Erotic/Pornographic art/prints and illustrations [merged]

[botogames]

Please members...

Recently, we have seen posts with youth portrayed in the images...

Art, in a museum experience is way different vs being art on a porn site.

Children in Any image are not allowed. VEF rules are explicit. Children on a site like this is considered taboo.

And It's can be considered instant banning from the forum.

We get many reports from members each day; and we must react to them accordingly. Children are a high priority.

We ask you all to check, veiry that any image of youth portrayed in these images. No matter it's a shetch or art... children under the age of 18 cannot be posted.

We will remove the post, cite you an infraction or a banning from this forum if you violate the forum rule.

Thank you in advance for this understanding in this matter.

The Vintage Talk section moderators

[rondori]

Ok, here are some of my favorites thanks to original posters:

[potterstoke]

I have no wish to be banned and would not condone the photography of minors, however...

This thread is principally about art and one should not discriminate between art in a museum or gallery, and art from well known erotic artists that appear on the web, irrespective of whether this site is considered a porn site.

I believe most of those following this thread share an interest in the artistic diversity on show and so like me would accept that for time immemorial all ages have been depicted in all manners of erotic activity. One only has to consider novels such as Lolita to understand that age does not define a person and that maturity (sexual or otherwise) is not governed by a number.

How can one ever be absolutely certain that an image, or even a photo, is not truly depicting a person who is 'a minor'? Lipstick, make-up, hair-style, even size, is no judge of such matters.

I am purely interested in erotic art in many forms. If I find an image not to my liking I do not complain, but simply pass on. I would like to think that is what most responsible adults following this thread would do.

Naturally, I understand the moderators point of view but I still feel saddened by the discriminatory agenda we seemed to be endorsing. I'd like to believe art is art, whatever it is illustrating.

[milroy]

i couldnt agree more with the sentiment expressed by potterstoke

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by potterstoke

How can one ever be absolutely certain that an image, or even a photo, is not truly depicting a person who is 'a minor'? Lipstick, make-up, hair-style, even size, is no judge of such matters.

I am purely interested in erotic art in many forms. If I find an image not to my liking I do not complain, but simply pass on. I would like to think that is what most responsible adults following this thread would do.

Naturally, I understand the moderators point of view but I still feel saddened by the discriminatory agenda we seemed to be endorsing. I'd like to believe art is art, whatever it is illustrating.

It is . . . but we live in a world where some themes are sufficiently controversial that they should be given a very wide berth, particularly if other material has adult content. So the historic Coppertone ad would be dicey here, even though it was fine for highway billboards in 1970.

Just what the sensitive issues may be has specific historical and political context: here we have a print from the French Revolutionary period "A 'femme de condition' [I think means noble in this context] whipped for having spit on a portrait of Necker"



Keeping with the French Revolutionary theme . . . here's a remarkable drawing of Marie Antoinette and Lafayette (Marie Antoinette was frequently represented as slut by the revolutionaries . . . and Lafayette was a celebrated ladies' man, though whether he had any relation with Marie is doubtful)

[botogames]

Originally Posted by potterstoke

I have no wish to be banned and would not condone the photography of minors, however...

This thread is principally about art and one should not discriminate between art in a museum or gallery, and art from well known erotic artists that appear on the web, irrespective of whether this site is considered a porn site.

I believe most of those following this thread share an interest in the artistic diversity on show and so like me would accept that for time immemorial all ages have been depicted in all manners of erotic activity. One only has to consider novels such as Lolita to understand that age does not define a person and that maturity (sexual or otherwise) is not governed by a number.

How can one ever be absolutely certain that an image, or even a photo, is not truly depicting a person who is 'a minor'? Lipstick, make-up, hair-style, even size, is no judge of such matters.

I am purely interested in erotic art in many forms. If I find an image not to my liking I do not complain, but simply pass on. I would like to think that is what most responsible adults following this thread would do.

