egafd.com

Ok....

This is bound to get things really hostile.

It's a dicussion on Pornography vs. X vs. Erotica.

I maintain that Pornography in it's purest form doesn't have to be about Sex. It simply has to be offensive or shocking to the norms of a large and identifiable group of people.

I also maintain that it has a necessary role in our society. Much like the purpose of press is to report on those in power and keep them in check with the commoner. Porn's purpose is to suit no other function then to slap society in the face and cause it to question it's position on tabou subjects.

To this extent sites like Orgish.com demonstrate the reality of life, in all of it's ugliness, that not even most news agencies are willing to publish. Porn goes where others dare not and for only the reason of making profit. Therefore, Voltaire's "Canadid", in it's time, was just as pornographic as the Marilynn Chambers movie, "Behind the Green door"."

But to be blunt it does not need to involve anything of a sexual nature, it's movtive is gain money via the vehicle of distastfulness and public angst.

On the other hand...
X is only sex acts performed for public viewing for profit. It has more in common with prostitution than pure pornography. Although considered tabou or crass by many, it has gained a level of tolerance in most societies. Perhaps the only place it remains pornographic is in puritan cultures like the middle east or china.

Finally Erotica...

Well that's your Loaded magazine, commercials with woman in a bikini selling cars, etc. It titilates the viewer and gives them a false sense of belief that might be able to engage in some sort of sexual activity. that sex with either the model displayed or to be like the model and gain sex with someone of equal calibre.

It's vehicle to gain profit is by the intended reciever's acations to emulate what they have viewed. Either by purchasing the car that had the scant clad woman on it or the record Britany Spears only wears a thong on the DVD cover. ?t preys on false hopes and human desires to gain adoration and respect from others.

Pretty much in agreement Kelly. The term 'pornography' tends to be associated with sex but it can equally apply to any material which is seen to have the potential to 'deprave' or 'corrupt', and which challenges consensual views and taboos. I don't think that porn necessarily has to have a profit motive because the motive may just be pure and simple to 'stir things up', be an agent provocateur or there may be a political motive.

X - no argument there.

Erotica - I think there's a commercial end of erotica and using sex to shift product. It's either artless and fairly obvious or it can be more sophisticated and artful. I was reading recently about the fashion photography of Helmut Newton and Guy Bourdin, both of which could be described as erotica. This is sophisticated but on the other hand was also commisioned by Vogue magazine so it was also clearly commercial too. If it's not selling the product in an overt way it's creating associations with the product in more subtle ways.

Jonone wrote:

> Pretty much in agreement Kelly. The term 'pornography' tends to
> be associated with sex but it can equally apply to any material
> which is seen to have the potential to 'deprave' or 'corrupt',
> and which challenges consensual views and taboos. I don't
> think that porn necessarily has to have a profit motive because
> the motive may just be pure and simple to 'stir things up', be
> an agent provocateur or there may be a political motive.
>
> X - no argument there.
>
> Erotica - I think there's a commercial end of erotica and using
> sex to shift product. It's either artless and fairly obvious or
> it can be more sophisticated and artful. I was reading recently
> about the fashion photography of Helmut Newton and Guy Bourdin,
> both of which could be described as erotica. This is
> sophisticated but on the other hand was also commisioned by
> Vogue magazine so it was also clearly commercial too. If it's
> not selling the product in an overt way it's creating
> associations with the product in more subtle ways.

How about we lously use the french meaning for profit. IE: Simply someone who derives some sort of enjoyment or satisfaction as a result of their actions.

Ok...
I personally like being a pornographer instead of a creator of X material. Ultimately the money is much much better and I don't have to worry about someone's private parts to make a living.

But there is a bit more to it than that.....

In a weird way I also see it as a means to break down the "heard mentality" of humanbeings.

For example, the beheadings of people in Iraq.

The videos keep coming but seldom is any of it being displayed these days. And they are kept off the tele for no better reason than it's shocking. This is the reality of life and it needs to be shown.

The public needs to be hit frequently with pure porn so that they finally start to question the issues and look beyond the ideas of: "We good guys and they be bad guys." Or "Oh that's not how people should behave."

