Beautiful Women

[Dixon Cannon]

Indeed!

In Shakespeare, women were often used as vices; creatures that could get a man to do much wrong. They were generally the smart women too. Hmmm...that does not speak well of either sex, does it?

LD

Dr. Victoria Zdrok is a smart woman. (Dr. Ruth seems to be too, I might add!)

-dixon cannon

 

[PrettySquareGal]

There is an excellent article by Dr. C.J. Scheiner, M.D. on this very subject. It was published several years ago under the title, "The Penthouse Credo" (ostensibly because of the popularity of such magazines.).

Dr. Scheiner asserts that the voyeur/exhibitionist traits are inborn and a vital part of human sexuality, adding that vision is the main component in the attendant stimuli.

Erotic imagery exists back to the first cave paintings. The first erotic photograph was taken by Louis Daguerre in 1839. The genre is the most popular and celebrated form of photography and is considered one of the arts. Erotic imagery all of all kinds are exhibited in museums and gallerys worldwide.

Like any other form of expression, it is highly subjective and every individual has their own view and opinion - as well as their own limits. (I for one, acknowledging his technical expertise, never enjoyed viewing Robert Maplethorp's work. But that being said, in the world of art, he is considered a Master.)

This is the male/female dichotomy - it is a dichotomy generally - some see beauty where others see filth. That is essentially what makes it art.

It is here to stay in one form or another. Surely we can discuss it and share opinions without offending or alienating one another.

-dixon cannon

(OK, so I'm still reading...)

If some guy walked up to me, or PMed me, and said "You are art, so let me see some racy pics of you, and it's natural for me to want to (insert vice here) to you," I would not be flattered. He would be dismissed as both desperate and creepy. Is that because I can't appreciate art or I'm a prude (or married)? No. It's because I'm a lady.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

(OK, so I'm still reading...)

If some guy walked up to me, or PMed me, and said "You are art, so let me see some racy pics of you, and it's natural for me to want to (insert vice here) to you," I would not be flattered. He would be dismissed as both desperate and creepy. Is that because I can't appreciate art or I'm a prude (or married)? No. It's because I'm a lady.

Exactly.

Much like the numerous threads where men say 'show us cheesecake'.....asking for pictures sort of sets off the 'eww' meter and we tend to post pictures of key lime cheesecakes so that you will politely realise that soliciting such pictures of us, gets you nowhere. lol

We -know- that people are looking at the other threads, but pictures were not posted -in response- to a 'show us hot chicks' demands....

see the difference?

 

[David Bresch]

Clearly, the participants of this forum can turn on "the sin" when they feel like it and then turn it off, to make a newbie uncomfortable. And I certainly did not ask anyone for pictures of themselves, so I don't know where that came from. You have made me in fact feel creepy now, and so I guess you won, but I am not sure WHAT you won, except my silence.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Thanks PSG, for your openess to discussion.

(OK, so I'm still reading...)

If some guy walked up to me, or PMed me, and said "You are art, so let me see some racy pics of you, and it's natural for me to want to (insert vice here) to you," I would not be flattered. He would be dismissed as both desperate and creepy. Is that because I can't appreciate art or I'm a prude (or married)? No. It's because I'm a lady.

This of course is exactly what I'm speaking of when I say it is very subjective. One might have that response to that particular proposition, but on the otherhand if a representative of a major publication approached you and proposed something similarly, with remuneration, credit and "credibility", one might have a completely different response.

I alway like to point out that the various publications that offer this particular "art form" have never had to publish an issue without any photos because they couldn't find any one willing to pose.

Christy Hefner's particular magazine came out in 1953 and in the past fifty-years has never had a blank page - having rejected far more hopefuls than ever get published. (There are so many applicants to be subject matter for this "art form" that they couldn't possibly find a medium to show them all. Some publications now offer DVD's, Special Editions, TV Specials, playing cards, games, on and on and on... and still there isn't room to present all the hopefuls who wish to participate.)

That being said, there are just as many who would never dream of participating in just such an exhibition. Those who find it 'creepy' or immoral... or a vice! On the same token there are many men who never view such materials for perhaps the same reasons. There are many people who never visit museums, go to movies, or dance for that matter.

Like so many other activities that we label 'vices', it all comes down personal choice and personal preference. (I've mentioned in other threads my personal disdain for 'goth' and for tatoos - but viva la difference!)

I wish that the FL didn't so hastily edit or delete postings without other members having the opportunity to comment on them. That is what forums are all about. Discussion is good. As as you said earlier - one can quit coming back to this thread if it's not of their interest.

-dixon cannon

 

[Lady Day]

Okay, I think this thread has derailed and is now running on the sidewalk. This is suposta be a thread about beautiful women, we ladies have a handsome fellas thread in the PR, why cant the men have a thread on hot women?

So lets re-route this back to its original post, alright.

Good show all!

LD

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Indeed!

Okay, I think this thread has derailed and is now running on the sidewalk. This is suposta be a thread about beautiful women, we ladies have a handsome fellas thread in the PR, why cant the men have a thread on hot women?

So lets re-route this back to its original post, alright.

Good show all!

LD

My Victorian oval portrait has been 'deleted' by another bartender. She was a beautiful woman, who just happens to be smart! I don't get it!

-dixon cannon

 

[J. M. Stovall]

What was wrong with that photo? Wasn't it just a head shot?

 

[lauwalton]

I think Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn are beautiful.

 

[lauwalton]

1)

I still wonder what happened to my post (normally I think a deleted post deserves a PM from the moderator), I went to some trouble to post what I thought were tasteful pictures. I was obviously mistaken to get too comfortable in this forum, though I thought discussion of some vintage-y beauties was appropriate. And I did all my typing with BOTH hands!

ew.

