Acts of Sex - DPChallenge Forums

05/05/2011 12:20:50 PM · #7

lol... wouldn't that have to do with "SINS"??

its very clear this is a Site's fault for even suggesting something sinful. Only solution is that "Site Council" be disqualified....yeah, that will teach them.

kenskid

Nikon D700

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

05/05/2011 12:26:43 PM · #8

I was wondering about "that" photo also!

On another note...I opened a SC ticket on an entry I was going to put in the "puns" challenge. I set up my wooden "model woody" sitting on the inside lefts side of a picture frame. I found a long twig outside and arranged it in such a way that it would look like the "woody" had a "woody". The title was going to be "Sporting Wood".

I did not hear back from SC so I decided not to enter it. The rules say no depiction of genatalia.

Originally posted by cloudsme:

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/05/2011 12:29:00 PM · #9

Originally posted by kenskid:

The rules say no depiction of genatalia.

[quote=cloudsme]

the "balloons" made its safely.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/05/2011 12:31:16 PM · #10

I am not sure which one you mean but assume it's the couple on the couch rather then bubble boy..... I am missing what's been objected to - they are wearing cloths yes???

jamesgoss

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

05/05/2011 12:35:00 PM · #11

for the OP:

from your own portfolio:

Could I say that you have the same act depicted in your own photo? I mean, they're nude-- I can read it that way if I want.

as for:

general questions:
What exactly makes for a sexual act? That they're in their underwear? Why is it easy to see breasts, and nudity and bypass that as an artistic expression, but not this?

Message edited by author 2011-05-05 12:40:20.

smardaz

05/05/2011 12:36:53 PM · #12

i think the most you could call that is an act of foreplay

adigitalromance

Nikon D750

05/05/2011 12:37:18 PM · #13

I thought it was the picture of the forks.

I mean, who wants to see a picture of people forking??

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

05/05/2011 01:10:16 PM · #14

Originally posted by smardaz:

i think the most you could call that is an act of foreplay

I guess I'd consider foreplay sex.

Technically, I think the OP is right, actually.

Think about it. If your 15 year old daughter was doing that with her boyfriend on your couch, would you consider it a sexual act? I would.

Originally posted by robs:

I am not sure which one you mean but assume it's the couple on the couch rather then bubble boy..... I am missing what's been objected to - they are wearing cloths yes???

hehe... I couldn't resist...

Monica was wearing a blue dress. I guess Clinton was right -- he did not have sex with that woman. :)

Message edited by author 2011-05-05 13:31:38.

EL-ROI

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

05/05/2011 01:35:38 PM · #15

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by smardaz:
i think the most you could call that is an act of foreplay

I guess I'd consider foreplay sex.

Technically, I think the OP is right, actually.

Think about it. If your 15 year old daughter was doing that with her boyfriend on your couch, would you consider it a sexual act? I would.

You raise a great question which requires a rational answer. However, and I mean no offense to the person you posed it to, it is futile trying to reason with a person who is bent on moral relativism. There is no truth, no cultural mores, nothing that can be defined by any other's rules or morals because ultimately for the relativist, they are their own god and they make up their own rules. Hypocrisy does not exist for them because when everything is relative. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next.

For the progressive father of a 15 year old girl who also has a morally relative bent in his belief system, of course he would agree that he would not want his daughter in that situation, but he would not impose his beliefs on any other fathers. So for every other 15 year old girl it would be OK, just not for his own.

Message edited by author 2011-05-05 13:36:55.

pointandshoot

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

05/05/2011 01:40:03 PM · #16

As long as we're on a genitalia ban-wagon I'd like to throw this photo into the fire. Even the photo ID number is the devil's work:

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

05/05/2011 01:42:04 PM · #17

Originally posted by EL-ROI:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by smardaz:
i think the most you could call that is an act of foreplay

I guess I'd consider foreplay sex.

Technically, I think the OP is right, actually.

Think about it. If your 15 year old daughter was doing that with her boyfriend on your couch, would you consider it a sexual act? I would.

You raise a great question which requires a rational answer. However, and I mean no offense to the person you posed it to, it is futile trying to reason with a person who is bent on moral relativism. There is no truth, no cultural mores, nothing that can be defined by any other's rules or morals because ultimately for the relativist, they are their own god and they make up their own rules. Hypocrisy does not exist for them because when everything is relative. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next.

For the progressive father of a 15 year old girl who also has a morally relative bent in his belief system, of course he would agree that he would not want his daughter in that situation, but he would not impose his beliefs on any other fathers. So for every other 15 year old girl it would be OK, just not for his own.

