Porn vs. Art

[Kevin_Lowe]

Your kidding, right? You read these articles that talked about the connection of child pornography and child prostitution, of sexual offenders and their use of pornography, and you see absolutely no relevance?

The thing with a logical argument is that you have to show cause and effect. You can't just juxtapose two things and then assume that one causes the other.

In this case we're looking for evidence that porn causes bad effects just because it's porn. Saying "some porn is produced using child sex slaves!" is factually correct, but it says nothing about the porn that is not produced by using child sex slaves.

Your read about an article about Pompeii and the pornography in the brothel, but the conditions and the low amount of return (two loaves of bread) for women who were initially enslaved and then later could find no other means of income, and this has no effect on you?

That's got nothing to do with pornography, unless you think that sexual images are going to fly off your computer monitor, stick themselves to your wall, and make you prostitute yourself to passers-by for ten dollars a go.

This is just a juxtaposition of porn and something distasteful, not a logical argument that shows a causal link.

The objection was to my comment that porn has no socially redeemable value. An example given was it has harmful effects on children, and this raised objections. Yet when asked if anyone would show pornography to their own kids, not one person said they would.

What's that got to do with anything? I wouldn't screw my kids either, if I had kids, yet sex has socially redeeming value.

 

[Manopolus]

To make the final bit of my last post a little more clear:

The standard by which porn is judged by the viewer is clearly different than the standard by which other artistic pursuits are normally judged by the viewer. I don't deny pornography the status of a "type" of art, but I find it a little wanting, nonetheless.

 

[quadraginta]

Nasty: bodily fluids, exposure of that which is normally done in private, the use of words like "nasty" and "naughty" in many of the videos and advertising... need I go on?

Dysfunctional: That would depend on the function, no? If the function is to give money to the porn industry, then perhaps not. That is the function for them, certainly. However, from the point of the viewer... ?

My other objection toward porn is that it doesn't have to stand up to the normal standards of quality that we use in art. Merely showing the vagina or copulation, etc is generally enough. A more conservative view toward art would require that it be "tasteful" and require a certain aesthetic value. I don't buy that, myself BTW. Such a requirement is so ridiculously open to interpretation that the word "art" loses its meaning. Basically, it suggests that, "what I like is art, and what I don't, isn't."

Porn is not noticeably different from some examples of "shock art" you see in galleries and museums. I find such "shock tactics" to be rather silly, myself... but they very much exist in the art world... and even THESE things can be done tastefully or otherwise.

In ways that I expect you don't intend you present a very good argument that pornography should be discouraged from perpetuating the "nasty and naughty" cultural meme which has managed to twist a perfectly normal physical process into something shameful and reprehensible. Pornography should encourage the open acceptance of natural functions of the human body.

I may be misinterpreting, but the tenor of your posts is reminiscent of John Harvey Kellogg^WP who among other things, campaigned fervently against the threat to society of onanism.

He was an especially zealous campaigner against masturbation; this was an orthodox view during his lifetime, especially the earlier part. Kellogg was able to draw upon many medical sources' claims such as "neither the plague, nor war, nor small-pox, nor similar diseases, have produced results so disastrous to humanity as the pernicious habit of onanism," credited to one Dr. Adam Clarke. Kellogg strongly warned against the habit in his own words, claiming of masturbation-related deaths "such a victim literally dies by his own hand," among other condemnations. He felt that masturbation destroyed not only physical and mental health, but the moral health of individuals as well. Kellogg also believed the practice of "solitary-vice" caused cancer of the womb, urinary diseases, nocturnal emissions, impotence, epilepsy, insanity, and mental and physical debility – "dimness of vision" was only briefly mentioned.

Kellogg worked on the rehabilitation of masturbators, often employing extreme measures, even mutilation, on both sexes. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying phenol (carbolic acid) to a young woman's clitoris.

He also recommended, to prevent children from this "solitary vice", bandaging or tying their hands, covering their genitals with patented cages, sewing the foreskin shut and electrical shock.

