Peter, you have many good points in your post. Just a comment on the above quote. Today's pornography sometimes becomes tomorrow's comedy fodder:
Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt
Like many on this thread, I tend to agree that "pornography" is subjective —not only relative to the individual, but to the times and particular culture.
For example, in the 1880's the sight of a woman's ankle might have caused sexual arousal. Even today —if I understand correctly— one reason the Muslim
religion requires their women followers to veil their heads and faces is to prevent arousal in men, too.
Therefore, what while it's perhaps true that in 1880 a photo of a woman showing her bare ankle might've gotten some gentleman-dandy hot under the collar, obviously by today's mores this kind of "porno" would have little effect, save for foot fetishists. As for Muslim women, I sincerely don't know what effect a "full head portrait" of a woman has on a Muslim guy, but I doubt that Muslims consider such photos as pornographic either. Heresy, perhaps!
Anyway, your definition has some merit.
Last edited by Christopher Nisperos; 11-04-2006 at 01:22 PM. Click to view previous post history.