Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
I don't think that's fair or accurate.
You're defining porn even more subjectively than Justice Potter did.
You aren't just saying "I know it when I see it" but "If anyone thinks it, then it is."
Pornography is not merely anything that appeals to prurient interests.
If a kid looks at Nat Geo just for the naked natives, does that make it porn? If the native was a kid, is NatGeo guilty of child pornography?
Is every attractive woman who passes by a heterosexual male on the street a porn performer?
|
No, my (personal) definition is that porn is something that's sold with sex as its #1 objective. I think most people would say that "Playboy" is sold with sex as its primary selling point, whereas "National Geographic" is not. My question would be, is erotica sold with sex as its primary selling point? Personally, I think it is. That's certainly
not saying that erotica can't also have literary merit, just as "Playboy" actually does have very interesting articles in it.