Can Porn be beautiful?

Beautiful Porn?

  • Yep, Porn is always beautiful

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • Sometimes it's beautiful, sometimes it's just easy on the eye

    Votes: 24 82.8%
  • Nope, "Beautiful Porn" is an oxymoron - It's never beautiful

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • Total voters
    29

NoJo

Happily Marred
Joined
May 19, 2002
Posts
15,398
Vote, it's your hard-earned right.

Personally, I voted "Never" :)
 
I like to see 'classy' porn sometimes, and, yes, I would say some of it is beautiful. And no surprise to me. The human form, male and female is potentially beautiful; acts of sexual connection from lingering kisses right through to raucous wild fucking can be done beautifully. So, some of this stuff filmed is ... beautiful, yes!

As soon as there's a hint that the woman / women are 'performing' for the pleasure of the stud and the males who are the intended viewers, then, for me, it moves towards the ugly end of the spectrum.
 
It sorta depends on your definition of "porn", doesn't it?
My working definition is 'material recorded with the intention of causing sexual arousal'. Is that somewhere near the mark?

Poses the further question, 'Can sexual arousal be a beautiful thing?' to which my answer would be 'most certainly, yes'.
 
My working definition is 'material recorded with the intention of causing sexual arousal'. Is that somewhere near the mark?

If the intent of the creator to arouse is key to the definition, then anything created with the intent to disturb, upset, or provoke is not porn. That leaves out a whole lot of ugly material that some folks might call "art" and others might call "porn".
 
Really poorly worded poll. At least cover the cases:

1. Yes, it's beautiful.
2. Sometimes yes, sometimes it's merely hot, sometimes it's dull or completely repulsive.
3. No, never.

And then you'll have 100 votes for (2) and maybe 2 for (3), and I'd guess those 2 have not looked around enough.

Like most things, porn isn't subject to Always and is rarely subject to Never.
 
Here's my chain of logic:
Ballet and other forms of dance can be beautiful.
Naked Ballet would be a type of porn that could be beautiful.
 
It can be. Certainly if you consider nude models as part of your definition of porn, then beauty abounds.

Some vintage (late 1800's, early 1900's) pornographic photos are beautiful.

For videos and movies, I don't see much effort to make things beautiful. If you go back to "golden age" porn then things are different.

"Nothing to Hide" was a beautiful movie on several fronts. "Talk Dirty to Me" could be beautiful ("There are thirteen places on a woman's body that a man should kiss before he makes love to her," then he counts them off as he kisses them.) There are other examples. Even "Behind the Green Door" with its long psychedelic sequence could be beautiful, though it's mostly a lot of cum-splattering.
 
Hegre.com gets as consistently close as anybody.

His pictures are frequently stunning. The photography of the Argentinian "Flora" is a favourite of mine.
 
Hegre.com gets as consistently close as anybody.

His pictures are frequently stunning. The photography of the Argentinian "Flora" is a favourite of mine.

Peter Hegre's work in general, but Flora and her partners specifically, are some of my favorites. I might not think of Flora as beautiful if I were to see her in the grocery store, but she has a unique look and Hegre seems to know how to use that.
 
Which media? Still & moving images; writing; sound; sculpture; live performance.

Define beauty? Philosophers and poets have been working on that for a while.
Define porn? I think we have soft (no sexual contact) and hard (sexual contact).

Can both soft and hard be beautiful, or ugly, or in between? Sure, as products of setup and intent, of artistic vision and/or commercial production-line and/or circumstance. Ah, a piece can masque as pr0n but with a non-sexual message, like PETA's nudes. They sure grab eyeballs.
 
Porn as a rule can be quite beautiful. Sub-categories like extreme humiliation and its ugly compatriots are a turnoff to me, probably beautiful to devotees. I have seen tied-up porn that was beautiful because of the loving interplay between the participants - being able to do that is a talent.

