Posted by Brian Diaz: 
As for showing nudes to minors, that's perfectly legal.

Maybe in your state it is legal, not here

Think of all the PG and PG-13 movies with nudity.  Minors can even get into NC-17 movies.  It's porn that you can't provide to minors.

Do you have kids? If any theater let my kid into a movie that had adult content/nudity with out my permission or me being there i would sue the place.

Posted by alexwh: 
Barry your answer is absolutely correct. In some cases the city bylaw makes this mandatory as well as having to pick up the dog's stuff with a pooper scooper. But the statement says nothing to the topic at hand which is about pornography.

My point is that within the classification of glamour photography there seem to be a couple of accepted subdivisions. One is the goth and gore and the second is bondage. In our effort to classify everything we have invented such terms as lite beer and soft porn. It would seem that well lit bondage must be soft bondage. As long as these photographs follow the rules of classification they are accepted as glamour and are okay. But we don't want people under 15 to either be represented in this site or to view it.

ruff,  I mean yeah what you said.

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 

Posted by Brian Diaz: 
As for showing nudes to minors, that's perfectly legal.

Maybe in your state it is legal, not here

Think of all the PG and PG-13 movies with nudity.  Minors can even get into NC-17 movies.  It's porn that you can't provide to minors.

Do you have kids? If any theater let my kid into a movie that had adult content/nudity with out my permission or me being there i would sue the place.

I hate to break it to you, but your suit would never see a courtroom.  No sane lawyer would ever take that case.  Imagine telling a judge that you are upset that your 15 year old was allowed to buy a ticket to Titanic and saw Kate Winslet's boobs.

I am willing to bet that somewhere in CT, there's a museum with nude photos in it that lets kids in.  No one is stopping it because it's not illegal.

Posted by alexwh: 
Is this full-frontal male nudity okay?

This is considered art. Different than nude, porn and the other end of the spectrum when your comparing it to an adult male or female in a movie/photo.

Posted by Michael Barian: 
This debate is non sensical and will never be solved.
When you enter a photogs/ models port, you should have the right and freedom to enter their world.......period.
We have all seen it all,
but still like to be titillated on some level (be it artistic or flat out raunch).
Everyone's definition is varied and inherently abstract.
I say,
bring it all on--and let the crumbs fall where they may.
B

It is inherently human to debate the nonsensical and particularly on subjects that will never be solved. Does God exist? Will the universe end? Will we ever not have to pay taxes? And most important, how do you know that the woman in your life has orgasms? Are they real? Are they fake? We will never know and we will keep arguing about it. It's fun.

Posted by Brian Diaz: 

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 

Posted by Brian Diaz: 
As for showing nudes to minors, that's perfectly legal.

Maybe in your state it is legal, not here

Think of all the PG and PG-13 movies with nudity.  Minors can even get into NC-17 movies.  It's porn that you can't provide to minors.

Do you have kids? If any theater let my kid into a movie that had adult content/nudity with out my permission or me being there i would sue the place.

I hate to break it to you, but your suit would never see a courtroom.  No sane lawyer would ever take that case.  Imagine telling a judge that you are upset that your 15 year old was allowed to buy a ticket to Titanic and saw Kate Winslet's boobs.

I am willing to bet that somewhere in CT, there's a museum with nude photos in it that lets kids in.  No one is stopping it because it's not illegal.

A museum usualy has "Art" in it.
When you go to these movies you mention do you see the signs about kids under 18 viewing these movies?
If it is ok to view or show minors nude photos then go into any store with a minor and buy a playboy, penthouse and let them read it in the store and see what happens.

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 
A museum usualy has "Art" in it.

And you someone who lives in CONNECTIBORING is the judge.  Maybe for where you live but not for the net.  Sorry Next.

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 

Posted by Brian Diaz: 
As for showing nudes to minors, that's perfectly legal.

Maybe in your state it is legal, not here

Think of all the PG and PG-13 movies with nudity.  Minors can even get into NC-17 movies.  It's porn that you can't provide to minors.

Do you have kids? If any theater let my kid into a movie that had adult content/nudity with out my permission or me being there i would sue the place.

And you would lose.

