Would people still be upset if the porn image were a Botticelli nude?

[Vinnie From Indy]

Titian?

One man's art is another mans pornography.

[JanMichael]

1. Which "porn image"?

[MercutioATC]

6. The one in the upper-left-hand corner of your DU screen.

Well, depending how far you've scrolled down. It's the MSNBC ad on the left.

[AZBlue]

54. Have people on DU been offended by it??

The barely-an-outline of a female??

[MercutioATC]

55. I think the big complaint is that it's problematic at work.

[AZBlue]

56. Wouldn't surfing DU be just as problematic?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I would think that would be just as much of a problem. I mean, I do it, but I certainly don't let my boss know. When he comes into my office, I either switch screens very quickly or just click the great red "x" in the upper right corner!

[MercutioATC]

58. I'd think so, but my job doesn't make it an option so I don't really know.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

2. John Ashcroft would....

bwah-ha-ha!

[radwriter0555]

30. Yes, he would put a curtain over the Neon Titty Girl... and oddly,

some people on DU want to do the same thing!

[benburch]

3. Doesn't upset me at all...

But then, I am a sexworker's rights activist with MANY friends in the "porn industry".

[incapsulated]

4. How about a nude neon *guy*

Like that's gonna happen.

Think on it, the first headline on that ad was that "porn now appeals to women", with a nude neon chick.

Mixed message, methinks, unless they are talking about lesbian porn.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Like seeing a naked body, of either gender, is going to make me melt like I'm the wicked witch of the west...

Oh Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo~!

[incapsulated]

33. Depends on who is naked

A nude of Cheney might just cause me to melt and die!

:scared:

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Okay, you win.

that WOULD be offensive.

[Clark2008]

47. You're exactly right, incap.

It's like men's bodies are taboo, but we can splash women's bodies all over Kingdom Come. :eyes:

How 'bout a neon naked DUDE for the (heterosexual) ladies! :hi:

[Straight Shooter]

5. You're so right.

That's why we see Hustler magazine pin-ups in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. :sarcasm:

[benburch]

10. Some pinups ARE in museums.

The works of Vargas, for example.

[Straight Shooter]

18. Vargas is classic.

Very beautiful artistry. Graceful lines, a richness of tone, color, expression. Unique, instantly recognizable, like Frazetta's work. The Vargas women are too perfect to be real, though. It's almost science-fictionesque.

For your viewing pleasure, one of his more tame works:

[incapsulated]

20. Big Vargas fan, myself.

His work would be enjoyable to look at everytime I went on DU.

[Lorien]

61. and Gil Elvgren

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. Give it a few hundred years and they will be! n/t

[bettyellen]

13. what about Mapplethorpe?

I loved his show. Others were offended.
I think it's funny that people are complaining they can't DU at work. I actually work at work though. LOL.

[Straight Shooter]

22. I never saw his work.

I remember the controversy. It isn't something I would go out of my way to see. I don't care very much for modern art, although there are a few sculptures which capture my attention, none of which I could name at this moment but there is one in Houston that looks like a phantom. I always liked that one, when I lived there.

[bettyellen]

34. his work is pretty graphic- nudes that some consider erotic or homoerotic

i think some of them are beautiful, but i can't say i got stirred up or offended or anything.
:shrug:

[AntiFascist]

60. The governor of my state actually posed for the image in my avatar...

then when he ran for office he tried really hard to scrub the images from the internet. Can you imagine?

[Double T]

7. The problem with DU is that we don't have ENOUGH porn images.....

to complain about.

[Warpy]

8. It's not a Botticelli nude

It's a tacky titty outline meant to look like neon.

It's just a poke into our eyes by a conservative news network.

[GrumpyGreg]

9. Nudes aren't pornographic. Your post is confusing to me.

[MissWaverly]

12. Get ready for another right wing smear

I notice that these ads are on most of the major liberal sites, what you want to bet, there
will be pictures on the FACTOR, etc. saying that we are porn traffickers, just another
attempt to stir up the legions of hate against us. Wait and See!

[leftstreet]

14. What's upsetting is ANY story by Rita Cosby

Ugh. What - has pornography gone missing on Aruba?

