Babe and hunk threads - what are they?

[Japanrocks12]

After thinking about it, I have decided that you wanted to rant about Victorians for some reason, so you picked my post on a completely different topic to subject that to. To reiterate, I haven't said anything about who art or who porn is for (you filled that in for me), just that one word connotes something artistic and the other doesn't..

 

[innonimatu]

After thinking about it, I have decided that you wanted to rant about Victorians for some reason, so you picked my post on a completely different topic to subject that to. To reiterate, I haven't said anything about who art or who porn is for (you filled that in for me), just that one word connotes something artistic and the other doesn't..

You can't understand social customs if you don't understand their history. But have it your way, whatever makes you comfortable.

 

[aronnax]

It's not porn. I read it for the articles.

 

[Tycho Brahe]

Soft porn.

...wich is a kind of porn, I guess.

Soft porn is (supposed to be) titillating and yet stay within certain borders. Such as no show of nipples.

You could also call it glamour or erotica.

 

[classical_hero]

So then by the standard of some people here, just going to the beach is like watching porn. I could go into town on any given day and see scantily clad women and often girls, so does that mean I am watching porn by doing that? I do wish that the girls dress more appropriately when in town, but they don't, so it is not my fault they wear provocative clothes.

If you look at the many pictures that are in those threads, most of them are not all that skimpy and often you do see see women in full clothes and is a glamorous setting. I don't see why finding pictures of people who you find attractive is wrong.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Your argument assumes that watching porn is wrong, something which is not actually the case.

 

[classical_hero]

Well my argument is that the definition of scantily clad women is porn. There is a better definition.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Well my argument is that the definition of scantily clad women is porn. There is a better definition.

Yeah, that definition sort of sucks, but I was addressing the way you argued against it. First, you said that it's ridiculous to suggest that observing skimpily-dressed girls in real life is akin to watching porn, then you suddenly start talking about whether or not looking at pictures of attractive women is wrong. To you, watching porn and watching wrong things are equivalent, an assumption that many people in this thread are not likely to accept. So I pointed it out to you.

 

[holy king]

if you watch your neighbours having sex through the window you're not watching hardcore porn, you're watching your neighbours having sex.

likewise if you watch a woman in a bikini on the beach you're not watching softcore porn, you're watching a woman in a bikini on the beach.

pornography is the depiction of sexually arousing input, be it video, photography, literature, etc.

i'm not sure how you got confused about the difference between depictions and reality, classical hero.

 

[Truthy]

Not porn but depends on the viewer.

 

[azzaman333]

Not necessarily porn, but intended to arouse.

 

[Dachs]

They're all just meaningless forum games. IMO the "babe thread" and variations thereof, due to being so common throughout various forums, is just another example of that phenomenon. Not porn, just postcount padding and idle chit-chat.

You are aware that none of them actually contribute to your postcount, right?

 

[Traitorfish]

Erotica has literary or artistic merit, porn doesn't

Are you saying that the fact of being porn negates artistic merit, or that porn is defined as erotic content with no artistic merit? Because even setting aside the fact that "artistic merit" is rather subjective, you're not making yourself very clear.

Anyway, I'm with Innonimatu with this one. The delineation between "not porn" and "porn" is essentially the delineation between erotic material which it is and is not publicly acceptable to identify as consuming, at least in polite company, which is by definition a socially constructed distinction. (He's also quite right to point to the influence of class identity in the traditional drawing of these boundaries, much as some here would rather deny it.)
I mean, put it this way: a lot of softcore photography involves a series of images of the subject getting gradually undressed, yes? And if you posted the earlier images from a series in a Babe or Hunk thread, then people may not identify it as porn. But if you posted one of the later, explicit shots (assuming it got that far), they would. So at what point does it translate from merely being a sexy picture to being pornographic?

 

[Japanrocks12]

Are you saying that the fact of being porn negates artistic merit, or that porn is defined as erotic content with no artistic merit? Because even setting aside the fact that "artistic merit" is rather subjective, you're not making yourself very clear.

No, I'm saying that nothing has artistic merit to begin with, so by being porn, no artistic merit is contributed. By being erotica, some artistic merit might be contributed, or might just be kitschy and tacky erotica (in which case it would possess no such merit).

