innoscense,beauty and ascetism,or sensuality,eroticism and porn

[bernardc]

Recently i had one of my albums removed from the site,after I posted about teens and nudism,and refering to that album for pictures I had taken from another site.And I began thinking again.
What is innoscent,and is there a fine line between innoscence,beautifull and asccetism,when does one of these progress further,or are they all the same concept.Something can be innoscent,and perhaps beautifull,or even have ascetic values,but are they the same?What does inoscence conjure up,and what does beauty bring out,or what makes something ascetic?If I look at a child playing on a beach,is it inoscent?
He or she is building a sand castle,pouring water into it,trying to fill a pond of sort at the castle....but what if that kid has clothes on...is that innoscent?
Lets take that same child days later...and he/she is dressed in only briefs playing...what does one call that...beautifull?And if that child is playing in the nude days later,is that ascetism?Are these different levels perhaps a progression into danger?
When something reaches the ascetism stage,can it become ....sensual?How do we see sensuality?Does it conjure lusts,admiration,fear....or fantacy....
What is realy the difference between eroticism and pornography?Can erroticism become pornographic?If one looks at an erotic picture of a man on a big ball with an erection,is that erotic,or pornographic?What if that same man is pictured in the sex act,is that porn,or erotic?
Porn focusses mainly on the genitals,but does eroticism not do the same?When would you view something as pornographic,erotic,sensual?
The same can be said about innoscence and beauty and ascetism,are these not only junior steps leading to pornographic issues,and if not,can innoscence an d ascetism be seen as perhaps sensual....when does innoscence not become innoscence,or is it what we make it to be?
Why would what i see as beautifull,innoscent and asctetic be judged as inappropriate?Just a question....
Why is it okay to see your children naked in the bath,but if you take a picture of them in the bath,its viewed as child porn!?The question again...what is porn then,or is it proof that man is sick in his mind seeing all as porn and inappropriate...?

[Josh-here]

I saw the album when it had just one pic in it, kind of a "country kid".
That stayed up for some time. What did you add that made it come down?

[bernardc]

A few pictures of teens taken fro m the site Nudismlife,and a few body painting pics.

[David77]

bernardc,
I have not seen the photos. However you pose some very good but deep and sometimes difficult academic questions. The answers would depend on who ponders and answers the questions. Also, the answers would be determined by the differing (historic) cultural changes in societies as to what is acceptable.

Some college philosophy departments have a course named "The Philosophy of Aesthetics" but I have no idea whether or not they discuss the difference and/or similarities of aesthetics, exotic/erotic, sensual, pornographic, etc.

[Liam C]

Bernard, you do come up with some difficult questions! I don't think that there is any single answer to these things. Every person seems to have a different perception of what each of these are. Many people view any nudity or almost nudity as a negative. I hope that most people see some shades and not just black and white. I suspect that there are fewer people who see shades than one would think. Also I am convinced that many people do not truthfully state their real feelings in a public forum. The reasons for that are pretty clear I think. It is my experience that minority opinions are not accepted without the accusation of deviance from a fearful majority. Often "truthful answer" can fit in that last sentence in the place of "minority opinions".

I admire you for considering these difficult questions. Most people don't bother to think that deeply. All of the qualities you mention are seen through the filters each individual sees through.

[bernardc]

These realy are questions that sometimes bother me.I suppose i am at heart a philossopher when it comes to these things.I sometimes get the impression,that when people see a nude person,they automatically asume its sexual,and add all types of sugestive connotations to it.Even so,more to seeing naked children.
if I see a naked child,its just so beautifull.I see them in the light of playing with freedom and joy,I see them as plain healthy children,expressing no shame or disgust.They seem to be pure in their games and nudity becomes no issue.Which leads me to the following point...Who is then the real transgressor,the child playing naked/the naked adult,or the person that strongly apposes it at all costs.
The question is then in my mind...If they see it as pornographic,and assume that others see it as pornographic,who is the real trespasser.Who realy has the sick mind.
I think the greatest danger of child abuse,are these people that appose anything beautifull,and make it out as peadophilia.A person that sees the beauty and aesthetics of a nude human figure as pornographic,immoral,disgusting and or abusive,realy has a huge problem!
Look,to me,innoscence is the unspoilt expression of any thing.Something/someone that has not been poisned in their minds,that appreciate innoscence as innoscence,and not as seductive.Innoscence becomes beauty,if it is appreciated without any sexual connotation.Beauty speaks of treasure,something that makes one love life.
Aesthetism speaks then to me,all of the above combined,without sexual connotation.
If one looks at nudity ,and places any other meaning to it as it is...then there is a problem.I realy get irretated by others that want to dictate to us what is sensual,erotic or pornographic.The party that places any other quality on beauty,innoscence and aesthetics,other than purity,is a sick person.Their thoughts are what bothers me.
Can a person honestly say that seeing a naked person on a beach or anywhere else ,that it conjures up sexual images? If a person has that trend in thought when ,for instance looking at a naked child,the problem is that person.I think,our perceptions of purity has been warped by conservative bussybodies,that have secret hidden agendas when looking at any naked person or child.In brief,I think,that innoscence,beauty and aesthetecism can be placed under one single term...PURITY!Thanks for your responses.I hope this thread will help all of us to see things from a different perspective.

[David77]

I hope this thread will help all of us to see things from a different perspective.

The St. Louis Art Museum "sees things from a different perspective", as they featured a large special exhibit of the famous Spanish painter, Joaquin Sorolla Y Bastida which included a number of impressionistic paintings and some containing nude children at the seashore.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...h+Images&gbv=2

My mother appreciated the sight of the nude form regardless of young age.

[JeepNude]

Originally Posted by bernardc

I think,our perceptions of purity has been warped by conservative bussybodies....

Bernard,

I can assure you that it is NOT a conservative/liberal thing. In fact, one's political leanings have no bearing on their outlook on nude vs. lewd.

Case in point- I am a conservative. In fact, I am very far to the right of center. I hang out with a group of conservatives at the nudist resort. Our combined outlook on the issue is quite wholesome and pure. We condemn the actions of the prudish in our conversations on the topic. I hear similar views from the left as well.

The problem comes from people on the left, right, and center who are just plain sick or derranged. We can find mentally derranged people in all walks of life and political ideologies. Although in fun, the left and right claim each other is 'sick' for their beliefs, but we only truly do so in fun.

It is more important to understand what makes a sick person do what they do than to put a political affiliation label on them.

There is absolutely nothing in the conservative 'playbook' that is against nude recreation in any way. In fact, quite the opposite.

Blaming anti-nudism on the conservative this or that is inaccurate in every way. Blaming warps in the perception of purity on people that are prudish or sick (i.e.- addicted to pornography) is a better idea.

[jon71]

Maybe instead of conservative we should say "fundy". There does seem to be a lot of flak coming from people with a religious agenda who are convinced that naked = sinful. I don't consider these people to be real Christians but that's a long essay so I won't dive into it now. Perhaps we should specify "religious conservative" as opposed to people who are conservative on foreign policy or fiscal policy. Terms can be hard to pin down sometimes.

[l2ltlarry]

JeepNude, I spent a long time working as hard as I could, trying to get something resembling progress to happen. Of course, some other people do this too.

But my experience has been that many, many more people are interested in stopping things than in working to make good things happen and move things forward.

What should we call the very large majority of people who would rather stop things?

I always thought they were "conservatives, fundamentalists, hard right, or anti's".

I'm not wanting to start a liberal versus conservative fight; these battles are just worthless and exhausting. Given your explanation of conservatives who are not anti-nudism, what should we call the people who are?

Of course, Stu is anti-nudism -- despite his protests to the contrary -- and he is not a conservative. (Or is he?) Your explanation does make sense when Stu is taken as one example.

I suspect that, even though Stu is now atheist, his Christian upbringing ingrained his thinking with patterns that are hard to rethink and revise. As I see it, a logical mind -- free of certain societal or cultural conditioning -- would not see the nude human body as something to be shunned, but rather see it as the most beautiful, wondrous, and fascinating of all objects in existence.