[we can do it]

15. Nope -

[retread]

16. That's a "porn image?" You should get out more!

*

[Left Is Write]

24. I have yet to see anything that looks pornographic in that ad.

Though I'm rarely on the homepage anyway.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. Like this?

Actually, look at the titties. Same chick!

[endarkenment]

41. Oh that is not fair!

However you could have gone the extra mile and put up 'The rape of the sabine women' and then you would have hit the daily double.

You have to admit that the neon booby gals are tacky. At least them renaissance pornsters were talented.

[kpete]

51. BEAUTIFUL

I saw it in Europe. Not Porn.

[mattclearing]

19. Seriously, it's like the Christian Coalition in here.

Boobies!!! Make them go away!!! :cry:

[Beelzebud]

21. I was thinking that earlier.

[Rich Hunt]

25. Good lord...

This is the image that people were complaining about?

[seabeyond]

37. what the complaint is, if you are interested. is not this picture

it is that the advertising dollar for democratic site from msnbc has to go to the naked female to sell. media, news always using a woman humping a pole (fox), or the naked image of woman in silhouette (msnbc),... to make their dollar. this picture takes you directly to their main site. not necessary to use this to sell the advertising in some peoples mind.

no one has blamed skinner.

not like it is a huge deal. but once again, here there is an advertisement using sex to sell it.

and if i keep this crap off my sons computer, then why should i have it up in the kitchen table. the other picture that comes up has huge bold print porn. so... i have to close out democratic underground? or it isn't a big deal. if it isn't a big deal, then surely i dont have to monitor my children.

it isn't even about porn to me. it is about the corps (repug owned) using porn and sex to put out where kids have it available and those of us that dont want it and force it on us so they make a buck. porn per se is insignificant when left alone in its own adult world space. it is the media that infringe on those of us that dont want it, not the porn industry

i am after coors and fox and msnbc.... not flynt or playboy

[havocmom]

62. You make some points I tried to get across earlier today

The annoyance/offense some of us take is the objectifacation of a female form in a manner which relates to titty bars on a liberal site to promote a right leaning media company.

There were several mentions this morning that the ads run on many liberal sites, but no conservative ones. (Up to that point, they may have them now)

There was much teasing and more than a few accusations of things ranging from porn hating to being RW religious enablers. Too many just plain missed the points.

[RazzleDazzle]

52. Quit trying to equate or reduce the complaint to Christian morality

It has nothing to do with that, and doing so is a strawman of monstrous proportions. But you know that, I suspect, subconsciously if not consciously, and you know it's a terrific obstructionist defense.

No one here is offended for "moral" reasons. No one here thinks nudity is bad, per se.

People who are complaining don't like the sexism. We don't like the the use of women's bodies -- in this case badly stylized, cartoonish figures which makes it all the worse -- as commercial fodder. It's demeaning and dehumanizing. It's immoral, all right, but in a completely different and far more important way than the superficial, prudish anti-sex or anti-nudity whine you charge us with. This type of caricature and use of women's bodies takes half the human race and makes them into "things" (sex objects) to be oogled and drooled over. It's plenty immoral, it's just not immoral on faux Christian grounds.

[bettyellen]

53. so nudity isn't bad, just imagery that men enjoy? i never understood this

how the oogling part automatically makes it bad. :shrug:

[RazzleDazzle]

59. Your emphasis is on the wrong half of the equation

in a manner of speaking. It's not the oogling so much as what the oogling does to the ooglee -- it dehumanizes, cheapens, reduces them to a commodity.

Do you get that? Can you? Do you even understand what it means to "dehumanize" or "objectify" a human being? It means reducing their basic humanity, what it takes to make them human. It means treating them like objects, and not at all well-respected objects at that.

We dehumanize people so that we can treat them badly. We call people we intend to kill in wars names that dehumanize them. The Nazis, for example, called the Jews all manner of dehumanizing things incuding "vermin." Think of some of the names we've had for our enemies in the various wars we've fought, and are fighting. You can't easily kill, subdue or harm people who are fully human and like yourself. But people who aren't, you can do almost anything to. You can deny them any and all human rights. You can enslave them. You can torture them. You can maim and kill them.

