advanced search

Username:    Password:   

Turk's Porn Discussion    Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LS-ultimate.com Forum Index -> Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
JHess



Joined: 02 Oct 2003
Posts: 1462
Location: Fort Collins, CO

PostPosted: Mon, 03.02.09 1:20 pm    Post subject: Turk's Porn Discussion Reply with quote

turk wrote:
And why would you try to avoid a debate about porn? Where did I go wrong in thinking that the ulti crowd loves to have intelligent discussion about virtually anything?

You went wrong in thinking that there can be an intelligent discussion about porn with people who refuse to view it. Jody and I can discuss pr0n, if bi-racial DPD is superior because it's milk's favorite cookie, but all you can do is tell us how pr0n is detrimental society.

turk wrote:
He defined porn as "creative activity (writing or pictures or films, etc) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.
This is a loaded definition. If pr0n is sinful then anything that's sole purpose is to stimulate sexual desire is a sin. So you need to quit putting on make-up and wearing tight jeans, you Jezebel. Furthermore, I would say this makes Playboy not pr0n since it has many other values than stimulating sexual desire. Does this mean that Hustler is not pr0n?

The fact of the matter is, there is no clear cut line between art and pr0n. We can list materials from Michelangelo's "David" to Hitman's "Busty Bitches from Betelgeuse" and, you couldn't tell me what is art and what is pr0n. In fact, BBB, had educational value since was a social thought experiment on the nature of sexual relationships on a red super-giant, and I'm not talking about the elder Welch-Bolen.
_________________
Hug it out, bitch.

Ari
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kernal



Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 153
Location: i'm awesome

PostPosted: Mon, 03.02.09 5:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Turk's Porn Discussion Reply with quote

I liked the point about the make-up
_________________
Nostalgia isnít what it used to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Panamaniac



Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 831

PostPosted: Tue, 03.03.09 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah JEZEBEL
_________________
"Waait! We can't stop here...this is bat country..." HST
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turk



Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Posts: 300

PostPosted: Tue, 03.03.09 4:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Turk's Porn Discussion Reply with quote

JHess wrote:

turk wrote:
He defined porn as "creative activity (writing or pictures or films, etc) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.
This is a loaded definition. If pr0n is sinful then anything that's sole purpose is to stimulate sexual desire is a sin. So you need to quit putting on make-up and wearing tight jeans, you Jezebel. Furthermore, I would say this makes Playboy not pr0n since it has many other values than stimulating sexual desire. Does this mean that Hustler is not pr0n?

The fact of the matter is, there is no clear cut line between art and pr0n. We can list materials from Michelangelo's "David" to Hitman's "Busty Bitches from Betelgeuse" and, you couldn't tell me what is art and what is pr0n. In fact, BBB, had educational value since was a social thought experiment on the nature of sexual relationships on a red super-giant, and I'm not talking about the elder Welch-Bolen.


First of all, are you saying that every girl that walks around with makeup on or tight jeans is sexually stimulating? Second of all, I would hope that you have more of an appreciation for art than to say that all the pictures in Playboy are artistic. I do agree that within our culture the line between art and porn is not always clear, but I think there is plenty of material that has no artistic value and can clearly be defined as porn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kearney



Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Posts: 708
Location: The Projects

PostPosted: Tue, 03.03.09 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mmm mmm porn.

its not as sexy when people bitch about it tho.
_________________
This is not the signature you are looking for
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Supafunky



Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 1085
Location: Bentonville

PostPosted: Tue, 03.03.09 8:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Turk's Porn Discussion Reply with quote

turk wrote:
Second of all, I would hope that you have more of an appreciation for art than to say that all the pictures in Playboy are artistic.

I do agree that within our culture the line between art and porn is not always clear, but I think there is plenty of material that has no artistic value and can clearly be defined as porn.


Every picture I've ever seen in Playboy was a complete work of art.

