Passions Unchained.org  Sex Education for Adults - Tips for a Better Orgasm - How To Sex Guides & More

Nudity: Pornography or Art?
This question has been asked for years, and there is no definitive answer. Many well respected artists have done paintings and sculptures of both male and female nudes, and these are on public display for individuals of all ages to view at museums, and copies of them adorn many public establishments that allow children.
Few people would consider the Venus de Milo pornography. The Venus de Milo is nude, and her nipples are clearly defined, yet she remains a masterpiece with few equals, but a photograph of a nude woman with her nipples exposed is considered pornographic.
Perhaps the most famous male nude statue in the world today is the Statue of David by Michelangelo. Unlike the Venus de Milo, who's lower body is draped, Michelangelo's David is fully nude, and the statue's penis is sculpted in full detail. But again, a photograph of a nude male with his penis visible is called pornography.
Now consider this; Although the sculptor of the Venus de Milo is unknown, the date of origin is estimated to be in the second century B.C., Michelangelo was commissioned to create the David by the Arte della Lana in 1501. Had there been cameras back then, and had the artists photographed the nudes rather than sculpt them, would they still be considered art rather than pornography?

What about paintings of nudes? Again, there were no cameras when artists such as Pierre Auguste Renoir, Jean-Auguste Dominique Ingres, Paul Gauguin, or Edgar Degas were painting, yet they all painted nudes, and their nudes are considered as art rather than pornography. This raises the question that is it possible nudity may have been accepted as art rather than pornography when these sculptures and paintings were created? Maybe. Or maybe it had to do with the origin of the works.
Many countries and civilizations have never shared the Puritan values of the Anglo Saxons (read about the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition if you don't understand what I mean). Europeans considered the people of India to be a backward race of heathens because the outside of their temples were adorned with carvings and sculptures of naked men and women, many depicting sexual acts including intercourse and masturbation. I wonder if the ancient Romans, Egyptians, and Greeks would they have been considered heathens as well because of the numerous nude statues they created to adorn the public areas and temples in their cities, had it not been for the fact they were so technologically advanced? Speaking of the Greeks, they brought us the Olympic Games, but did you know that originally, the competitors were all men, and they all competed in the nude? Did this mean the ancient Greeks felt there was no connection between nudity and sex? It's doubtful, especially when you consider the fact that female virgins were not allowed to attend the Olympics. Obviously, the Greeks did associate nudity with sex. If they didn't, then what other reason would they have for prohibiting female virgins from watching the nude men compete? It seems obvious that they were worried about the sexual stimulation the events created.
I may be going out on a limb here, but let's consider the facts. Female virgins weren't allowed to watch the Olympics because the competitors were naked men, but married women got to watch all they wanted. It sounds to me like the Greeks knew that women got turned on watching naked men in action, (just like most women do today watching a porn movie), so the married women could watch since their husband's would benefit from the fact their wives were getting turned on, but they didn't want the virgins getting sexually stimulated and end up getting their cherry popped! Taking that into consideration, I doubt very seriously that the statues of nude women didn't turn on the Greek men (and probably the women as well). Maybe the ancient Greeks didn't consider the nudes to be art as much as the fact that they accepted and displayed publicly the same images that we would consider to be pornography today. That's just a theory, but it bears as much consideration as the theory they did view nudity as art.

Some people will argue that sculptures and paintings are art, but photography isn't. I don't agree, but if I were to concede that pornography is defined by the medium used to create it, and for a picture to be considered art it has to be a painting rather than a photograph, then in turn, I pose the following question: Why aren't all modern paintings and statues of nudes considered art?
I guarantee there are thousands of modern works showing men and women naked that some people would claim to be art, while others would call them pornography.
Another argument I've heard to distinguish art from pornography is the content of the image. Again, I do not agree, but let's consider the argument. If content, such as clear images of the vagina or penis, determines whether or not a piece is art or pornography, then why are pictures of nude women that don't show the vagina considered pornographic? To separate the 'art' from the 'pornography', the term soft-core porn was created to describe a photograph of a naked woman that only shows her nipples and not her vagina. So does that mean the Venus de Milo is soft core porn, or does it mean ANY photograph of a nude woman that does not show her vagina is art?
Sorry, but the rules aren't that cut and dry. A picture of the Venus de Milo next to a photograph of a nude woman striking a similar pose will be defined as art for the Venus, and pornography for the photo. Look at the examples on this page that compare the the Venus de Milo and La Sorgente by Jean-Auguste Dominique Ingres to photographs of nude models revealing similar details of the female body.

Before you scroll down any farther, let's try something. Take a moment and decide for yourself whether the pictures we chose to use for our comparisons qualify as Art or Pornography.

Have you made your decision? If so, then let's continue.

If you decided the pictures of the models are pornography, but the Venus and La Sorgente are art, please visit the 'Contact Us' page and tell me why you feel that way, and what were the determining factors you used to reach your decision.

If you decided the model next to the Venus is pornography because her lower body isn't covered, then by that definition there is no choice but to say the painting La Sorgente is pornography as well, and so is EVERY other masterpiece that doesn't cover the lower body, including the statue of David by Michelangelo!

If you decided that the pictures of the models qualify as art rather than pornography, then do you also agree that photographs of nude women in magazines such as Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler art as well?

If anyone reading this article decided the pictures we used DO qualify as works of art, but pictures of nude women in magazines DON'T, then you may be interested to know that there's a reason the models in the comparisons aren't striking the exact same pose as the masterpieces. We knew that if we had asked models to strike the same poses, there would be some people that would try to argue that it's the pose that makes the difference (I know, that's a ridiculous argument, but people can be ridiculous at times). So to better prove our point that defining whether a picture is art or pornography is subjective, all we did was put a mild satin overlay on the pictures of the models to give them a little softer look, took out the background of the one next to the Venus de Milo, and placed the one next to La Sorgente in the same frame as the one La Sorgente is in (And unfortunately, we had to cover them with text to identify them because of the people that hotlink our images and put them on their free blog pages without permission).

So where did the photos we used come from?

Both of them are photos of models Crystal Klein (compared to the Venus de Milo) and Kimberley Rogers (compared to La Sorgente), and both pictures are from nude layouts they've done for Penthouse. If framing a picture makes it art instead of pornography, then I've got tons of centerfolds that can be framed and placed on public display... but I doubt that would satisfy the opponents of pornography's definition of art. Of course, some of them would claim the Venus de Milo and La Sorgente are pornography and would have them destroyed if they could... sort of like the Nazis did with the books they didn't like. Also, I don't think anyone would try to argue that softening a picture or changing the background defines the difference between art and pornography, and as our example showing a photograph of model Kaylin Ryan next to an oil and watercolor rendering of the photo demonstrates, changing the medium used to create an image doesn't automatically make it any easier to differentiate between pornography and art.

Another interesting fact to consider is the double standard of the male and female chest. Take a look at the pictures below. The lingerie pictures of the woman in the pink teddy, and even the woman in the black one is acceptable for public viewing by people of all ages, and while neither of them may not be a picture an ad agency would use to sell toys to kids, they're not considered pornographic. They could be displayed in any magazine, on a billboard, on TV, or anywhere else in public view because the women's nipples are covered.  But the next picture of the woman smiling and showing her breasts is prohibited from any ads that aren't classified as porn, soft core porn, adult content, or for adults only because her nipples are visible. Now look at the picture of the man showing his bare chest. His nipples are clearly visible just like the woman's, but it's not pornographic, and not even considered adult content. Why not? Both men and women have nipples, and both have pectoral muscles, the woman's pectoral muscles just aren't as defined as a man's because the glands and tissues in a woman's breasts are different than a man's, but technically, other than the fact the female's breasts are larger than the males, the basic physical appearance is the same, and if a woman has small nipples, the nipples can look identical.