Much of this applies to women as a class as well. If women were fully respected as members of the group known as women, there wouldn't be rampant discrimination in the workplace or the continuing epidemic of violence against us. You don't hurt, maim and kill people you respect. You don't make sexual objects, "things" out of people you respect. It just isn't done. Think of Princess Diana. As beautiful and even sexy as she was, she was rarely if ever made into much of a sex object. She was rarely if ever trivialized as a full human being by getting reduced primarily to her sexuality or sexual attractiveness.

Think about it. Think about it for a long while if you have the guts to do so. Women are reduced to playthings for someone else's sexual pleasure. That is not an elevated or exalted position but a highly degraded one. Oh, sure, there are people, even including some who model for this kind of thing or are otherwise employed in the sex industry, who have submerged their own sensibilities so deeply and conned themselves to such an extent that they think they are proud of what they do, or what they make others do, or what they enjoy watching others do, but it can't be so: it's degrading and humiliating, and nothing in the world can change that reality. Nothing. Just as nothing in the world could change the fact that being a House Slave still involved being a slave, and that was still degrading and humiliating no matter how refined or "exalted" the position he held inside the main house.

[Marie26]

68. Um, has anyone noticed

that the ad isn't even referring to the Rita Cosby story anymore? Instead, it says "VIDEO CLIPS THAT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE!!!?? ELVIS PUMPING GAS!!" However, the neon woman remains. I can't believe this is a reputable news channel.

[mattclearing]

63. That's the point of the ad, though.

It's a trashy neon sign, meant to symbolize all that typical notions of pornography entail.

I'm not saying it's right, but I don't see the big deal.

It would be one thing if you were objecting on the grounds of DU rules. Since DU is so strict about posts of a sexual nature, I could see if someone pointed out the hypocrisy inherent in taking money to post a lurid ad.

But the sexism angle is pretty weak. There are about 8 million better targets for your complaints of sexism than DU.

[marions ghost]

67. Well said RazzleD

:applause:

Right, the use of a minimal sketch suggesting that <Woman's Body = Porn> is dehumanizing
(really good message for kids...woman's body equals Porn)
You said it--same old shit = woman as thing, as "commercial fodder..." is okey dokey in Murika

Men who don't get this...don't really get anything about the more insiduous forms of sexism. Younger men might be forgiven for not being very perceptive about these subtleties. Older men KNOW better, no matter what they say.

[MsUnderstood]

23. are you saying botticelli is porn?

Makes no sense--if the porn image was boticelli then it wouldn't be porn, it would be art. If they used boticelli to promote an article about porn then they would be doing a diservice to art.

Sure one man's are is another's porn but don't use the word porn and link it to what many consider art.

I'm offended by the ad simply because I browse this site at work and dont want to explain why there is a neon flashing outline of a woman on my screen.

[bettyellen]

29. if you are offended yourself, fine... but why hide behind the work excuse?

you say any connection to porn does diservice to art, so it seems to me you are offended yourself, no?
why not be upfront about it? is it because we live in a society where porn is more popular than art?

[endarkenment]

50. what if it wasn't flashing?

What if it wasn't neon colored?

Wouldn't you also have to explain why you had boticelli's nudes up on your screen? Your argument doesn't seem to be very strong here.

And the renaissance art we know and love, the stuff we are sure isn't 'porn' because it is 'art' went through the figleaf era when the prudesters destroyed work after work in their insane desire to identify and cover up every inch of genetalia revealed by those sick Italian 'artists'.

[dusmcj]

26. I bet people whacked off to Botticelli's work in his day.

Art has always had prurient content, as the indecency/obscenity standards describe it. It's one of the reasons why sex is such a common subject in art, and has been since cavemen scrawled on rock walls with bear fat and ochre. Along with death and social organization, it's one of our essential preoccupations, why wouldn't it be ? If we comfortable salon bourgeoises are stupid enough to think that if it's art, we're being cultured, and thus fulfilling a requirement on the path to socioeconomic advancement, and so our nads aren't participating, well, like I said, we'd be stupid.

Let's spend just a little effort and identify the details of what we rightly complain about in conservative behavior, and thus protect ourselves from being no less hypocritical than the usual suspects, OK ?

