Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 132958" data-attributes="member: 2013">Nudity - Art or Porn?I lived in Europe for a couple of years... heck, billboards in Europe have more topless pictures than some skin mags...That said, I will make my point and be done.IMO, the question to be considered when determining whether or not this sort of thing is offensive is not necessarily, "is the picture sexually explicit?"  The question is, "is the picture relevant to the surrounding text?"1.)  If the picture is relevant to the accompanying text, a very good argument can be made that "this is art, not porn" - everyone has a different view of what does and does not constitute porn - I'll go back to "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it."  For example, when I crack open a book (like, say the MM) to read about a Succubus or a Nymph, I fully expect scantily-clad to unclad women to accompany these entries.  If I read about Aphrodite in a deities supplement, I should expect to see the same type of thing (Venus de Milo, anyone?)  If I'm reading about "new uses for Skills" like Disguise or Bluff (infiltration via sexuality), I might expect to see such a thing.  If I'm reading a treatise on a culture where this is acceptable (e.g., ancient Egypt), I might expect to see it.  "Expect" meaning not that I will be disappointed if I don't, but rather that I won't be surprised if I do.(Aside<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> We Americans do seem to have a thing about womens' nipples (I found it funny that in the Victoria's Secret special on primetime US Network TV, they went to great lengths to block out nipples showing through sheer clothing, yet pubic hair was quite visible).  Apparently, Americans' "hard and fast" (no pun intended) criteria for pornography is "are the nipples visible?"  The absurdity (or common sense) of this question is not something worth debating here.2.)  If the text in the vicinity of the picture has nothing to do with the accompanying text, I would say in that case, it is NOT art, but is instead intended to titilate (sp? - and again, no pun intended).  When I'm flipping through MM entries for Dire Bears and Dire Tigers, I don't expect to see cleavage, for example.  In these cases, it seems fairly clear that the intent of the author is "cheesecake" (or whatever it be called) as opposed to genuine artistic illustration and should be treated as such.  I *don't* expect to see things like that in "weapons and you - a guide to lethal combat" or "how to pick a lock" or "spellthrowing 101 - friendly fire."  Why don't I expect to see it in these instances?  Because it is not relevant and IMO, if it is not relevant it should not be included under the guise of art (and it is a guise, not the real thing IMO).  "Mature" treatement of subject matter does not equal "if we throw in nudity you should not be offended," nor does it mean "we are above nudity because we are so mature therefore your including it shows your childish immaturity because you are pandering to baser instincts."  Rather, it means that everything included is included for the purpose of enabling you to better understand/visualize what is going on.  Out of context, nudity can be (and usually is) distracting and often detracts from an understanding/visualization of the text (because the reader is too busy trying to visualize something else).  In proper context, nudity CAN be helpful.Similarly, "immature" treatment of subject matter is neither "if it's got nudity it must be immature because it's all juvenile voyeurism" but neither is it "if you can't handle the human body you are obviously immature."  Immature treatment of subject matter is throwing in things disingenuously.  Adding nudity to a book on alchemy is immature.  Giving a 1st-level character the ability to hurl fireballs is immature.  Categorically excluding even chainmail bikinis from "acceptable artwork in books" is immature.IOW, Context is everything.Now, I don't know the context in which this illustration was used (still haven't seen the book).  But I know when I do, I will be able to quickly make a judgement based on the above criteria as to whether or not it is "cheesecake" or "art."  Why?  Because I think the criteria are fairly simply defined above.  Unlike most on the thread, I have taken no stand on the "Mongoose's Nudity is Bad/Good" issue - I have simply tried to provide a mature and systematic treatment for determining whether something is Bad/Good - IOW, I have tried to solve the general case rather than the specific case.Granted, the amount of nudity that one might be able to "stomach" will vary.  For some, nipples should not even be shown.  For others, full close-up nudity is not considered a problem.  It boils down to individual morals/ethics/taste/whatever you wish to name it.  Because of that I have not tried to "draw a line" as to what is/is not obscene - that's a judgement call - I have instead tried to come up with a set of criteria that lets us differentiate "art" from "gratuitous nudity."Flame on. :b--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification