Nudism, Erotic Art, Pornography.......What's The Difference?

[Sanslines]

Given the uneasy relationship between nudism and any aspect of sexuality, it might be helpful to discuss why sexuality is so offensive to the practice of purely puritanical nudism and include in this discussion aspects of erotic art and pornography:


Erotic Art vs. Pornography


I think of erotic art and porn as being two different but similar things.

To me, porn is something that reduces its subject to no more than his or her sexuality. In doing that it degrades the person in much the same way that reducing anyone to just one thing degrades them.

For instance: If you reduce a person to no more than the fact they are Black, Jewish, Mormon, a particular nationality, or a member of this or that political party, then in some sense you are degrading them. Likewise, if you reduce a person to no more than his or her sexuality you are degrading them.

Yet, I think erotic art is distinct from porn in the sense that erotic art, as I use the term, reveals someone’s sexuality without entirely reducing them to their sexuality, just as you can acknowledge someone’s race without entirely reducing them to their race.

It interests me that those who would reduce people to just one thing also — perhaps almost invariably — distort that one aspect of them. So, for instance, when the Nazis reduced Jews to “just Jews” they also characterized Jews in unrealistic and lying ways. Again, when the KKK reduces Blacks to “just Blacks” they also lie about what it means to be Black. And when the porn industry reduces a man or woman to just their sexuality, it almost invariably ascribes to them an unrealistic sexuality.
Those two things so often go hand in hand: First, reducing someone to just one aspect of themselves, and second distorting what that aspect means.

I don’t think it can be denied that the human tendency to reduce others to no more than one thing and then distort that thing is a cause of much misery in this world.

Having said all that, I would much rather put up with porn — or even racism, etc. — than with censorship. I think the proper way to take on such evils is through debate in the free market of ideas, rather than through government censorship.

Am I onto something here, or should I drink some more coffee this morning, wake up, and try again?

http://cafephilos.wordpress.com/2007...s-pornography/

[ibrahim]

For me it is pornography if it is ugly and disgusting.

[RalphVa]

Nudism is just the practice of being naked in ones life activities.

Erotic art is the display of models in sexually suggestive poses or looks on their faces.

Pornography is the display of sex or very suggestive sexual poses.

Of course, some people think the naked body is pornographic. Think they should bow down or go to their knees and ask God why He made bodies this way. They'd better go hide, because they may get struck by lightning.

[Sanslines]

Nudism is just the practice of being naked in ones life activities.

Erotic art is the display of models in sexually suggestive poses or looks on their faces.

Pornography is the display of sex or very suggestive sexual poses.

Of course, some people think the naked body is pornographic. Think they should bow down or go to their knees and ask God why He made bodies this way. They'd better go hide, because they may get struck by lightning.

Ok, then we should ask ourselves why someone like Steven Gough is constantly arrested for being merely nude and yet the pornography business is a multi billion dollar business that in some cases is purely illegal and yet the authorities look the other way.

[jon71]

Ok, then we should ask ourselves why someone like Steven Gough is constantly arrested for being merely nude and yet the pornography business is a multi billion dollar business that in some cases is purely illegal and yet the authorities look the other way.

That's unfortunately true. Sexual nudity is more often accepted than chaste nudity is. I think partly it's because people believe that's "normal" and accept it whereas naturism is "odd" or unexpected but also with porn there are people making lots and lots of money off of it and that buys a certain amount of acceptance. Naturist venues I doubt grease as many palms.

[Skinview]

Have some more coffee. There is nothing wrong with porn, unless its done badly. Watching you favorite athlete perform in a game is "reducing" him to being just an athlete by your logic. When I get my car repaired, the mechanic is just a means of getting my car fixed. So what? Doing your job well and being appreciated for that is not degrading.

[Sanslines]

Have some more coffee. There is nothing wrong with porn, unless its done badly. Watching you favorite athlete perform in a game is "reducing" him to being just an athlete by your logic. When I get my car repaired, the mechanic is just a means of getting my car fixed. So what? Doing your job well and being appreciated for that is not degrading.

