Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1115143" data-attributes="member: 2013">And just because you think certain things AREN'T icky doesn't give you the right to demand that it NOT be called pornography or perversion.These things are in the eye of the beholder and deciding whether or not something is pornographic is in fact a subjective call.  You are as wrong and as close-minded for calling him to abandon the "porno" call as you think he is for using it.As an example, in the USA, magazines like Stuff or Maxim or even the SI Swimsuit Issue are not *quite* considered pornographic by most - though they toe the line.  In the US, it seems the "accepted" definition of pictorial pornography is "bared female nipples" and "genitalia, including pubic hair."  In Europe, you can remove "bared female nipples" and in some cases "pubic hair" (at least that was my experience).  Of course, the standards are relaxed a bit with, say, pictures of newborn children or other such things - seeing a female baby in the nude with nipples uncovered and a strategically placed towel is a lot different from seeing a full-grown female in the nude with nipples uncovered and a strategically placed towel, no?  The only difference between the two is age, and I doubt you'll get hauled in on a kiddie porn charge for showing the picture of your two-week old daughter.  But what is the age where it changes?  Can you tell me?  Where is the line?Is see-through clothing pornographic?  Is a midriff porn?  Is the back of a woman's neck porn?  It depends on what your particular value system is - there's not a hard and fast (no pun intended) definition.However, in certain households in the US - or in other countries in the world, Stuff and Maxim and the SI Swimsuit Issue WOULD be considered pornographic, and perhaps justifiably so.  Whose definition is right?  Nobody's.  Everybody's.You fall into the trap of, "my view is rational and correct, his view is too close-mindedly conservative, and her view is way out there in left field liberal." <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />If he continues to call it porn and the vast majority disagrees, eventually the claim will be dismissed as "silly" - but if the majority agrees that even if it's not porn, it certainly toes the line closely and can be considered such, I think it's a valid designation.  Bottom line - some of Valar's stuff skirts closely enough to the line that I think it's not out of line for someone to call it "pornography" even if I don't happen to think it quite crosses over (whether or not I actually think that is not important).--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification