Dictionary.com defines the word pornography as: "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."
The law.com dictionary defines it as "pictures and/or writings of sexual activity intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind, such as acts involving children, animals, orgies, and all types of sexual intercourse." (See also their definition of obscene, "a highly subjective reference to material or acts which display or describe sexual activity in a manner appealing only to 'prurient interest,' with no legitimate artistic, literary or scientific purpose.")
I think the Dictionary.com definition is better, since the law.com confines the definition to writings and pictures "of sexual activity" and I think a female in a provocative pose who is not actually engaging in "sexual activity" can still be considered "porn."
And I agree with you that the problem with an argument is that "he who defines the terms can easily win the argument" - I'm not going to try to continually pull out definitions of words from my backside.
So here is my definition of "pornography" - "obscene material." That drags in the definition of obscene, which I agree with - "a highly subjective... etc." For me, delineating a particular thing as "porn" is an exercise in subjective thinking... meaning it is impossible to tell someone that, "this is porn" or "this is most emphatically not porn" and somehow believe you are factually correct.
My point was not to discuss precisely what publications are and aren't pornography - my point was rather to say that "what constitutes obscene material" - usually abbreviatd to "pornography" or "porno" is a highly subjective subject by definition. As such, it is impossible to think that a particular definition or list can be agreed upon by all as "obscene." Specifically in the realm of nudity, et al, I think there is little doubt that showing of a given picture to 100 people and then asking them, "is this pornographic?" will not always elicit 100% agreement.
Please use legal definitions of words rather than your own definitions. Don't "pull a Jaros," as it were (Steve Jaros is this guy on rec.games.frp.dnd who used to get into arguments with other posters and fall back on his defense of "the dictionary doesn't define what words mean, people do, so don't use the dictionary definition of words against me when I say something"). Unless we're using a common definition of our words, we can't have a rational argument.
True enough. I'm not trying to "redefine" terms here - but I also don't want to take the time to comb through the dictionary to find the exact term for what I mean (which may not even exist). The point of the exercise above is, "one man's pornography may be another man's art" and because judging obscenity is an exercise in subjectivity, it's just as wrongheaded and obnoxious to demand that the man who calls it "pornography" be forced to refer to it as "art" as it is to demand that the man who calls it "art" refer to it as "pornography." Hopefully, subtle nuances of language aside, that point is clear. In exercises of subjectivity there can by definition be no absolute answer as to what to call a particular work.
seankreynolds said:
Not so, because that would include National Geographic, the Kama Sutra, and The Joy of Sex. None of those are porn, else Waldenbooks stores across the country would be being raided by the police for selling porn (Waldenbooks sells all three of the above, as well as magazines such as Playboy and others which contain nudity and would be porn by your definition but not by the common or legal definition).
By most common definitions I know, Playboy is considered "softcore pornography" (fits the dictionary.com definition if not the law.com definition). Softcore pornography is STILL pornography, no? If you were playing Family Feud and asked "name a pornographic magazine," odds are your top three answers would be "Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler." That, to me, means Playboy meets the "common definition" of pornography (which I assume means "the definition most people would ascribe to" but maybe this is another trick to catch me in my words by turning nuances of meaning against me).
I won't get into the Joy of Sex or Kama Sutra thing - clearly, as I mentioned, drawing an absolute line in the sand is hard - which was my point in the first place? If you can't show me the hard and fast line, don't be surprised if I say, "since this is an exercise in subjectivity with no lines - not objectivity with lines - I can label X as obscene," regardless of what the law says or not.
Not trying to pull a Jaros here, but please don't try to pull one yourself by trying to ensnare me with nuances of meaning of words taken from YOUR CHOICE of definitional sources either.
I have tried to be clear as to what I mean without consulting a dictionary, drawing instead from my own vocabulary to try to adequately express my thoughts. If I have used words in a manner that is technically incorrect, it is from my own inability to perfectly translate my abstract thoughts into the medium of language and should in no way reflect as imperfections in the abstract thoughts being communicated. And given that language is an imperfect method of communicating abstract thought, some leeway should be imparted on both sides to allow the abstract thought to be the issue, not minor technicalities in word choice - since language is a "lossy medium" for transferring thoughts (to use common computer parlance) from one person to another.
"Subjective judgements cannot by definition be considered absolutely right or absolutely wrong, ergo the subjective judgement to call a work 'pornographic' or not cannot be considered an absolutely true nor absolutely false characterization of the work. d4 was attempting to force his subjective judgement of 'not porn' on someone whose subjective judgement was 'porn' - and it's just as morally wrong to do so as the other way around." Does that state my point in a manner in which you can agree on the meaning (even if you don't necessarily agree on the point)?
EDIT: Thanks, Dr. Harry, for pointing out the full law.com definition - which does in fact cover my points.
{joking}
Now, Sean, you weren't REALLY trying to twist a definition by omitting portions that were potentialy harmful to your argument to suit your own purposes and pulling a Jaros by making the word mean what you wanted it to mean there, were you?
Bad Sean! No cookie!
{/joking}
--The Sigil
