egafd.com

No because erotic art is not designed for you to masturbate over. Art is designed to captivate the imagination.

When all those nudes were painted on the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel (spelling?) I very much doubt they were intended for people to lob their cocks out and have a wank. Or do you think Da Vincis work was porn?

all very confusing - i'm with you there

but isn't there a case for ignoring he context of what something was originally done in for the sake of the finished result - in the way some things start out as a joke and become something more serious. Is there a case for porn transforming into something else as its created?







``````````

I would just like to add my tuppence worth here, doesn?t rocco thrive on the reaction of the girl he is shooting/working with, be it a big no no .... or a massive yes yes, the question of the hannah coleman scene has long been discussed here, we can all judge frrom that, but as mentioned before is that a major selling point or a major draw back, and when, truthfully did morale judgment come into the world of porn ... dibble, one eyed jack, ben dover, john mason???
c

IMHO porn will always be porn. Standards of acceptability continue to change. Anal sex was illegal in Britain until the early 90's even between man and wife. In fact as a young Legal Executive I recall doing a divorce case where the husband had been arrested for buggering his wife(with her consent....I mean the buggery was consensual not the arrest) she later went to the police after a family row and told them he had been bumming her. The police promptly swooped and took away the bed sheets for forensics and the guy went to prison. These days years later the police would say "so what pet? bum sex is not a crime unless you dont agree". I reckon what seemed extreme a few years ago will be routine in future. As we have seen the once risque activity of botty-sex become routine in porn I imagine other things such as ATM or watersports will be old hat in a few years. What then? I dont know. Perhaps choking and making the girl vomit before giving her a good hiding with a big club and then pissing in her hot water bottle will float the boats of porn viewers in the year 2525(if man is still alive)

Kenneth Clarke in his famous book 'The Nude' wrote
'...it is necessary to labor the obvious and say that no nude, no matter how abstract, should fail to arose in the spectator some vestige of erotic feeling'

arose=arouse?

I think he was saying a painting ,'erotic art', should fail if it didn't arouse erotically the spectator


don't know how useful this article is

Dibble would never presume to pass moral judgment in matters of sexuality, except to say that whatever consenting adults get up to is there own dam business.

However, I wouldn't be so reticent about passing aesthetic judgment on Rocco type material by saying that it's boring, pointless, pretentious, distasteful shite, and to ask of anyone who digs it, why do you like it? Is it because extreme gutter sex and misogyny really turns you on? - In which case it would be fascinating to probe your psyche and pick over those wonderful denials and self-justifications. Or are you just kidding yourself that you like it to appear cool to fellow fuck fans? ? ?Hey, I've got the latest Rocco movie. I'm so 'happening.'?

Dibble.