Perhaps there has been a change in the extremes of the rhetoric since his time (which wasn't really that long ago) but there has been little change in its nature. It is still somehow the intrinsic "badness" of acts of sexual satisfaction which is seen to be the culprit, instead of the insistence on portraying sex in general as "bad".

I see a lot more threat to rationality and to the health of society from the moralizers than I do from the "nasty and dysfunctional" pornography. The dysfunction isn't in the portrayal of sex, it's in the manner which that portrayal has been shaped by a sexually dysfunctional culture.

I hope that as we leave our history of Victorian schizophrenic morality farther in the past we will grow to escape that dysfunction.

 

[JFrankA]

Nasty: bodily fluids, exposure of that which is normally done in private, the use of words like "nasty" and "naughty" in many of the videos and advertising... need I go on?

Well, some bodily fluids are nasty, some are quite arousing and, yes, beautiful.

Dysfunctional: That would depend on the function, no? If the function is to give money to the porn industry, then perhaps not. That is the function for them, certainly. However, from the point of the viewer... ?

I'm sorry, I'm still not getting the "dysfunctional" bit. I know I still get erections once in a while without thinking about anything particularly sexual. In my younger days, I, like most men, got erections at times without control of it. That, actually, is considered a normal function.

But what arouses you may not be something that arouses me and vice versa. Does your arousal make it a "dysfunction" because I don't agree with it? Of course not.

If it arouses a man to perform on camera, and actually perform under the circumstance that a male porno actor has be in in order to perform, why is that dysfunctional? Why is it dysfunctional for a woman?

Why is it dysfunctional for a person watching porn to be aroused by it?

To me, the word dysfunctional comes into play when someone desires something and that person decides that the safety and well-being of herself/himself and/or others around her or him does not matter. In order to get what is desired, the consequences of her or his actions do not matter, or they think they can "get away with it".

Notice that this isn't restricted to sex. It includes anything that a human could desire. Money, power, fame, cars, even the love of another person are all reasons for someone to decide that hurting themselves or someone doesn't matter.

So when someone decides to cross that line, that's where dysfunctional comes into play for me.

Porn is not dysfunctional, per se.

My other objection toward porn is that it doesn't have to stand up to the normal standards of quality that we use in art. Merely showing the vagina or copulation, etc is generally enough.

May I rephrase your statement? "My objection towards movies is that it doesn't have to stand up to the normal standards of quality that we use in art. Merely showing many explosions, gun fire or fight scenes, etc is generally enough."

"My objection towards abstract paintings is that it doesn't have to stand up to the normal standards of quality that we use in art. Merely showing many colors, shapes or curved lines etc is generally enough."

"My objection towards stand up comedy is that it doesn't have to stand up to the normal standards of quality that we use in art. Merely picking fun at in-laws, blonds and flying on an airplane, etc is generally enough."

I don't mean to mock you, and if you feel that way, I'm sorry. It wasn't my intent. I'm trying to make a point. The point I'm making is that you can say that about any form of art. Any. Goes to show that porn IS art.

A more conservative view toward art would require that it be "tasteful" and require a certain aesthetic value. I don't buy that, myself BTW. Such a requirement is so ridiculously open to interpretation that the word "art" loses its meaning. Basically, it suggests that, "what I like is art, and what I don't, isn't."

This I agree with you.

Porn is not noticeably different from some examples of "shock art" you see in galleries and museums. I find such "shock tactics" to be rather silly, myself... but they very much exist in the art world... and even THESE things can be done tastefully or otherwise.

So again, why is porn dysfunctional?

 

[Toke]

Good point Quadraginta, I did not realise the full implications of the "dysfunctional" part as a condemnation of masturbation.

(more like, ok, one cannot jerk off at work, which reduce the fun of porn a bit)

 

[Manopolus]

In ways that I expect you don't intend you present a very good argument that pornography should be discouraged from perpetuating the "nasty and naughty" cultural meme which has managed to twist a perfectly normal physical process into something shameful and reprehensible. Pornography should encourage the open acceptance of natural functions of the human body.

