In a message dated 3/5/01 9:09:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, wilsonfisk2@yahoo.com writes:
<< > That is because, dear Shane, everyone's
interpretation of 'sex' in our society draws the boundary between sex and pornography in a different place.
Prettily put, but it doesn't alter the fact that they are two different but related things, rather than the *same thing*. >>
We will have to agree to disagree, here. One Libertarian's free love is another fundamentalist Christian's fornication. One fan's erotic fanfic is another fan's porn. Recognize that not everyone agrees to where you lay that boundary. The subject is sex of a graphic nature. Some see it as exciting filmic erotica. Others view it as decadent, filthy porn. Even within legal interpretation, that boundary is always shifting. What the average woman wears to a dance club nowadays would have her thrown in prison or stoned, only a couple of centuries back.
Leah
Bizarro7@aol.com wrote:
One Libertarian's free love is another fundamentalist Christian's fornication.
<g> The creature of indeterminate moral persuasion sitting upon my shoulder has suggested that I point out that this is a false dichotomy. I know quite a few fundamentalist Christians who self-identify with Libertarianism. Suggesting that all fundamentalist Christians want to dictate other people's sexual behaviour is a bit like suggesting that all Federation politicians have the scruples of Alta Morag.
Mistral
--- Bizarro7@aol.com wrote:
<< > That is because, dear Shane, everyone's
interpretation of 'sex' in our society draws the boundary between sex and pornography in a different place.
I wrote:
Prettily put, but it doesn't alter the fact that they are two different but related things, rather than the *same thing*. >>
Bizarro wrote:
We will have to agree to disagree, here. One Libertarian's free love is another fundamentalist Christian's fornication. One fan's erotic fanfic is another fan's porn. Recognize that not everyone agrees to where you lay that boundary.
I do, of course I do.
The subject is sex of a graphic nature.
Not inevitably.
Some see it as exciting filmic erotica. Others view it as decadent, filthy porn. Even within legal interpretation, that boundary is always shifting. What the average woman wears to a dance club nowadays would have her thrown in prison or stoned, only a couple of centuries back.
Leah, you are misinterpreting me, not deliberately I trust, by dragging in irrelevant side issues and mmkaing it seem as if I am condemning sex or pornography personally. Which I am not. Also you're dragging in non relevant social aspects.
None of this alters what I said, that sex and pornography are two seperate but related things.
A photgraph of me in Paris is not the same thing as me being in Paris. Even if I look at the photograph of me in Paris whilst I am actuallty in Paris, the photpgraph is not the same as me being in Paris.
Reading novel set in Africa is not he same as being in Africa. Even if you read it in Africa it's not the same thing.
There are experiences and their are impressions, after affects and fantasys.
Different. Related, yes. But fundamentally not the same thing.
wilsonfisk2@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Bizarro7＠aol.com -
Mistral -
Wilson Fisk