Porn or Not Porn?

[bloom061604]

A thread headed "Most Meaningless Poll Yet" in the Panty Wetting Chat is turning into a debate over what constitutes pornography. I think that's wandering a bit off-topic for that forum, so I'm going to try to move the debate over here.

Estelle referred to Sky's "Wetting Her Panties" as a porn site. Others have done the same. Lloyd differed vehemently with that designation. I couldn't state the case more eloquently than Lloyd, but I'd like to add we have to be careful not to paint pornography with too broad a brush. That's exactly what the morals police do. To them, "Adult Entertainment" and "Pornography" are synonymous, but that's pretty far from reality.

If you look at Sky's site really objectively, there's no blatant sexuality in it. Obviously, there's sexual innuendo, but it's very subtle. Only women are depicted, and with rare exceptions they're well-covered. Mainstream magazines like Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler are much more blatantly sexual and expose far more skin, and are circulated without restriction throughout the US and, I suspect, many other countries.

Those who do not have a wetting fetish (and I feel sorry for those people) might find Sky's site somewhat tasteless, but that's about the worst anyone could say about it. I hate pornography, but I love Sky's site.

--Bloom

[Anonymous]

I agree entirely. However I think Estelle probably used the term in default of a better one which more accurately described the site. It can truthfully be stated that it is in essence an adult site but the emphasis is primarily on wetting rather than on sexual matters - and that's how I'd like things to stay.

:lol:

[Anna78]

Very interesting question, bloom.
What makes a porn a porn an an erotic picture, film etc. erotic?
I used to think that porn is when you see the most private parts of humans in action. No matter if she has his cock in her hand, mouth or somerwhere else or his cock in his and or anything elso or if a woman takes action on an other woman. Thats what means porn to me. Naked people being filmed or photographed by others while doing stuff most of the people do in private with their partners or alone.
But nobody buys a porn because its art. People buy porns to get turned on and finally masturbate or have sex with their partners or to get inspired for other sexual activity.
If you look at panty wetting like this of course, it is porn. Even if you don´t see bare breast or other private parts of a woman. Men and woman look at it to get turned on. That´s the way it is. And that´s the way porn is. For me, for example some of the vids from patches or glimpse are porn because it is sex mixed with wetting or peeing.
But anyway, it isn´t porn for my the way it is at Skymouse. There is such a nice, warm, friendly and kind community around here in the forum and even at the webcams that it just can´t be porn! When a consuments takes interest at an actress as an woman, not as an object for his own sexual pleasure, it is not simple porn. And thats the way it is with wetting her panties. Users are interested in other users, take care of each other, some meet in private, become real friends or even lovers, I mean more than just sexual partners. Thats not really common in the porn buisness. Thats how real life is.
And thats how I see it. Or am I too romantic?
greets Anna

[bspider]

Very eloquently put, Anna. I agree wholeheartedly, and would add that for the most part the models on SKy's site don't do porn, although some are artistic figure models. Ther is a big difference!

[Anna78]

Thanks for the word eloquently because english is not my language. :oops:
Anna

[Anonymous]

I think there's a lot of truth in what you say, Anna. It's so easy to make some distinctions though as it might at first appear. For example I like wetting and it could probably be described as a 'turn on' in one respect but not in a sexual context as such. I like to keep sex (which is more off the menu than on nowadays) and wetting/elimination quite separate - although I like the latter more than the former.

:cry:

[bspider]

Thanks for the word eloquently because english is not my language. :oops:
Anna

Eloquent:
1 : marked by forceful and fluent expression <an eloquent preacher>
2 : vividly or movingly expressive or revealing <an eloquent monument>

Sorry, Anna: I've neen told before that I like the flowery words where simple ones might have done! :oops:

[Anna78]

*lol*
I looked up in the dictionary what eloquently means and thought I have to thank you for these compliment. Good to see my text can be understand by a native english speaking person. And it´s OK if you use flowery words as lomg as they are to be found in my dictonary. :lol:
Anna

[Estelle]

Since the issue has come up here in an off-topic debate I thought it might be appropriate to repost my last comments from the original discussion. However, I have rewritten it slightly to suit the different forum.



Please don't get too attached to my use of words. I did not intend to upset or offend anyone. I might just as well have said a "sex" site or an "erotic" site. However, I did use the word "porn", maybe because I think the division between "pornography" and "erotica" is artificial and does the cause of freedom of expression no favours.