Naturally, I understand the moderators point of view but I still feel saddened by the discriminatory agenda we seemed to be endorsing. I'd like to believe art is art, whatever it is illustrating.

Thank you for you're comments and feeling. We appreciate your inputs, ideas and concerns in this forum. We believe the members are Very Important, for they are the suppliers of the creative art, images and conversation of the forum.

It's rare in the Internet to fine such a place to have a Free forum for those to express themselves.

I would agree, Art is art. But we specalize in adult forms of art, images and talk.

Children of any form, art, images, written material is highly restricted. Similar to other forms of art including bestiality, scat, rape or violent sex, human sacrifice, execution and many more are on the list too.

The Mods are obglated by the forum rules, we must follow them to be fair to the members. The list is rather large, it's sometime hard to determine if such an image exist, since we must scan hundreds of posts daily.

The good news, generally it's our members who point out these issues. Report the find and we review it for the content.

I guess the world is changing... A good example was the Coppertone girl.

Acceptable in the 70's to the 90's. But due to the increase scrunity of the online public, and the issues of pedafiles and the fact various governments laws... it's a new PC world.

We must take the safe side of any posts. We choose to edit or remove those posts. We notify the member if possible and based on past history of the member we deal with their choice to defy the forum rules. Again we must be fair to the members of the forum.

We're sorry if it offends anyone.

Merely we are protecting the forum's continuity. I'm sure you wouldn't want VEF to become yet another web site closed due to children images, based on exploitation.

So we all thank you in advance for being proactive in protecting the forum and the children.

And... Thank you for you comments and feelings

[bronskimac]

I had to google the coppertone girl to see what the fuss was about. Good grief, people see the bad in the most innocent of things. In the context of an erotica forum I suppose I can just about see that some people might see it as sexulistion of a child but it's a big stretch.

However, I understand that the forum admins must protect the forum from even the whiff stepping over the line.

Sad world we live in where the most innocent things can be construed as perversion.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by bronskimac

Sad world we live in where the most innocent things can be construed as perversion.

Think of it another way: basically nearly all of the world's erotica _can_ be shown. That's pretty incredible. Japan still can't display genitals -- they pixelate cartoons.



We've got more genitals than you'll ever have time to look at . . .

On the other hand, the very famous Japanese painting by the artist Hokusai -- usually known as "The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife" can't be shown here because its a bit too much seafood.

You can wince at absurdity -- that's an image that's in many museums-- but the point makes sense. Websites, if they're run by people who want to stay afloat, figure out what the rules are and play by them. You don't get far by arguing that the rules "aren't fair" or "don't make sense" to an ISP. They truly don't care.

[milroy]

i dont follow why "The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife"cant be shown here despite the fact that its can be seen so easily on wikapedia or an i missing something?

[onehourplus]

Originally Posted by milroy

i dont follow why "The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife"cant be shown here despite the fact that its can be seen so easily on wikapedia or an i missing something?

Hokusai's "The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife" depicts a sex act between a woman and a cephalopod, which is bestiality. Bestiality is forbidden on VEF for good reason: some governments have declared it illegal. Allowing it here would cause big trouble for VEF and might cause VEF to go away, which is certainly not worth the risk. (Curiously, the USENET back around the turn of the century had plenty of bestiality material available, along with some quite-disgusting scatology. So far as I know, it's all gone now from the legal, above-board internet.)

Likewise the Do Not Post List in the VEF Rules lists several porn stars who have requested that their images not be shown here, and the VEF administrators have complied. Racquel Darrien is an example. Although she was prominent in the golden age of porn, she has no thread on VEF and any member who post images or videos of her will find the post removed by a moderator, at the very least, for violating the VEF Rules.

I agree with deepsepia: VEF has such a wealth of (permitted) material available that it takes a long time just to comprehend and explore what is here. That makes it easier for me to accept that some exclusions are necessary to keep VEF legal, so I don't fret about it at all.
.
.