Skip to main content
Movies & TV

Return to Answer

added 135 characters in body
Source Link
Ed999
Ed999
  • 1.2k
  • 12
  • 14

Nudity is not, in itself, pornography.

If only one person is present in a scene (a photo, a film set, whatever) you ordinarily do not have pornography, as it generally requires the presence of two or more participants.

This was a rule of thumb in 1970s British cinema, which normally didn't object to female nudity on screen, so long as there was no man present alongside her. This seems to have been agreed with the British Board of Film Censors, on the basis that a female body (unlike a male) is incapable of showing sexual arousal, - at least on a cinema screen.

UK newspapers used to publish topless photos of female models ("Page 3 girls"), from about 1974 onwards, and it was generally regarded as merely "glamour" photography.

There was, in the 1950s, an unhelpful "I know it when I see it" attitude. But that was wholly subjective, hence useless.

After the introduction of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, in the UK, nudity ceased to be pornography in law, if it ever had been ("It is evident that mere nudity in painting and sculpture is not obscenity": Buchanan's Journal of Man, published in January 1888). Pornography was not even the issue. A: a publication now had to be 'obscene', in order to transgress the law.

That meant it had to "tend to deprave and corrupt" the intended audience. But in 1963 the Act's impact was largely destroyed by the Lady Chatterley trial at the Old Bailey, when Penguin Books were acquitted by the jury on a charge of having published the (fairly sexually explicit) novel, Lady Chatterley's Lover, publication of which had been banned in the UK since the 1920s.

This decision pretty much drove a coach-and-horses through the 1959 Act, and in the wake of the trial something had to be pretty strong indeed to be in danger of being judged 'obscene' by a jury, mere sex (between consenting adults), or nudity, would not do it.

By criminalising it, the 1959 Act had surrendered the decision to a jury. No longer could a judge or magistrate impose his view of what was obscene. In order to succeed in a prosecution, you had to convince a jury. That was quickly seen to be quite hard to do!

Nudity is not, in itself, pornography.

If only one person is present in a scene (a photo, a film set, whatever) you ordinarily do not have pornography, as it generally requires the presence of two or more participants.

This was a rule of thumb in 1970s British cinema, which normally didn't object to female nudity on screen, so long as there was no man present alongside her. This seems to have been agreed with the British Board of Film Censors on the basis that a female body (unlike a male) is incapable of showing sexual arousal, at least on a cinema screen.

UK newspapers used to publish topless photos of female models ("Page 3 girls"), from about 1974 onwards, and it was generally regarded as merely "glamour" photography.

There was, in the 1950s, an unhelpful "I know it when I see it" attitude. But that was wholly subjective, hence useless.

After the introduction of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, in the UK, nudity ceased to be pornography in law, if it ever had been. Pornography was not even the issue. A publication now had to be 'obscene', in order to transgress the law.

That meant it had to "tend to deprave and corrupt" the intended audience. But in 1963 the Act's impact was largely destroyed by the Lady Chatterley trial at the Old Bailey, when Penguin Books were acquitted by the jury on a charge of having published the (fairly sexually explicit) novel, Lady Chatterley's Lover, publication of which had been banned in the UK since the 1920s.

This decision pretty much drove a coach-and-horses through the 1959 Act, and in the wake of the trial something had to be pretty strong indeed to be in danger of being judged 'obscene' by a jury, mere sex (between consenting adults), or nudity, would not do it.

By criminalising it, the 1959 Act had surrendered the decision to a jury. No longer could a judge or magistrate impose his view of what was obscene. In order to succeed in a prosecution, you had to convince a jury. That was quickly seen to be quite hard to do!

Nudity is not, in itself, pornography.

If only one person is present in a scene (a photo, a film set, whatever) you ordinarily do not have pornography, as it generally requires the presence of two or more participants.

This was a rule of thumb in 1970s British cinema, which normally didn't object to female nudity on screen, so long as there was no man present alongside her. This seems to have been agreed with the British Board of Film Censors, on the basis that a female body (unlike a male) is incapable of showing sexual arousal - at least on a cinema screen.

UK newspapers used to publish topless photos of female models ("Page 3 girls"), from about 1974 onwards, and it was generally regarded as merely "glamour" photography.

There was, in the 1950s, an unhelpful "I know it when I see it" attitude. But that was wholly subjective, hence useless.

After the introduction of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, in the UK, nudity ceased to be pornography in law, if it ever had been ("It is evident that mere nudity in painting and sculpture is not obscenity": Buchanan's Journal of Man, published in January 1888). Pornography was not even the issue: a publication now had to be 'obscene' in order to transgress the law.

That meant it had to "tend to deprave and corrupt" the intended audience. But in 1963 the Act's impact was largely destroyed by the Lady Chatterley trial at the Old Bailey, when Penguin Books were acquitted by the jury on a charge of having published the (fairly sexually explicit) novel, Lady Chatterley's Lover, publication of which had been banned in the UK since the 1920s.

This decision pretty much drove a coach-and-horses through the 1959 Act, and in the wake of the trial something had to be pretty strong indeed to be in danger of being judged 'obscene' by a jury, mere sex (between consenting adults), or nudity, would not do it.

By criminalising it, the 1959 Act had surrendered the decision to a jury. No longer could a judge or magistrate impose his view of what was obscene. In order to succeed in a prosecution, you had to convince a jury. That was quickly seen to be quite hard to do!

Source Link
Ed999
Ed999
  • 1.2k
  • 12
  • 14

Nudity is not, in itself, pornography.

If only one person is present in a scene (a photo, a film set, whatever) you ordinarily do not have pornography, as it generally requires the presence of two or more participants.

This was a rule of thumb in 1970s British cinema, which normally didn't object to female nudity on screen, so long as there was no man present alongside her. This seems to have been agreed with the British Board of Film Censors on the basis that a female body (unlike a male) is incapable of showing sexual arousal, at least on a cinema screen.

UK newspapers used to publish topless photos of female models ("Page 3 girls"), from about 1974 onwards, and it was generally regarded as merely "glamour" photography.

There was, in the 1950s, an unhelpful "I know it when I see it" attitude. But that was wholly subjective, hence useless.

After the introduction of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, in the UK, nudity ceased to be pornography in law, if it ever had been. Pornography was not even the issue. A publication now had to be 'obscene', in order to transgress the law.

That meant it had to "tend to deprave and corrupt" the intended audience. But in 1963 the Act's impact was largely destroyed by the Lady Chatterley trial at the Old Bailey, when Penguin Books were acquitted by the jury on a charge of having published the (fairly sexually explicit) novel, Lady Chatterley's Lover, publication of which had been banned in the UK since the 1920s.

This decision pretty much drove a coach-and-horses through the 1959 Act, and in the wake of the trial something had to be pretty strong indeed to be in danger of being judged 'obscene' by a jury, mere sex (between consenting adults), or nudity, would not do it.

By criminalising it, the 1959 Act had surrendered the decision to a jury. No longer could a judge or magistrate impose his view of what was obscene. In order to succeed in a prosecution, you had to convince a jury. That was quickly seen to be quite hard to do!