When I attached the word"pornographic" to "our" site I was in no way intending it as a criticism. I would like to reclaim the word (and the idea of) "pornography" from those people who like to style themselves as the "moral majority". These people are the enemies of free expression and are certainly no more moral than you or I.

The idea that a text, picture, moving image etc might have no other purpose that to sexually arouse the viewer is, to me, perfectly legitimate. If I define "pornography" at all, that is how I would define it. I don't think we need to try to distinguish between "erotic" (or whatever other word could be used) and "pornographic". I think it is a mistake to justify "artistic" sexual expression at the expense of the "non-artistic". Sure I prefer the artistic, but I don't think it is any more legitimate. Moreover, what is art to me might well be kitsch to you.

The people who want to condemn us will do it whatever label we put on our images. They will ban, censor and prosecute anyway. Just look at what Messrs Blunkett and Ashcroft are up to. If we want to keep our freedom of sexual expression we will have to defend our right it, not excuse it or pretend it is really something else.

That said, I find a good deal of erotica/pornography either boring or offensive. Some of it I would criticise openly for its political or moral implications. But I wouldn't give it a different name because my offence and my boredom are personal. You might love them. And, of course, you may well be bored or offended by things that give me great delight.

So....perhaps I'll avoid the word if it upsets people but there is an issue here. I'd certainly rather discuss it on the O/T forum and save the main forum for sexy stories.

[Number1]

I didn't really intend getting involved in this discussion but a couple of comments have pulled me in. The thing that sets this site appart from most of the rest is that it specialises. That is, it is dedicated to the fetish and tries not to deviate from it. I'm sure Sky could double his membership by turning it into a more hardcore site but that would lose him the dedicated followers of this fetish. Though regarding the term porn in general that is a term which seems so alien to a lot of you as this is, for many, a true fetish, and hence a complete lifestyle, rather than simply another sexually titilating look at girls doing something rude. But for that reason some may miss the point that there is a huge taboo with this material, and regardless of how much skin is shown it is still going to be regarded by the mainstream as somewhat extreme. I disagree with Boris about the models though. The models on this site, (well the British ones anyway, I cant comment about the German girls) are certainly not figure models. These girls do mainstream adult work, porn as it is often called, and in several cases quite hardcore porn at that. I know of no figure model who I would dare ask to do wetting, even through clothes. Girls who are quite happy to be filmed using sex toys on themselves will often demand a higher fee for even clothed wetting, if they will do it at all, so amongst the girls of the industry it is still a taboo subject. I do praise sky for keeping to his principles on this and not introducing material which would bring in a wider audience at the expense of the true enthusiast. There is far too much mainstream "porn" around these days. But lets not get too wrapped up in peoples terms.

[Anonymous]

I would describe pornography as turning on pure physical sensations. Erotica turns you on both physically and mentally in some way. There is nothing wrong either way. This site would then be a more erotic one.
But that still does not really describe what this site is. This site could be described as an online community. An online community is brought together by one topic but it is more then that members care and supports each other like in the “real world” communities. That does describe us yet it still does not fully describe us. One topic has brought us together but we insist on going into deep intellectual and sometimes not intellectual discussions of “off topics” thus a separate board. So there really is not a word to describe this site. It is a unique invention that stands by itself.

[Anonymous]

I think it certainly is unique in character and ethos. Personally I wouldn't like to see it 'broadened' in any way. People who just want to enjoy gorgeous models can repair to the newsagent's "top shelf" if they so wish, a place where the innocent and harmless pleasures to be found here are simply not catered for - other than in the odd article or advertisement.

:arrow: 8) :)

[DavidEngland99]

Anna,

LOL - your first language may be German, but you could usefully teach English to quite a few USA/UK folk who post here!

I think the point here is that there are lots of erotic things in films etc. that are not normally classed as porn. These can get both men and women excited.

Therefore, logically we should not necessarily call wetting 'porn' because it is really more analogous to erotic films. However, the 'normal' censors would presumably see deliberate wetting as extremely kinky - so THEY would class it as porn!

David

[Estelle]

I think Fillherup and Adrian are right. There is something unique about this site.

