I think that any sort of law that tries to ban obscenity is going to be too overreaching. I don’t think there is a way to describe obscene work in a way that it protects art, because the distinction doesn’t exist. An example to support my claim is the Miller test, which states:
A work is obscene only if all of the following applies:
1. Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law.
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
One concern with the Miller test is it relies on this hypothetical average person applying contemporary community standards. Since such a person can never be realistically found, the Miller test never addressed how such an ideal could be determined, and I argue that’s one way that there could be an abuse of power. Another concern is the
question of whether a work lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
It simply is not possible to define an objective standard to determine whether a work lacks artistic or literary value, those things are subjective in their nature. Because of that, whoever sets the standard on what has value also wields a lot of power.
Centuries before the sexual revolution of the 1960s great artists were painting and sculpting the fully nude bodies of both males and females. A male example would be Michelangelo's "David" which shows the male genitalia. The human body is worthy of great art. But as you mention, at some point along the way it became a double standard for what was painted or sculpted when it came to depictions of the male body. The penis came to be considered obscene in a way that the breasts and vulva weren't. And even today full frontal nudity of women is much more common in films than that of males. This is irrational fear in my opinion, because I don't think anything good comes out of shaming the human body.
Thank you Laurie for MHO!
You're welcome, thank you for a great opinion :)
The human penis is still considered more "risque" when it's depicted in art. Just think about nudity in films. How many penises have you seen?
Porn shouldn’t be censored or restricted from the general public, but there are places where it’s appropriate and places where it’s not. You wouldn’t come naked to the workplace, for instance. Most people generally agree that sex and nudity should be reserved for the bedroom, with exceptions to places like nude beaches or spas or whatever. Why? So children and their innocent minds aren’t exposed to it too early.
The same thing applies to the Internet. You won’t find porn or graphic depictions of sexual parts or acts on the Disney website, for example, or any other website designed for children or that children happen to have access to, as is the case with GaG. Taking down a post of someone’s tits, which ARE sexual organs and it does NOT make me a prude for saying so, isn’t “censorship.” All of us agreed to the same terms of service and to the same rules when we made an account on here. It’s not censorship for a mod to take down posts that break those rules. There are young kids on here, and even if there weren’t, this isn’t a porn site and that kind of content just isn’t allowed.
Erotic art is beautiful, and art is art. When it comes to art, nothing should be censored. You're expressing yourself. And I wish there was more allowance for male genitals in art because the penis is a beautiful thing.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!I definitely don't think it should be censored, but I do think people should be given the choice whether or not to view it. So, for example, I'd be perfectly fine with a museum having a dedicated wing for erotic (or nude) art, with a sign that says "Hey! There will be dicks and tits in here - if that's not your thing, please visit one of our other wings."
in my opinion, people shouldn't be forced to view things that they deem offensive if there's a reasonable way to avoid that, and there usually is, but on the other hand, I have zero sympathy for people who knowingly walk into the "nude wing" of a museum and then decide they are offended. That's like going to a strip club and being upset that there are naked tits - you have to take SOME responsibility for your own choices.
Art should never be censored.
There's nothing wrong with nude art as long as it actually is art. However thanks to this question every guy who sends a dickpic is going to claim to be an artist
... lol
I even object to calling the things you described as porn. There is no definition for porn. Would prudes going and fucking themselves be considered porn?
I do think there is such a thing as extremely bad taste, but I don't believe in censoring it. I would only censor involuntary, non-consentual, harmful or extremely degrading acts.
It should never be censored but it should be displayed in appropriate places (i. e. not where kids can see it)
It's refreshing to see 52% agree that even porn shouldn't be censored let alone erotic art.
I can argue for hours about how a body and even the act of sex is human nature and there's no real reason to hide it like the key to Buckingham palace. But I'm sure most here even those who don't agree know this to be true.
Censorship is the opposite of freedom and most of the world today claims to be a free world.
I think it's fine to show all parts.
No I didn’t vote A. But I would bet that the mullahs in Iran have some wicked porn stashes hidden away.
Yes, everyone knows that they do and that they are hypo's
Really just depends on how it done.
I think all nudity is beautiful and should be allowed (within reason like time and place you know)
tibit of Did you know?: the creator of Alice in wonderland, well many consider him now a pedophilia, but during that era taking picture of kids in nudity or body parts showing wasn't question like it is today. It was OK for that time and he always got the parents permission.
As long as everyone is 18+ then it should be alright.
Controls on these sorts of things is what drives society to the ground. Censorship has more to do with self repression and one has to dive deep within themselves instead of trying to mold society to work in your own self image. I believe in freedom of choice. So if you wish to watch then do it if you don’t then Dont it.
I do believe we need controls on exploitation of youth. We need to make a It e children aren’t being used as sexual art etc.
It's possible... I'd depends on the crowds coming into view. Maybe erotic art should be carded like with movies, you can only view it, if you are over 18... Something like that
Option G is apparently nude and erotic art but I don't think that most of the art lovers consider it so. Showing reproductive body parts can't be called obscene unless it has intentional porn touch. You see great art is usually nude but not erotic. Humans are classic example of erotic cum artistic beauty. It was norms of ethical and religious teaching that clothes were put on living art which had impact on art created through brush, color and stone.
To say the least, unless it is porn, real art should not be considered obscene, hence not be censored.
No censor no that destroy's the beauty of the male and female body! Prudes and uber religious people who are phony holly wanna censor art in all types of way
people be censoring nipples and buttcrack while posting pictures of human organs creeping out with half their body gone.
Nothing should be censored.
I think I might be overthinking this, but in my opinion there are two levels of sexuality when it comes to this sort of thing. You have breasts and then genitals. In movies it is not uncommon to see breasts exposed because they are viewed as beauty and not pornographic or obscene. Different cultures censor breasts differently, but overall I don't think art should be censored. If it depicts genitals, then that is just reality if you don't like it dont look but you'll see your own every day anyway. I will admit there are different reasons for producing nude art. There are the historical reasons and then there is having a naked woman to look at. I think both exist for a reason and don't need to be censored.
I say no to censorship in any form, from art to writings
god no
Censoring most any art is wrong in my opinion
One of the popes had a fetish for removing dicks from statues, others had habits of putting fig leaves everywhere.
There will always be people who want to censor things but they should not have the right to stop others from expressing themselves, especially if that involves destroying or defacing historic items.
Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health 
Most Helpful Guys