Not all women have a 44 DD chest. Many women have very small breasts, and a picture of just the the bare chest of an obese man could actually be mistaken for a woman's chest. Even so, the man can walk around without a shirt, but the woman with the small breasts still can't go topless in public, nor can  picture of her topless be displayed publicly if her nipples are visible.
So why do we consider a woman's nipples to be pornographic, but not a man's? In my opinion, it's simply because that's what we've been told all of our lives. In fact, if you think about it, doesn't what we've been taught actually define what is and isn't pornography? Our perception of right and wrong is the only factor that can be used to determine if something is acceptable or not, and the fact a woman's breasts are sexually enticing is based on society's perception of them. Our advanced civilization long ago decided that seeing a woman's chest is naughty (a.k.a. more erotic) than a man's, so showing the bare female breasts in public is not socially acceptable. That's what we've been told, so that's what we accept as fact. If you don't believe me, consider the 'uncivilized' societies where women don't cover their breasts. They aren't 'civilized' like we are, and they obviously aren't as 'mature' as us or they would realize that seeing a woman's naked breast is wrong (I do hope the sarcasm I was going for was perfectly clear in that statement).
Since we're talking about double standards, consider the fact that 'educational' material, such as National Geographic, have been allowed to show pictures of the women's nipples in a 'backward' and 'uncivilized' society in magazines and on network TV for years. If educational value is going to be used as the determining factor for pornography, then why aren't the networks airing shows like Nina Hartley’s Guide to Anal Sex, Nina Hartley’s Guide To Better Cunnilingus, Nina Hartley’s Guide to Double Penetration, Nina Hartley’s Guide to Foreplay, Nina Hartley’s Guide To Masturbation, Nina Hartley’s Guide To Multiple Orgasms, etc. etc.. I'm sure that a lot more young women would benefit from watching Nina Hartley's Guide To Female Ejaculation, or Nina Hartley's Guide To G-Spot Sex, than they would from being told that sex is wrong, and that oral sex or anal sex is nasty.
So many people have poisoned their children's minds with these antiquated, puritan values for so long that it's a wonder that our society hasn't banned intercourse altogether, or tried to regulated it for species propagation only.

So why did I include the subject of nudists and child pornography in this article?

To help demonstrate the point that it is what we are taught, both by our parents and by society, that makes us define what we view as pornography, and what we view as art.
We have been taught for years that terms like kinky sex and explicit nudity usually means pornography, and that porn is nasty, dirty, wrong, and something to be looked down on. In fact, consensual anal sex is still illegal in some states (defined legally as sodomy), and although I haven't heard of any charges being brought against anyone for it, it's sad that the law is still on the books in many places.
It's obvious that whether or not a woman's nipples are visible in a picture isn't the defining factor between art and pornography, and my views are not the same as everyone else's, and neither are yours. Some people may feel all nudity is pornography, and disagree with everything I've said. Other's will pick and choose, feeling a picture of a nude woman with her nipples visible isn't pornography as long as you can't see her vagina. Still, others may feel seeing a woman's vagina or a man's penis is pornography, but it's acceptable so long as you don't show them having sex, which is basically the essence of our governments position at this time with regard to the18 U.S.C Section 2257 Compliance Notice (doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing our government is going to such extremes to protect us from making our own decisions about what we choose to see?). You may even find some very open minded individuals that can be as sexually aroused looking at a nude painting by Gauguin as they can by a XXX movie, or that can look at both of them as art if they so choose, and feel there really is no definition or distinction between art and pornography.
If it isn't obvious by now, I happen to be in the last category. I embrace sex and nudity in all forms, from one of the many XXX DVDs I have in my collection, to any of the nude pictures and sculptures by unknown artists that adorn my home, to an original nude painting by Gauguin or Degas (which I can only wish I had in my home).