Adding further to that, I say that only someone that is a royal shit disturber or a bugger, looking only for money, can accomplish this. Hate to say it, sometimes a person that doesn't play by the rules can actually be doing some good in this world. (Kind of like Ghandi. As I recall he was a shit disturber)

"The public needs to be hit frequently with pure porn"

Isn't this happening more and more? I refer to the likes of Jenna Jameson and Silvia Saint who have shifted from the adult business into mainstream media. Both of them appear in middle shelf magazines, I bought Jenna's, excellent, biography in a local branch of Waterstones, Silvia Saint recently shot a session for a rock band's album cover and I understand that Jenna Jameson appears in an advertising campaign for a huge sportswear brand. Examples of porn stars, NOT glamour models but proper porn stars slap bang in the mainstream.

Years ago and i can remember it copies of the book Lady Chatterlys Lover were siezed and burnt by the police on order of the courts because they were deemed to be pornographic, these days you will see more graphic material in most daily newspapers so if trends keep moving in the same direction then what is seen as extreme porn today will be softporn tomorrow.

Plus if I'm not mistaken that the lovely Ms Jameson is the only porn star to have a large billboard advert displayed in Times Square, New York!

Arguably there is such a thing as selfless behaviour and Ghandi and Jesus etc were doing it for others. There doesn't have to be a self interested profit motive.

I think there have to be standards in terms of what is 'decent' and 'indecent' and what is debatable is where those lines are drawn. Maybe we are a little over protected and over sensitive in this respect, but if broadcasting etc was too permissive you'd end up desensitized and blase about things that are truly shocking. I think if you were to present people with a pretty continuous stream of horrifying footage (and it wouldn't be difficult), the only way to cope with that is to become desensitized to it. Personally I wouldn't see that as progressive.

Jonone wrote:

> Arguably there is such a thing as selfless behaviour and Ghandi
> and Jesus etc were doing it for others. There doesn't have to
> be a self interested profit motive.
>
> I think there have to be standards in terms of what is 'decent'
> and 'indecent' and what is debatable is where those lines are
> drawn. Maybe we are a little over protected and over sensitive
> in this respect, but if broadcasting etc was too permissive
> you'd end up desensitized and blase about things that are truly
> shocking. I think if you were to present people with a pretty
> continuous stream of horrifying footage (and it wouldn't be
> difficult), the only way to cope with that is to become
> desensitized to it. Personally I wouldn't see that as
> progressive.

You know everyday I pass a sign that tells me "Pirated DVDs support terrorists." It doesn't, it supports the immigrant guy that is piled 5 persons deep in a little one room flat.

That is propoganda and personally I find it an insult to humanity and a slap in the face to G-d. It's even more of a double slap because the majority of people read it and don't even question it.

This stuff, an obvious lie, used by peope in power to control the minds of the masses. But if I manufature a product that shows something classified as obscene, I can be charged as a criminal.

My product isn't trying to "brain wash" or "desensitize" anyone. In fact unlike the public notice sign, my product has to be actively sought out. IE: I don't place it where someone can NOT avoid seeing it.

I'm sorry but I'm going to differ with you.

The call for rules and restrictions are just to maintain censorship. In a truely free society, the public has the right to access of media. Regardless of what that media may depict.
----
Oh and Brerbear,
The ideals of what a "True pornographer is" IS something I STRIVE FOR. But I notice you have the freedom of speech to voice your opinions about someone else and I do not on this forum.

Jayr wrote:

> Plus if I'm not mistaken that the lovely Ms Jameson is the only
> porn star to have a large billboard advert displayed in Times
> Square, New York!

You know I wouldn't call Jenna Jameson, Tera Patrick, Ron Jeremy and espeially not myself, porn stars. Porn stopped being porn the moment it became acceptable by the general public.

They are the stars of X entertainment. There is NOTHING offensive in what they do. Believe it or not, Howard Stern is more offensive and in your face. He doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything and calls it like he sees it.

It's funny but perhaps we can classify Howard as a pornographer. But Bud Lee and Paul Thomas are not.