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 
When you go to these movies you mention do you see the signs about kids under 18 viewing these movies?

For Titanic I saw the MPAA's recommendation that some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.  Then I saw Kate Winslet's boobs.

Note that the MPAA is not part of the government, and its ratings have no legal bearing on anything.  Any 6 year old with $10 can see that movie legally.

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 
Anything i have seen in a museum is in the art field. Photo, painting, ash, chalk, oil all have areas that involve "Art"

Mapplethorpe's photos have been hung in museums & galleries as art, but that doesn't keep a lot of people from calling them porn.  What about Schiele?  Rodin?  The line's not as clear as you seem to think.

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 
Anything i have seen in a museum is in the art field. Photo, painting, ash, chalk, oil all have areas that involve "Art"

One man's art is another man's porn.

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 
Anything i have seen in a museum is in the art field. Photo, painting, ash, chalk, oil all have areas that involve "Art"

So say rich white people like yourself,  so what is the point?

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 
A museum usualy has "Art" in it.
When you go to these movies you mention do you see the signs about kids under 18 viewing these movies?
If it is ok to view or show minors nude photos then go into any store with a minor and buy a playboy, penthouse and let them read it in the store and see what happens.

I found this on the (decidedly conservative) Utah Attorney General's website:

Not all nudity is harmful to minors. The nudity must be erotic or sexual in the way it is posed or displayed.

It also gives information about why it is illegal to sell Playboys to minors and why it is not illegal for a minor to watch movies with nudity or go to museums with nude photos. 

Posted by Jack D Trute: 

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 
Anything i have seen in a museum is in the art field. Photo, painting, ash, chalk, oil all have areas that involve "Art"

So say rich white people like yourself,  so what is the point?

Who says i am white or rich and trying to prove it? It is a comment thats all from my perspective.

Posted by BarryH: 

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 
Anything i have seen in a museum is in the art field. Photo, painting, ash, chalk, oil all have areas that involve "Art"

Mapplethorpe's photos have been hung in museums & galleries as art, but that doesn't keep a lot of people from calling them porn.  What about Schiele?  Rodin?  The line's not as clear as you seem to think.

I wish people who write about Mapplethorpe as an example would remember in what context it all happened. It had to do with a museum in Cinciannati and it had to do with one particular image called Golden Showers. This involved a male urinating in another male's mouth.

Posted by alexwh: 

Posted by BarryH: 

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 
Anything i have seen in a museum is in the art field. Photo, painting, ash, chalk, oil all have areas that involve "Art"

Mapplethorpe's photos have been hung in museums & galleries as art, but that doesn't keep a lot of people from calling them porn.  What about Schiele?  Rodin?  The line's not as clear as you seem to think.

I wish people who write about Mapplethorpe as an example would remember in what context it all happened. It had to do with a museum in Cinciannati and it had to do with one particular image called Golden Showers. This involved a male urinating in another male's mouth.

I posted a link on another thread showing a Mapplethorpe depicting someones hand shoved up another ass. Sorry fisting pics are porn no matter who made them.

Posted by Brian Diaz: 

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 
A museum usualy has "Art" in it.
When you go to these movies you mention do you see the signs about kids under 18 viewing these movies?
If it is ok to view or show minors nude photos then go into any store with a minor and buy a playboy, penthouse and let them read it in the store and see what happens.

I found this on the (decidedly conservative) Utah Attorney General's website:

Not all nudity is harmful to minors. The nudity must be erotic or sexual in the way it is posed or displayed.

It also gives information about why it is illegal to sell Playboys to minors and why it is not illegal for a minor to watch movies with nudity or go to museums with nude photos.   

Ok this is where we should stop this thread when people start posting web sites with info. There is no need to explain to me with proof about this or that, i will raise my kid the way i do.
The original post was about photography or porn, not this stuff. Since we are not on the subject of the original post, there is no need to keep it going with this subject.
Art, photos, movies are all different and have limited comparisons when applied to the original post, and are too involved to really get into each aspect here to any needed length.

Posted by Mike Cummings: 

Posted by alexwh: 

Posted by BarryH: 

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 
Anything i have seen in a museum is in the art field. Photo, painting, ash, chalk, oil all have areas that involve "Art"

Mapplethorpe's photos have been hung in museums & galleries as art, but that doesn't keep a lot of people from calling them porn.  What about Schiele?  Rodin?  The line's not as clear as you seem to think.

