Full Frontal Nudity

[Garbarsardar]

I would like to initiate a discussion about the relative ethics and mores of our society. It is usually the case where nudity is automatically perceived as potencially damaging especially to underaged persons. I would like to ask you which of the following pictures you think that an underaged person should not be exposed to, and why.

Second, is contextual interpretation the supreme rule here or there are boundaries not to be crossed? If yes who set those boundaries and how often do they change?

The first picture is from Michelangelo Buonarroti, the second a random choice from the babes thread.





As per the posting of those pictures here please see also: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25673

[Gaius Baltar]

I would like to initiate a discussion about the relative ethics and mores of our society. It is usually the case where nudity is automatically perceived as potencially damaging especially to underaged persons. I would like to ask you which of the following pictures you think that an underaged person should not be exposed to, and why.

Second, is contextual interpretation the supreme rule here or there are boundaries not to be crossed? If yes who set those boundaries and how often do they change?

The first picture is from Michelangelo Buonarroti,

In this case, the full frontal nudity refers to the penis prominantly displayed by the statue. Personally, I beleive the artist was commenting on the perfection of the human, male, body.

However, in terms of context, and the TOS, you cannot display a penis.

the second a random choice from the babes thread.

A young, female model, who while fully clothed, shows significant portions of "sensitive" areas, the buttocks, breasts and perhaps an outline of the vulva if you look closely. This picture is, in my view, acceptable within TOS guidelines.

It is unbalanced to show a classical "art" figure with a more modern photo of a bikini clad female. The reader might infer that the photo is not "art" and therefore not acceptable. On the other hand, the reader might be concerned about the homo-erotic possibilities of the nude male statue, and consider the female photograph as more "natural".

However, the bottom-line is what effect the content and context has on the reader. Graphical depictions of sex, sex-acts should be avoided within the context of this board. What you have presented is more fuzzy-margin material that can be interpreted several different ways. Neither, again in my view, cross any lines of morality.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Both of the above pictures are acceptable under the Terms of Service of this site.

However, in regards to which one kids should not be exposed to, it is quite obvious that it would be the second picture, as it is purely sexual, in the sense of encouraging sexual behavior.

The first picture, the statue, is hardly erotic or sexual in nature. Add to that the fact that it's just a statue with no sexual themes, while the second picture is a picture of an actual woman with a sexual theme.

[imb39]

Well, really this debate revolves around the question of 'where does an image stop being art and become porn?' Of course that is based upon the premise that there is a difference. As ever, Garb, the answer lies in our very culture. As we all have our own distinct cultures, the line between the porn and art is necessarily blurred.

Now, as this is an international forum, we need an accepted standard - so the 'American' model (no pun intended) is chosen (as the server resides in America). So, within the collective American culture, Michaelangelo's David is perfectly acceptable for most (though some would have problems with it), whilst other images are clearly not. This site also acts in loco parentis - we have to consider that this is a PG -13 site hence our somewhat draconian approach to both the Babes and the Hunks thread. Indeed, I was criticised for some of my own decisions, but culturally what men and women can display acceptably has always been different and you simply cannot compare them. Of course, I am well aware of hard core porn etc, that does not mean it should be accepted here, even vaguely. It is one of the worst 'crimes' that can be committed here - partly because it could get us into a one heck of a lot of trouble and, as moderators, we have responsibilities to the members and owners of TWC.

Sorry for having rambled. Not very coherent, but I'm sure people get the drift.

[Nihil]

When I first saw the thread title, I thought Garb's love of Monty Python was manifesting again:

Cut to two naked men.
Man: Full frontal nudity - never. What do you think, Barbara?
Barbara: Oh, no, no, no...unless it was artistically valid, of course.
Cut to a stockbroker.
Stockbroker: Full frontal nudity? Yes I'd do it, if it was valid. Or if the money was valid, and if it were a very small part.
Cut to art critic examining a nude painting.
CAPTION: 'AN ART CRITIC'
He sees the camera and starts guiltily.
Art Critic: Good evening. I'd like to talk to you tonight about the place of the nude in my bed ... um ... in the history of my bed ... of art, of art, I'm sorry. The place of the nude in the history of tart... call-girl... I'm sorry. I'll start again... Bum ... oh what a giveaway. The place of the nude in art. (a seductively dressed girl enters slinkily) Oh hello there father, er confessor, professor, your honour, your grace ...

Regarding the pictures, they are both very nice. One of them is an exquisite work of phenomenal artistic mastery and genius, the other a powerful and moving depiction of the awesome majesty and harmony of nature.

Are either of them harmful? Of course not. It is the loading of such imagery with irrelevant moralistic trappings that's harmful. It's easy to condition and rewire people's brains whatever way you like so that harmless things give them an instinctive shock, and it can take years and strong willpower to undo the damage, which begins to feel innate when it is anything but.

a random choice from the babes thread.

A random choice? Or Garb's favourite picture?

[Garbarsardar]

When I first saw the thread title, I thought Garb's love of Monty Python was manifesting again:
A random choice? Or Garb's favourite picture?

Yes and no...

