09-21-2003, 12:04 AM
>It is also my view that pornography has to include an element of nudity (nudity meaning the showing of something else than legs, arms and faces), and as you already said, they can't get nudity past the censors. No nudity, no pornography.
>Ergo: Buffy can never be interpreted as pornography if one were to accept this line of argument.
If I misread you somewhere, feel free to correct me.
I never quite understood the sentiment that for something to be pornographic, it has to have nudity or elements of it. If it does, then the majority of museums and art galleries are nothing more than a fancy porno store. (Some people seem to thinks so, I like to call them senators. ;)
Let me ask you this, what would you find more pornographic:
- Buffy fully nude, standing in a medical position. (Arms at the side with the palms facing outward.) There's a basket of fruits near the floor where she is standing.
- Buffy fully clothed, she's even wearing a hat. Grabbing a banana out of that fruit basket and performing an act that can be best described as "Clintonesque".
>Ergo: Buffy can never be interpreted as pornography if one were to accept this line of argument.
If I misread you somewhere, feel free to correct me.
I never quite understood the sentiment that for something to be pornographic, it has to have nudity or elements of it. If it does, then the majority of museums and art galleries are nothing more than a fancy porno store. (Some people seem to thinks so, I like to call them senators. ;)
Let me ask you this, what would you find more pornographic:
- Buffy fully nude, standing in a medical position. (Arms at the side with the palms facing outward.) There's a basket of fruits near the floor where she is standing.
- Buffy fully clothed, she's even wearing a hat. Grabbing a banana out of that fruit basket and performing an act that can be best described as "Clintonesque".