Free PORN...NUDE women and more

[Alex_B]

to me there is only one kind of porn

Someone remove this post please!!!

:lmao:

 

[Alex_B]

If it gets you hard then it's porn. Simple as that.

Hmm, that would mean this world is full of porn .. everywhere.

 

[Rabieshund]

You pervert, getting hard all the time.

 

[JerryPH]

to me there is only one kind of porn

Thats not porn... thats just pure sex.

Who's little kit is this anyways?

 

[lostprophet]

its a canon promo photo

 

[Big Mike]

This is a very old issue but it seems to always be pertinent.

I believe it was a US politician who said: "I can't give you a definition of pornography, but I know it when I see it"
This goes well with the people who have said that there will be as many different opinions as people who comment.
In one sense, you can argue that the viewer's own beliefs will have just as much influence on how they perceive the image, as the image itself. Some people find a naked woman's breast to be pornographic...and they can be portrayed as such...but on the other hand, breasts are a natural and essential part of the human body...and how can that be offensive to anyone? Can this same argument be applied to the entire human body? Genitalia are a natural and essential part of the body...why should it be 'evil' or 'unnatural' to see them?

A great site (NSFW) is domai.com. The site features photos of naked women but they strive to be distinguished from porn. They instead celebrate the divine beauty of the female body and the way it looks so natural without the hindrance of clothing.

One photographer, Igor Amelkovich, pushes the limits between what some people consider porn and what others feel is art. Some of his photos include genitalia...some rather explicitly...but the lighting and aesthetics are world class, which makes a strong argument for it being art.

In the end, I think that some things are clearly porn and some things are clearly not porn...some things are in between and it's up to the viewer to determine how it's perceived. Nudity doesn't even have to be part of the equation.

 

[Battou]

you never really have to think is it this or is it that.

There are occations where one is in a position where they need to, Please review post 1035903

The writer of this post pleads the rights of the fifth ammendment when it comes to his personal opinion of pornography.

My Ideas on this are just plain screwed up I don't have a clear cut opinion to one side or the other, I look at litterally gigs of both. I like both sides of the coin evenly. Due to my contributions in the world of cartoon porn I see the artwork aspect of both sides despite not considering porn art. To put it bluntly I don't know how to describe the diffrence but I do see it.

 

[monkeykoder]

I think the main difference is the purpose of the person taking the picture.

 

[Mike Jordan]

I think the main difference is the purpose of the person taking the picture.

While the photographer may have one intention of why he or she took the picture... it's really the viewer that decides if it's art or porn. Just as the viewer decides if an image is good or bad. Photographers have a tendency to forget that when they don't get the responce they were looking for.

Mike

 

[Antithesis]

I was told there would be punch and pie.

 

[doobs]

to me there is only one kind of porn

\

Amen to that!

 

[ShaCow]

to me there is only one kind of porn

haha, if you walked around with that thing at the back, someone would call the cops! looks like a blooming rocket launcher!!

 

[Alpha]

Stop talking about photography and pornography as if they're mutually exclusive. Even using graphic physical interaction, erect penises, etc as markers for where "art" ends and pornography begins, the line has been blurry for a long time. Do what you like. Respect your work at the end of the day.

 

[dpolston]

I think the main difference is the purpose of the person taking the picture.

I'm not sure that is necessarily true. I worked in a studio that offered nude photos as part of the session and most of my clients wanted and asked for these done for their significant others. While we took these photos often, we rarely thought them to be pornographic. We only had one client (to my knowledge) that wanted to "feature" her lower girl parts, and frankly, those photos didn't turn out well because if the way the studio was set up.

On a side note to one of the posters: I never ever became aroused while shooting these shots. Nudes are probably one of the most technically demanding shots you can take. You can use clothes and fabric in a real portrait but no amount of camera magic can ever turn a nude size 16 into an image looking like she's a size 6.

 

[Alex_B]

Stop talking about photography and pornography as if they're mutually exclusive. Even using graphic physical interaction, erect penises, etc as markers for where "art" ends and pornography begins, the line has been blurry for a long time. Do what you like. Respect your work at the end of the day.

This is getting close to what i said, that art can be porn and the other way round. but the combination is rare IMHO.