The problem is that it doesn't do that. Internet searches for porn almost always seem to include a reference to it as being "nasty" etc. It actually appears to often be a confirmation of the idea that such things are abnormal, disgusting, and inappropriate. Porn has the tendency to support the notion that it is a disgusting, unnatural pursuit, rather than detract from it. The deviancy involved is actually part of its attraction.

I may be misinterpreting, but the tenor of your posts is reminiscent of John Harvey Kellogg^WP who among other things, campaigned fervently against the threat to society of onanism.

You are misinterpreting. Please don't strawman me into a Victorian. I actually enjoy going to nudist resorts now and then. Would you agree that nudists generally portray the exposure of the human body in a much different way than pornographers do?

I see a lot more threat to rationality and to the health of society from the moralizers than I do from the "nasty and dysfunctional" pornography. The dysfunction isn't in the portrayal of sex, it's in the manner which that portrayal has been shaped by a sexually dysfunctional culture.

I hope that as we leave our history of Victorian schizophrenic morality farther in the past we will grow to escape that dysfunction.

And I think that pornography actually increases that dysfunction rather than defusing it.

 

[Manopolus]

May I rephrase your statement? "My objection towards movies is that it doesn't have to stand up to the normal standards of quality that we use in art. Merely showing many explosions, gun fire or fight scenes, etc is generally enough."

If this is your basis for judging movies, I agree that it is wrong. I tend to judge them on story content, theme, etc. rather than on the volitility of action sequences. There are also aesthetic principles which are used here.

"My objection towards abstract paintings is that it doesn't have to stand up to the normal standards of quality that we use in art. Merely showing many colors, shapes or curved lines etc is generally enough."

Really bad idea for an example, here. Especially when arguing with someone who has a BFA in Art and has had an emphasis on abstract painting. The primary methods we use to judge abstract art is actually the same as it is in non-abstract art... as in the basic principles of design, as well as non-verbal communication ideas. For simplicity, I won't go further into this... I could talk about it all day.

"My objection towards stand up comedy is that it doesn't have to stand up to the normal standards of quality that we use in art. Merely picking fun at in-laws, blonds and flying on an airplane, etc is generally enough."

Hmm... not particularly related to visual art, is it?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Really bad idea for an example, here. Especially when arguing with someone who has a BFA in Art and has had an emphasis on abstract painting. The primary methods we use to judge abstract art is actually the same as it is in non-abstract art... as in the basic principles of design, as well as non-verbal communication ideas. For simplicity, I won't go further into this... I could talk about it all day.

If you're going to respond to

"My objection towards abstract paintings is that it doesn't have to stand up to the normal standards of quality that we use in art. Merely showing many colors, shapes or curved lines etc is generally enough.""

by going into what constitues 'good' abstract painting versus 'bad' abstract painting based partially on your personal expertise, then it's probably a bad idea to use the phrase "Merely showing the vagina or copulation, etc is generally enough" when talking to a professional pornographer, as I believe either Kevin Lowe or JFrankA is.

 

[Manopolus]

If you're going to respond to

by going into what constitues 'good' abstract painting versus 'bad' abstract painting based partially on your personal expertise, then it's probably a bad idea to use the phrase "Merely showing the vagina or copulation, etc is generally enough" when talking to a professional pornographer, as I believe either Kevin Lowe or JFrankA is.

Perhaps you are right, here. However, I had not noticed much in the way of standards of quality in the field. I do know that seduction often has a lot to do with what isn't shown, but this isn't exactly something in the favor of hardcore porn.

I admittedly have very little standard to judge "good" porn from "bad" porn, as I don't generally bother with it much at all. I do however note that the standard would generally have to do with the ability of the image to cause arousal, rather than the considerations we often use in the art world. This places it in the realm of "shock art" as I mentioned before. If I use the same standard as I use for any other type of art (and it actually works in some cases), then at best it is a hybrid somewhere between other forms and your usual hardcore porn.

I'll admit that porn covers a lot of territory, in any case... and definitions are hard to justify. My responses are admittedly based upon a set of experiences which may or may not be within that which has been experienced by another. Strangely enough, I don't consider Playboy to be anywhere near the same thing as my immediate reaction to the word "porn."

