The art of sexual arousal ?

The art of sexual arousal ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Aneirin -> The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 6:17:42 PM)
Why is it when one sees art in the normal public domain if that art features a male in a state of arousal, the art is either banned or heavily censored ? What exactly is the problem with viewing a male erection, why is it so taboo when the reality of it is that it is the action of human life itself ? I have been told and I have read that it is a matter of public decency, but what is indecent about it, in the case of a statue, it is just a rod of stone, in painting, a couple of painted in parallel lines. Ancient people the world over had no problem with it, they even created huge detailed carved monoliths of it and stone friezes on temples etc, but they were ancient people, we are supposed to be more advanced, somehow in some respects I think not. And something else perhaps, I wonder if there is any correlation between humans and their insecurity with their sexuality and genitalia given that anything to do with the sexual organs is somehow seen as dirty , anyone any thoughts ?

kittinSol -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 6:24:26 PM)
Look up Judeo-Christianity and guilt.

Aneirin -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 6:29:46 PM)
Oh no, I have not stepped into that quagmire again have I , and there was myself thinking about Victorians and their double standards and the fact that Victorian thinking exists to this day, but why.

kittinSol -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 6:39:01 PM)
I'm afraid you tramped right in the middle of that particular puddle, Aneirin [&:] .

Lucylastic -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 7:00:58 PM)
with both feet and no wellies combine judeao christian guilt and victorian prudery whammo just look at the situation with the breastfeeding pics on facebook thingy Lucy

Aneirin -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 7:04:20 PM)
Ok, seeing as I have stepped in shit so to speak, if any that choose to respond to my question, can they please not , or try not to offend anyone, their religion or belief, as it serves no purpose. In fact if this thread appears to be going that way, getting offensive, can any passing moderator delete it.

littlewonder -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 8:23:39 PM)
Unfortunately this IS a religious issue and it will only lead to religious bickering eventually..but this is not true of all the world's societies. There are some civilizations around the world who have no problems with the male erection as a form of art. It's mostly western civilization where you'll find it as an immorality. I personally believe there's a time and a place for all erotic art be it male or female.

Cagey18 -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 8:33:29 PM)
Why should 21st-century Christians be offended by anyone pointing out the actions of 16th-century Christians?

aravain -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 8:36:59 PM)
~FR~ I enjoy looking at art with aroused males (or females) in a non-erotic sense... and occasionally feel nothing related to arousal in myself, unless I try to. People don't separate art from reality. Art comments on reality.

Vendaval -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 8:38:50 PM)
Fast Reply - I am going to echo what kittenSol and Lucylastic have said here. The idea that the naked human body is somehow offensive is very sad to me. Is there a time and a place for such images and artwork? Given the "community standards" of our era, well yes. If you want to see photos of male erections plenty are to be found in gay male pornography, another forbidden subject.

subtee -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 8:56:24 PM)
I would suggest it's (some) men's discomfort with other men's shvantz...es. What if they looked at it and it's all engorged and erect? What if someone saw them looking at it while it was all veiny and turgid? What if their women looked at it's swollen lustishness??? What if someone saw their women looking at it's veiny and engorged erect turgidity?

slaveboyforyou -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 9:22:29 PM)
Yeah it's just us men; I never hear women complaining about offensive art. [8\|]. I guess I won't see anymore threads or journal posts of women complaining about men sending them cock photos here. After all it's just art. We should have statues, paintings, and photos of erect cocks in the lobbies of every building. We should make the columns in building look like cocks. Why stop at just cocks? We should have huge statues of someone taking a shit glaring back at us in town squares all over the nation. The only thing worse than a prude is someone that believes society should be wide open. Tolerance works both ways. A time and a place exists for everything (well, almost everything.). I don't particularly want to walk into a hotel and see a statue of an erect penis. It's not solely a religious issue. It's a matter of manners. Art to shock is boring, boorish, and lame.