 

[scotrace]

I still wonder what happened to my post (normally I think a deleted post deserves a PM from the moderator), I went to some trouble to post what I thought were tasteful pictures.

Honest - I am in a position to see all edits on this page, and none of your posts have been touched. There is also no indication in any of your posts in this thread that you have attempted to include any kind of illustrations. The only post of yours in this thread that saw any editing was #6, by your own hand.

Let me reiterate what has been said - there's no objection to chatting about beautiful women. I would say that the wording of your first post here was simply not in keeping with what we're used to seeing here. It's not what you said, but the presentation of it. That's all. You're welcome here, your topic is fine. Presentation matters, however.

Oh, and Dixon? We deleted your links to the porn star's site, and her picture, and then deleted her picture after you re-posted it.
And thanks for the PM, but I wasn't, you see, actually asking for the link. Again.

 

[Chas]

Perhaps it should be moved to a thread entitled "Objects of Desire", or something like that. Objectivication aside, lust is lust. It's a very human thing. I don't see any reason why a thread that deals with lust can't be handled in a non-offensive way.

Or is this moderated with some sort of Victorian/political correctedness slant? If so, then what's the bloody point to this part of the forum?

I think so- in fact, it is. I had two links deleted; one to a link of vintage erotica on dvd - sold by a reputable seller of vintage music, and to a page dealing with Tijuana Bibles. There was no direct link to nudity on it; and a theres was a warning. Neither link was to nudity or anything that contravened the faq.'s established standards. As they are written. So guess it's one HUGE gray area that I wasn't aware of.

So the Victorian grannies run the forum. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I suppose posting a pic of this hottie will get my hand slapped.

 

[David Bresch]

Well then the loss of my post was an accident. It was nothing special, I just posted (tasteful) pictures of the women I had listed. No matter, I can tell the forum is deeply divided over what is appropriate, to the point that one forum member (Dixon) posts a pornographic avatar/link and then implies I'M creepy! I am sorry I did not word my post exactly right, perhaps I saw things in perusing the forum with fresh eyes that no one noticed. But you have bought my silence.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Well then the loss of my post was an accident. It was nothing special, I just posted (tasteful) pictures of the women I had listed. No matter, I can tell the forum is deeply divided over what is appropriate, to the point that one forum member (Dixon) posts a pornographic avatar/link and then implies I'M creepy! I am sorry I did not word my post exactly right, perhaps I saw things in perusing the forum with fresh eyes that no one noticed. But you have bought my silence.

Whoa! David! I didn't make any comments about you or your post as "creepy"! Neither did I post a "pornographic avatar/link", here or elsewhere. If fact my subsequent posts were quite supportive of this thread. I'm not sure how you linked me to this controversy. Perhaps if my own posts hadn't been so prematurely deleted by the bartender you'd have seen the point I was making.

For all concerned my supportive post was about a fairly well known doctor - a Phd., attorney and author, who through her work explains and clarifies some of the issues addressed in this thread. The link I inserted was, in fact, a link to her bio - which, had it been read first would have introduced her to the reader as a professional and expert in her field. The photograph (which may be what you mean by "avatar") was merely a Victorian style oval portrait of the doctor... a head shot... in sepia....in a frame!
Why that may have been percieved as offensive is way beyond me, but pornography is in the eye of the beholder.

I write and contribute a lot to this Forum, on a variety of subjects and I enjoy a good debate and discussion. It is my belief that with this thread some wide, sweeping judgements were made in haste which probably confused the issue and made some items look out of context. Somebody who pays the bills here makes those decisions.

My contribution in this arena was simply to elaborate on the topic and show that it is not necessarily a "vice", but as the two doctors that I referenced point out is just one more aspect of human creativity born out of our mortal make-up.

I'm not offering any apologies for my contributions here nor am I acknowledging their inappropriateness to the subject of this thread. I will say though that the mere mention of erotica is so "creepy" to some that the only remedy is iron hammer - which is why it got labeled "vice" in the first place.

-dixon cannon

 

[Tomasso]

Whoa! David! I didn't make any comments about you or your post as "creepy"! I'm not sure how you linked me to this controversy.

He probably misconstrued the heading of your post without reading the text, thinking you to be in league with the book burners .

 

[Marty M.]

Taboo peeking.

shoot, the powder room says "no peeking". i kindly respect that and don't gaze through the keyhole.

I'm with you Sam. I've never peaked. I can't say that I didn't want to though [huh] .
Marty Mathis

 

[Senator Jack]

This is what you get when you take the lid off sexual repression.

 

[KilroyCD]

Phew!

I just read every post in this thread and I feel like I've gone ten rounds. What makes it worse is that (until now), I wasn't even involved! When I saw this room (vices) created the other day, I thought it was going to have more than it's fair share of light-hearted or tongue in cheek threads, but that notion got shot in the arse! Can't we lighten this up a bit, or as Lady Day implied earlier, get this trainwreck back on track?

 

[gluegungeisha]

In Shakespeare, women were often used as vices; creatures that could get a man to do much wrong. They were generally the smart women too. Hmmm...that does not speak well of either sex, does it?

LD

So true.

When I was a little girl, I always liked the "bad" women in the Disney movies more than the "good" ones. The goodness of the women was only measured by how fair and meek they were! The bad ones were the only ones who really got things done.

Exceptions are Mulan and Belle from Beauty and the Beast, but those are from later movies made in the PC 90's.

 

[gluegungeisha]

Okay, I think this thread has derailed and is now running on the sidewalk. This is suposta be a thread about beautiful women, we ladies have a handsome fellas thread in the PR, why cant the men have a thread on hot women?

So lets re-route this back to its original post, alright.

Good show all!

LD

You're purdy!