Raja Royale and Dearest,
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
Todah rabah ("thank you very much" in my best memorized phonetic Hebrew ... therefore, perhaps in error!). But really ... Jesus, Jewish? HA! Who told you that? Everybody knows that He went to a Catholic church and prayed to his mom and real dad in front of an icon of ... oh, wait a minute . . .
In fact no, I hadn't heard that argument, but it certainly does seem plausible, doesn't it? Having briefly attended Catholic school and having gone to catechism like a good boy (due, in part, to nuns who would show up on the doorstep of our house with a sort of "subpoena" if I had missed class the previous week --no kidding), I of course know that Jesus was Jewish (making Mary a Jewish mother, don't forget. Can you picture the kvetching? "Jesus, when are you gonna get a job? All you do is hang around with guys all day.. fishing, walking on water... making bread fall from the sky... and who's gonna clean all that up? Are you happy? Look at me when I talk to you and stop looking up at the sky" .. etc.)
But I have to give the Cathos credit; they came clean with the naked truth. I remember being taught something about "the Lord being exposed with a naked body, because He was not even deemed worthy of being covered". Sheesh. Talk about adding insult to injury! Those Roman guys sure knew how to be mean, huh? Sounds like Pontius needed to be punched. Even my dad was never as severe!
But the Catholics sure got their revenge. Have you seen the gorgeous dresses the pope wears now (as well as the shoes and hats .. no purse though)? Jesus would be spinning in ... ah, nevermind. He's supposedly not there anymore.
Say hi to the lovely FS.
PS/ the word loincloth sets off an alarm: according to some stories and a "secret Gospel" written by [I don't remember who], did you know that Lazarus was in fact not an old man, as is usually taught ... but a young boy in a loincloth (!). He's mentioned at least a couple times in the secret gospel.. he was apparently a Jesus groupie (no stalkers or paparazzis yet!). If you want more details, email me..I don't want to start a religious war here!
Ha! .. or a good spread of food! Thus the motto, "If there's not someone good in the buff, there'd better be something good in the buffet"
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
I just made that up ... but I think I'll now live by those words (at least regarding openings!).
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
I met Xaviera Hollander —aka, "The Happy Hooker"— at a party back around 1996, when I lived in Amsterdam. She invited me to her home the following week, where I cooked a horrible dinner (nothing more happened ... not even eating). She's really a very nice and talented lady with an incredibly beautiful face, however, she weighs probably more than 250 kilos (!). Unless dear Xaviera has lost a great deal of weight since then, she might say "f*** that", but I doubt that she would actually be able to do it! Of course, I've been wrong before.
By the way, I know that she now runs a B&B (no, not a brothel!) in a very nice area of Amsterdam, for anyone interested, go to http://www.xavierahollander.com/ Worth the stay.
Don't tell her I sent you, though. She might remember the "dietary dinner" I boggled! (Just kidding..actually, she has a fantastic self-deprecating sense of humor and I don't think she'd be offended if she saw this)
Last edited by Christopher Nisperos; 11-04-2006 at 09:37 PM. Click to view previous post history.
My favorite. If these books don't turn you on (erotically, sexually, artistically), you're probably dead or a Klingon.
I've been thinking about this and I've decided that the idea that 'art' cannot be 'porn' is a load of b******s
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by Stargazer
I agree- look at that Caravaggio painting I posted to this thread. That's both. High art and not-so-subtle eroticism.
I agree with Cate as well, but that painting...yuck!
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
Just to add more confusion to the debate, we can perhaps correlate the concept of porn and art, or eroticism and art, with the concepts of love and lust, and our body's responses to them.
If art stimulates a cerebral reaction and porn merely a physical reaction, they're sort of in the same league as love vs lust. Probably by definition, although hard to define, we would say that love is a highly revered quasi cerebral response to something, and lust a supposedly less than virtuous (although generally more fun) reaction to a stimulus. This of course correlates with the highbrow reaction we have to art and the more earthy response with that nasty old porn.
I would argue that both love and lust can occur at the same time. (By saying I love to lust after women does not apply here). One can love their mate and be very full of lust (lustfull) after a couple of glasses of wine, good lighting and the room service tray is placed outside. The combination of the two is perhaps even be more fulfilling than just lusting after your secretary and nailing her in the executive washroom.
So I believe that indeed one can appreciate art and porn at the same time and perhaps both at the same time are indeed more fulfilling than looking at just art alone.
One problem I've tried to square away is my argument that lust is just a base reaction (reptilian brain) response that needs no higher thinking to be performed. Although we are drawn to it like flies to watermelon, we still, damn it, have to use our higher brains to qualify it. Is it safe? Is it legal? etc.
I've always been fascinated with the time/age problem as well. I look at a naked beautiful 25 year old woman and lust after her. I'd ravage her in a heartbeat. Would I feel the same way if I saw the same woman and she was 60. Same woman. Different illusion. What if she was 18? Yeah I jump her. 16? Hmmm.. better not. 14? Damn. Whats wrong with me. 10? Oh my God. I shouldn't even be looking. But it's the same "woman", just a different illusion.
So what I'm saying is that even with lust and with porn, although reptilian in nature, there is still higher cerebral thought processes occurring during the viewing. I guess the question is are these thought process high enough to be given the label of art.
Last edited by blansky; 11-05-2006 at 12:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
'Porn' is lust without love, so I suppose you mean, is it possible for it to be art, and therefore w*****g on a higher plain?
Originally Posted by blansky
If it makes you feel better....frankly I still think its (self-delusional) b******s.
Dearest Cate, concerned am I that you not wear out your * key. Love C****e.
Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)