Maybe some versions of pornography give porn a bad name?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If you're going to respond to

by going into what constitues 'good' abstract painting versus 'bad' abstract painting based partially on your personal expertise, then it's probably a bad idea to use the phrase "Merely showing the vagina or copulation, etc is generally enough" when talking to a professional pornographer, as I believe either Kevin Lowe or JFrankA is.

For the record that's JFrankA, not myself. I have no relevant professional expertise in the topic.

The problem is that it doesn't do that. Internet searches for porn almost always seem to include a reference to it as being "nasty" etc. It actually appears to often be a confirmation of the idea that such things are abnormal, disgusting, and inappropriate. Porn has the tendency to support the notion that it is a disgusting, unnatural pursuit, rather than detract from it. The deviancy involved is actually part of its attraction.

That's the kind of generalisation that I would hesitate to make without hard data at hand. Possibly the internet pornography you've seen is primarily advertised as being transgressive or demeaning or whatever, but that doesn't mean that your experience reflects a genuinely random sample of what is out there, nor that your experience has bearing on the "arty" pornography which is not sold with those terms.

You are misinterpreting. Please don't strawman me into a Victorian. I actually enjoy going to nudist resorts now and then. Would you agree that nudists generally portray the exposure of the human body in a much different way than pornographers do?

There is plenty of softcore porn out there that consists of a single person getting their gear off in an outdoor setting.

I grant that there is plenty of porn out there that seems to be targeted at a market consisting of men who aren't very bright and don't like women very much. It's a subset of the whole, however, and you can't legitimately generalise from the subset to the rest.

Even that subset has not been shown to cause any social harm, however. At least one study showed that the availability of internet porn correlated with a drop in sexual assault rates, and a hypothesis I find very plausible is that this is caused by misogynistic thickies staying home and masturbating rather than going out, getting drunk and sexually assaulting someone. If that were the case then the "dysfunctional" porn would actually serve a valuable social function.

 

[Manopolus]

I am beginning to notice that I will not be let off with a hasty justification of my position on pornography. As an artist, I find introspection as necessary as external investigation in my search for answers. This leaves me in the position of having to explain where I am coming from, including some of my own history, to explain my position -- which admittedly I have not done adequately as of yet. In an attempt to understand why I find porn a rather disgusting example of art (while not excluding it from the field), I have come up with a few reasons why this might be so. Please don't ask me for studies... I am neither a scientist nor a particularly good researcher.

I am not unfamiliar with nude art, nor do I find it to be nefarious in any way. As a matter of fact, much of my education as an artist has included drawing with a live, nude model. My second semester, I had a class which dealt with this exclusively, and I also have had more advanced classes in the area, including one which was custom made for me between myself and the professor which evaluated my performance. All told, I have had about 15 credit hours devoted exclusively to this area. I would also consider none of this to be closely related to the field of pornography. Never was it my intent to give someone a boner when they saw my work. To me, the beauty of the human body is distinctly separate from sexuality (they are not mutually exclusive by any means, however).

Actually, some of what I consider my better works were drawn from models I was not sexually attracted to... including males (I am very much straight). There is a reason for this. For one, I can't mentally drool and draw at the same time (or even think clearly, for that matter).

I have also been a photographer professionally, admittedly at the lowest level possible in the field (and that low level will tie into my point). I worked for several years as a photographer for the studios in Wal-Mart. One of my biggest complaints with their system was a lack of control over one of the most dynamic aesthetic elements available for artistic expression in photography -- lighting. The flash system that was used was always used in exactly the same way, with no variation on aperture or shutter speed (the latter two can also be lighting factors, but also involve other considerations). Ideally, I would prefer controlled lighting to a flash in any case.