subtee -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 9:36:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou Yeah it's just us men; I never hear women complaining about offensive art. [8\|]. I guess I won't see anymore threads or journal posts of women complaining about men sending them cock photos here. After all it's just art. We should have statues, paintings, and photos of erect cocks in the lobbies of every building. We should make the columns in building look like cocks. Why stop at just cocks? We should have huge statues of someone taking a shit glaring back at us in town squares all over the nation. The only thing worse than a prude is someone that believes society should be wide open. Tolerance works both ways. A time and a place exists for everything (well, almost everything.). I don't particularly want to walk into a hotel and see a statue of an erect penis. It's not solely a religious issue. It's a matter of manners. Art to shock is boring, boorish, and lame. I should have clarified: men relatively, historically speaking have controlled what has been allowed in the public's view. Some men, as I stated, like you have not wanted to "walk into a hotel [or wherever] and see a statue of an erect penis ." Why not, by the way? What if David's penis had been pointing up, what would that do to you? Are you calling me a prude? Or worse than a prude? And where are your manners, Mr. Mannerson?

Huntertn -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 9:42:36 PM)
And they say beauty is only skin deep

blacksword404 -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 9:42:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou Yeah it's just us men; I never hear women complaining about offensive art. [8\|]. I guess I won't see anymore threads or journal posts of women complaining about men sending them cock photos here. After all it's just art. We should have statues, paintings, and photos of erect cocks in the lobbies of every building. We should make the columns in building look like cocks. Why stop at just cocks? We should have huge statues of someone taking a shit glaring back at us in town squares all over the nation. The only thing worse than a prude is someone that believes society should be wide open. Tolerance works both ways. A time and a place exists for everything (well, almost everything.). I don't particularly want to walk into a hotel and see a statue of an erect penis. It's not solely a religious issue. It's a matter of manners. Art to shock is boring, boorish, and lame. Prude. Society swing from one extreme to the other. Usually it is a very slow process. Right now we are sliding down towards the anything,anytime side. Once we get to that extreme and people see where they are they will swing sharply towards the other extreme to slowly make the trek back.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 9:56:13 PM)
quote: I should have clarified: men relatively, historically speaking have controlled what has been allowed in the public's view. Some men, as I stated, like you have not wanted to "walk into a hotel [or wherever] and see a statue of an erect penis ." Why not, by the way? What if David's penis had been pointing up, what would that do to you? Are you calling me a prude? Or worse than a prude? And where are your manners, Mr. Mannerson? I wasn't calling you anything; I'm sorry if it appeared that way. I was generalizing. The only thing I addressed in your post was the comment about men being responsible for attitudes towards erection depictions in art. I don't want to see graphic displays of every human behavior openly displayed in every public venue. People that think it should be that way, are the same people that think Howard Stern is clever. It's not an aversion to sexuality brought upon by Christian guilt. I am perfectly comfortable with sexuality. I am not comfortable with opening the floodgates to any so-called artist to display their works anywhere they please. It is a matter of manners and a matter of class. I feel the same way about childish baffoons that decorate their car with vulgar bumper stickers. People that get off on shocking others never evolved mentally past adolescence.

aravain -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 10:24:59 PM)
I think the point is if it wasn't 'shocking' there wouldn't be an issue. People who don't see the images as shocking likely don't don't take into account that they're shocking others. I know I once did something 'shocking' to someone that I thought was completely innocuous. If I display something (such as a tattoo, even if it has an erotic image) I'm rarely doing it to shock others. I think the people who get shocked at little things like this are the ones that never 'evolved mentally past adolescence' to put it into your own words.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 10:40:28 PM)
What little things? I didn't give any particular examples; I'm not shocked by depictions of erections. You're missing the point, and that doesn't surprise me. Community standards exist to keep people civilized. As I said, there is a time and a place for everything. Despite assertions in the OP, depictions of erect penises are not banned. We have standards on where and when such depictions can be shown. We have a minority of people that believe such depictions should be allowed anywhere at anytime. Well when you do that, you have to allow any kind of art in any public venue. You might want to take a moment to imagine what kinds of potential problems that type of openess might pose.

NYLass -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 10:55:25 PM)
Insted of cock shots, could someone just send me something useful? Like a statue with an erection? Hey, I can use it for a hat rack/coat rack or umbrella stand. Yanno pics, don't do it for me. I gotta have something in bas relief.

RCdc -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/26/2009 11:54:08 PM)
It's sex. For me it's got nothing to do with decency or religion. I don't have the desire to look at a person in the state of arousel unless it's Darcy, or porn. I wouldn't want to see a statue of a woman with a swollen, gushing vagina either. the.dark.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125