Author: WarewolfWarewolf Date: Apr 19, 2007 10:40
> I think part of the problem here is that neither side of the debate
> have defined what they meant by the term "porn", and it is due to a
> difference of definition that the sides are stuck.
Well, I'd like to think that this (slightly altered) phrase applies here:
'Obscenity, like beauty, is in the eye (and mind) of the beholder'
Some people consider the showing of (often female) skin to be obscene and
yet there are anatomy books that feature it.
Some people consider 'open' depictions of *sex* obscene and yet it's been
used in some films a source of drama or comedy.
Different individuals have different tastes when it comes to viewing
and/or depicting various people, objects and other topics and, at the
risk of being hypocritical, it should be the actions of the viewer, not
just the overall depiction(s) of the topic in question, that should label
the final work 'obscene'.
But here's are some better examples:
| 
