Quote Originally Posted by dmr View Post
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.
What is the "Miller Test" - I never studied 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.
I think that sums it up pretty much. It is the depiction of a fantasy world that does not exist - and should not. But apparently given the amount of Spam I get on a daily basis sells pretty well.

(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.)
Or have no interest in presenting it in their productions.

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.
I would agree - but there are millions of people who would not.