Most examples of pornography I have seen are also a bit lacking in sophistication in these areas. There is a reason for this. Both porn and the lowest level of portraiture tend to be diagrammical in nature. That is, aesthetics often take a back seat to the clear depiction of the subject. It is more important to recognize the subject and see it clearly than it is to portray it in a unique manner. Although there are examples of porn that take advantage of teasing a desire to see more, this is not generally the same thing. Such a tease is most often done with clothing or covering by the hands, which is not exactly what I'm talking about here, and it is often followed by total exposure at a later point.

I come from a background in art where aesthetics are the primary concern. It doesn't matter to me whether you can even recognize what or who the subject is... what matters would be things like movement/rhythm, light and shadow, line vs form, etc. I don't see much of this in porn. To me, an aura of mystery trumps clarity by a long shot. Again, this is not generally seen in pornography (admittedly, with some exceptions). A unique perspective and a sense of beauty does not seem to be the aim of porn.

When I say porn is dysfunctional, I guess I mean it is dysfunctional to me personally. I have often found myself in a position where I am in the presence of a rather sexy example of exposed female flesh, but need to control the automatic sexuality that rears its ugly head. Looking at porn and the mental drooling that goes along with it doesn't exactly help the necessary mindset.

On principle, I do not exclude porn from the field of art mainly because of the question of where to draw the line. I don't see a line in there at all, but consider it a continuum with many possible positions. In some cases, I don't even know whether a certain example of nude art qualifies as porn or not. Because of this, I think art must include it all. It might also be interesting to note that I find what some call soft porn to often be very close to my own sense of beauty in the human body... and I often don't find it overly sexual. My own generalizations describe my limits, I suppose, more than anything.

(added) Kevin, please note that although my earlier education included a bit of philosophy, I must describe this subject from the standpoint of an artist. I find it hard to cross-pollinate the two, and I have a good deal more experience in the latter in any case.

 

[Belz...]

Well, I don't call mere nudity porn, I might add. For me to call a thing porn requires actual sex and/or bodily fluids.

That's how I understood it.

By dysfunctional I mean the desire to have an erection when you have no way in which to use it properly. I find some people's willingness to actually pay money for such things to be a bit bizarre.

I still don't see how it's negative or dysfunctional.

 

[Belz...]

Nasty: bodily fluids, exposure of that which is normally done in private, the use of words like "nasty" and "naughty" in many of the videos and advertising... need I go on?

No. Basically you find it embarassing because you wouldn't do it, therefore it's nasty.

Dysfunctional: That would depend on the function, no? If the function is to give money to the porn industry, then perhaps not. That is the function for them, certainly. However, from the point of the viewer... ?

Sexual entertainment is dysfunctional ? I would think that most men enjoy porn. Are we all dysfunctional ?

My other objection toward porn is that it doesn't have to stand up to the normal standards of quality that we use in art.

I'm sorry, but... Bwahahahahaha!!! Quality standards in art!!! Bah!

 

[Manopolus]

No. Basically you find it embarassing because you wouldn't do it, therefore it's nasty.



Sexual entertainment is dysfunctional ? I would think that most men enjoy porn. Are we all dysfunctional ?



I'm sorry, but... Bwahahahahaha!!! Quality standards in art!!! Bah!

I realize that my former attempts have been insufficient. Please respond to my latest post (before this one) if you have something to add. Also note that the post kind of clarifies where you are wrong in some of this. To claim that embarrassment has much to do with it is ludicrous once you have read that. It has more to do with professionalism.

 

[Manopolus]

Also note that hardcore porn and human sexuality in general have a tendency to emphasize certain parts of the body, nearly to the exclusion of all else. As an artist I cannot condone nor participate in that type of fixation. The whole of the image is more important than any individual part. This is precisely why I must have some control over sexual urges in the presence of nudity... and why hardcore porn is something I generally reject. Sure, some parts of any image should have a greater emphasis than other parts... but I must see it all as one complete image in my role as an artist.

Strangely enough, I am sure that the most professional of pornographic photographers would agree with a lot of this. The difference is that they find the viewer's sexual arousal a more important consideration than I could condone from my own artistic perspective. Let me also assure you that the best of the best in pornography appreciate their art in a much different way than the guy looking for jerkoff material... and that what I would consider "professional" pornography is much different than the view of the purely sexually motivated. I also find very little of what I call "professional" in the field existing in porn movies. I do see it in photos, however.

