[absynthe]

I think what has most of you guys confused is most of the stuff online. If you ever get a chance to actually see a nude showing then it is different. Unfortunately lots of what is posted online and labeled as art does look pornographic and VERY young. I think the word "art" is used for that reason only. To escape prosecution. If it is genuine, and the artist is not a total perv and really believes in what he or she is showing then you will see the difference...

P.S. Fox News Sucks Ass---random but true...

We did invade Syria...just hit a village in persuit of "terrorists" way inside the Syrian Border..

haha! I took it down cause you guys rag on me enough! The nude that is

The other thing looked gross, even to me

This post has been edited by absynthe: 26 October 2008 - 08:13 PM

[KYA]

Why'd you take it down?

[Damage]

that was BBC news, but i'll have a look now

This post has been edited by Damage: 26 October 2008 - 08:13 PM

[KYA]

fuck syria. fuck them hard

[Damage]

http://www.belfastte...s-14016818.html

I'm not really finding anything else.

Quote

fuck syria. fuck them hard

i don't think it's that simple. Sure America could squash Syria but if america invades another Country in the Middle East/Muslim Nation i don't think it'll end up as just america vs syria

Quote

If it is genuine, and the artist is not a total perv and really believes in what he or she is showing then you will see the difference...

any examples/links?

This post has been edited by Damage: 26 October 2008 - 08:21 PM

[bluesnowangel]

I've never been a fan of wikipedia references. It's always seemed so... I don't know... incomplete and faulty. Wikipedia can be a decent place to start, but I've told people in the past, please don't let it ever be your only source of research.

I do work with a photographer that happens to have more than half his work done in the adult side of things (other side would be sporting events). I've done my time in the lab. I've seen things, man.... I've seen things!! *mock mental breakdown* I kid.

But lately, a really nice chocolate cake picture could be porn to me. lol

[Damage]

rule 34

oh and hi,welcome to D.I.C

[absynthe]

http://www.foxnews.com/
The very first link....this will probably blow up into a lot bigger problem..

"The government said civilians were among the dead, including four children."

Why Im a pacifist...

This post has been edited by absynthe: 26 October 2008 - 08:33 PM

[Damage]

i keep saying that these things don't really amount to much and nothing interesting ever happens but sooner or later somebody is going to get very pissed off and do something drastic

[GWatt]

Absynthe, that's very true. Pornography does have some amount of protection from prosecution/censorship as a form of art.

Just thought I'd throw this out there too: Pornography objectifies women whereas a simple nude photograph taken for the sake of art does not. I think it pretty much comes back to the true intent of the artist.

[absynthe]

Thank you!!

Alright, Ill be back in an hour or so! Going to go open a bottle of wine and sip for abit while finishing up Lost..Ill be back in a few

[Damage]

GWatt, on 26 Oct, 2008 - 08:37 PM, said:

Absynthe, that's very true. Pornography does have some amount of protection from prosecution/censorship as a form of art.

Just thought I'd throw this out there too: Pornography objectifies women whereas a simple nude photograph taken for the sake of art does not. I think it pretty much comes back to the true intent of the artist.

i refer you back to my link

[GWatt]

The deviant art link w/ roxanne?
I've already said it's not pornographic. definitely explicit, but also not something that's particularly arousing.

[Damage]

you don't think it objectifies women?

[Mikhail]

Porn>Art