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Lets just hope no one is doing that today

at least not in the art gallery. Those guards have a tough enough gig as it is.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

35. I'm not so sure they whacked off to Botticelli in his day

because his works were all in public places, mostly churches.

Then again, back in those days the priests had their backs turned to the congregatation...

nah.

[dusmcj]

38. where there's a will

there's a way ;)

[bettyellen]

44. gotta get those seat filled somehow, TG!

:rofl:

[Vinnie From Indy]

48. You never fail to give me a chuckle!

Thanks!!!

[incapsulated]

39. Many so-called "Classic Nudes"

Where intended to titillate. They were sexual in nature.

[hlthe2b]

31. I for one could care less, EXCEPT... the very fact that

the word "Pornography" appears, makes it impossible to view DU or other websites with the same ad, at work..... :shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

32. I'm still looking for the 'offensive' ad.

Can't find it.

[endarkenment]

36. how about the fact that the add is stupid and inaccurate?

It claims to be making the startling revelation that 'porn is jumping out of seedy theaters and back alley video stores into your family computer'.

Factual error one: porn has been readily available at the local mainstreet video store for 15-20 years or so.

Factual error two: porn has been readily available on the family computer for at least as long as the internet has been widely available, or about 15 years. It is actually less readily available than it was when it first became readily available, mainly because one now has to pay for almost all of it, or at least the good stuff, although with the increase in transmission rates, once one crosses the pay barrier the amount that can be deposited on your computer in a given period of time is much greater than it used to be.

Porn has been available on your cell phone for a year or two - now that is almost news.

I find the tacky neon booby gals sort of nostlagia inducing, harkening back to an earlier era, an era before every mudflap on the planet had the same stupid image (but usually with more distinct nipples) on it, or where some guy at my town dump did not have a 'vaginatarian' bumper sticker on his pickup. This am the times we is having. Our culture sure sucks, plus it be Stoopid.

[bettyellen]

40. Porn has made technology affordable...VCRs + video, cable, the internet..

the biggest part of the consumer $$$ spent in the early (and very expensive) days was the techie guy, who couldn't find a good place to hide his magazines! LOL. we should all be grateful that he financed the revolution. porn is undeniably popular and here to stay.
Seriously, I studied this in school almost 10 years ago... so sorry, no link.

[seabeyond]

43. this is what originally started the whole complaint. it isnt just that

little ole picture. but then if we can reduce anyones argument to something so silly, they can be easily dismissed. it is that msnbc advt on dem boards and has to use this picture and huge porn. it is msm and corporate (repugs) using this all the time to sell their product. for me it is not an argument with porn or the industry. i dont give a fuck. it is the fox and msnbc and coors and dentyne...... putting it on to sell their product to my kids or to get me to watch their news

[azureblue]

42. it's not a nude!

Jeez, get a grip! it's a neonized outline drawing. It's so bad, it makes the mudflap girl look good. Go gripe to MSN, & take your hangups with you. What next- someone gets upset over the letter P, because it sorta looks like a boob profile, if you squint hard enough?
BTW, if it was a neon outline of a Botticelli nude, I'd be really upset for ruining a great work of art with a cheap ugly drawing.

[seabeyond]

46. i think the gripe is msnbc and what started this

was a thread talking exactly about that. the op dismissed the whole argument to make it look like silliness about this picture, so that people like you would assume it is a problem with this mere picture then you could dismiss anyone complaining as having hangup. that is bullshit too.

[endarkenment]

49. Gee I think some threads are about how offensive the stupid pic is

Like:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5580444&mesg_id=5580444

That was the first one I saw.
It ain't msnbc, it ain't msnbc's stupid show, it is the horror of neon booby gals.


I see far more sexual imagery every day in magazines 'family' tv shows, movies, billboards etc than the 'risque' circa 1940's neon booby gal in that ad.

[porphyrian]

57. That Venus is a hottie...

...even if she's strangely enlongated and somewhat deformed.

[blogslut]

64. Here's a REALLY pornographic image

[Squatch]

65. Georgia O'Keefe?

[blogslut]

66. yes

;)

[Skinner]

69. Locking

THe offending ad is now gone.