I'm having fresh brewed right now. Just to clear things up, I did not write the article. The article just brings up one aspect of the attitudes towards porn. If you follow the link and read the comments, you will find much more discussion in detail. What's interesteing is that nudists really go out of their way to depict nudism as some kind of puritanicla activity. They distance themselves from any aspect that could be interpreted as being sexual. Yet, this is a bit hypocritical as nudists are not really true puritans.

Erotic art is mainly shuned because of the sexual implications. Male erotic art is especially shuned, as it is labelled 'gay art' and then all of the societal hatreds and stigmas towards gays comes out.

Porn is an enormous business that exists freely in our society yet our society seems to love to condemn porn. Don't think such condemnations come about because of discrimination towards male actors because the enormous demand is driven by insatiable desire for young, attractive female actors. They make the most money and are in the most demand.

Perhaps some day we will grow as a nation to openly discuss and admit to what our nation is really about. We woud even save huge amounts of tax dollars as we close the prisons and release the prisoners who have commited no other offense than minor marijuana use or prostution.

[nakenone]

THE POINT OF NO RETURN IS OFTEN ESTABLISHED BY THE PERSON THEMSELVES,IF A PERSON IS SO CONSUMED BY ONE THING,FOR EXAMPLE NUDITY,EVERYTHING IS ABOUT NUDITY THEY LIVE AN DIE IT,HERE IS A LOOSER, AS WITH THE ISSUE WITH STEVEN GOUGH,ONE DEMENTIONAL ,TUNNEL VISION ,OF NO REAL LASTING VALUE .THERE ARE MANY AVENUES WHERE THE PERSON IS SO CONSUMED THAT THEY ARE VOLUNTARY NAILED TO A CROSS OF THERE OWN ,OR A CAUSE ETC, SO LET US COMMUNICATE HUMANITY AN DIVERSE UNDERSTANDING .SO THE EXTREME IS OUT TO EXPLOIT YOU,EXTREME PORN, RELIGEON ,BLACK ,WHITE,NAKED,CLOTHED ETC LOOK AT THIS WEB SITE IT TRAVELS IN MANY DIRECTIONS,COOKING, EATIN RIGHT ,SEX,RELIGEON,ETC. HOW ABOUT YOU ARE YOU MORE THAN NAKED ?????????? NAKENONE

[NudonyII]

Erotic art is the display of models in sexually suggestive poses or looks on their faces.

I think it's not so black and white. Below are three pics; the first is erotica, the second is nudist, the third is fashion/art. I don't see anything that inherently separates the three into distinct categories, other than the labels we affix upon them. On any given day, for any given person, the three could be erotic, or nudist, or art.

That being said, I am not "anti-label." Softcore and hardcore porn are fairly distinct. The lasciviousness, focus on the genitals, coitus are pretty much distiguishable and recognizable. That being said, I agree with the point of the article.

[sunnysmile_fl]

It should be as simple as this...

Nudity, in itself and in the natural way God has created us, is not automatically pornographic, as unfortunately so many people among Modern Society can't bring themselves to believe. So there should be nothing offensive about a natural state of nudity.

I would consider Pornography, on the otherhand, as any image or description of a scenario that is intentionally designed to shock, offend or appall the viewer in a way that also degrades the subject in the image. I would consider all the blood, guts & gore that gets splashed onto our Prime-Time television airwaves every evening as downright pornographic, yet the very same people who regularly broadcast that sort of entertainment fare would be absolutely shocked at the mere suggestion of ever including a moment of peaceful, non-sexual nudity in that same programme. Go figure.

So why then that, in a modern age of the Twenty-First Century, does it seem that so many folks in so many civilised and modernised countries, have their morals backwards to the degree that they prefer to flock to see violent and bloody but cower like scared little rodents at the sight or even the thought of natural, non-sexual nudity?