I'm not in the habit of trawling sites related to other sexual interests because they don't interest me, but I don't know of another site, relating to any mainstream sexual interest, that does what this site (and, to a lesser extent, Wetset) does. Hardcore pissing sites certainly don't. That seems to indicate that there is something about people into wetting (as opposed to other watersports activities) that makes us different, that makes us want to discuss our fetish in detail.

I don't know what that might be but I do know that the BDSM community thinks about and discusses its activity at least as much as, and probably more than we do. But then, responsible power exchange demands careful consideration and respect for your partner. One thing we have in common with BDSM is that our fetish is regarded with suspicion, disapproval and incomprehension by most people who are not into it. I would be surprised if the BDSM community does not have some equivalent of this site.

I'm just glad that this site exists, however we define it. It is a precious thing and Skymouse deserves great credit for maintaining it.

.

[DavidEngland99]

Estelle,

You make a good point. I think that even though wet fun is seriously taboo in everyday life, a lot of otherwise reasonably normal people are into it. That means that we tend to have a more rounded approach to the subject and we are happy to discuss other things as well - just like a normal group of friends.

I too have not explored the web for any other sexual sites beyond Sky, Wetset, the pool, and Ger's site. Sometimes I find links to other wet sites, but they usually seem to be a bit too extreme - such as pissing into the mouth. Pictures of clothed women wetting themselves are MUCH more erotic to me - even though I have very fond memories of the one time that a woman did pee on my face and into my mouth! I guess some things don't look so good on a photograph!

David

[Anonymous]

Pornography is the objectification of women, turning their bodies (even, arguably by extension, their entire person, the character as well as the physical) into objects of desire. Pornography is demeaning because it sees women (and men, indeed) as objects to be lusted over and enjoyed. Obviously it does 'seem' that Sky's approach is less blunt and brutal than most sites, and indeed, one could argue that his pictures have an element of artistry to them (thus perhaps turning them more towards erotica), but the simple truth is that his site is a pornographic website where women are paid for their bodies to be used for the sexual gratification of mostly men. What is perhaps a more interesting discussion but one that few here are likely to get involved in, I suspect, is why people who frequent his site are forever claiming it to be so different from other ones. Agreed, it is not hardcore, but Sky pays women for their bodies so other people can get off on them. At least have the decency to be honest.

On a separate but related note, freedom of expression is all well and good, and certainly I do not think as long as the women are consenting and there is no physical pressure (we could spend all day arguing about what other pressures and life events have resulted in Sky's models choosing their particular career paths), then there is no reason for this site to be censored at all. However, some of the images could be construed as encouraging the association of sexual desire (albeit through wetting) with youth, and school age girls - see the numerous photosets of models in classrooms. Yes, they are adults, and yes, the viewer can say they only get a kick from seeing an adult model acting out a schoolgirl fantasy, but then Tatu could also be said not to be encouraging fantasies about young girls, because they were 'legal'.

A little bit of thought before assuming that perhaps some self-censorship might be sensible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously it does 'seem' that Sky's approach is less blunt and brutal than most sites, and indeed, one could argue that his pictures have an element of artistry to them (thus perhaps turning them more towards erotica), but the simple truth is that his site is a pornographic website where women are paid for their bodies to be used for the sexual gratification of mostly men.

Does that imply that you think that art and pornography are mutually exclusive? (i.e. porn cannot be art and vice-versa)

The problem I see with your argument is that you rely on the literal/dictionary definition of pornography. In reality, I think that the boundaries between what is porn and what is not have been blurred somewhat by the "Internet age". TV also has a lot to do with it - you can watch stuff at in the evenings on British terrestrial telly these days that would have unthinkable just ten years ago (stuff that's far more "extreme" than any WHP photosets)

Ask somebody on the street what they think of when you mention porn and the likelihood is that they'll imagine total nudity, masturbation, etc (you know the type of image I'm thinking of - tacky "ordinary Internet porn" type stuff). I don't think that many people would describe a woman, normally fully clothed, acting out somebody's fantasies as being porn.


What is perhaps a more interesting discussion but one that few here are likely to get involved in, I suspect, is why people who frequent his site are forever claiming it to be so different from other ones. Agreed, it is not hardcore, but Sky pays women for their bodies so other people can get off on them. At least have the decency to be honest.

Because I think that there is a difference. It's all down to public conceptions again. Pornography is what the public thinks it is, not what the dictionary says it is.

