1st: yes I like pornographic art, BUT:
Although I do have a liking for specific attributes going far enough that; were I artistically skilled I'd be indeed able to create what could be called my personal flavour of Galatea, it doesn't limit me in a fetishism alike way. such Galatea or a real woman matching said set of attributes to a high degree is from my POV just an aesthetically pleasing person. Sexual attractors have to come from the character. I can without problems be attracted to a woman having exactly none of my optical preferences on her, if she's interesting as a person.
And even if she looked like my Galatea to a T I wouldn't want her were she a person i couldn't LIKE. Where does that fit with your theory?
Some people tend to equalize erotic art with "transmitter of arousal triggers" only. I regard this as insufficient. In fact I believe that such a limited view is the counterpart of the erroneous view of nudists neglecting sexual aspects of nudity completely.
If it's visual and the artist failed to transmit the model's natural beauty together with her arousing appeal he failed completely. Hornyness alone ain't enough. I want to be struck and flattened by the appearance. Longing AND admiring equally.
If it's textual presentation the artist has to be able to catch the ecstasy, joy and vulnerability of what happens. Otherwise it's a failure too. Presenting as willing and able ain't enough too.
Beauty is something to enjoy and not to refuse when exposed.
Sexual activity performed with mutual awareness of and reaction to each other is pleasurable on both physical and mental levels.
How can a branch of art dealing with it be unhealthy or negatively influencing per se, as you stated with your analogy?
I see nothing negative in that.
I'm neither ashamed of simply enjoying (and complimenting) beauty when I'm exposed to, nor am I ashamed to admit if I feel attracted in case I do. I think it would be in both cases insulting and belittling to neglect.
Last edited by Freeshadow; 08-20-2012 at 08:24 PM.