I wasn't questioning whether or not it was acceptable behavior, I was trying to bring it down to basics. If you found your child doing this, would you consider it a sexual act? We adults seem to be able to come up with all sorts of justifications. But when you put it it simpler terms, it's little easier to see clearly.

jamesgoss

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

05/05/2011 01:42:40 PM · #18

Originally posted by vawendy:

Think about it. If your 15 year old daughter was doing that with her boyfriend on your couch, would you consider it a sexual act? I would.

But in that same regard, if my 15 year old daughter was having nude photos of her taken by her boyfriend/girlfriend/friend, (regardless of how artistically) I'd be prone to consider it a sexual act. Would you?

I think it all boils down to context. If I saw my 16 year old DPC'er viewing that image, I'd do a double take for sure, but in context of what it is: an artistic interpretation of the theme of lust, I think it's understandable. Now whether or not this would be appropriate for "burst of color" (assuming it was in color) is a whole different debate.

edit::

El-Roi pretty much summed everything I said up in his relativism post.

Message edited by author 2011-05-05 13:46:07.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

05/05/2011 01:44:17 PM · #19

Originally posted by pointandshoot:

As long as we're on a genitalia ban-wagon I'd like to throw this photo into the fire. Even the photo ID number is the devil's work:

Haha!!! We actually have a mushroom around here that I could get DQd for.

EL-ROI

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

05/05/2011 01:49:25 PM · #20

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by EL-ROI:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by smardaz:
i think the most you could call that is an act of foreplay

I guess I'd consider foreplay sex.

Technically, I think the OP is right, actually.

Think about it. If your 15 year old daughter was doing that with her boyfriend on your couch, would you consider it a sexual act? I would.

You raise a great question which requires a rational answer. However, and I mean no offense to the person you posed it to, it is futile trying to reason with a person who is bent on moral relativism. There is no truth, no cultural mores, nothing that can be defined by any other's rules or morals because ultimately for the relativist, they are their own god and they make up their own rules. Hypocrisy does not exist for them because when everything is relative. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next.

For the progressive father of a 15 year old girl who also has a morally relative bent in his belief system, of course he would agree that he would not want his daughter in that situation, but he would not impose his beliefs on any other fathers. So for every other 15 year old girl it would be OK, just not for his own.

I wasn't questioning whether or not it was acceptable behavior, I was trying to bring it down to basics. If you found your child doing this, would you consider it a sexual act? We adults seem to be able to come up with all sorts of justifications. But when you put it it simpler terms, it's little easier to see clearly.

And I commend you for the question!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/05/2011 01:49:48 PM · #21

Originally posted by pointandshoot:

As long as we're on a genitalia ban-wagon I'd like to throw this photo into the fire.

More anthropomorphicism ...

05/05/2011 01:50:19 PM · #22

Originally posted by jamesgoss:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Think about it. If your 15 year old daughter was doing that with her boyfriend on your couch, would you consider it a sexual act? I would.

But in that same regard, if my 15 year old daughter was having nude photos of her taken by her boyfriend/girlfriend/friend, (regardless of how artistically) I'd be prone to consider it a sexual act. Would you?

I think it all boils down to context. If I saw my 16 year old DPC'er viewing that image, I'd do a double take for sure, but in context of what it is: an artistic interpretation of the theme of lust, I think it's understandable. Now whether or not this would be appropriate for "burst of color" (assuming it was in color) is a whole different debate.

Interesting point. My overprotective mind would certainly consider that an act of sex. But rationally, I'd realize that there is a possibility that it's not. (I'd still be against it :)

However, even though it's an artist shot meeting a challenge idea, does that override the rule? I would think that it would, but yet that doesn't mean I want to see blatant sexual acts in the next sins challenge. So maybe not... :D

Interesting debate. I don't really care one way or another on this particular one.

KarenNfld

05/05/2011 01:50:35 PM · #23

Originally posted by kenskid:

I think there was a photo in a past challenge of vibrators that looked a lot like the real thing. But I can't find the photo now.

ray_mefarso

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

05/05/2011 01:52:20 PM · #24

I don't think the original question was about adolescent sexual behaviour and/or their parents' reaction to it. Rather the question was whether the particular image breaks the rules because it displays sexual behaviour. For me, strictly speaking, it does. There is clearly some kind of sexual activity going on - why else are they posed in that fashion? Why else is the image entered in a 7 sins challenge? For me the real question and the real interest is why it's against the rules and why sexual desire is a deadly sin at all.

Basta

Nikon D4