well.

[WhiteShark]

Because exhibitionism is not a sexual act. It's certainly sexual in nature however.

I can't help but see this as a self-contradiction. Displaying one's nude body for the purpose of titillating one's audience sounds like a sexual act to me.

But pornography is a specific form of deviant sexual depiction, and I think it's worth preserving it that way.

Let's see what Webster's 1913 says:

Por*nog"ra*phy (?), n. [Gr. ? a harlot + -graphy.]

1. Licentious painting or literature; especially, the painting anciently employed to decorate the walls of rooms devoted to bacchanalian orgies.

2. (Med.) A treatise on prostitutes, or prostitution.

'Licentious painting or literature' doesn't sound all that specific to me. The notion that it must depict penetration or a fetish you find sufficiently deviant seems like a modernism.

[SpellSword]

As the rules may be effected by this thread perhaps a good question is, do you mind seeing option D on this site regardless of its definition?

D)

Still the best fighting game gal.

Protagonist of Stellar Blade

[Xenich]

But pornography is a specific form of deviant sexual depiction, and I think it's worth preserving it that way.

I agree that the meaning is specific and should be preserved. I disagree only with the definition you've settled on.

I'm still confused why you consider vore to be porn, since cannibalism isn't normally a sexual act. If the difference lies in it's intention of generating sexual feelings, then surely A B and D fall into this category as well.

Doesn't the definition of vore art specifically state its intent is erotica for that purpose though?

[Kalarion]

Because exhibitionism is not a sexual act. It's certainly sexual in nature however.

I can't help but see this as a self-contradiction. Displaying one's nude body for the purpose of titillating one's audience sounds like a sexual act to me.

But pornography is a specific form of deviant sexual depiction, and I think it's worth preserving it that way.

Let's see what Webster's 1913 says:

Por*nog"ra*phy (?), n. [Gr. ? a harlot + -graphy.]

1. Licentious painting or literature; especially, the painting anciently employed to decorate the walls of rooms devoted to bacchanalian orgies.

2. (Med.) A treatise on prostitutes, or prostitution.

'Licentious painting or literature' doesn't sound all that specific to me. The notion that it must depict penetration or a fetish you find sufficiently deviant seems like a modernism.

A display of immodesty for sexual arousal is not the same thing as display of a sexual act for sexual arousal. They're both bad, but they're different subcategories of a specific type of bad.

A sexual act, with the sole (as far as I'm aware) exception of masturbation of some type, needs at least two participants. A woman walking around naked, or a man gyrating his hips suggestively, etc, don't fit the bill.

The Webster's definition is indeed more broad than Dr. Jones. My instinct is to side with Jones. I'll have to think on this.

[WhiteShark]

As the rules may be effected by this thread perhaps a good question is, do you mind seeing option D on this site?

Unless Rusty changes his mind, this thread is only for the purpose of clarifying the existing rules, not changing what's allowed on the board.

[Kalarion]

But pornography is a specific form of deviant sexual depiction, and I think it's worth preserving it that way.

I agree that the meaning is specific and should be preserved. I disagree only with the definition you've settled on.

I'm still confused why you consider vore to be porn, since cannibalism isn't normally a sexual act. If the difference lies in it's intention of generating sexual feelings, then surely A B and D fall into this category as well.

I missed this earlier, I'm sorry. I consider vore to be porn because it is an act intended to sexually stimulate the participants. Hence why I called it a depraved sexual act. Since it is a sexual act, depiction of it for titillation is porn.

[OnTilt]

But pornography is a specific form of deviant sexual depiction, and I think it's worth preserving it that way.

I agree that the meaning is specific and should be preserved. I disagree only with the definition you've settled on.

I'm still confused why you consider vore to be porn, since cannibalism isn't normally a sexual act. If the difference lies in it's intention of generating sexual feelings, then surely A B and D fall into this category as well.

I missed this earlier, I'm sorry. I consider vore to be porn because it is an act intended to sexually stimulate the participants. Hence why I called it a depraved sexual act. Since it is a sexual act, depiction of it for titillation is porn.

And you don't think posing topless for an only fans account is "an act intended to sexually stimulate the participants" ?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I've had enough of that, its just what you're saying doesn't make sense to me.

[Xenich]

As the rules may be effected by this thread perhaps a good question is, do you mind seeing option D on this site regardless of its definition?

D)

Still the best fighting game gal.

Protagonist of Stellar Blade

Well, if we look at all the symbolism, not only does it function like porn (ie designed to promote an illicit sexual desire), it has hints of pedophilia suggestion (often common with Japanese use of child like face features, and that of school girl attire). Also consider that the boobs are not practical and meant to focus on the sexual stimulation.

HAVING SAID THAT... also consider this is something that has been conditioned for decades as acceptable in our culture. Garage pin ups of scantily clad girls on cars and machinery, or with guns. Bathing suits have become more and more revealing, and spandex has been the go to outfits for a lot of females. It is so ingrained in society these days that to properly classify it as such would conflict with many generations of position. The world as accepted this level of display for years, but if you were to display this in a church, or among very conservative families, it would still be considered offensive and overtly sexual in its display. So generations of old, and and conservative types may consider this to be too much (those who say no, would you show this to the ladies in church? I would hope the answer is no, why? Because you know why.) Also note that Playboy, with many sessions being simply boobs and behinds was considered adult porn content not too long ago.

