egafd.com

Agreeing with the taste. Lots of adult content can be justified in both means.

When shooting, I look for creative angles with the light glimmering on nipples & lips around a cock. Its not just about "that looks fucking horny, I shall stay in this angle".

I would say porn or adult content included art, lust, sexuality & of course sometimes something a little nasty. The nasty or filming something a little uncomfortable can make the hits in the sex scene.

Shit, I forgot to say... fantastic picture BM, thats art mate

Also forgot to say i like the pic - made me laugh.

Andy Mann wrote:

> Hi Simon,
>
> Great image of Valentina mate, I would say its very stylish and
> I can appreciate the effort you put into your photography being
> a mere 'amateur' when it comes to doing my own content! I'm
> gonna knock one out to that now, so that answers your question
> I think mate! lol
>
> Andy Mann

Valentina makes the picture. I just pressed the button at the appropriate time.

But, it doesn't really count if you're knocking one out..does it?

Your attitude sums up what is wrong with porn: the vast majority is not erotic just boring, overlit, repetitive, mechanical wall to wall hardcore that encourages the viewer to hit the fast forward button no matter how beautiful the girls are!
Mike Freeman.

No comment on the 'vs' thing, and looking beyond the 'wank' thing, porn can be comical, especially foreign overdubbed to English. It can be hilarious sometimes.

bigAl wrote:

> Both having a wank, and decorating one's wall, serve a useful
> purpose. But I'm sorry to say that in my humble opinion this
> achieves neither objective.
>
>

Well I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject. Being as you're a proper qualified artist and belong to a Guild.

But y'know art isn't just for walls. Neither is porn solely for masturbation. In my humble opinion.

If I were to toss one off to a Balthus..does that make Balthus porn or art?

In your book.

A while back I posted a photo of the beautifully carved leg of my good friend Emily X. By far not as gruesome as Mantegna's St. Sebastian. Still, it was removed after much ranting and gnashing. If you saw said photo, I wonder in your educated opinion if that was art or porn. Given that I did on one occasion toss one off just at the very thought of the photo.

Benson wrote - "...generally I would classify porn's sole function as 'wank material".

Then Benson wrote - "Neither is porn solely for masturbation."

I'm finding that contradiction far more confusing than any reference to Balthus or Mantegna.

Apologies if I mistakenly interpreted your post as an invitation to express my humble opinion!