And again, there are many spaces in between... perhaps what I call professional is merely a hybrid between what we normally consider art and what we normally consider pornography. I do know that much of what arouses me sexually is not always something that I would consider professional or beautiful. I have often found amateur stuff very arousing, due to its candid nature, while finding it quite lacking artistically (although I don't look at a lot of porn, for reasons I've stated, I do admit to sometimes indulging).

 

[Belz...]

When I say porn is dysfunctional, I guess I mean it is dysfunctional to me personally.

Which is pretty much what I said.

Anyway, that's all fine. If you don't like it, more power to you. But it doesn't make it non art or non-good art. So long as we agree on that...

 

[Manopolus]

Which is pretty much what I said.

Anyway, that's all fine. If you don't like it, more power to you. But it doesn't make it non art or non-good art. So long as we agree on that...

I will admit that I have much less respect for those who market their images as "porn" than those who use nudity in the domain of art. However, I guess I won't say it's exactly "bad." I just don't have a lot of appreciation for the majority of it. The subjugation of basic aesthetic design to "whatever sexually arouses you" is my main issue. Because porn often serves a slightly different purpose... or has a slightly different perspective than my own, I suppose the point is moot to the casual observer.

Note also that someone calling my own art "pornography" is something that I would find offensive. Perhaps that's another part of my hangup... not that I've done any nude art for quite some time. I'll probably go back to it again, though. It's a recurring theme for me. Most of what I've done in the past few years has been rather abstract, however.

Actually, there is a lady I know that was interested in commissioning a series of nude drawings of herself from me... I might take it, dunno. As of yet, I'm worried about her motivations.

 

[Belz...]

Well, I just don't think there's anything inherently wrong with pornography. Consenting adults and everything.

And porn CAN be artistic (i.e. art, though Southwind will disagree).

 

[not daSkeptic]

I worked for several years as a photographer for the studios in Wal-Mart. One of my biggest complaints with their system was a lack of control over one of the most dynamic aesthetic elements available for artistic expression in photography -- lighting. The flash system that was used was always used in exactly the same way, with no variation on aperture or shutter speed (the latter two can also be lighting factors, but also involve other considerations). Ideally, I would prefer controlled lighting to a flash in any case.

What you're describing here is the classic clash between quality and volume. When it comes to photography, you are obviously a quality-minded person. I am the same. But for Walmart, they're interested in getting as many people as possible through their studio as quickly and as cheaply as possible. It's about the number of transactions, not the value of each. Whether one sells a single image for $1,000,000 or one-million images for $1 each, either way one has still made $1M. If all one cares about is the money, the latter approach is generally less risky. Some, however, care about more than just the money and are willing to assume greater risk and produce lower volume.

Most examples of pornography I have seen are also a bit lacking in sophistication in these areas. There is a reason for this. Both porn and the lowest level of portraiture tend to be diagrammical in nature. That is, aesthetics often take a back seat to the clear depiction of the subject. It is more important to recognize the subject and see it clearly than it is to portray it in a unique manner. Although there are examples of porn that take advantage of teasing a desire to see more, this is not generally the same thing. Such a tease is most often done with clothing or covering by the hands, which is not exactly what I'm talking about here, and it is often followed by total exposure at a later point.

This is for the same reason as with Walmart above. A lot of porn, perhaps even the majority of it, is produced under a high-volume business model. They crank it out fast and cheap and in large numbers. It's about the number of units, not the quality thereof. This does not, however, mean pornography is inherently a low-grade product.

I come from a background in art where aesthetics are the primary concern. It doesn't matter to me whether you can even recognize what or who the subject is... what matters would be things like movement/rhythm, light and shadow, line vs form, etc. I don't see much of this in porn. To me, an aura of mystery trumps clarity by a long shot. Again, this is not generally seen in pornography (admittedly, with some exceptions). A unique perspective and a sense of beauty does not seem to be the aim of porn.