As for a public forum of this nature? For the sake of practicality, I am going to say that while I technically consider such things porn in terms of its basic definition and intent, it is something that being a stickler on will likely get confusing looks when at the same time you allow certain content to be discussed in vulgar manners.

The best approach would be a layered one that does not pin it on the technical definition of porn, but draws the line at clothed and no obvious sexual positioning (ie waiting to get railed in obvious manners that sets the scenario not, simply inferred by basic body positioning). That would be relatively safe to work environments (though I would suggest that these days, anything can get you in trouble so it is view at your own risk).

As for allowed within NSFW, I personally prefer clothed, and can tolerate provocation as long as it isn't obvious to the point of absurdity, but I don't find myself browsing those forums anyway, so honestly I won't see it. So, house rules I guess.

[Lancaster]

So, does this ultimately boil down to "should there be more censorship on this free speech site or less"?
Or rater, "should it be restricted to the NSFW topics or be completely banned to appease the trads"?

I guess it's where you choose to engage on this site. I don't want to be looking for, or submitting mods in a section full of "hot girls in your area want to fuck you" pop-ups. Personally, I think the sexual content in BG3 should've taken a backseat to better content we could've potentially had.

[aweigh]

I've never actually seen any porn on this website except for the stuff on the NSFW BG3 mods.

Don't know what threads you people are looking at, tbh.

[Kalarion]

I agree that the meaning is specific and should be preserved. I disagree only with the definition you've settled on.

I'm still confused why you consider vore to be porn, since cannibalism isn't normally a sexual act. If the difference lies in it's intention of generating sexual feelings, then surely A B and D fall into this category as well.

I missed this earlier, I'm sorry. I consider vore to be porn because it is an act intended to sexually stimulate the participants. Hence why I called it a depraved sexual act. Since it is a sexual act, depiction of it for titillation is porn.

And you don't think posing topless for an only fans account is "an act intended to sexually stimulate the participants" ?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I've had enough of that, its just what you're saying doesn't make sense to me.

I want to be sure we both understand how I'm using these terms.

When I said, "the participants", in the above quote and elsewhere, I was referring to the person or people participating directly in the act. When I'm talking about the people who view pornographic material for proximate (word?) sexual stimulation, I usually call them spectators, consumers (conSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMERS!), etc.

I do think posing topless for an only fans account is an act intended to sexually stimulate the spectators. I just don't think it's pornography per se, because no sexual act is taking place. It's in the same superset as pornography, but it's its own thing (prurient immodesty perhaps).

[A Chinese opium den]

"I know it when I see it" also applies to people lustily posting images just to goon to and an alternative post where the same image is fine in different context, its all about intent. This whole argument has gotten very gay and semantic, so there should just be some form of rng based arbitration to end it, rolling dice for the highest number would decide who is actually correct and god will give the better man better rolls.

[Acrux]

A is indecent, but not pornographic.
B is "informally" pornographic for the purposes of this board
C is prurient, but not pornographic
D is just bad art

[orinEsque]

A & B

[Slavic Sorcerer]

Coomers vs HolierThanThour Larpers: The thread

Idk what happened to Wretch but he'd have a field day here

Let's make it simple and ban posting photos of women
Unless you're working on a model/icon for a mod.

[Segata]

The rule wording was updated. Waiting now for another multipage debate on what constitutes hardcore pornography.

[rusty_shackleford]

The rule wording was updated. Waiting now for another multipage debate on what constitutes hardcore pornography.

I know it when I see it.

[Anon]

I don't get why not just allow everything that isn't against US law already. Wasn't the point to promote liberalism to own the chuds? Then do it properly.

[Xenich]

Here is a tech solution.

I am not sure what levels of customization this forum has (though I do know custom tags are possible generally), but another solution is to create a "nudity" image tag to satisfy the questionable opinions (if it has nudity, the poster flags it as such), or one that has a flag option built into it, then when people post an image as such, it can be used. Members could specify in their profile a toggle for this tag/flag which would remove any chance of seeing it on the forum (ie the content would hidden to all without it being selected in the profile).

This level of granular configuration would also allow for a default set to non-members as never seeing it unless they were signed up and toggled on the setting. I assume non-members are restricted from posting images entirely? So that solves any outside issues.



So, it would be something like this as example:
An icon could be added to the text editor as well making it much easier to use.

Code: Select all

[nude] url [/nude]

If I had the option turned off in settings, those specific tags would never show on the site to me, and non-members also would never see them.

This is a possible compromise for the arguments that center around simple nude vs non-nude. It would still require the honesty of the poster to use that tag, but that one is easier to control. So, those who think general nudity is acceptable simply use nude tags when they display content, and nobody sees it that didn't want to see it.

Just a thought and as I said, very easy to implement code wise.