Vintage Erotica Forums - View Single Post

**howerd** · May 18th, 2016, 02:52 AM

Porn is one of those things that is difficult to define.

> Sometimes yes.

"Now we regard it as pictures or film of people engaged in actual sexual activity usually with one or more other people."

> Or just a naked person if it's soft porn.

"But not so long ago, well within living memory and for a lot of our favourite vintage erotica stars, straight forward pubic hair was considered 'porn' and as for held open labia, vibrators, BJs and penetration...well they were just a complete no no."

> Yes yes.

"So how did they stop being porn and start being acceptable erotica ?"

> I don't think they did. I regard 'porn' as stuff you wouldn't want children to get their hands on but 'pornography' as out & out obscene images e.g. ISIS beheadings etc. Sex or sexual imagery isn't 'wrong' as such but seeing people die is obscene because there's an unhealthy voyeurism to it. Having said that there is a degree of degrading & / down right nasty sexual stuff which I've never really got my head around but I guess certain people get off on it for some psychological reason I can't fathom.

"Anyway who says porn or erotica is not art?"

> It's subjective I guess. I'd say erotica is an attempt to be aesthetically valid & erotic in roughly equal measure. Porn is merely for sexual titillation alone & makes no attempt to be as much or more about aesthetics.

"Most people would accept that striptease is erotic but the Victorians venerated the human nude despite apparently being straitlaced and if you go to the V&A Museum in London in a small corner you will find a beautiful statue of a nude girl removing her stockings in a provocative manner."

> Yeah well it depends on the exact examples but I'd call the striptease 'titillation' rather than 'erotica' (unless it had equal or more emphasis on aesthetics) but the statue possibly erotic art but I'd have to see it to judge that.

"This statue once stood in Queen Victoria's dining room ! So Vicky had a stripper to dinner!"

> L.O.L. maybe - or maybe it's just your dirty mind you rascal!

'In practice porn can only be described as what the bulk of the people regard as unpleasant and unacceptable.'

> I think the term may have changed usage since the age of the internet. Porn is an incredibly common place thing but nowadays most people aren't terribly hot under the collar about it as they were in say the 70s when it was usually soft core & far less amenable. This was really an age of fears through institutions such as religions which capitalize on making natural sexual impulses be equated with 'original sin'. My theory here is religions drummed the idea into young minds that they are made 'damaged' i.e. sinful (without going into details why really - we all know the Adam & Eve & the apple nonsense is just a daft myth now) however when children get older & wiser they are likely to reject this stuff but then WHAM! The hormones kick in & the urges which come with them are associated as wicked 'original sin' rather than good. Religion is so screwed up. It has a lot to answer for! Anyway it's clearly dying away & we are living in a far less neurotic age as a result & the internet has enabled this to happen.

"So paedophilia is always going to be wrong (or certainly should be) although some religions and cultures regard it as ok."

> Yes or OK as long as it isn't discovered! I don't know if you've seen the excellent 'Searchlight' Oscar winning movie recently but it is a true life expose of the Catholic Church bending over backwards to cover up & deny the immense amount of child abuse within the institution. The problem is the church has so much trust that if you're a kiddy fiddler it become the first port of call for perverts who want to an environment where they can get access to children without too many obstacles. The Church went to great lengths to protect the perpetrators rather than the victims therefore compounding the problem massively. How anyone can regard them as a force for good in the world rather that a cancer escapes me! I guess the ISIS stuff is worse still but looking back on the history of Christianity it's pretty much as bad as Islam when you look back over history. A pox on both their houses!!

"But basically it comes down to what most people feel is OK and that is a moveable feast."

> Yeah even homosexuality is at last becoming less of an issue today & lets face it - anything two consenting adults want to do is their business isn't it? Of course most religions make out that being prejudiced against such people is only right when in truth it's as indefensible as racism. They'll never learn because their moral compass is totally backward. If only they concentrated on stopping kiddy fiddlers instead!

"Personally I welcome the liberalisation of laws and understanding. I well remember poring over the grainy black and white nudes of Parade and Carnival and later Mayfair and Men Only hoping to catch a glimpse of hair."

> So do I!

"I never thought that one day i would be able to watch and speak to lovely nude girls masturbating for me on webcams, but it is a delight to be able to do so in privacy."

> Yeah each to their own. I don't really find that too inspiring a lot of the time. I'm not saying it's intrinsically 'wrong', it's not, but it's kind of sad that so many women get into that because there's not enough income for them. But it's their bodies so they can do what they like with them if they aren't under duress. If you had a daughter would you be OK with her whacking off on camera as her only available way to make a living? I wouldn't.

"As for what is art, better people than me have tried to define it and I think anything can be art if someone says it is."

> Art is made for it's aesthetic value however if you were to judge what percentage of the value is it can vary wildly from person to person. Maybe with fMRI brain scanning technology we will even be able to examine the parts of the brain which 'light up' when aesthetics are appreciated & sexual arousal is triggered too so we could actually begin to measure who receives what in numerical terms. Films might be advertised as having an average 77% aesthetic value & 69% erotic value etc...

"SO where does this leave us ? Personally I think the art or porn question is outdated, it's all art."

> I'd say that's an over simplification. Art offers more than just titillation -aesthetics of some sort or another however what that is is often hard to agree on. that doesn't mean it isn't there in truth rather than only in the eye of the beholder. Maybe two truths can co-exist at the same time sometimes.

"But as far as I'm concerned so long as the adult human body and sexual activity is portrayed with consent of viewer and performer then almost anything goes."

> Yes but just because someone consents doesn't always mean their consent isn't a reluctant one does it?

"But you should be able to opt into it not have it displayed to anyone without restraint."

> Sure.

