[lit-ideas] Re: The Hays Hollywood Morality Code in lit-ideas Digest V8 #305
- From: Andy <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:32:50 -0800 (PST)
A way to know how far two lines are out of parallel is to extend them and watch
them diverge. How far they diverge is how far out of parallel they are. If
pornography's logical conclusion are the activities you recount, which they
are, then by definition there is something very wrong with it at its core.
Andy
________________________________
From: Frances Kelly <frances.kelly@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:41 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Hays Hollywood Morality Code in lit-ideas Digest
V8 #305
Frances to Mike and others...
In your writing about a morality code for religious theists, you
unconditionally condemned pornography. This stance implies to me
that you hold all pornographic material to be bad and even evil.
Leaving aside temporarily the fact that sexually explicit
material can be in forms other than graphic and visual, my
curiosity is whether some such material might be intrinsically
good on its own regardless of its context or usage. My thought
here turns to lofty works of fine art that are considered to be
pornographic, or advertising underwear pictures of half naked
females in mail order catalogs that seem to be softly
pornographic, which may therefore make some such pornography
neither bad nor good. My basic assumption here is that all
pornographic material is an objective material construct that
exists outside the subjective psyche or nominal mind. If any
readers on this list have some interest in these many points
raised by me, your comments would be welcome and appreciated. My
broader goal is to attempt making a learned scholarly theory of
pornography that could have some global appeal. My probing thrust
is to appreciate that all pornography will initially arouse some
normal sexual interest in recipients or percipients to a degree,
but that only bad pornographic objects fail to satisfy persons in
any way other than through a sexual release, which likely makes
such objects obscene and disgusting and perverted. The only
absolute badness in pornography might be real kiddy porn and real
snuff art where live children are actually molested or live
victims are actually killed, all in the service of sexual
exploitation, whether the acts are only performed on stage in
public or also recorded on published media. If this stuff is say
private and silent for a sole individual person, then further
complications of justification would seemingly arise. The issue
of surrogate fetish objects not usually deemed to be sexual might
also be related to this issue of pornography in some key way.
Other related posts:
