[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

I knew he was a drug addict and I'm not concerned by his morals, but I think that because his films and photography aren't made solely as a tool for the sexual gratification of the viewer then in my book they don't count as pornography, even if they could be described as pornographic.

alright, let me try something:

<devil's advocate>
where do you draw the line though? is in in the artist's intention? is it in the audience's reception? if some rich guy jerks off in his bedroom looking at a picture he paid thousands for in a gallery then it's not porn, but if i's a truck driver in a rest stop looking at a magazine it's porn? doe the educated get horny with different materials than the educated? a plump chick bent over a car hood is filthy commerce but a skinny chick with a gun on her perfect tits is art? that sounds a bit like class discrimination to me.
</devil's advocate>

i don't necessarily take all those arguments as my own but there they are nevertheless!

(also: i don't enjoy actual low-class porn in this thread, but those are my overeducated/underpaid sensibilities which can't be universalized)