That's not to say that I don't think any of Skymouse's sites have pornographic content though. IMO, a few Diapergal sets are - although I think that they are very much soft-core. dg600 [Summer] is a case in point, I think (although that is, of course, just my personal opinion!)

[skymouse]

This is an interesting discussion, and similar to one that does crop up now and again. However, in my opinion, I think it is helpful to separate out the several different issues that tend to be telescoped together when asking whether something is "porn".

First of all, there is the rhetorical issue, and I think this is the biggest part of what is being discussed. When do people use the word "porn" (or "pornography"), and when do they use "erotica" or "art" or "unusual material"? Similarly, when using these terms, what do most people understand by them? Very often, "porn" has a disparaging or disaproving edge to it, and a person often chooses the word "porn" expecting that his audience will be aware of this edge. Describing something as "pornographic" often conveys a different opinion about the material than describing it as "sexy" or "erotic".

Secondly, there is the classification issue. When people ask whether this material is "porn", they are sometimes really asking whether this material is the same kind of thing as other material that is widely called "porn". It means: "is this stuff the same kind of stuff as x, y and z, which are usually called "porn?" Since the comparison is with stuff over whose "Porn" status there is little controversy, the question appears simple; but the answer is not simple, because there's no definite way of being sure what "the same kind of stuff" means. Does our stuff have many or few elements in common with, say, straight hardcore sex photos? With bondage pictures? With the great classical artists? The answers tells us only which elements are important to the person making the comparisons.

I think, given the above, there are justifications for calling our stuff "porn" - as well as grounds not to do so. Our stuff, for instance, could be described as "sexual entertainment", and there are many people who think this makes it a legitimate target for condemnation and moral outrage. Sexual entertainment of any kind, they would claim, is by definition degrading: not because of any specific subjects depicted, but by the very fact of being sexual entertainment. Such people would say that our stuff is no better than, say, depictions of violence against women, because the very nature of sexual entertainment is degrading.

On the other hand, many would argue the opposite - that entertainment is a normal part of life that brings enjoyment and relaxation, and that sexual entertainment is no different. One could say that sexual entertainment does not automatically degrade its subjects, or women (or men!) as a result of being sexual entertainment. What counts is the way it is used, the message it conveys, and its role in the wider social picture. There is worthy entertainment and less worthy entertainment, and if the sexuality is not depicted as something negative, and not used in a way that encourages negative attitudes towards women, it is not degrading.

SM

[Estelle]

It seems that one small comment I made in a discussion about something else has kicked off quite a debate here. I'd like to take up a few points.

First of all I would like to get away from discussing the words "pornography" and its abbreviation "porn". For a start, I think the word and its abbreviation come across quite differently. "Porn" always seem to refer to something sleazier than does "pornography". Secondly, I don't think the word is the point.

That said, I do like Sky's term "sexual entertainment" as I think this describes what I was trying to convey in the first place very well. I think I might adopt it.

It seems that for, some users of this site, wetting is not an especially sexual activity. I can respect and honour that. We all have our different ways of being attracted to wetting. For me, though, wetting is an almost exclusively sexual activity. Sex pervades my wetting activities and fantasies through and through. I cannot conceive of wetting myself and not being sexually aroused. It's the whole point.

What I am trying to get at is that the extent to which any of us finds wetting to be a sexual activity will influence the extent to which we see this as being a sexual site. That is - whether WHP is a "sex site" or not is totally subjective. (Whether or not it is a "pornography" site is also subjective - depending on whether the word "pornography" has any disparaging connotations to the person using it).

So, for me, WHP is a "sex site". It is a site that I come to for several reasons - almost all of them related to sex. I come to be "turned on" sexually by other peoples activities and fantasies that are similar to mine. I come to give voice to my own activities and fantasies - which is in itself a sexual turn-on. I come in the hope that I might discover new sources of wetting material. I come in the hope that I might discover other sexually arousing ideas that are not yet part of my experience. I come to engage in intelligent or amusing discussion about wetting and other sex related topics. I come because I feel that some of you have become my friends, even though I will almost certainly never meet you face to face.

To the extent to which I celebrate sex and my sexuality (and I do) I celebrate WHP and its sexiness! I also celebrate the fact that the guy who runs it joins in this discussion so thoughtfully. Thank you, Sky!