Do I think it's acceptable for children to view pornography? Only if they're told it's wrong, nasty, naughty or dirty. If we took some of the 'dirtiness' out of it and presented as normal adult behavior, then not only do I think it's acceptable, I think it would be beneficial for them. For those of you that think this would cause a child to become sexually active earlier in their life, making it illegal and hiding it from them sure hasn't done much to stop teenage pregnancies so far.
If you think back to when you were a teenager, the things that were wrong were usually the things teens wanted to do the most just because they were wrong!  At some point most teens (and even pre-teens) are going to try smoking, drinking, drugs, and sex. I'm not saying I support any of these activities for teens, but I am saying that telling kids things like looking at pornography is wrong makes it that much more enticing for them to view it.
If you have kids, unless you've chosen to be ignorant of the world around you, your kids are going to be exposed to porn, whether it's at home or elsewhere. And if you try to outlaw porn it will just move underground, and then the mystery and the desire to view it will be an even greater attraction for them. Besides, if they're not exposed to sex in the form of pictures or videos, they'll probably be exposed to it in the form of real life events.
Why not just take the mystery and the curiosity out of it, including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbating (which I guarantee they will figure out on their own long before they're teenagers) by NOT telling them any of it's wrong, nasty, dirty or anything else negative, and quit hiding if from them? Maybe if we tried to curb their curiosity about it at an early age, when the little Johnny tells little Suzie "I'll show you mine if you show me yours", she'll just shrug her shoulders and tell him "Already seen it." and move on to something else.

When it comes to defining the difference between art and pornography, each individual has their own opinion whether the painting La Sorgente is art, or whether it's pornography, and as I've already demonstrated, calling La Sorgente art and then calling the picture of Kimberley Rogers next to it porn is not only a matter of opinion, but the arguments made earlier support the fact that the picture of Ms. Rogers is just as much as work of art as the picture of La Sorgente or the Venus.

As far as calling the picture of Kaylin Ryan spreading her legs porn, I won't argue that it isn't, but I will argue that it does qualify as art. Remember that it's just as illegal for minors to look at the pictures of Kimberley Rogers and Crystal Klein on this page as it is for them to look at the photograph of Ms. Ryan, but it's NOT illegal for them to look at the pictures of La Sorgente and the Venus de Milo (go figure). And since the oil and watercolor renderings of Kaylin Ryan's picture could both be classified as works of art (remember, there is no cut and dry set of rules about photography vs. paintings), it could be argued that this makes them legal for children to view as well.

So is there a point to all of this? Not really, except maybe to try and open a few people's eyes, and minds, about sex.

Although I would love to be able to show people how their own sexual fears can have a negative affect on their lives, and in many cases already has, and how passing on their dark-ages views about sex can damage the sexual mental health of their children.

Consider this: A woman's body is not only designed to have an orgasm, but multiple orgasms, so do you think the reason so many women CAN'T achieve a single orgasm might have something to do with the sexual fears and hang ups they might have? So where do you think those fears came from? Although some of these women were sexually molested as a child, and others had a bad sexual experience as an adult, I have dealt with both women and men that suffer from a variety of different sexual fears and frustrations because of negative comments about sex made by their parents in their teen and pre-teen years. These 'sexually negative emotional seeds' that are planted in a person's mind when their parents opinions are still influential in forming the person they become as adults can be very difficult, and sometimes impossible, for many people to overcome.

For those of you that have embraced the fact that you are a sexual being, and have overcome any sexual hang ups you may have faced at one time, I applaud you. You have matured beyond the civilized reigns society has tried to place on you. For those still struggling with their fears from the seeds that were planted in childhood telling you sex is dirty, I offer you the consolation that there are still many other's that share your fears, the hope you can overcome your fears, and the faith that you will overcome them if you just open your mind up and begin enjoying the many aspects of living a sexually uninhibited life. © PassionsUnchained.com