Please note that threads in this topic are removed from the archive 90 days after the thread was started. If you would like your thread to be retrievable for longer than that, please choose another topic in which to post it.

when is nudity porn.

(38 Posts)
mrsbucketxx Sun 04-May-14 09:25:59

I know lots on here hate page 3

To me is just nudity and not porn. I also own a gallery which exhibits nudes from time to time, and the reactions of some women are laughable covering their eyes etc.

Is nudity ever acceptable or is it all porn, if its shown in female form.

BrightlyColouredFish Sun 04-May-14 09:29:26

Nudity is never porn.

Do you need a definition of pornography?

ShatnersBassoon Sun 04-May-14 09:33:15

It depends what the intention is. Page 3 is pure titillation, no doubt about it. People don't buy the Sun because they admire the photographer's ability to capture the natural beauty of the human form.

I don't believe that women in a gallery cover their eyes at images of nudes, unless they're actually pornographic images being touted as art.

I'm surprised you're asking actually. As the owner of a gallery I'd assume you'd have got it sussed by now.

mrsbucketxx Sun 04-May-14 09:36:31

To me porn is to arouse the viewer.

But any naked woman could do that no?

mrsbucketxx Sun 04-May-14 09:37:35

But in my experience someones nudity is anothers porn or art.

Depends on the person.

PirateJones Sun 04-May-14 09:38:42

If it's a sexual act.

BuzzardBird Sun 04-May-14 09:39:54

Have never heard page 3 called porn. Don't like what it does to young girls but wouldn't call it porn.

JohnFarleysRuskin Sun 04-May-14 09:40:51

Is nudity ever acceptable or is it all porn?

Are you having a laugh?

I don't dislike page three because its a 'naked lady'. I dislike it because its a naked woman out of context, the purpose of which is to look pretty and stimulate the (thick) reader. the message it sends is pretty clear; ladies, you're just tits to us.

mrsbucketxx Sun 04-May-14 09:41:21

Plenty on here do,

Thread earlier about removing the page for a school class because its porn. Got me thinking.

LoveSardines Sun 04-May-14 09:42:09

When the sole or main purpose of the image / words / whatever are to sexually arouse the observer.

Your definition misses the purpose. Example. Some people might get turned on looking at pictures of children playing, that does not mean the pictures themselves are pornographic. Although that consumer will view them as such.

With page 3 the whole point is to illicit a sexual response in straight men. The purpose is clear.

mrsbucketxx Sun 04-May-14 09:42:26

Ok so a painting of a nude in a gallery could also be seen as out of context.

meditrina Sun 04-May-14 09:42:34

You're a gallery owner and cannot see differences between nudity presented in different ways?

Do you have similar problems distinguishing between the various possible representations (including the pornigraphic) of human forms when wearing clothes?

PirateJones Sun 04-May-14 09:43:44

Is nudity ever acceptable or is it all porn

There's nothing wrong with nudity, there's nothing wrong with people of any age seeing nudity.

in my opinion.

JohnFarleysRuskin Sun 04-May-14 09:43:46

Most people said remove page three from the classroom because its inappropriate - you are deliberately misrepresenting people on the other thread.

LoveSardines Sun 04-May-14 09:43:58

Page 3 is soft porn, obviously.

The fact that mainstream porn is much more hardcore than it used to be does not alter that.

mrsbucketxx Sun 04-May-14 09:45:40

No not at all, nude is nude to me.

I have no issue with it.

Porn has sexual connotations nude does not, although I have seen first hand even the most arty if nudes can provoke anti porn reactions.

havenever Sun 04-May-14 09:48:14

Do women really cover their eyes at pictures of naked ladies? I'm not sure i believe you

BillyBanter Sun 04-May-14 09:50:19

Its porn if its primary purpose its to sexually arouse.

mrsbucketxx Sun 04-May-14 09:50:47

It happened, I couldn't believe it myself.

I have had a few comments from younger children too, but im sure thats more to do with thier parents attitude tbh.

ImAThrillseekerBunny Sun 04-May-14 10:05:40

It's porn (albeit soft) if its purpose is to arouse. That covers page 3 and also IMO quite a lot of the lesser-quality classic art in the national galleries of the world (all the ones of fleeing nymphs with their draperies falling off kept in the patrons' private apartments).

Burren Sun 04-May-14 10:08:14

OP, I can't decide how disingenuous you are being, but - assuming this is a genuine question - attitudes to nudity are culturally-determined.
Male toplessness is not considered akin to nudity in our culture, female toplessness is, yet bare-breasted women are not considered inappropriately undressed on French beaches.

Likewise, people who are accustomed to going to art galleries and seeing classical nudes, or religious paintings depicting the repentant Mary Magdalene, for instance, are unlikely to be thrown, but someone from a culture or religious group where women (and to a lesser extent, men) remain covered - Orthodox Jews, Amish, Muslims - is more likely to view a painting of a nude as inappropriately sexual.

When I lived in the Middle East, I bought a John Updike novel which had a reproduction of the Venus de Milo on the cover - her breasts and bare arms had been carefully coloured in with black marker. Underwear ads, depictions of models in swimsuits illustrating holiday destinations, actresses on the red carpet in low-cut dresses in my imported Guardian got the same treatment.

ImAThrillseekerBunny Sun 04-May-14 10:12:43

I should have said that the original purpose of the fleeting nymphs was arousal - I assume that's no longer their function within the less-frequented rooms of the Louvre.

Burren Sun 04-May-14 10:13:01

Which is not to say that ThrillseekerBunny isn't quite correct in what she says - that the element of titillation was certainly present in much painting of nudes in the past, but dignified by the context of art. Lots of Biblical scenes - Susannah and the Elders, David spying on Bathsheba, Mary Magdalene in the desert etc - managed the double whammy of being a 'high prestige' genre, and also giving the painter the opportunity to depict an attractive woman without clothes.

Fairenuff Sun 04-May-14 10:16:11

I guess if you have 'no issue' with porn and see all nakedness as just 'nude is nude', the only way you could really distinguish whether or not it is porn, is to think to yourself, would I look at this with an eight year old child? If the answer is no, it's probably porn. Does that help?

LoveSardines Sun 04-May-14 10:26:24

Fairenuff true

Also, for a person who cannot see any difference, they should still be able to appreciate the generally accepted norms in society.

So, person sitting on train with child looking at a book from the national gallery with them, with nudes, people wouldn't be bothered.

Person sitting on train with child looking at page 3 with them, or a soft porn mag with topless women, people would think that was fucking weird and really disturbing.

So even if you can't tell the difference yourself (and I tend to think that people who say they can't are lying, otherwise they must be, what, sociopaths or something?) this sort of thing is a reasonable rule of thumb.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now