DEBATE: Is this porn?

[Ellie]

Take a look at this image:

Spoiler: NOT SAFE FOR WORK... it has boobies. :boobs:

In your opinion, does the image classify as porn? Would you be offended if you saw it; would you let your parents see you on it? Would you let a child see it?

 

[Cryranos]

If it wasn't censored it would be porn. Now it's as close as you can get to porn without it being porn.

 

[bacon]

I would consider it porn mainly because it is implying where these parts are. I wouldnt think it would be appropriate for a child or anything like that either. I dont think I would be offended if I saw it, but I just dont think it would be appropriate in a public setting either.

 

[dadevvtsvre]

Yeah, I don't know how anybody in their right mind would let their kid look at this. @_@

 

[Ellie]

There's a trend of British newspapers having a porn page, I don't know if it's just The Sun ("Page 3"). They often advertise the girl on the front page, but if the girl's naked, they censor it. One I saw, the censoring was a black dot over the nipple end, nothing else. Do you think that's appropriate?

 

[bacon]

No I do not. I mean even if it is blocked, you can assume what is under the black dot. I think this is society's standards. Once you turn into a teenager, I think that censoring is really unnecessary because I think at that age we are all old enough to handle that. But for a little kid, I wouldn't think it would be appropriate.

 

[Ellie]

I'm resisting the urge to just reply with "why not", but I've got to ask it. (Don't take offence, it's a debate :p)

Personally, considering someone has specifically gone out of their way to censor the image I posted, I would consider it completely acceptable. Even if showing boobs and underbits is too much, censoring them out surely makes it acceptable, in my mind at least. I can almost understand why people don't want their kids seeing vaginas (but disagree with their reasoning); but surely an image of ladybits that has clearly been censored can't be offensive?

 

[Citizen86]

And here I was expecting something a little more risque :fap:

Although it isn't real boobies, it's still boobies.

 

[Ellie]

I'd say "but are boobies bad" but I guess that's a completely different debate.

In that case, what is acceptible. How much boob can be shown? Cleavage? Squidging out of a bikini? Or a complete burka?

 

[Citizen86]

I'm resisting the urge to just reply with "why not", but I've got to ask it. (Don't take offence, it's a debate :p)

Personally, considering someone has specifically gone out of their way to censor the image I posted, I would consider it completely acceptable. Even if showing boobs and underbits is too much, censoring them out surely makes it acceptable, in my mind at least. I can almost understand why people don't want their kids seeing vaginas (but disagree with their reasoning); but surely an image of ladybits that has clearly been censored can't be offensive?

Depends on who you're talking to. Although there are many people who wouldn't have a problem with it, there are still many that would. Especially if there are children involved. I don't know if you can ask why, but that's what it seems like everyone is saying.

 

[Ellie]

If it is a matter of sexual connotation, then is the following porn:

Spoiler

 

[Citizen86]

Dear God that's horrible

 

[Ellie]

Hmm, perhaps I could have found a better example. I guess some people are turned on by the above though - given that, is it porn?

 

[psiclone]

oh god. (s)he has that super long 'middle' toe.. so ugly

i don't think it's porn, but it is obviously being construed in a sexual manner, thus should not be shown in public settings..

 

[Ellie]

Oh wow, I never noticed that toe. Fuck you're right that's kinda gross.

Now, continuing the debate and being somewhat the devil's advocate, I'm going to pick apart your post.

i don't think it's porn, but it is obviously being construed in a sexual manner, thus should not be shown in public settings..

Does this mean that nudity that is not construed in a sexual manner is not porn, and therefore acceptable?

 

[Star]

It's called double jointed. Know your toes folks :shades:

Me being the foot fetish guy, I still don't think looking at feet is porn. Even if she's doing it in the way that makes a small number of people get turned on. There are feet everywhere, Just google feet and keep safe search on and you'll still find them no matter what.

There are several parts of the body that could be classified as porn, but in todays society our standards to what is porn and what's not is no where near how things were a decade or two ago. Now a days, as long as they sensor the nipples and vagina and penis and the rest is there it's not porn. Like a chick wearing a string bikini. I personally would not get caught looking at it with my mom nearby and it's definitely nsfw.

Reminds me of a dream I had wear the chick had no nipples @_@

 

[Ellie]

I always find NSFW a weird label to have, since anything that's not strictly work related is "not safe for work". :p

 

[Star]

I always find NSFW a weird label to have, since anything that's not strictly work related is "not safe for work". :p

Point taken. In a job like mine, if I'm on the computer I'm not doing any work at all. But I see my coworkers all the time who have to be on the computer doing anything and whatever the heck they want. They should change it to NSFMothers

 

[Ellie]

Yeah I think I'm just pissing over semantics there which is never a good thing. NSFW is fine :p

Ok then let's try another question: are photographs of breastfeeding porn?

 

[Cryranos]

That is a very good question.

Aside from the obvious adult lactation, I'm not sure, but I think it is a women's rights issue.