You deny that any of these things happen at anything more than a trivial scale, correct? You therefore dispute the interview I gave you, among the other things?
I neither deny, nor affirm. I donât have any statistics for them. But the fact is that many people engage in risky behavior, many even make fatal mistakes. As long as they are adults, they are responsible for their actions. Neither the âdo-goodersâ nor the government should force them to conform to some standards. If I were a Christian, I would utter the following prayer: âOh, please Lord, save me from the people who want to save me from myselfâ. I might appreciate their concern, but they should only give advice, and only when advice is asked for.
Dunno, is the picture/sculpture simply being used as an object for sexual pleasure? If so, then yes, itâs pornography.
I see. So it is the viewer who makes the distinction. In other words, it totally subjective. By the way, I rather doubt that it is the actual object which is the target of the sexual activity⌠fetishism might be an exception. But if that is the case, then a âshoeâ might be pornographic.
And I donât really know all that much about the âGreat Castration,â though if it is what it sounds like, I guess Iâm not in principle against it (which isnât to say that I wholeheartedly and without qualification endorse it).
It was the systematic vandalism performed by the church. The exposed male organs were chiseled off from the statues of antiquity.
Thereâs my answer, now can we please stop with the âWoe is me, why wonât anyone answer my questions?â act?
I appreciate your answer.
And Iâm saying that whatever conceptual differences there are, the line is not so clear cut in reality.
Few things are. But, as usual, the devil is in the details.
Perhaps I should add the qualification that said content must be used as a means of deriving sexual pleasure.
The same problem as above. Different people will view the same object in a different manner. Which makes the distinction between âpornâ and âerotic artâ next to impossible to draw.
Your comment seemed to be pretty well in line with your first in this thread:
And that is not a coincidence. Whatever two people do in the privacy of their home, it is their business, as long as that activity does not endanger others.
Interacting with the argument I gave instead of simply disagreeing with the conclusion would be appreciated.
Yes, indeed. Since I frequently complain about the âone liner dismissalsâ, you are absolutely right that I should adhere to my own standards. So here comes:
I disagree with your premise of âwell-orderedâ and ânon-viceful desireâ. Consent is consent. In Germany a few years ago two people agreed, that one will kill the other and cannibalize him. The event happened by mutual agreement - so it was their decision. We might feel disgust, but that does not make the consent invalid.
Did you miss the part where I talked about the effects being manifest in public and the society at large? With that point in mind, this entire story becomes irrelevant.
So if someone watches a âpornâ movie in his own house, then you have no problem with that? How do you decide if the effects are public and concerns the society at large?
