Nudity question

Star Man · 2008-07-09, 01:34 PM

Maybe I'm just so jaded from looking at porn over the years that I don't know what's what anymore

but would an ass with a butthole peeking out of a thong but still partially covered be considered nudity? What about a photo of an ass without the pussy or butthole showing?Like from a side angle? Is that nudity? Maybe these are total newbie questions so I won't be offended if this thread is moved.Just had to ask.

Ronzo · 2008-07-09, 03:23 PM

Read this definition somewhere, but don't recall exactly where. Not verbatim, but it went something like this... nudity exists relative to the state of the model's attire or lack of it. A model can be completely nude but reveal nothing sensitive to what would be termed explicit nudity (private parts visible). A model's pose and gestures can imply nudity (private parts uncovered but you can't see them) but still not be revealing. Bottomline, when "private parts" are exposed it crosses into the area of offensive for some people. Since ass cheeks are often readily visible at public beaches and even in underwear ads... they're probably not private enough to cross the line as to what's offensive. But, two out of seven body orifices are probably considered "private parts", so when you exhibit them you're definitely trading in the area of "nudity" in the context of your question.

Star Man · 2008-07-09, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronzo

Read this definition somewhere, but don't recall exactly where. Not verbatim, but it went something like this... nudity exists relative to the state of the model's attire or lack of it. A model can be completely nude but reveal nothing sensitive to what would be termed explicit nudity (private parts visible). A model's pose and gestures can imply nudity (private parts uncovered but you can't see them) but still not be revealing. Bottomline, when "private parts" are exposed it crosses into the area of offensive for some people. Since ass cheeks are often readily visible at public beaches and even in underwear ads... they're probably not private enough to cross the line as to what's offensive. But, two out of seven body orifices are probably considered "private parts", so when you exhibit them you're definitely trading in the area of "nudity" in the context of your question.

Thanks Ronzo that helps a bit.I was looking at some Phil Flash stuff the other day and noticed a few known non-nude models were showing a good amount of butthole behind their thong string so that added to my confusion as to where exactly the line is drawn.

Mr. Plow · 2008-07-10, 04:10 PM

I've done both erotic "fine art" nudes and porn and it seems to me that a big part of difference is that with porn it's explicit, you see everything (the surfer wants closeup pics of a hairy pussy, that's what he gets), whereas something might show nearly as much nudity, but not be considered porny if it's about the whole model, not about focusing on her hairy pussy, giant tits, webbed feet, whatever. A site like Met Art (http://www.met-art.com/) usually falls on the tasteful side of the line because they take that approach.

2008-07-09, 01:34 PM	#1
Star Man A boy without mischief is like a bowling ball without a liquid center Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: clevel.......don't make me say it! Posts: 436	Nudity question Maybe I'm just so jaded from looking at porn over the years that I don't know what's what anymore but would an ass with a butthole peeking out of a thong but still partially covered be considered nudity? What about a photo of an ass without the pussy or butthole showing?Like from a side angle? Is that nudity? Maybe these are total newbie questions so I won't be offended if this thread is moved.Just had to ask. __________________ good luck

2008-07-10, 04:10 PM	#4
Mr. Plow A woman is like beer. They look good, they smell good, and you'd step over your own mother just to get one! Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 55	I've done both erotic "fine art" nudes and porn and it seems to me that a big part of difference is that with porn it's explicit, you see everything (the surfer wants closeup pics of a hairy pussy, that's what he gets), whereas something might show nearly as much nudity, but not be considered porny if it's about the whole model, not about focusing on her hairy pussy, giant tits, webbed feet, whatever. A site like Met Art (http://www.met-art.com/) usually falls on the tasteful side of the line because they take that approach. __________________ That name again is Mr. Plow. Huge Content Sale!

2008-07-09, 03:23 PM	#2
Ronzo WHO IS FONZY!?! Don't they teach you anything at school? Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 40	Read this definition somewhere, but don't recall exactly where. Not verbatim, but it went something like this... nudity exists relative to the state of the model's attire or lack of it. A model can be completely nude but reveal nothing sensitive to what would be termed explicit nudity (private parts visible). A model's pose and gestures can imply nudity (private parts uncovered but you can't see them) but still not be revealing. Bottomline, when "private parts" are exposed it crosses into the area of offensive for some people. Since ass cheeks are often readily visible at public beaches and even in underwear ads... they're probably not private enough to cross the line as to what's offensive. But, two out of seven body orifices are probably considered "private parts", so when you exhibit them you're definitely trading in the area of "nudity" in the context of your question.