Pornography: Art or an Excuse?

[moz_k2]

---

i don't know what kind of art it would be
orgasmic art maybe

[greenfornet]

art mani sauna....even now..............

[cebulifer]

pornography is anything the moral majority is against. whether nude bodies or not.

[cebulifer]

READ AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELVES!!!

Pornography and Censorship (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

On the first definition of pornography as sexually explicit material, all such material would count as pornography, insofar as it is sexually explicit. But this simple definition is not quite right. Anatomy textbooks for medical students are sexually explicit-they depict exposed genitalia, for example-but are rarely, if ever, viewed as pornography. Sexual explicitness may be a necessary condition for material to count as pornographic, but it does not seem to be sufficient. So something needs to be added to the simple definition. What else might be required?
Here is a second definition. Pornography is sexually explicit material (verbal or pictorial) that is primarily designed to produce sexual arousal in viewers. This definition is better: it deals with the problem of anatomy textbooks and the like. Indeed, this definition is one that is frequently employed (or presupposed) in discussions of pornography and censorship. (See e.g., Williams 1981.) Of course, it is important to distinguish here between sexually explicit material that is wholly or primarily designed to produce sexual arousal (i.e., whose only or overriding aim is to produce sexual arousal) and material whose aim is to do this in order to make some other artistic or political point. The film, Last Tango in Paris arguably aims to arouse audiences, but this is not its primary aim. It does so in order to make a broader political point.


This suggests a third definition: pornography is sexually explicit material designed to produce sexual arousal in consumers that is bad in a certain way. This definition of pornography makes it analytically true that pornography is bad: by definition, material that is not bad in the relevant way is not pornography. It might be that all and only sexually explicit material is bad in a certain way (e.g., obscene): in which case, "pornography" will refer to all and only the class of sexually explicit materials. But it might be that only some sexually explicit material is objectionable (e.g., degrading to women), in which case only the bad subset of sexually explicit material will count as pornography. And, of course, it is possible that no sexually explicit material is bad in the relevant way (e.g., harmful to women), in which case we would have an error theory about pornography: there would be no pornography, so defined, merely harmless, sexually explicit "erotica".

[Venus914]

Feeling nako, it depends on the intention. If you see nudity as sort of a perversion, then it is an excuse. But if you are one to appreciate the beauty of the human body, then it becomes an art.

[pirehro]

not art!......

[pOT'73]

Ambot lng pero , maka pawala daw ni sa ARTraytis.. .. .

[cebulifer]

bwahahaha! morag mugrabe pa man gani ARTraytis ani! hehehe panuhot!

[xinraarnix]

it all depends on how a person thinks.

[Majoy]

or................