May 18th, 2016, 02:52 AM	#7
howerd Vintage Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: UK Posts: 1,731 Thanks: 2,663 Thanked 19,953 Times in 1,685 Posts	My opinion Porn is one of those things that is difficult to define. > Sometimes yes. "Now we regard it as pictures or film of people engaged in actual sexual activity usually with one or more other people." > Or just a naked person if it's soft porn. "But not so long ago, well within living memory and for a lot of our favourite vintage erotica stars, straight forward pubic hair was considered 'porn' and as for held open labia, vibrators, BJs and penetration...well they were just a complete no no." > Yes yes. "So how did they stop being porn and start being acceptable erotica ?" > I don't think they did. I regard 'porn' as stuff you wouldn't want children to get their hands on but 'pornography' as out & out obscene images e.g. ISIS beheadings etc. Sex or sexual imagery isn't 'wrong' as such but seeing people die is obscene because there's an unhealthy voyeurism to it. Having said that there is a degree of degrading & / down right nasty sexual stuff which I've never really got my head around but I guess certain people get off on it for some psychological reason I can't fathom. "Anyway who says porn or erotica is not art?" > It's subjective I guess. I'd say erotica is an attempt to be aesthetically valid & erotic in roughly equal measure. Porn is merely for sexual titillation alone & makes no attempt to be as much or more about aesthetics. "Most people would accept that striptease is erotic but the Victorians venerated the human nude despite apparently being straitlaced and if you go to the V&A Museum in London in a small corner you will find a beautiful statue of a nude girl removing her stockings in a provocative manner." > Yeah well it depends on the exact examples but I'd call the striptease 'titillation' rather than 'erotica' (unless it had equal or more emphasis on aesthetics) but the statue possibly erotic art but I'd have to see it to judge that. "This statue once stood in Queen Victoria's dining room ! So Vicky had a stripper to dinner!" > L.O.L. maybe - or maybe it's just your dirty mind you rascal! 'In practice porn can only be described as what the bulk of the people regard as unpleasant and unacceptable.' > I think the term may have changed usage since the age of the internet. Porn is an incredibly common place thing but nowadays most people aren't terribly hot under the collar about it as they were in say the 70s when it was usually soft core & far less amenable. This was really an age of fears through institutions such as religions which capitalize on making natural sexual impulses be equated with 'original sin'. My theory here is religions drummed the idea into young minds that they are made 'damaged' i.e. sinful (without going into details why really - we all know the Adam & Eve & the apple nonsense is just a daft myth now) however when children get older & wiser they are likely to reject this stuff but then WHAM! The hormones kick in & the urges which come with them are associated as wicked 'original sin' rather than good. Religion is so screwed up. It has a lot to answer for! Anyway it's clearly dying away & we are living in a far less neurotic age as a result & the internet has enabled this to happen. "So paedophilia is always going to be wrong (or certainly should be) although some religions and cultures regard it as ok." > Yes or OK as long as it isn't discovered! I don't know if you've seen the excellent 'Searchlight' Oscar winning movie recently but it is a true life expose of the Catholic Church bending over backwards to cover up & deny the immense amount of child abuse within the institution. The problem is the church has so much trust that if you're a kiddy fiddler it become the first port of call for perverts who want to an environment where they can get access to children without too many obstacles. The Church went to great lengths to protect the perpetrators rather than the victims therefore compounding the problem massively. How anyone can regard them as a force for good in the world rather that a cancer escapes me! I guess the ISIS stuff is worse still but looking back on the history of Christianity it's pretty much as bad as Islam when you look back over history. A pox on both their houses!! "But basically it comes down to what most people feel is OK and that is a moveable feast." > Yeah even homosexuality is at last becoming less of an issue today & lets face it - anything two consenting adults want to do is their business isn't it? Of course most religions make out that being prejudiced against such people is only right when in truth it's as indefensible as racism. They'll never learn because their moral compass is totally backward. If only they concentrated on stopping kiddy fiddlers instead! "Personally I welcome the liberalisation of laws and understanding. I well remember poring over the grainy black and white nudes of Parade and Carnival and later Mayfair and Men Only hoping to catch a glimpse of hair." > So do I! "I never thought that one day i would be able to watch and speak to lovely nude girls masturbating for me on webcams, but it is a delight to be able to do so in privacy." > Yeah each to their own. I don't really find that too inspiring a lot of the time. I'm not saying it's intrinsically 'wrong', it's not, but it's kind of sad that so many women get into that because there's not enough income for them. But it's their bodies so they can do what they like with them if they aren't under duress. If you had a daughter would you be OK with her whacking off on camera as her only available way to make a living? I wouldn't. "As for what is art, better people than me have tried to define it and I think anything can be art if someone says it is." > Art is made for it's aesthetic value however if you were to judge what percentage of the value is it can vary wildly from person to person. Maybe with fMRI brain scanning technology we will even be able to examine the parts of the brain which 'light up' when aesthetics are appreciated & sexual arousal is triggered too so we could actually begin to measure who receives what in numerical terms. Films might be advertised as having an average 77% aesthetic value & 69% erotic value etc... "SO where does this leave us ? Personally I think the art or porn question is outdated, it's all art." > I'd say that's an over simplification. Art offers more than just titillation -aesthetics of some sort or another however what that is is often hard to agree on. that doesn't mean it isn't there in truth rather than only in the eye of the beholder. Maybe two truths can co-exist at the same time sometimes. "But as far as I'm concerned so long as the adult human body and sexual activity is portrayed with consent of viewer and performer then almost anything goes." > Yes but just because someone consents doesn't always mean their consent isn't a reluctant one does it? "But you should be able to opt into it not have it displayed to anyone without restraint." > Sure.