To me porn would be any image created to sexually stimulate. I can't possibly tell what the intention of the artist was with these but I'd have to say Porn for both of them.
I would consider both of those "erotic".
neither porn nor edgy.
I'm not sure what the true definition is, but to me, edgy seems like tattooed, pierced, leather with spikes, smoking while holding a shot of whiskey, screaming at the camera, high class girl throwing paint on a Ferrari, stepping on a guys face with stiletto heels... that sort of thing.
These, to me, just seem like two different ways of showing a girls naughty bits. One might be considered a little bit more innocent, or provocative than the other... but 'erotic' is how I would classify them.
Lars R Peterson wrote: These, to me, just seem like two different ways of showing a girls naughty bits. One might be considered a little bit more innocent, or provocative than the other... but 'erotic' is how I would classify them.
Kozmina
Posts: 6,515
Colorado Springs, Colorado, US
Lars R Peterson wrote: I would consider both of those "erotic".
neither porn nor edgy.
These, to me, just seem like two different ways of showing a girls naughty bits. One might be considered a little bit more innocent, or provocative than the other... but 'erotic' is how I would classify them.
My opinion of both images is that they are Erotic, but definitely not porn... not even close! I actually like the second image and think it is what I would describe to someone as being Glamour Erotica.
Lars R Peterson wrote: I would consider both of those "erotic".
neither porn nor edgy.
I'm not sure what the true definition is, but to me, edgy seems like tattooed, pierced, leather with spikes, smoking while holding a shot of whiskey, screaming at the camera, high class girl throwing paint on a Ferrari, stepping on a guys face with stiletto heels... that sort of thing.
These, to me, just seem like two different ways of showing a girls naughty bits. One might be considered a little bit more innocent, or provocative than the other... but 'erotic' is how I would classify them.
B&W open leg vs color closed leg, good lip definition on both. I wouldn't refer to either of them using either term but would generally put them in the same stack when sorting.
Lars R Peterson wrote: I would consider both of those "erotic".
neither porn nor edgy.
I'm not sure what the true definition is, but to me, edgy seems like tattooed, pierced, leather with spikes, smoking while holding a shot of whiskey, screaming at the camera, high class girl throwing paint on a Ferrari, stepping on a guys face with stiletto heels... that sort of thing.
These, to me, just seem like two different ways of showing a girls naughty bits. One might be considered a little bit more innocent, or provocative than the other... but 'erotic' is how I would classify them.
Lars R Peterson wrote: I would consider both of those "erotic".
neither porn nor edgy.
I'm not sure what the true definition is, but to me, edgy seems like tattooed, pierced, leather with spikes, smoking while holding a shot of whiskey, screaming at the camera, high class girl throwing paint on a Ferrari, stepping on a guys face with stiletto heels... that sort of thing.
These, to me, just seem like two different ways of showing a girls naughty bits. One might be considered a little bit more innocent, or provocative than the other... but 'erotic' is how I would classify them.
bmiSTUDIO
Posts: 1,645
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Nelia wrote: My opinion of both images is that they are Erotic, but definitely not porn... not even close! I actually like the second image and think it is what I would describe to someone as being Glamour Erotica.
Both images seem to be a deliberate showing of genitalia. I don't see much art in either. You can argue what you want without knowing the honest intentions of the model or photographer, but they seem to exist for no other purpose but to sexually arouse the viewer. Not sure if that makes it erotic or porn, since the dictionary defines them both as anything that creates sexual desire or arousal.
BMI Studio wrote: Both images seem to be a deliberate showing of genitalia. I don't see much art in either. You can argue what you want without knowing the honest intentions of the model or photographer, but they seem to exist for no other purpose but to sexually arouse the viewer. Not sure if that makes it erotic or porn, since the dictionary defines them both as anything that creates sexual desire or arousal.
We all have our opinions of what we feel is art and what is not. It is not unusual, obviously, for two people to disagree on what is art and what is not. I find both images to be art according to my definition of art.
It is not my belief that the images "seem to exist for no other purpose but to sexually arouse the viewer" and neither image aroused me. I also do not feel that the issue of intent is important to the discussion of the art.
Whether or not I think they are good art is entirely a different matter! I will state again for the record, in my opinion neither are what I personally would consider Porn!
