By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Akvod on 02 July 2011
Edit Thread
sapphi_snake said:
Akvod said:
sapphi_snake said:
Farmageddon said:
"But all porn is devoid of artistic value. By definition pornography is the portrayal of explicit subject matter meant to cause sexual satisfaction and excitement. That's the sole intent pof porn. If it does more than that, then it is not really porn, but an artistic creation that features sex. "

And how is the law to define objectively wether a work is porn or "an artistic creation that features sex"?

Besides, you do sound awfully elitist in your "right" definition of art, but I'd rather not get into that as that's actually not relevant to the discussion. Do you still maintain that anyone who could like material such as lolicon is mentally ill?

MR. Khan already answered this one pretty well.

Errr. I think you guys have a weak argument actually. There are such thing as loli pornography. Are you guys saying that loli "art" is okay, but loli "porn" isn't?

Look, this artistic argument itself is stupid. The question should be, "What's the consequence of allowing loli pornography to be purchased or owned"?

My answer: Nothing, as of now. No individual is having their rights violated by the creation and ownership of such material, and no negative social effects have been scientifically found yet.

Actually, graphic images portraying children in sexual situations is simply illegal, regardless of whether it's featured in a genuine work of art or not.

Err... Your point?