|
Senior Member
Powerbike Favorite Bike: duh! My '07 Black!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 345
|
this is just silly.
Let's face it: porn is about sex. In particular, about erotic behavior. From Merriam-Webster:
pornography
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
So, young women in scanty bikinis sitting on a motorcycle... are they exhibiting "erotic behavior"?? How about a woman modeling motorcycle chaps while covering herself for modesty? Is *that* erotic? Let's check M-W again:
erotic
1 : of, devoted to, or tending to arouse sexual love or desire <erotic art>
2 : strongly marked or affected by sexual desire
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Certainly, if we're talking about unambiguously sexually suggestive poses and clothing or lack thereof, that's pretty much erotic, and depcition thereof would have to be called pornography. But when the art in question is widely (by its audience) viewed as 'beautiful' and 'attractive', it's not automatically sexually erotic, even if it is a female (or male) form, viewed by a male (or female) audience.
On a tangentially related tack, take as a collection all those favorite motorcycle shots, like for example the set of them that is cycling thru the banner ad at the top left of my window right now. We say, of those photos, "that's HOT", "sweet", "smokin", "sexy", etc. Without looking at the photo, and reading the comments, they could well be about an object of sexual desire OR a well-sorted motorcycle - you can't tell without the picture. Indeed, there are some who would argue that a big part of the underlying appeal of motorcycling is rife with sexual connotations - "check out my ride", "nice cans", "straddle the bike", etc. etc. My point? None, really - just an observation. That and the observation that at least some of the mods here certainly feel that any image of a female with a motorcycle is erotic and the depiction thereof is pornography, with the possible exception of females that are fully covered, head to toe, in what one writer has referred to as the 'Bonneville Burqua'.
One mod recently mentioned a "line in the sand" and something about "setting a standard". Dunno about you youngsters, but I cannot hear "line in the sand" without thinking of Moammar Ghaddafi, and even on a slow day I can tell the difference between "setting" a standard and "imposing one on others".
For those that think I'm perturbed about not being able to share my photos, don't bother consoling me. I'm not perturbed. I don't need to show off my art to validate myself. I'm fully aware that there's an underlying "we" behind this site that has every right to impose their standards upon us. As was pointed out, we don't have to visit this site. We don't pay for it, we don't maintain it. It's their sandbox (line and all).
It would be nice, though, if they'd understand that the folks that *do* visit this site are responsible adults and, left to their own devices, will by and large behave as such, and really, really don't need to be treated as children. (Last time I checked, your average 11 year old isn't in the right tax bracket to be riding a Triumph, and for that matter, your average grandma has seen and done more things than you've thought of yet, and is very, very hard to shock).
There's a corollary to the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) that goes something like this: Others will behave as though you will do unto them as they would do unto you. What does that mean in this context? I could tell you, but then I'd have to shoot you. Just think about it a little.
Cheers!
__________________
Gone to greener pastures.
|
Linear Mode
