Who creates pornography?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

To me this is simple, it is totally subjective. It is no different than what constitutes a swear word. You can't articulate why it is bad other than to say that society has decided that it is so. And it is a moving target over time.

To me, conforming to societies' expectations in both of these regards is enough reason to observe the generally defined boundaries.

I remember seeing something on Discovery channel or the like not too long ago where it was observed that in almost all cultures and societies that we know about, eating is a communal activity and sex is a private activity. We seem to be hard wired for this. Pretty clear to me where that taboo comes from.

I don't disagree with your point and in fact it only bolsters the argument of my post. There is more than anecdotal evidence to understand Rodin's intent. His intent most certainly was not to create pornography. Therefore it is NOT pornography and it has been forced into compliance with arbitrary general boundries that are not merely subjective but incomprehensible.

[tooblue]

Just so we know what we are talking about here:



What if they were adorned in Americana as painted by Rockwell:



What's the difference?

[woot]

That second one isn't showing up for me.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

That second one isn't showing up for me.

Here's the link ... one of his many paintings depicting a kiss:

http://members.tripod.com/~gold_2/gr...cards/kiss.jpg

[Solon]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Here's the link ... one of his many paintings depicting a kiss:

http://members.tripod.com/~gold_2/gr...cards/kiss.jpg

When I went to Paris in 1999, I sent a postcard of Rodin's Kiss to Bateman at the BYU. I'm guessing he never got it.

[PaloAltoCougar]

This thread has spawned two very different trains of thought. The first, of the typical wiseass variety, is that I learned from the King Follett Discourse that pornography isn't "created", it's "organized."

The second, somewhat more serious thought, is that viewers are willing participants in the "creation" of pornography, which I suppose was the thread's point. Due to the ravages of age and declining hormone levels, I'm affected very differently now by "art" than I was at the age of 18. I concur with Justice Stewart's observation that I can't define pornography, but "I know it when I see it." And I see things differently than I did 35 years ago, and that's quite a dilemma for legislators and administrators.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Just so we know what we are talking about here:



What if they were adorned in Americana as painted by Rockwell:


What's the difference?

What if it was in downtown new york and he was in sailor uniform and she was some unsuspecting girl on V-E day? I'm thinking if someone took a photo of that it would be pretty popular

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

This thread has spawned two very different trains of thought. The first, of the typical wiseass variety, is that I learned from the King Follett Discourse that pornography isn't "created", it's "organized."

The second, somewhat more serious thought, is that viewers are willing participants in the "creation" of pornography, which I suppose was the thread's point. Due to the ravages of age and declining hormone levels, I'm affected very differently now by "art" than I was at the age of 18. I concur with Justice Stewart's observation that I can't define pornography, but "I know it when I see it." And I see things differently than I did 35 years ago, and that's quite a dilemma for legislators and administrators.

Pornography is very definable. But as an umbrella, it is not as big as some want to make it.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Pornography is very definable. But as an umbrella, it is not as big as some want to make it.

Are you (or anyone else here) familiar with the CP80 initiative? It's a bill, drafted in large measure by Cheryl Preston at BYU's law school, that would restrict pornography to a particular internet "channel." Subscribers to any particular ISP could opt out of that channel, and the provider would turn off access. It would be impossible to log onto the porn sites from the subscribing user (kids and employees nowadays can hack through pretty much any filter--but this approach would make that impossible, nor would proxy servers help, or so I'm told).

One of the slowdowns in getting the bill introduced in Congress, much less passed, is disagreement over how porn should be defined in the bill. The more conservative backers want as broad a definition as possible, but Cheryl recognizes such an approach would likely not pass constitutional muster. She's trying to drive through a definition that has already been court-approved.

http://www.cp80.org/

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

Are you (or anyone else here) familiar with the CP80 initiative? It's a bill, drafted in large measure by Cheryl Preston at BYU's law school, that would restrict pornography to a particular internet "channel." Subscribers to any particular ISP could opt out of that channel, and the provider would turn off access. It would be impossible to log onto the porn sites from the subscribing user (kids and employees nowadays can hack through pretty much any filter--but this approach would make that impossible, nor would proxy servers help, or so I'm told).

One of the slowdowns in getting the bill introduced in Congress, much less passed, is disagreement over how porn should be defined in the bill. The more conservative backers want as broad a definition as possible, but Cheryl recognizes such an approach would likely not pass constitutional muster. She's trying to drive through a definition that has already been court-approved.

http://www.cp80.org/

I am a proponant of the proposal. There should be a dot porn designation. I think resistence to it has less to do with definitions that are too broad and has more to do with economic reasons. The porn industry from so called soft porn ie Play boy to child porn is a billion dollar industry.