@Vazquez
Also technically it’s rules of the internet
I stand by my definition. Rule 34 was devised as a "rule" in lieu of behavioral observations on the internet which stipulated that internet users will purposely create pornography of anything they can
The observation has been posthumously adapted into a semi-sarcastic rule since there are a lack of studies to challenge the hypothesis. But technically the internet has no real established rules aside from anything that adheres to international law so the "rule" remains as an untested observation until studies on the subject can elevate it beyond observation status.
Nothing there talks about behavioral observation on the subject of porn
The rule does not state itself as an observation. But I'm pretty sure observations do not need to be self-declaring. They just need to supply a conclusion. But the rule is still based on observation none-the-less
what would be a better subject than rule 34 is what constitutes porn
We refer to some explicit content as "R34" not as a technical term but as a slang term which alludes to the fact that the content in question exists because of R34. Even some content which is strictly non-pornographic can still be considered R34 if it was designed to invoke it, reference it or parody it. My point is that R34 and porn are not interchangeable terms and I find it silly to use "R34" to classify a specific degree of porn
Does nudity alone constitute porn?
Okay lets ask the dictionary…
Definition of PORNOGRAPHY
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction
-- por·no·graph·ic adjective
-- por·no·graph·i·cal·ly adverb
Porn is constituted simply by the purpose of igniting sexual arousal in its viewers. It can vary in this task from softcore to hardcore.
A greek penis drawn on the top of the Sistine chapel is not porn since those renaissance paintings were never made with the intention of having people fap to them.
…so that counts as porn even though it has 90% less graphic nudity than the Sistene. Not that it's a huge controversy as far as this thread goes. I'd call that softcore porn
To your credit: not all imagery in this thread falls under that definition of porn so I agree with you there. A large portion of the images posted here are intended for humor and not for boner raising and/or the sake of R34. Out of the images that are meant to be arousing; none were hardcore and I don't see why mods had to turn half of them into Getout frogs