Lars R Peterson wrote: I would consider both of those "erotic".
neither porn nor edgy.
I'm not sure what the true definition is, but to me, edgy seems like tattooed, pierced, leather with spikes, smoking while holding a shot of whiskey, screaming at the camera, high class girl throwing paint on a Ferrari, stepping on a guys face with stiletto heels... that sort of thing.
These, to me, just seem like two different ways of showing a girls naughty bits. One might be considered a little bit more innocent, or provocative than the other... but 'erotic' is how I would classify them.
Number one is clever porn. Number two isn't successful as any genre.
Number one isn't porn because of what's shown, it's because it's geared to a specific taste, essentially a fetish of "accidental" shots that don't pretend to be accidental. It's almost a performance, like a stripper, because of the eye contact.
Pornography is created for the sole purpose of arousing the viewer sexually. Both of these images do that for me, albeit on a very low level.
"Edgy", which really is a word that has no definition, to me, would have a more artistic feel to it. It would be probably less well lit. It would probably be less focused on the genitalia. It would be more incidental nudity rather than overt.
So, for me, I would classify both of these images as pornography. But on the grand severity scale of pornography, probably a 3 and a 5, respectively, out of 10.
Porn is not a matter of opinion. It's a legal term in the U.S.
Both of those photos could be considered porn under the law, because it includes "lascivious display" of the genitals.
It doesn't matter one bit if one is artistic and coy and the other is obvious. It doesn't matter about artistic merit. Porn is defined by the content of the image. And the regulations specifically note that artistic merit has nothing to do with it.
Unfortunately, people will continue to muddy the definition and attempt to say this or that or this and not the other. All the arguments are moot in the U.S. Congress has spoken and the Justice Department has provided the regulations.
To me they were both glamour nudes. To me "porn" would have to be classified as a sex act, alone or with someone, but then again my definition will be different than many others.
Either way.... does it really matter what others think? If you like it, shoot it, pose for it and enjoy, if you don't like it, then don't shoot it, pose for it or buy it.
I've had people call my work porn, I don't think it's anywhere near porn, but maybe I'm just not trying hard enough.....
I would not consider either porn by today's standard or my standard. What is considered porn has a lot to do with the emotion or facial expression. Neither of these girls are making orgasm faces. I also would not consider it edgy really.
Michael McGowan wrote: Porn is not a matter of opinion. It's a legal term in the U.S.
Both of those photos could be considered porn under the law, because it includes "lascivious display" of the genitals.
It doesn't matter one bit if one is artistic and coy and the other is obvious. It doesn't matter about artistic merit. Porn is defined by the content of the image. And the regulations specifically note that artistic merit has nothing to do with it.
Unfortunately, people will continue to muddy the definition and attempt to say this or that or this and not the other. All the arguments are moot in the U.S. Congress has spoken and the Justice Department has provided the regulations.
First it is a matter of opinion when not relating to the legality of the situation. This discussion is about opinion not about laws.
And how would you determine these as being lascivious. It's not just display of genitals but "lascivious display"
1. inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd: a lascivious, girl-chasing old man.
2. arousing sexual desire: lascivious photographs.
3. indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness: a lascivious gesture.
The first certainly would not qualify as that in my opinion and I think in non-bible belt state the jury would not find it as porn.
And the second is not really either. As neither really turned me on. Nor do the girls look like they want to have sex.
This is why facial expression and touching themselves takes it to a whole new level. Which if that was the case even if they were wearing panties under the current laws they could be considered "lascivious display" of the genitals even if covered.
Obviously the second one is closer to "lascivious display" but really it's all up to the jury with that stupid law. For legality I would Label them both under 2257.
In reality I think a judge and jury would laugh at this at being considered porn and a waste of tax payer's money when you can find hardcore porn so easily online, that is clearly porn.
lust & sexual desires can be tapped in to on just about any level. im sure NONE of you guys remember the Sears catalogue when you/we were growin up :p but this is an open ended (no pun intended, haha) question with no 'right' or definitive answer. there is none & there never shall be. its like askin whats 'art'? its interesting the variations of peoples answers, but thats about it.
| 
| 
| edu