| Re: Gunslinger Girls - Worst Concept Ever!!! |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: rec.arts.animation · Group Profile
Author: Oliver WongOliver Wong Date: Apr 20, 2007 06:53
"Ken Arromdee" green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:f0839f$5ph$1@blue.rahul.net...> In article weber.videotron.net>,
> Oliver Wong castortech.com> wrote:>> Did you know there are people who are find shoes, boots, etc. to be
>>arousing? If an author, who coincidentally happens to have this
>>particular
>>fetish, publishes a shoe catalog for a typical department store (e.g.
>>Walmart, Sears, Zeller's, etc.), and someone else reads this catalog,
>>and
>>also happens to have a shoe fetish... Would you call the shoe catalog
>>"porn"?
>
> Well, I haven't used the word "porn". But if the Sears shoe catalog is
> full
> of ads for "Special Boots for Shoe Fetishists" and ad copy about how
> arousing shoes can be, I'm going to be suspicious of all shoe ads in the
> catalog, even if not every single one is like that.
In my fictious example, I was assuming the catalog depicts perfectly
normal, standard shoes that every day people wear (e.g. running shoes,
tennis shoes, winter boots, etc.). The only thing is that the
photographer/author/producer/whatever of the catalog happens to have been
a shoe fetishist, and has also published (independently, i.e. not for
Sears) separate books on sexual shoes.
In other words, is a work to be considered "porn" *only* because the
author of the work finds the topic erotic? Perhaps the author found the
Sears catalog to be erotic, although it was double checked by the editors
at Sears, and they found nothing sexual or objectionable in it before
releasing and mailing it to morally righteous families.
- Oliver
| 