I wish people who write about Mapplethorpe as an example would remember in what context it all happened. It had to do with a museum in Cinciannati and it had to do with one particular image called Golden Showers. This involved a male urinating in another male's mouth.

I posted a link on another thread showing a Mapplethorpe depicting someones hand shoved up another ass. Sorry fisting pics are porn no matter who made them.

Really? Thats a Mapplethorpe huh? I gotta start going to museums i guess. Yes i agree that is porn

Posted by alexwh: 
How about Courbet? Now it is accepted as art. For a long time it wasn't.

That is just scary... man and I was just about to go to bed too.. If I have a bad dream you will hear about it.

Posted by alexwh: 
How about Courbet? Now it is accepted as art. For a long time it wasn't.

My opinion that it is considered "Art" now because of the pubic hair covering the genitals. For years you are right it was not considered "Art" but with the chinese, japanese "Art" influence they changed thier perspective on "Art" a little to accomodate. (my opinion)

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 

Posted by Mike Cummings: 

Posted by alexwh: 

Posted by BarryH: 

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 
Anything i have seen in a museum is in the art field. Photo, painting, ash, chalk, oil all have areas that involve "Art"

Mapplethorpe's photos have been hung in museums & galleries as art, but that doesn't keep a lot of people from calling them porn.  What about Schiele?  Rodin?  The line's not as clear as you seem to think.

I wish people who write about Mapplethorpe as an example would remember in what context it all happened. It had to do with a museum in Cinciannati and it had to do with one particular image called Golden Showers. This involved a male urinating in another male's mouth.

I posted a link on another thread showing a Mapplethorpe depicting someones hand shoved up another ass. Sorry fisting pics are porn no matter who made them.

Really? Thats a Mapplethorpe huh? I gotta start going to museums i guess. Yes i agree that is porn

You will have to do a search on him, I can't right now, little ones around

Posted by BarryH: 
So.... the same nude isn't porn if the model has lots of pubic hair???

The art, museums, movies stuff is not really. Depends how you look at it i guess.

Posted by alexwh: 
Does my posting of Courbet's The Origin of the World break or circumvent's the MM rule that no nudity is to be posted in forums? That the rule is about nudity and not about what many of us might perceive as pornography is an interesting technicality.

I forget the thread, but I remember Theda asking someone (possibly you) not to post nudes in the fora exactly for that reason.  The rule (on MM) is about nudity, because they don't want the responsibility of deciding what is art and what is porn.

Posted by Mike Cummings: 

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 

Posted by Mike Cummings: 

Posted by alexwh: 

Posted by BarryH: 

Posted by Peter Dattolo: 
Anything i have seen in a museum is in the art field. Photo, painting, ash, chalk, oil all have areas that involve "Art"

Mapplethorpe's photos have been hung in museums & galleries as art, but that doesn't keep a lot of people from calling them porn.  What about Schiele?  Rodin?  The line's not as clear as you seem to think.

I wish people who write about Mapplethorpe as an example would remember in what context it all happened. It had to do with a museum in Cinciannati and it had to do with one particular image called Golden Showers. This involved a male urinating in another male's mouth.

I posted a link on another thread showing a Mapplethorpe depicting someones hand shoved up another ass. Sorry fisting pics are porn no matter who made them.

Really? Thats a Mapplethorpe huh? I gotta start going to museums i guess. Yes i agree that is porn

You will have to do a search on him, I can't right now, little ones around

LOL  yes i will have to, this got my interest since i never seen any of his stuff before.

Posted by alexwh: 
If art is now categorized as "this stuff" then there should be a concerted effort to educate youth to visit museums. They would then understand that art not only challenges the mind but it also enriches the soul.

Amen and good night.

Posted by alexwh: 
If art is now categorized as "this stuff" then there should be a concerted effort to educate youth to visit museums. They would then understand that art not only challenges the mind but it also enriches the soul.

I have seen some pure Grade A crap in museums. The "art" challenged only the cleaning lady that had to dust it.