I think you're confusing porn with business. In any situation where profit is pretty much the only motivation, things like aesthetics and quality have a tendency to take a backseat. Consider infomercials. These low-grade advertisements are typically cheesy, annoying, and sometimes downright insulting ... but they work. It's not that their producers can't make a better ad, it's that they don't need to. They know how crappy infomercials are when compared to, say, a million-dollar hyper-artsy spot from Audi. It's just not important to them to do any better. They can produce 50-times the volume for the same price. THAT is what matters to them.

 

[tesscaline]

Also note that hardcore porn and human sexuality in general have a tendency to emphasize certain parts of the body, nearly to the exclusion of all else. As an artist I cannot condone nor participate in that type of fixation. The whole of the image is more important than any individual part. This is precisely why I must have some control over sexual urges in the presence of nudity... and why hardcore porn is something I generally reject. Sure, some parts of any image should have a greater emphasis than other parts... but I must see it all as one complete image in my role as an artist.

Strangely enough, I am sure that the most professional of pornographic photographers would agree with a lot of this. The difference is that they find the viewer's sexual arousal a more important consideration than I could condone from my own artistic perspective. Let me also assure you that the best of the best in pornography appreciate their art in a much different way than the guy looking for jerkoff material... and that what I would consider "professional" pornography is much different than the view of the purely sexually motivated. I also find very little of what I call "professional" in the field existing in porn movies. I do see it in photos, however.

And again, there are many spaces in between... perhaps what I call professional is merely a hybrid between what we normally consider art and what we normally consider pornography. I do know that much of what arouses me sexually is not always something that I would consider professional or beautiful. I have often found amateur stuff very arousing, due to its candid nature, while finding it quite lacking artistically (although I don't look at a lot of porn, for reasons I've stated, I do admit to sometimes indulging).

So... You think that if a picture isn't of a whole tree, but focuses instead upon a single leaf, or flower petal, it's a fixation that should not be condoned or participated in? Macrophotography must bug you as much as porn does.

Or is it more that because you don't find the parts of the body that porn focuses on to be beautiful, or the acts that porn focuses on to be beautiful, you can't understand how anyone else possibly could and are dismissing it as a "fixation" to avoid dealing with your own personal demons on the subject? This is not meant as a personal attack. You claim that introspection is important to you. I am merely requesting that you actually apply some of that "introspection" to the claims you are making, since it seems that isn't actually being done. Instead, it appears that the claims being made are projections and externalizations.

The recurring theme in all your posts is that sex is bad. The persistent use of derogatory terms when referencing sex, sexual arousal, and sexuality (like "dysfunctional" and "rearing it's ugly head" and "mentally drooling") really sends the message that you simply have your own personal issues with sex, in general, and you are projecting those issues onto the entire porn industry.

You also insist upon speaking about porn as if you know anything and everything about it, all the while admitting that you avoid the stuff and haven't watched very much. So who exactly are you to make the sorts of judgements you're making? You want to assure me (who's actually been in some porn, mind you), that pornographers would agree with you? That the "best of the best" look for different things than, say, anyone else who watches their works? How exactly would you know any of that? You're making endless assumptions based upon insufficient data; painting with a broad brush, using a genetic fallacy, and appealing to your own authority (inappropriately so) at the same time. It's quite insulting really. Please stop. Stick to the subjects that you do actually have authority in, and stop assuming you know anything about porn beyond your own personal likes and dislikes.

Fact of the matter is, different people find different things to be beautiful. You don't find sex beautiful. Fine. You're allowed to have your own hang-ups. But there are a lot of people out there, myself included, who DO find sex to be beautiful. Who find sexual organs to be beautiful. Who find cum shots to be beautiful. Who find the expression of animalistic desire, with the lack of care for "aesthetics" to be beautiful. Who happen to think those things should be celebrated, and appreciated. Porn is one way to do that.

I also happen to think that having "less respect" for someone just because they happen to produce porn is a rather pathetic way to act. Especially since you're saying that you have "less respect" for pornographers when engaging in discussion with people who are pornographers or have been involved in some other way in the making of pornography.