The definition of pornographic is subjective at best. Typically, a photograph in which the objective is to elicit a sexual reaction is considered pornographic. This typically entails showing close ups of genitalia, photos where the model is making overt eye contact while touching his/her private parts, or images depicting overt sexual acts.
As for our photos, in general I would say they're not pornographic and more artistic. However, there are a couple of exceptions where by any definition the photos are subtly pornographic. You be the judge.
I have inhibition problems most of the time. But I have found that under the influence of a hallucinogen like LSD or Xstacy I can get hard by just getting naked and thinking about going down on a woman, especially a black woman with nice legs.
By #6568 at 26,Jan,11 11:13
The Concise Oxford Dict. gives a similar definition.....
".........intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings..."
In view of these defintions, one mans porn is another mans aetheticism......and vice versa!
Interestingly, I don't look upon my own pix as porn but I suppose they must be to alot of people here judging by the kind of PM's I get from both women and men
Well I suppose according to Oxford, Webster and Wikipedia our pics are considered pornography, but it's more than that for me. It's the art of presenting my penis in a quality way through the art of photography. I enjoy taking my photos and experimenting with differnt situations in terms of lighting, context, and setting. I like to think of this as the art of cock photography, but call it porn if you must........but at least it's not obnoxious as is most of the shit one views on television, in the movies and in the news.
By #6568 at 26,Jan,11 17:17
Exactly my own view,.....
I find it tiresome when media pundits sound off about porn as if it's the curse of mankind......
.........Personally, I see it as simply another human delight when it's good quality and to my taste,...just as alchohol can be both a blight and a pleasure, and there's nothing better than a particularly nice wine with a good meal......
.....Why should the portrail of sensual pleasure be any different?
By #23212 at 25,Jan,11 23:40
I tend to think more like Yousuf Karsh portraits, only some of mine do not have my hand in the photo.
By #101136 at 26,Jan,11 05:04
I think there is a lot of people know Yousuf Karsh too
Good question, really dont know. To me, I not consider it porn, like to do it but not for profit or anything else. Try to care for the results and post quality and something I like to see and play with angles light and color. Of course to many people probably will label almost all the content of the site like porn but personally its more a in between dont easy to define in one label and feel more like a hobby 4 me (a litle dirty maybe that ping pong )
As for our photos, in general I would say they're not pornographic and more artistic. However, there are a couple of exceptions where by any definition the photos are subtly pornographic. You be the judge.
".........intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings..."
In view of these defintions, one mans porn is another mans aetheticism......and vice versa!
Interestingly, I don't look upon my own pix as porn but I suppose they must be to alot of people here judging by the kind of PM's I get from both women and men
I find it tiresome when media pundits sound off about porn as if it's the curse of mankind......
.........Personally, I see it as simply another human delight when it's good quality and to my taste,...just as alchohol can be both a blight and a pleasure, and there's nothing better than a particularly nice wine with a good meal......
.....Why should the portrail of sensual pleasure be any different?