Pixel pr0n (Is sexual attraction to artificial characters okay?)
- Thread starter Absinthe
- Start date
Sulkdodds
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,846
- Reaction score
- 27
Porn is for people with no imagination.
However these computer generated characters are designed from the ground up to be attractive - so in fact it's perfectly natural to be attracted to them. Isn't the whole point of porn that it's not real? It's just an object.
....but Bloodrayne is fugly.
However these computer generated characters are designed from the ground up to be attractive - so in fact it's perfectly natural to be attracted to them. Isn't the whole point of porn that it's not real? It's just an object.
....but Bloodrayne is fugly.
el Chi
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 7,439
- Reaction score
- 2
I dunno... On the one hand, I think there is something that's slightly pathetic about it, on the other hand Jessica Rabbit's entry scene is ridiculously sexy.
I think I might have to go with the somewhat hypocritical angle that it's sort of ok, but the people who spend a lot of time creating them - like the people who did the nude skin for Alyx, Lara Croft etc - are fairly pathetic.
I think I might have to go with the somewhat hypocritical angle that it's sort of ok, but the people who spend a lot of time creating them - like the people who did the nude skin for Alyx, Lara Croft etc - are fairly pathetic.
The master has spoken...Sulkdodds said:
Sulkdodds
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,846
- Reaction score
- 27
Sorry, but as I understand it, the reason wanking over animal porn is disgusting is because they're a different species. As opposed to being a human figure designed to be attractive in the first place.
EDIT: Yeah, what Absinthe said.
EDIT: Yeah, what Absinthe said.
Sulkdodds
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,846
- Reaction score
- 27
Feet or rubber bands? What the hell are you talking about?
I hate to go deeper (eww) into this subject but....
If you wank over porn, it's exactly the same thing. Sure, it might in fact be real people, maybe actors, but that's not the point. You are turning them into an object of your desires - you'll never meet them, never know them and certainly never **** them. They are nothing more than a thing for you focus on. They're not really a real person. They are no more real than a computer rendering.
I hate to go deeper (eww) into this subject but....
If you wank over porn, it's exactly the same thing. Sure, it might in fact be real people, maybe actors, but that's not the point. You are turning them into an object of your desires - you'll never meet them, never know them and certainly never **** them. They are nothing more than a thing for you focus on. They're not really a real person. They are no more real than a computer rendering.
disagree.Absinthe said:
its a fetish, just like any other. theyre all pathetic in the same way. some are more disgusting than others obviously. and the image of some sad gimp with a hardon scribbling away at his nude drawings to turn himself on just makes me laugh.
thats all ive got to say about this.
Sulkdodds
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,846
- Reaction score
- 27
OR HAVE YOU?? 
So, according to you, this is how it works:
Being turned on by a photo of a real woman = okay
Being turned on by a photo of a computer generated woman = not okay
Why, exactly? Because the former is an impression of a 'real' person? You're never going to meet either of them. You're never going to have sex with either of them. All you're doing to either of them is feeding your desires, so as far as I can see it's irrelevant which one is real.
Reaktor4 said:
So, according to you, this is how it works:
Being turned on by a photo of a real woman = okay
Being turned on by a photo of a computer generated woman = not okay
Why, exactly? Because the former is an impression of a 'real' person? You're never going to meet either of them. You're never going to have sex with either of them. All you're doing to either of them is feeding your desires, so as far as I can see it's irrelevant which one is real.
Absinthe
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,037
- Reaction score
- 30
Fetish? Wow.
That's a boatload of crap if I ever heard some.
Definition 1: An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence.
Artificial characters do not necessarily constitute this.
Definition 2: Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
Artificial characters, being the human representations that they are, can have sex appeal. There's nothing unnatural about their figures (although this depends on the character). Arguing that they are not physically real is an invalid argument for previously mentioned reasones.
Definition 3: An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.
...Which could be applied to anything. Granted, attraction to such characters can lead to a fixation, but it is not one in and of itself.
That's a boatload of crap if I ever heard some.
Definition 1: An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence.
Artificial characters do not necessarily constitute this.
Definition 2: Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
Artificial characters, being the human representations that they are, can have sex appeal. There's nothing unnatural about their figures (although this depends on the character). Arguing that they are not physically real is an invalid argument for previously mentioned reasones.
Definition 3: An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.
...Which could be applied to anything. Granted, attraction to such characters can lead to a fixation, but it is not one in and of itself.
Darkside55
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2009
- Messages
- 12,083
- Reaction score
- 93
Absinthe
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,037
- Reaction score
- 30
Murray_H said:
The concept itself sounds intriguing.
It's level of implementation at this point, however, is akin to stiff mannequins dry humping each other.
I didn't really intend for the discussion to lead down the path of digital sex, but I guess I should have seen it coming.
Sulkdodds
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,846
- Reaction score
- 27
Odd concept. Personally I think it's kind of tasteless (but then I think porn is kind of tasteless... ). Nothing wrong with it - we have erotic books, erotic comics, erotic films and it's only a matter of time before there are erotic games (aren't there some already?).
And then later there'll be full virtual-reality porn... :dozey:
). Nothing wrong with it - we have erotic books, erotic comics, erotic films and it's only a matter of time before there are erotic games (aren't there some already?).And then later there'll be full virtual-reality porn... :dozey:
jabberwock95
Tank
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,222
- Reaction score
- 1
As people have said, they are made to look like real people and thus they can evoke emotions. The concept is kind of blurred, for example:
1. Do you find someone attractive?
2. Would you find a picture of them attractive?
3. Would you find a 3D model of them attractive?
etc.etc.
And BloodRayne is hawt. :naughty:
1. Do you find someone attractive?
2. Would you find a picture of them attractive?
3. Would you find a 3D model of them attractive?
etc.etc.
And BloodRayne is hawt. :naughty:
Absinthe
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,037
- Reaction score
- 30