That's the problem. You shouldn't get to decide what has artistic value. Nor should people who are fundamentally opposed to healthy sexual expression and the nude human form. There are loads of examples of "art" in some of the best museums in the world that I would judge as having "no artistic value" because they don't appeal to me. That doesn't actually mean the have no artistic value. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
_________________
YOU CAN DO ANYTHING
as long as you have a safe word.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JHess



Joined: 02 Oct 2003
Posts: 1462
Location: Fort Collins, CO

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

turk wrote:
First of all, are you saying that every girl that walks around with makeup on or tight jeans is sexually stimulating?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm sayin the intent of tight jeans and make-up is to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex. In case you don't know this about guys, physcially attratictive = sexually stimulating.
turk wrote:
Second of all, I would hope that you have more of an appreciation for art than to say that all the pictures in Playboy are artistic.
First, have you ever looked at a picture in Playboy? Second, are you going to say that any replication of a nude body is porn. Michelangelo's David? Bosch's Paradise? Third, artistic value is a subjective measurement. If Jody looks at a picture and gets wetter than coral reef does that make it porn? Is it porn to me if I think it's an facinating study of the interplay between light and shadow on a human figure? Finally, Playboy is a publication. The majority of it is articles are about people, culture, and life and is largley not sexual. If we are going to call Playboy, with 5% of the pages related to sex, than so is Cosmo where every article is about how to put on make-up, do your hair, get a man, keep a man, 10 naughty things he likes, 50 new things to try in bed, and how to have multiple-orgasms. Have you ever read Cosmo?
_________________
Hug it out, bitch.

Ari
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Panamaniac



Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 831

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

is anybody a fan of the Penthouse porn movies directed by Kelly Holland?

My Top 3 picks: My Best Friend's Wife
Vamps
Bad Wives


are these movies old school or new school porn??
_________________
"Waait! We can't stop here...this is bat country..." HST
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turk



Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Posts: 300

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JHess wrote:
turk wrote:
First of all, are you saying that every girl that walks around with makeup on or tight jeans is sexually stimulating?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm sayin the intent of tight jeans and make-up is to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex. In case you don't know this about guys, physcially attratictive = sexually stimulating.


I know that girls wear makeup or tight jeans for reasons other than to be sexually stimulating, therefore it does not fit within the definition of porn. And guys should be able to appreaciate their physical beauty and even be attracted to them with it meaning sexual stimulation. I think you would agree with me that there is a big difference between a physically attractive woman and porn. If not, then my point has been proved that porn distorts beauty into something to solely be lusted after and not respected.

JHess wrote:
turk wrote:
Second of all, I would hope that you have more of an appreciation for art than to say that all the pictures in Playboy are artistic.
First, have you ever looked at a picture in Playboy? Second, are you going to say that any replication of a nude body is porn. Michelangelo's David? Bosch's Paradise? Third, artistic value is a subjective measurement. If Jody looks at a picture and gets wetter than coral reef does that make it porn? Is it porn to me if I think it's an facinating study of the interplay between light and shadow on a human figure? Finally, Playboy is a publication. The majority of it is articles are about people, culture, and life and is largley not sexual. If we are going to call Playboy, with 5% of the pages related to sex, than so is Cosmo where every article is about how to put on make-up, do your hair, get a man, keep a man, 10 naughty things he likes, 50 new things to try in bed, and how to have multiple-orgasms. Have you ever read Cosmo?


No, I don't look at Playboy or Cosmo. I don't think I have to be an expert in looking at porn to be able to talk about this subject in the same way that I don't have to be raped to be able to talk about rape. I would agree with you that there is plenty of acceptable nude art and I already stated that there is some material that is in a "gray area." I agree that art appreciation is subjective, but we have to differentiate between something that is art simply because you think it's beautiful and art that is found in museums. If there was no difference between the two then a Picasso would have no value. So in that case I would not consider porn art. Do you think the majority of guys that look at Playboy do so solely for the articles? The way you talk about physical attractiveness equalling sexual stimulation I would guess not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jacob



Joined: 13 May 2003
Posts: 1714

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're woefully behind in the times if you think guys are jacking off to Playboy. Fucking betamax.
_________________
Bitches, Leave.
Robocop
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JHess



Joined: 02 Oct 2003
Posts: 1462
Location: Fort Collins, CO

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

turk wrote:
I know that girls wear makeup or tight jeans for reasons other than to be sexually stimulating.

What would these reasons be? Comfort, social commentary? No, I'm pretty sure it's to be sexy.
turk wrote:
And guys should be able to appreaciate their physical beauty and even be attracted to them with it meaning sexual stimulation.

That's how girls work. Guys don't work that way. Again, for guys attraction = sexual stimulation
turk wrote:
I think you would agree with me that there is a big difference between a physically attractive woman and porn.

Yes, this is what I think. However, this is not in line with your definition of porn.
turk wrote:
If not, then my point has been proved that porn distorts beauty into something to solely be lusted after and not respected.

So either way you're right. How nice.
turk wrote:

No, I don't look at Playboy or Cosmo. I don't think I have to be an expert in looking at porn to be able to talk about this subject in the same way that I don't have to be raped to be able to talk about rape.

