those old Playboy magazines from, say, 1961-71 were classics of stylish erotica. Hefner as national icon/cultural hero? Porn on the web is a real turn-off: ugly models, poorly lit and photographed. where is the freshness, the sense of play and innocence and pure erotic delight with JUST enough left to the imagination...
I am not sure if the old playboy magazines are great or anything since I haven't seen them, but I must agree that much of today's porn (especially on the web) is disappointing. I don't know if it is just because I am an architect, but I often find myself disappointed in the details. That is, photos or video that are shot in lame interiors that are often either suburban basement rec rooms or the local best western/holiday inn. Definitely a turn-off.
yeah, I am with cellardoor. Good porn = raw sex. No airbrushes, no snazzy lights, just pure lust. Too each his own, but I don't like porn that leaves anything to 'my imagination'
my biggest sex organ is my brain: the slightest thing can turn me on - or off and people are sexier when they have SOME clothes on. Total nudity a real turn off: especially pasty-pink white people...
to each his own, I agree, sex is a big tent: the comments here are endlessly intriguing...
'Pure lust' is more delicate than you may imagine, I think: I may be wrong. Everyone's different.
My question is why do you feel it is necessary that art is un-blemished? It all depends on what is important to you, and its always reality to me and not some made up perfection.
- they even have an architecture group ;). and copious amounts of discussion on where the fine line is between erotic photography and pronography. fatalbeauty is supposed to be good as well.
Huanmic: I have an obsession with perfection- perhaps it is a disease. However most art is marred, too- the Venus de Milo has no arms: quite peculiar when you think about it. Really mannerist to love her that way and set her up as an icon of feminine beauty. I think my disease is OCD: a mug's game as I will never be satisfied. Most people let me down: morally, aesthetically. We are immoral because we have a design flaw: called original sin. Ebunny: where are you???
I had a friend who once saw Deep Throat in NYC when it came out in 1971(?) and it almost made her physically sick. I have wanted to see it for a long time, but now don't. The story of Linda Lovelace is pretty depressing.
I think that only god is morally and hence aesthetically perfect. But what is god: some Greek philosophical principle of aesthetics, or the all powerful Jahweh of the ancient - and modern - Jews? When you read the Psalms long enough, they give you a hard-on. Jahweh the Father as phallic principle: no offense to my Jewish friends. And the pagans worshipped the phallus, as well. God as Priapus: phallic garden god. Internet porn is not a turn-off because it is TOO erotic, but not erotic enough...
I'll be quiet now.
pornography vs. erotica
porn = bad sex?
erotica = good sex?
those old Playboy magazines from, say, 1961-71 were classics of stylish erotica. Hefner as national icon/cultural hero? Porn on the web is a real turn-off: ugly models, poorly lit and photographed. where is the freshness, the sense of play and innocence and pure erotic delight with JUST enough left to the imagination...
Dear Friends,
I am not sure if the old playboy magazines are great or anything since I haven't seen them, but I must agree that much of today's porn (especially on the web) is disappointing. I don't know if it is just because I am an architect, but I often find myself disappointed in the details. That is, photos or video that are shot in lame interiors that are often either suburban basement rec rooms or the local best western/holiday inn. Definitely a turn-off.
With Love!
eb
good porn is bad porn
crap setdesign, indiscriminate photography and bad acting skills are far more of a turn on...and so much rougher.
Overproduced porn? Why? So you could really appreciate the set designer's attention-to-detail?
as George Burns said, "When the air was clean and the sex was dirty".
yeah, I am with cellardoor. Good porn = raw sex. No airbrushes, no snazzy lights, just pure lust. Too each his own, but I don't like porn that leaves anything to 'my imagination'
my biggest sex organ is my brain: the slightest thing can turn me on - or off and people are sexier when they have SOME clothes on. Total nudity a real turn off: especially pasty-pink white people...
to each his own, I agree, sex is a big tent: the comments here are endlessly intriguing...
'Pure lust' is more delicate than you may imagine, I think: I may be wrong. Everyone's different.
something is wrong with you if cheap internet porn doesnt get you going...who doesnt get titillated by:
bad mascara jobs,
stretch marks,
herpes scars,
botched boob jobs,
flabby tummies
rug burns
needle tracks
dirty and chewed nails
crusty toes
suture i resent you getting turned on by my wife. can i watch???
what I want to see is not life - with all its hideous blemishes - but art:
http://www.allman.com/
(the surrounding text is a bit ridiculous)
My question is why do you feel it is necessary that art is un-blemished? It all depends on what is important to you, and its always reality to me and not some made up perfection.
- they even have an architecture group ;). and copious amounts of discussion on where the fine line is between erotic photography and pronography.
fatalbeauty is supposed to be good as well.
Huanmic: I have an obsession with perfection- perhaps it is a disease. However most art is marred, too- the Venus de Milo has no arms: quite peculiar when you think about it. Really mannerist to love her that way and set her up as an icon of feminine beauty. I think my disease is OCD: a mug's game as I will never be satisfied. Most people let me down: morally, aesthetically. We are immoral because we have a design flaw: called original sin. Ebunny: where are you???
deep throat revealed!!!
Linda Lovelace?
Thats HOTTT! Hotter than Paris on Paris action!
Please save us from sin EBunny!
I had a friend who once saw Deep Throat in NYC when it came out in 1971(?) and it almost made her physically sick. I have wanted to see it for a long time, but now don't. The story of Linda Lovelace is pretty depressing.
I think that only god is morally and hence aesthetically perfect. But what is god: some Greek philosophical principle of aesthetics, or the all powerful Jahweh of the ancient - and modern - Jews? When you read the Psalms long enough, they give you a hard-on. Jahweh the Father as phallic principle: no offense to my Jewish friends. And the pagans worshipped the phallus, as well. God as Priapus: phallic garden god. Internet porn is not a turn-off because it is TOO erotic, but not erotic enough...
I'll be quiet now.
"I have an obsession with perfection"
"We are immoral because we have a design flaw: called original sin"
how Anne Rice
its all about lighting.....good lighting = erotica; bad lighting = porn
eureka!
nanofog knows his porn. oh yeah
porno = no penetration
erotica = penetration
not so bad
flabby tummies
depends how flabby
there are many varieties of perfection.
But I leave the fecal gimp fetish porn to twisted conservative pervs.
bad mascara jobs,
botched boob jobs,
rug burns
dirty and chewed nails
crusty toes
herpes scars,
needle tracks
or active sores?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.