[the Black Prince]

hmmm
a question then
the statue of david is clearly art, and had the photo of the woman been naked, that would have been porn i gather from above comments...

what then, if i post a print of a modern painting depicting the nude male form? is that art? or porn?
how about if i post one of the photographs from the collection of the well known nude art photographer Alexander Krivon? art, or porn?

it seems to me the answer is a contextual one...
to me, anyway, David, the painting, and the Krivon photo are all art, despite showing nudity and full frontal nudity because they merely picture the naked human form, which is not itself either erotic, nor pornographic...
a naked photo where the (wo)man is posing sexually, or attempting to arouse sexually feelings, or of course is engaged in sexual activity, would be pornographic...


i think the hardest one to categorise would be those instances of classical art that depict erect males...


one final point
anyone ever seen the film Velvet Goldmine?
in the UK, very much to my surprise, this film is only rated 15, despite showing full frontal nudity (of Ewan Mcgregor, who else? lol) frequent other nudity and having strong drugs and sexual overtones...

given that the film has been rated 15, does that mean posting a screencap of the film showing McGregor in all his glory is acceptable to young adults (i.e 15-18yrs old who would never normally be permitted to see that kind of stuff)?

[Garbarsardar]

You are very right tBP. While browsing for nudes to post on the topic, I came up with 3 pictures. The first was the final version of Perugino's St. Sebastian, the second a pencil scetch by Perugino without the loincloth and the third a photo imitating the painting (Mapplethorpe-style). I thought that I could not possibly post the photo, since all the "distance" that defines "respectable" art in people's minds was eliminated by the medium.

[the Black Prince]

for me, i think its not so medium thats defining so much as the context

the law, to some extent takes the same view.
a photograph of a fully frontal nude male could easily and without issue be found in a school library in a textbook on art, a photo of exactly the same model in a sexually explicit pose becomes porn...

likewise, i would hope a painting of two people engaging in a sexual act would not merely be shrugged off as art and allowed to be posted.

[Tom Paine]

That would depend. Say, a Picasso of such... would that be pornographic or art?

[Manji]

Medium, context and culture dictate what is acceptable and what isn't.
In Japan it's pretty common for young teens to read Ecchi manga while going about in the tube or bus while the same thing in Western Europe would raise some eyebrows (at the least).

An example of Ecchi Manga: http://mitouyou.canalblog.com/images/ecchi19.jpg

Definitions of art itself are very subjective: some people consider pornography art, others consider "erotic photography" art, etc; the line is usually draw by civil society in the end.

In the case of TWC I think it boils down to it's target audience. If the community is mostly composed of teenagers then I think it's a bad idea to let them post anything midly erotic because it will end up in a escalation of pictures more and more "explicit" but hey, that's up "to the man" to decide.

[The White Knight]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=63447

This topic made me ask questions about sexuality in its place within modern society. This forum is rated PG-13, and I'm fairly sure (:wink boys and girls younger than the named age will have sexual organs as well, and there is a very strong possibility that they won't disappear at that age too. So suddenly it becomes inappropriate to even see these organs on a picture? I mean ... we only have to look down while in the shower to see it so why the censure? (Note: I don't want to give the moderators a head-ache, I understand they have to follow the ToS).

This rant refering to "Posting or linking to images of the genital regions or fully-exposed breasts." in the General Forum Rules.

[Manji]

White Knight: I think the problem isn't that we don't known how our genitalia looks like or that seeing someone's genitalia is right or wrong but rather the problems that might come from allowing that; we all know how society shuns (and in some cases approves) said liberties.
Anyway, i'm not advocating either side of the question, just throwing my opinion to the table.

[Simetrical]

Society's norms might not always make sense to everyone. Sure, you could say that sex is perfectly natural and all, but naturalness by itself isn't a sound reason to avoid shunning something. Defecating is completely natural, and we all do it regularly (one hopes), but doing it in the middle of the street would still not be acceptable to most people (even if you picked it up afterward, in which case it would hardly be different from what dogs do all the time).

So, does it make sense in some kind of "natural law"-type sense? No, but then, pretty much nothing does. It's just a convention, and those that don't follow it are (to a greater or lesser extent) frowned upon and shunned. With respect to TWC, for instance, we have a lot of teenagers here, their parents are frequently prone to drop in without warning, and they probably won't want an embarrassing picture on their screen when that happens. Even if they want it, their parents may not, and we don't want the site blocked for lewd imagery. So we comply with the norm. The same goes for what a lot of other places and people do, and the same goes for all sorts of other norms.

given that the film has been rated 15, does that mean posting a screencap of the film showing McGregor in all his glory is acceptable to young adults (i.e 15-18yrs old who would never normally be permitted to see that kind of stuff)?

Not here. Such a film would be unlikely to get a PG-13 rating in the US (it's R, as it happens), and that's the theoretical limit that's generally cited. Really, TWC is a bit stricter than PG-13 in many ways.

[Lord Rahl]

David is to look at and admire the art. The woman in question in the provocative picture is there to get your dick hard. They obviously aren't the same.

[Manji]

David is to look at and admire the art. The woman in question in the provocative picture is there to get your dick hard. They obviously aren't the same.

Depends. If you are of the homosexual persuasion you might "get your dick hard" by looking at David....

[Tom Paine]

But that is not its purpose; it seems the matter at hand is intent, be it to titillate or otherwise.

[Lord Rahl]

With a penis that small, I highly doubt it. But seriously, if anyone thinks they are the same then you obviously don't have a sense of...sense.

[Manji]

Come on... are you such a bunch of tight asses that even a pun can't go by without the immediate counterattack being promptly launched?!?!

Back on topic, intent is indeed the key here; example:

[Tom Paine]

The latter has a specific "negative" intent (insofar as porn is negative) despite being simply a selection from the first part of that image, ie the whole artwork.