Sorry - I was actually just joking. I knew what your meant. The clich� still stands: I may not know how to describe it, but I know it when I see it.
Jim Davis > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 6:07 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Porn in the Library > > I guess my point is this. It is purely sexual arousal. Which I think > should > not be a public endeavor. > > There is a difference between a sex scene in a movie and a porn movie. > There > is a distinction, and that is where I would draw that line. > > Is the Statue of David pornographic? No. Birth of Venus? No. > > They depict nudity, but they are not porn. > > Debbie does Dallas? Yes. > > The point of each piece is 100% different. It doesn't exist to make the > audience think, it exists only to sexually arouse the viewer. While the > others may have this side effect, they have many other effects as well. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 4:00 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Porn in the Library > > > > "The purpose of pornography is to arouse, it is not for any artistic > > value." > > > > I've always thought the purpose of good art was to arouse as well... in > > fact (to me) the definition of "bad art" is that it fails to arouse > > anything. ;^) > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
