|
|
Post by JCriquet on Mar 16, 2005 18:48:54 GMT 10
Call me amoral, but I thought this might warrant a new thread. I'll try and fill in the details soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by JCriquet on Mar 16, 2005 18:51:48 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Splash on Mar 17, 2005 21:57:02 GMT 10
Busy recently had a pictorial in Stuff magazine. Hot stuff. Great thread  First person to say they'd git "busy" wid dat sho 'nuf gets half a cool point. |
|
|
|
Post by Splash on Mar 17, 2005 21:59:38 GMT 10
Mmmmmm I'd sure get busy with that  |
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Mar 18, 2005 11:37:05 GMT 10
ugh, it depresses me when these so called serious actresses do soft porn magazines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Splash on Mar 18, 2005 13:02:32 GMT 10
ugh, it depresses me when these so called serious actresses do soft porn magazines. Ummm, it's not porn. It's not even nude. |
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Mar 18, 2005 13:44:50 GMT 10
its soft porn.
Everyone has their own definition of pornography, but mine is something that is artless and designed solely for sexual titilation.
hence for me its pornography.
|
|
|
|
Post by Splash on Mar 19, 2005 8:55:16 GMT 10
its soft porn. Everyone has their own definition of pornography, but mine is something that is artless and designed solely for sexual titilation. hence for me its pornography. Interesting debating technique. Saying it's pornography because you choose to define it as pornography is an unbeatable argument. On the other hand, in order to apply your definition of pornography then we'd have to be able to determine the motivations behind an artwork, and then prove that it isn't an artwork. Heh. Personally, I don't see how it's pornographic, but I'll agree that it's sexual (everything always is) and that it's designed to be titilating, and I'd be prepared to concede that the photo set doesn't have much artistic value. She was a serious actress? I thought she was in Dawson's Creek and White Chicks?  Anyway, what do you hate about the idea of actresses posing like she did? I'm being serious this time - I've been thinking a lot about celebrity culture lately. |
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Mar 21, 2005 11:09:06 GMT 10
i didnt realise we were having a "debate" (bloody students)
Magazines like FHM, Ralph etc disgust me anyway. But Im sick of actresses posing in them and then making up some bullshit about it being empowering. Im not a prude or anything (not by a fucking long shot) but it seems to me that if your an actress (or actor, the guys do it just as much) then act, don't pose in these soft porn wank mags.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enid on Mar 21, 2005 17:39:15 GMT 10
i didnt realise we were having a "debate" (bloody students) Magazines like FHM, Ralph etc disgust me anyway. But Im sick of actresses posing in them and then making up some bullshit about it being empowering. Im not a prude or anything (not by a fucking long shot) but it seems to me that if your an actress (or actor, the guys do it just as much) then act, don't pose in these soft porn wank mags. I dont think anyone besides the individual can decide what is empowering and what is not. |
|
|
|
Post by Splash on Mar 22, 2005 0:54:11 GMT 10
i didnt realise we were having a "debate" Why, did you invent your own definition for that word too? I don't read either of those magazines. Is it just the context that makes those pictures pornography? Actors make their livings with their bodies, and posing for photographs can be a kind of acting. An actor's image is something they can control/change by doing these kinds of projects, and by the roles they choose. I think we can judge whether we like the photographs without the pornography slur. |
|
|
|
Post by HARVEE on Mar 22, 2005 9:17:30 GMT 10
thats a valid point, but I still think it is nothing more than pornography. You seem to think pornography only counts if it includes full nakedness. Fine, that is your definition. I believe pornography is something that is designed only to sexually arouse, which I believe those photos do. They certainly dont have any "artistic merit" that I can see.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Horrible Brian on Mar 22, 2005 17:22:27 GMT 10
My definition of pornography is "more please".
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Mar 24, 2005 10:03:25 GMT 10
or The OC.
Everyone looks so plastic. It terrifies me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enid on Mar 25, 2005 20:30:34 GMT 10
Beautiful people have to live! Oh lord wont you please let them live!
I do agree though, TV I can tolerate a level of plastic but in movies No! can't stand it. But Im also sick of movies that show the plight of the "unattractive girl or boy" how is continually drawing attention to these "hardships" creating anything meaningful, I live for the day when such a story is treated normally without any social commentary Did I just answer my own question? what am I talking about? Im so hungry that is the problem. I need a care package. SOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOS
|
|
