RE: [Leica] The fine line between art and pornography

[Aaron Sandler <aaron.sandler@duke.edu>]

For some the line is thin, for others it isn't...the key is that there is 
little or no agreement on where the line is.  That makes the line uncertain.

At 11:15 AM 12/11/2003, BD wrote:
>The line is very thin, Sam, because one person's respectful treatment of
>the beauty of the human form, or physical contact between loving
>individuals, or whatever, is another person's treatment of human beings
>like senseless beasts. I'll be John Ashcroft, or Jerry Falwell, would
>put a great deal of classical art and writing in the later category,
>while you would not.
>
>So we come back to the "I know it when I see it" test - which is to say
>it's a very individual thing.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of sam
>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:30 AM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] The fine line between art and pornography
>
>
>The line between pornography and art is not thin. I can't even imagine
>what would make you suggest that it is.
>
>Pornography is objectionable because it treats human beings like
>senseless beasts. And because it offers fantasy in place of human
>warmth, kindness, understanding, and communication. It exults the
>mechanics of sex detached from its humanness. It's difficult to believe
>but there are people in relationships that require pornography as an
>integral part of their sex life. The dummy actions on a screen mean more
>
>to them than the person they are with. The detachment of reality from
>sexual intimacy is a very bad thing. Have you noticed that almost all
>serial killers engage in some type of perverted sexual ritual with their
>
>victims? Pornography is infantile and destructive.
>
>Now I wonder who come to its defense?
>
>
>Sam S

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html