• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Erotic or Pornographic?

I have been following Emil's work since the 90's and have never seen anything even remotely objectionable, but then again I didn't think the photographs in question were erotic either. They were just beautiful photographs.

I can understand why Emil pulled the photos, and they are the same reasons why I don't post certain photos at all. It is the conservative/religious wingnuts that really ruin it for everyone who don't have their mental problems. (That is not to say all conservative/religious people are wingnuts or have mental problems. Not the case.) It is ironic that in this country, the USA, those same conservative/religious people are obsessed with freedom and small government, all the while trying to dictate the behavior of everyone else. That fact though is of course lost on them.

To whomever used the word pornographic to describe Emil's photo- if you think calling someone's photograph "pornographic" is an opinion and not an insult you are the one that needs to reign it in. Insults are not opinions.

I am really tempted at this point to post some photos for Emil.
 

blansky,

It was discussed above that the "community standards" test deals with the definition of "obscenity", not pornography.

And the quote with the chicken is:

“It’s erotic if you’re using a feather. It’s kinky if you’re using the whole damn chicken.”


You need to spend more time out on the edge. The difference between pornography and erotica isn't that big a deal--at least you're not going to get arrested if you cross the line. The difference between porn and obscenity, that's a different matter.
 

Religio instrumentum regni is alive and well in the USA deeply ingrained in the many Christian creeds. It's mostly about profit and control than spirituality. It's been that way for so long here that most of us simply can't see it. We can't see the forest for the trees... or is it we can't see the tree for the forest? It's interesting and embarrassing how much we love our Constitution and how little we defend it.
 
blansky said:
I try to spend more time on the edge but most of my life is spent in a cage as a sex slave under the control of a group of Amazons.

And I'm just too damn tired.
Click to expand...

Well played. Well played.
 
I want to see Emil's "other" work. Art and sensuality/sexuality is a fine mix... it has been since the beginning of human kind.
 
Just try to make things clear. Erotic, nudity, pornography, sexuality and sensuality are all different words and should not be mixed or confused altogether.

If you see photos of African women totally naked, bathing or just posing, that is nudity. Nothing else.
If you see photos of young models posing in studio, this is mostly nudity and erotic.
When there is more exposure with the erotic acts, then that is sexuality or sexal acts.
When the subjects are engaged in explicit sexual acts with full exposure, then that is pornography.

Anyway, this is enough. I hope I'm not confused here.
 

It seems to me a uniquely American phenomenon to try and stick everything into a neat little box. Personally I don't buy it.

Seriously , which bits cause nudity? What act is sexual? A kiss? Tongues or no tongues? How a bout fully clothed girls kissing somewhere other than a studio? It gets stupid fast.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was a lot happier, way back when, with only two boxes: naughty and nice.
 
This kind of things happen when a person enjoy something in privacy of his/her own home but try to look like they don't do such thing in public.
 
I've solved the problem for me.

I've changed my desktop. My sidebar has been moved from the left side to the right side.

So obviously, any erotic material is now much more conservative.

Personally, I think it is fine for anyone to express personal displeasure about an image appearing in their sidebar. As long as that expression itself is respectful.
 

All sidebars in utah must be on the right. Everything else as well. Left is not allowed here.

The sidebar may be removed by fragile persons. That's as far as we are willing to go.

I think the label of pornography in the context most people think of, when used to describe the typical gallery content we have here, is derogatory. Most persons here would be more than willing to discuss content, sexuality, and art in regard to a specific work. Here we had morality police jumping up and down and yelling "Porn!" One hand pointing, and the other in their pants pocket. That kind of behavior is intolerable here.

Emil would have been more than willing to discuss it intelligently, but that isn't how these people work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I keep my sidebars on the right when in the US, but on the left when in the UK. When in Australia I put them on the bottom. I've never been to the North Pole, but I suppose I'd put them on top if I ever were to go there. IDK what I'd do at the equator!
 
I'm just pissed because there's more nude females than males....
 
I'm pissed because a great photographer and printer is forced to remove his images from the gallery even if its "just" to protect his models.
Keep posting Emil
Best regards
 
MattKing said:
You obviously weren't here when that subject became somewhat "prominent".
Click to expand...


I wasn't. But its now added to my favorites... LOL

I got the readers digest version from the creator.
 
His male nudes are awesome. Emil's female nudes are awesome.

So much awesome, so little time.
 
Patrick Robert James said:
To whomever used the word pornographic to describe Emil's photo- if you think calling someone's photograph "pornographic" is an opinion and not an insult you are the one that needs to reign it in. Insults are not opinions.
Click to expand...

I didn't use the term (I cannot see the Gallery) but I notice that, very interestingly, Gandolfi himself used the word "pornographic" to describe his pictures if I get his post #93 right. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong in pornography either. And "pornographic" is not necessarily an insult although for most people it is out of a prudish mentality.

If I think something is objectionable, is the "stealing" of images if this is done without proper acknowledgement. (So much I actually went on the web and stole a lot of images, and then turned them into small multicoloured bromoils). Even when producing works of art which are derivatives of somebody else's work the original work must be at the very least quoted and if a profit is made out of the derivative work some part of this profit belongs to the author of the derivative work.
 
OK - you clearly didn't get my post right!!

I said I had done some images with pornographic content, But those were NOT the ones I submitteed here - they are all mine..

I also said after the bold quote you made, that I have not and will not upload any of these as they are not all mine!!

Who do you really think I am? Do you really think I'd claim full ownership to images where I wasn't the photographer.... really?

I used the images in question as tests to see whether this idea would be an idea to follow...

 
blansky said:
I try to spend more time on the edge but most of my life is spent in a cage as a sex slave under the control of a group of Amazons.
Click to expand...

We want pictures!
 

I'd hold back Emil.

There's language barriers so possible misinterepretations.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register