Quote Originally Posted by dmr View Post
Not to start a war of the sexes here, I would like to speak freely.

I do think this is also a question of semantics, as there are many perceptions of what is pornography and what is not pornography.

There is erotic art, and then there is porn.

Erotic art captures the intimacy of certain human experiences.

Porn (the way I define the term) does not.

I have a feeling you are talking about serious and legitimate erotic art and not what I and many others call pornography.

The material I would call pornography, and yes, I've seen it, I'm a big girl and I've been around the block by myself, is crude and patently offensive -- that which triggers part of the "Miller Test" that we studied in Media Law.

Speaking very freely, much of what I would call pornography is incredibly crude and demeaning. It's obviously produced by men, for men, for the purpose of arousal, period. There is no intimate artistry in this type of production. I'm sure everybody knows exactly what type of material I am referring to. (It's obvious that the producers of some of what I have seen have no {f-bomb}ing clue, pun intended, as to what intimacy really is.)

Oh well, enough ranting. I really think we're on the same page as far as being able to appreciate erotic art. I think the hang-up is in defining what porn is, and I would say that if it has true artistic merit, it is not porn.
Glad you spoke up. Usually I'm the lone female voicing an opinion. I agree with you 100%.