Masturbate

Looking through the boards you'll see a fair amount of discussion dealing with whether SG is art or porn. Like a lot of people, I don't think the distinction has much consequence, but I still think it's interesting to think about. Something that hasn't really been addressed (I don't think) that I think would be helpful here is this...

Do you masturbate to the photos here?

I guess what I'm getting at is if SG is art, you probably wouldn't masturbate to it. I know there's a lot of gray area here, like you could get sexually aroused by one particular photo while considering the others purely aesthetically pleasing, but I'm just wondering what you all think.

If you feel like it, please answer the question briefly then gimme your thoughts!

No one masturbates to this site. Grow up.

Seriously, I have masturbated to a few of the sets on the site. But usually my taste in strok material runs toward the much more kinky.

I'm simply amused that someone who starts a thread about masturbation has their right hand as their profile picture.

Never actually masterbated to any of the sets. Once or twice, one or two of my favourite ever SGs have been known to sidle into my fantasies. But that's much the same as if you fantasise sexually about your favourite actor or singer, and it doesn't make the actor or singer a porn star. I think visual art and media can be erotic without falling under the category of Porn. And then, of course, there are plenty of sets on SG where the nudity isn't presented as erotic at all. AnnaLee's sets, for example, especially the first two.

Though by the way, I'm pretty sure this particular question HAS been addressed before!

Why can't you masturbate to art?

If masturbating to art devalues it, then does masturbating to a woman devalue her?

If something is sexy, does that mean it can't be anything else on top of that?

Ok - let's be honest: This is what it is - SG is put out there to exist - you can make of it what you will.
However, its my belief that everything here is meant to be purposeful and very artistic. And in art - if it doesn't do something to/for the viewer then there is no purpose for it. In SG's case its to arouse, stimulate and provocate. If SG doesn't arouse you in any way - then the set or picture didn't do it's job that way - but maybe it interested you in other ways.
But this is somewhere to draw the line between porn and art: if it takes an artisti eye to do. Not everyone can take good pictures for SG, but anyone can make a porno.
Anyway - as for masterbating to SG - I've never done so, and almost feel that's not the purpose of the site - however I'm not going to get insanely pissed cause there are people who do so.

I believe this here might be my most enthusiastic +1 yet.

So, yeah.

+1

As if you haven't seen a good Renoir nude and started jerking right there in the museum. Sheesh.

Seriously, though. When there was no photography, and people painted nudes, do you think that perhaps people masturbated to the nude paintings?

You bet your ass they did.

Pornography is a form of Art.
Art encompasses porn, Art is a much larger category than porn. It encompasses good porn, bad porn, trashy porn and things that are not porn. (go ahead, the question you want to ask is...define art?)

Additionally,

People read books and find themselves in the shower/bathtub masturbating..People see a person in revealing clothing then think about them later. People masturbate to movies, to telephone calls, to all kinds of things.

The act of masturbating to something does not instantly make that something pornography. Conversely, I've never heard of art being defined as something that cannot be masturbated to (well okay some Puritans might have wrote that, but they were frickin Puritans)

That said, SG is art and pornography, and high quality art and pornography to boot.

I never have. It's not because I think it's wrong to do so, or that I need something more hardcore to be aroused (I actually like softcore stuff much better than hardcore); it's just never happened.

This makes alot of sense. I think it's really intelligent.
That being said, I still feel kinda uncomfortable masturbating to someone who doesn't know I'm masturbating to them, or doesn't know me.

thats false. Thomas Edison invented masturbation on march 21st of 1871 following his invention of the bladderless vacuum tube and directly preceding the invention of the cumrag. theyre listed under patent numbers 2673, 2674 and 2675 at the US patent office.

I don't, but I do get turned on looking at the sets. I have had a few erotic dreams about the girls though.

um..wth are you doing here?

Kyle

The porn or no porn discussion is rather pointless because people just have different definitions of porn. For me, if there are no sexual acts shown or hinted at, it's not porn. So, in my eyes, SG is not porn, not even softcore (no people pretending to fuck, suck or jerk with genitals out of sight). Case closed.

You may define porn differently, but that's between you and your creator. If you think it's porn because you see boobs, that's just because you were raised by puritans.

What about the sets with girls touching themselves? Simulated (or real, who knows?) masturbation is a hint at a sexual act.

Are you high?

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

And that's just from one set. I only wish I could link to either Apnea-Benni set as well.

No, that's not it at all. SG is porn because it fits well within the ACTUAL
definition of pornography. As described above, SG is also highly artistic porn, but that doesn't stop it from being porn. You may not be aroused by it to the point where you feel the desire to masturbate (and frankly I rarely am as well), but that don't stop it from being what it is: POR-NO-GRAPHY.

For me, an example would be a set of a few weeks ago: Le free verte with Nya, photos by Albertine. I would put that series in the league with other great works of art. I mean, it is astonishing! And there are plenty of other sets in that category. Beyong that... well, let's just say I found the set to be highly arousing!!!

That's the exception, not the rule.

See my answer to Necia.

Which part of "sexually explicit" did you not get?

People are just reluctant to call SG porn because they think doing so puts the site and these girls on the same level as the very worst pornography has to offer. Because, to a lot of people, porn is all the same and, when something is defined as porn, it's denied any other title or designation.

And it's no wonder with the way the world is. Vocal anti-porn advocates don't individually examine every sexually explicit item for worth and meaning. They just want to burn it all.


P.S. How can you think there's nothing sexual about taking your clothes off for the pleasure of a wide audience? The mere act of appearing on SG is a sexual act.

The definition of the term "sexually explicit" is much, much broader than you're making it out to be.

(emphasis added)

Seriously, why do people get so excited about denying that SG is porn? What do you gain from that? I just don't understand how splitting hairs on this issue is productive in any way. It's porn. It's also art. It can be both.

Just being nude is not sexually explicit in my eyes. Period. As I said, your mileage may vary, but that's a cultural perspective, no absolute.

I have no problem at all looking at porn. I would give you links, but I'm not sure the site gods would condone that.

What if the model considers it sexually explicit?