EDIT: The delineation of porn v not porn is as simple as "sexual acts intended mainly to arouse" v "not sexual acts intended mainly to arouse" (could be unarousing sexual acts or arousing nonsexual acts or unarousing nonsexual acts)

 

[Traitorfish]

No, I'm saying that nothing has artistic merit to begin with, so by being porn, no artistic merit is contributed. By being erotica, some artistic merit might be contributed, or might just be kitschy and tacky erotica (in which case it would possess no such merit).

So it's the latter? I'm afraid that you're still not making yourself very clear.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Okay, so since my posts have been bizarrely baffling for many people here's the breakdown

Porn = sexual acts intended to arouse (both criteria "sexual acts" and "intended to arouse" must be met, failing one, it is not porn)

Erotica = depiction of sexual acts with potential artistic merit (only one criteria has to be met, it has to be a depiction of a sexual act)

They are different. My definition might have been formalized by Victorian privilege-deniers, but my conclusion was reached independently of them. And I'll just as readily as you deny that porn is for "common people," everyone across society enjoys it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Okay, so since my posts have been bizarrely baffling for many people here's the breakdown

Porn = sexual acts intended to arouse (both criteria "sexual acts" and "intended to arouse" must be met, failing one, it is not porn)

Erotica = depiction of sexual acts with potential artistic merit (only one criteria has to be met, it has to be a depiction of a sexual act)

They are different. My definition might have been formalized by Victorian privilege-deniers, but my conclusion was reached independently of them. And I'll just as readily as you deny that porn is for "common people," everyone across society enjoys it.

I have a few problems with this:
Firstly, on a purely semantic level, it seems awfully limiting to talk in terms of only depictions of sexual acts, not least because I'm not entirely sure where an objective line between hardcore and softcore is actually drawn.
Secondly, I wonder why you assume that an attempt to arouse must preclude artistic merit? Is it not possible to, on a very basic level, shoot a pornographic film with attention to cinematography, composition, or what have you? That most porn is very poor on these levels is a comment on the nature of the industry, not an essential characteristic.
Thirdly, why is it assumed that an intention to arouse cannot be of artistic merit in itself? We would accept an attempt to shock, to move, or to amuse is a legitimate avenue of artistic expression, so why not to arouse? I would have hoped that we had, as a society, reached the point where we no longer had to regard sexuality as something "base" and non-emotional.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Well, you would consider petting and making out fairly softcore, but none of that happens in the HUNK or babe threads.

I will accept that something can be artistically /intended/ to arouse, but I can't think of any one thing that fits that bill. Almost everything that I can think of includes either hot sex or just regular sex and aethetically-pleasing elements. So I'll concede that point to you. I don't think that a well-shot (heh) pornographic film fits this bill, however, since any of those elements will have been jumped on by critics who then completely ignore the pornographic side of the movie. It wouldn't be known as a pornographic film to most people, in other words.

 

[_random_]

If you could do it in public without being arrested, it's not porn.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, you would consider petting and making out fairly softcore, but none of that happens in the HUNK or babe threads.

Well, I really just meant nude or partially nude pictures (the jury being, as this thread evidences, on non-nude/nude-but-covered images constitute even softcore porn). That sort of thing is not, strictly speaking, intrinsically sexual, but most of it would probably be identified as "porn" by most people.

I will accept that something can be artistically /intended/ to arouse, but I can't think of any one thing that fits that bill. Almost everything that I can think of includes either hot sex or just regular sex and aethetically-pleasing elements. So I'll concede that point to you. I don't think that a well-shot (heh) pornographic film fits this bill, however, since any of those elements will have been jumped on by critics who then completely ignore the pornographic side of the movie. It wouldn't be known as a pornographic film to most people, in other words.

Not officially, but you can be damn sure that people would be paying attention to that. Seven Samurai, if you'll an analogy that some would likely consider blasphemous , is an excellent work of film, yes, but it also involves samurai running around with swords being generally badass, and there's nothing to stop a person enjoying it on both levels. All the insistence on dealing with only the "pure" artistic elements of a work just reflect people's pretensions, there's nothing really objective about.