Actually, in order to know what you're talking about, to be an authority on something, this is the case. You can talk about physics all you want. But that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about untill you read the books or take the courses. I'm not an expert in porn. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument.
turk wrote:
but we have to differentiate between something that is art simply because you think it's beautiful and art that is found in museums. If there was no difference between the two then a Picasso would have no value.
I really don't think we have to differentiate. I think art is a man-made object whose purpose is to convey or stimulate an idea, message, emotion, etc.
Furthermore, nothing has an objective value. The value of something is simply what it is worth to someone else.

turk wrote:
Do you think the majority of guys that look at Playboy do so solely for the articles? The way you talk about physical attractiveness equalling sexual stimulation I would guess not.
Most people are too complicated to break down actions into one motive. I think if Playboy didn't have the nudes it would still be one of the best selling magazines in America, like Maxim. Again, you are not being considerate of the fact that men and women are wired differently. You really shouldn't be so judgemental.
_________________
Hug it out, bitch.

Ari
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
evan mcb



Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 1951

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JHess wrote:

What would these reasons be? Comfort, social commentary? No, I'm pretty sure it's to be sexy.


Every time this argument comes up I think of these lyrics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLRc64pof94

Consider it the female corollary to "It doesn't matter if you're right if people she disagrees with you." It takes something away from it if girls say that's why they dress pretty, so just let them create their own meaning and you create yours and then you both get to win your separate games. Even if the conversation ends up going something...like...THIS:

Him: You must wear tight jeans and makeup to be sexually stimulating.
Her: No I don't.
Him: Then why do you do it?
Her: Other reasons.
Him: Like what?
Her: Why are you so mean?

Quote:
Actually, in order to know what you're talking about, to be an authority on something, this is the case. You can talk about physics all you want. But that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about untill you read the books or take the courses.


As I'm sure you remember, I am the expert in physics. Physics is horseshit. Smile

Quote:
I think if Playboy didn't have the nudes it would still be one of the best selling magazines in America, like Maxim.


Are you saying that if Playboy had clothes on the models it would sell as well as Maxim, or that Maxim would still sell well if there were no models?
Ah, uh
Maxim: 2.5 million copies per month
http://www.jossip.com/so-long-maxim-five-magazines-that-may-not-see-2010-20081217/

Playboy (US Version): 3 million plus (?)
http://newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4325&Itemid=88889051

Of course, in regards to content, Playboy is much better than Maxim. Anyone who tells you they read Maxim for the articles should be avoided.
_________________
social networking


Last edited by evan mcb on Wed, 03.04.09 6:08 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
pablo



Joined: 08 May 2003
Posts: 278
Location: Vulva A, duh

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stop bringing a knife to a gun fight. Yes, you.
_________________
It all stick out everywhere. (Vulva B)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
trisarahtops



Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 827
Location: in my island

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AARP magazine doesn't exactly have a lot of nude photos. Thank god? http://www.infoplease.com/entertainment/magazines/top-100-consumer.html

Also please refrain from saying things like the sole purpose for "putting on make-up and wearing tight jeans is to stimulate sexual desire" because lord fucking knows we don't need a conversation about how women who dress in a "sexy" way are asking to be raped. I don't think that's what you're saying, and I hope that's not something you would even joke about, but your rhetoric is towing the line.

You could maybe say some women's idea of sexually stimulating behavior is to wear revealing clothing and make-up. Or that your own relative social consensus is that straight men are sometimes sexually stimulated by women wearing revealing clothing or make-up.

Or that some men think all women are whores except their mother, whom they're constantly trying to find a girlfriend to replace.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
JHess



Joined: 02 Oct 2003
Posts: 1462
Location: Fort Collins, CO

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

trisarahtops wrote:
Also please refrain from saying things like the sole purpose for "putting on make-up and wearing tight jeans is to stimulate sexual desire"
I will maintain this until someone gives me another valid reason for make-up and tight clothes.
trisarahtops wrote:
because lord fucking knows we don't need a conversation about how women who dress in a "sexy" way are asking to be raped.
I don't think that this is really in the line of logic I've established at all. I'm trying to point out that women who wear make-up and tight clothing and call porn a sin are hypocrites.

No one really asks to be raped and no one really wants to be raped no one deserves to be raped. But...you should really start your own thread.
_________________
Hug it out, bitch.

Ari
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LS-ultimate.com Forum Index -> Forum GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 1 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Designed by: Powered by: © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group