By-Tor.com

Question where is the dividing line between art and pornography?

Yesterday I wanted my wife to take a picture of me behind a waterfall naked. She would not do it, which started this debate. I told her it was art, nature, waterfall, natural.

I think if I were to have an erection then perhaps it would of crossed the line. Then again maybe it would depend on the gesture made, if any at the time of the photo?

What's your opinion, where is the line drawn for you?

Who cares?
Art and pornography are both good...

Interesting question, Me. Personally I don't feel it would be pornographic at all. I work with all kinds of art alot and some of it freaks me out yet is put out in public. (not being prudish...just WRONG)

I don't think that your naked form is about the photo. It is about the water. You could have your naked self photographed next to a barn or a car or a wheatfield and still it wouldn't be about your naked self. It's the context. The context is the waterfall. That, in itself is very sensuous, but I don't think pornographic. If, (like you said) you had an erection or some other obvious intense sexual reference in the photo then maybe it would be considered porn.

The fact that you are naked in the photo only gives it more insistence on the message. It's an intense image and one full of confidence and sensuality. Water is a life-giving thing to which we all can relate. Running water gives (at least for women) a sensuality that goes beyond an image.

Pornography? I don't think so personally. I would cherish a photo of my guy in the situation you describe. Others may disagree.

I don't consider that porn...its not like your showing it to anyone but you and her...I think LOL but anyway...all naked people pix are not porn...what about national geographic magazines with naked natives?? That's not porn!!!

Xanny

I didn't know that Art was in the pornography business?!?!?! heehee.

I don't know, I heard my Dad joking with an old friend about going through the National Geographic magazines looking for the topless photos when they were kids

I was hoping for an intense debate here in where you all percieve the dividing line is?

I consider a body-less head porn in were you don't gain any insight on the subject other than trying to disquiet other peoples actions.

Being a painter, I painted several naked pictures one of which has a man and a woman sitting on a couch the man masturbating while the woman watches, but the expression is mostly of curiosity and there is a pillow seperating the two, is that porn, not being a photograph but something from my head? I also seen some links here that I would consider porn, penis mouse trap comes to mind.

I liked your answer Kares, very well thought out. Fridge your still at the stage of masterbation keep it up and you'll go blind, Xanny good thought but you got to dig deeper, I'm not talking about culture. Walking Hairball I see you've been reading the credits again

I would have to agree with Kares. It's not totally about the nudity in the picture. It's not like the pics you would see in say Playboy/Playgirl mags.

And I too would love a pic like that of my man.

That type of pic would be like art.

I agree OLS. I really do.

A long time ago we had an opening of Toulouse Latrec's sketches. Most of you know him as a famous painter. Fine. These were rare sketches.

Anyway, I don't know if you guys know this but the guy was one hair short of being a midget (sorry, PC, Little Person). He had a tough life but his sexual drive was no different from any other man's. I can appreciate that being a full-blooded, healthy female myself.

Most of his "trysts" were with French whores. He became fascinated with them and came to love them for their honesty and kindness which he wasn't getting elsewhere in his life.

Most of these sketches were of the ladies masturbating before they went on stage to do the "can can" or whatever was needed to placate the men and earn money. They were graphic and poignant. They weren't shown for years because of their possible "pornographic" nature. I was fascinated by them and as a woman I found myself strangely relaxed looking at them.

At one point my father walked up beside me to look at one of the sketches and I just coiled away in shame. Why? Answer obvious. He loved them too but just couldn't "see" them with his daughter and he went elsewhere to enjoy them in his own frame of mind. Fine.

Art? Porn? Hmmmm.

This is a touogh and highly debateable question, Kev.

Personally, I agree that not all pictures of nude bodies are pornography. Some are, some aren't, I think it has to do with the intent of the piece.

For example, I do not think the National Geo photos are porn. Or medical pictures. Or...

Still, I do not like all "art" that is done in this form, even when it is not done with pornographic intent. For example, the calendars that people were making of nude women with cats and fishingboots hiding specific areas of their bodies. Yuck! but, lots of people loved it and the calendars sold well. Freewill and liberty wins again. I don't have to buy it, others may.

As far as a nude photo of you behind a waterfall, if it is going from your camera to your printer and staying between you and Gina, who cares? I am with the other ladies here who would enjoy such a photo of my man.

My first post. If you've seen any of Robert Mapplethorpe's "art" it becomes pretty evident that art is very subjective. I don't think a picture of someone nekkid behind a waterfall would be so objectionable but there are plenty of people in this world who would.

Hi, Roadcycler! Welcome!

As far as I'm concerned Robert Maplethorpe is an asshole with a good PR person behind him.

His ego is the size of his stank and just is around to have people talk about him...good or bad.

Preferably either.

Just trying to be funny, and yet again, I failed. So what, not everything is a freaking debate. Live man live. Remember, don't sweat the petty things, pet the sweaty things..................Smile bubs, it was just a joke.

I wouldn't find that pornographic at all. Look at the statue of David. I bet back then, when it was created, half of the people thought it was a work of art while the other half would find it pornographic. Even though he was covered in that particular spot, half would still find it pornographic.

Yesterday I wanted my wife to take a picture of me behind a waterfall naked

One wonders why you wanted your wife to take a pic in the first place? Unless you're in a tropical climate I would imagine serious 'shrinkage' would ensue. Perhaps you were after the comedic stance?