At its best, porn is a beautiful dance, an absolute art form, though prurient. If you've seen truly realistic portrayals of sex, rather than so many phony sounding 'rumbas of raunch', where the females seem to believe they get paid by the decibel, it's easy to appreciate a simple coupling as a delightful, sensuous pas-de-deux.

There IS acting in porn, and when it's believable, it's beautiful.
 
Porn is not beautiful for the same reason a hooker is not beautiful. Both might be good looking but neither are real. Draw your conclusions as you may.

Is Hegre porn? Or is his work art with a sexual overtone? Undertone?

Now for the unanswerable question. What is porn? Most famous answer, I don't know but I will know it when I see it.

And some people, Hands, like to talk in endless circles.
 
Porn is not beautiful for the same reason a hooker is not beautiful. Both might be good looking but neither are real. Draw your conclusions as you may.

Is Hegre porn? Or is his work art with a sexual overtone? Undertone?

Now for the unanswerable question. What is porn? Most famous answer, I don't know but I will know it when I see it.

And some people, Hands, like to talk in endless circles.

^^^^knows as much about hookers as he knows about pussy.
 
Dollie

If the intent of the creator to arouse is key to the definition, then anything created with the intent to disturb, upset, or provoke is not porn. That leaves out a whole lot of ugly material that some folks might call "art" and others might call "porn".
This seems all wrong and backword. Us flashers and exhibitionists do what we do for all of those reasons. Sme may call it porn. I call it being slutty for fun.

Porn is not beautiful for the same reason a hooker is not beautiful. Both might be good looking but neither are real. Draw your conclusions as you may.

Is Hegre porn? Or is his work art with a sexual overtone? Undertone?

Now for the unanswerable question. What is porn? Most famous answer, I don't know but I will know it when I see it.

And some people, Hands, like to talk in endless circles.
All questions are answerable. We may have the wrong answer. But anyone can make up something. Apparently you fell off your horse too often. Much porn is beautiful and we've seen some beautiful strippers and hookers.

I'm neither but even at my age some call me beautiful. https://i.imgur.com/BvHeh2N.jpg Some even call it porn.
 
Dollie

Vote, it's your hard-earned right.

Personally, I voted "Never" :)
I don't always do what's right.
Never seems like a long time. Is that like a lifetime waurantee? Those are good forever or when the business closes or they tell you you didn't follow the rules. Never say never.
Oh I think James Bond said never.

Some porn is ugly and some is beautiful. Just like people. But ugly porn might be a turn on for some.
 
Porn is beautiful if the eye of the beholder see it that way

Hegre.com gets as consistently close as anybody.

His pictures are frequently stunning. The photography of the Argentinian "Flora" is a favourite of mine.

Hegre.com is not porn. Not to dis on your fav Flora but it is 99.999% women and if the eye of the beholder does not think the woman's vagina is pretty then...
 
Hegre.com is not porn. Not to dis on your fav Flora but it is 99.999% women and if the eye of the beholder does not think the woman's vagina is pretty then...
Our categorization sucks. Images of scantily- or un-clad individuals standing or lounging about probably ain't pr0n. Is that 'soft', or is it pre-pr0n, or what? IMHO without sexual contact it ain't pr0n. Where are the fucking taxonomists?
 
I'll wait for the poll about whether we can talk about "porn" without loaded definitions, in order for polls like this one to be meaningful. ;)

(For example, hegre.com very definitely produces explicit videos of people fucking. They're artily-shot, but yes, they are definitely porn. They are not even "soft porn" like the Emmanuelle movies or Flesh Gordon were, and are not meaningfully distinct in terms of the sex acts or approach from other "classy" porn sites like, say, nubiles.net. The attempt to differentiate this kind of content from "porn" seems mostly about spurious class distinctions: I like classy sex-positive art, you might like erotica, those people watch "porn," ewww. It's problematic to me. The better solution to me is just to admit that you're consuming porn and talk about what approaches to porn work better or worse for you.)

Still. It would be actually interesting to see where these definitions cut off and for whom. Be the poll one wishes to see in the forum, and all that. Hmmm.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top