Post a response to this discussion thread
The purpose of pornography is soley that of sexual arousal. If someone takes a picture of a woman in passionate couplement with a man (or men, or women, or both) in such a gawdy fashion that the feature is just the SEX part of it, then the pievce in question is pornography. If a photographer is taking pictures of consenting girls of consenting parents who are playing, and happen to be naked in order to express the jopys of childhood, and a celebration of innocence, then it is art.
As for Lolita, anyone who had read it, or seen either film can instantly recognize that it is not exploitative. The film is a tragedy about a man's obsession, and his unwillingness to recognize the harm he is doing to the one he "loves," and all those around him. Lolita, although dealing with mature things, is not pornographic.
Besides, it is only taboo in this country for underage people to be involved in this sort of this, even though the majority of people whom I have been in contact with have lost thier virginity before the age of concent. The avarage age was 15. The youngest was 12. I'm not trying to advocate molestation of minors. Not at all. Just pointing out, in an abstract way, the country's sexual maturity.
If someone takes a picture of fellatio, it is pornography. If they place it in a frame with an apple, a barbie doll, and a tombstone, where we can look at it objectively; look beyond all of the sex, it is art.
Witney
Post a response to this discussion thread