To comment on the argument about objectification of (mainly) women and whether "sexual entertainment" demeans us..... I think there is objectification in almost all sexual relationships. Sometimes, in our interaction with a partner, we are priveleged to be wholly and utterly with that person - in total union. We know it when it happens. Mostly though, to some extent, we are having sex with a projection of our own sexual myth. When we masturbate, we are totally having sex with a projection of our own sexual myth.

That's not a judgement, it's a statement of what happens. In masturbation it is wholly appropriate. It's such a shame that masturbation is viewed so negatively. It is safe sex at its very best! In intercourse between two (or more!) people this projection is not necessarily destructive either. Partners can agree to carry the projection of the other, for mutual enjoyment. It only become destructive if the projection is carried unconciously or unwillingly.

This objectification is present in all "sexual entertainment". As I see it, this is a reflection of everyday sexual relationships, not the creator of them. What harms women or men is not objectification as such or even the nature of the activity depicted. What harms us is the implied reality behind the production of the image or text. If that reality is coercive then the image or text is compromised.

Now, of course, coercion can be economic as well as physical or mental. But is a sexual image produced because the "labourer" needs money to live really any more compromised than a motor car...or a "Save The Whale" tee shirt? We are all "coerced" to a certain extent by the nature of the deal that exchanging labour for money imposes on us. Is getting paid £x/hour (whatever Sky, for instance, pays) a worse (or a more coercive) deal than getting paid the minimum wage or less for working in a fast food outlet? Is the woman (or man) who accepts such a job because she will lose benefit for her children if she doesn't accept it any more consensual than Sky's models? I doubt it.

Of course there is a lot of porn produced under grossly abusive conditions, but that is what is wrong with it - the coercion and abuse, not the subject matter.

So I say three (or more) cheers for consensual sexual entertainment. To anyone who wants to judge me or deprive me of it I say "If you don't like it - don't look (or read)." Just like I close my eyes to pictures of puppies on chocolate boxes. Yeuuch!

Estelle

[Number1]

I probably shouldn't get back into this discussion due to the current intake of champagne (happy new year to everyone by the way) but the comment about Tatu drew my attention, my favourite friend recently shot a bondage version of it. (crap before you ask) and I can offer a couple of thoughts on the matter.

A lot of this discussion seems to have revolved around how we react to certain words of classification. Which probably accounts for why the discussion has gone on forever and got nowhere. The way we react to things such as words of classification, or trigger words associated with taboo subjects, comes from back in our adolescence.

A lot of our responses to sexual stimuli, intended or not, were formed during our own sexual awakening. Wetting, as a fetish, is a fine example of this, many memories stemming back to school day wetting and such. It is therefore unsurprising that school room themes trigger a lot of sexual responses. Not because the responder wishes to have sex with children, but because that was the age that their personal sexual awakening took place, and is ingrained in their subconscious for ever more. My own sexual awakening, as far as I can remember was around the age of 10, therefore anything I experienced around that age provides powerful trigger responses which have a lot to do with myself, and nothing to do with 10 year olds in any other context. The strongest fetishes were the ones formed earliest in life.

As to the classification of this, and similar sites, that is a wholly pointless discussion, as our own subconscious responses are as different as our faces. The fact is, people who come here come back for whatever reason because they like what they find, and probably prefer it to what they find elsewhere. The reasons for that don't matter. Nor do other peoples opinions of it.

But now I'm getting told off for spending too much of my night off work looking at my laptop instead of my little sweetheart. Bless her! So may everyone find peace and happiness this coming year, and the pleasure of enjoying what you like to enjoy, free from the judgement of others. :mrgreen:

[Justme]

What is perhaps a more interesting discussion but one that few here are likely to get involved in, I suspect, is why people who frequent his site are forever claiming it to be so different from other ones. Agreed, it is not hardcore, but Sky pays women for their bodies so other people can get off on them. At least have the decency to be honest.



Sorry to revive an old thread, but I just joined the forum, and in searching thru I came across this, and I just had to say--
SO DOES MADISON AVENUE!! But you can't call that porn.


Or CAN you?? :)

[Indigo]

As it's just been revived, and as I missed it first time around, may I just say Estelle - you are very eloquent, and I cannot add anything useful to what you have written here.