Not sure why this made me laugh

[[wcip]Angel]

In porn, as in any other endeavor (and probably more than in most) Sturgeon's law applies. That 90% of porn (or of science fiction, or of TV) is crap is not an indicator that porn is crap, or that science fiction is crap or that TV is crap.

Now, if you still do not understand the point, then it is beyond me to explain it to you.

I understand this point (wohoo!); I just don't agree with it.
I'm really trying to figure out how it would be illogical to say that porn is generally crap when 90% of it is. I understand you just explained this to me, but I just don't get it. If most porn is crap, why is it illogical to say that, generally speaking, porn is crap? Doesn't "generally speaking" translate into "for the most part"; 90% being the 'most part'?

Is it because you're not supposed to generalise over the 10 remaining percent; that the last 10 percent voids any such generalisation; that even if there is just but 1 or 0,1% or porn being anything but crappy, you're still not allowed to say that porn is generally crappy?

Or perhaps it has something to do with this:

As long as you distinguish what you mean by porn by the quality of the material, you will always be in a position of speaking biased nonsense

meaning you can't define something in a reasonable way, if you're determining its value based on its quality? --> Saying it's crappy is a subjective opinion and therefore unfit for definition.. is that what you're saying?

So, porn is based on intent?

Yes, I'd say that's a fair assumption of my take on pornography.

Off-topic:

I don't remember quite that degree of heavy breathing when she "established a relationship" with Angel.

Actually, in season 2 when the characters of Buffy and Angel made love, it wasn't Sarah and David doing the heavy breathing. Apparrently, Joss Whedon was too embarrassed to ask the actors to do it, so he recorded the heavy breathing himself. :) (http://www.buffyguide.com/episodes/innocence.shtml, see "notes")

Back on-topic:

So, porn is based on intent? Even if we accept that for the moment, how do you know the intent of the scenes between Buffy and Spike? To establish a relationship?

No. The intent was obviously for Buffy to feel something. Coming back from the dead and later finding out she came back "wrong" (if you know what happens in season 7, please don't spoil it for me, as I've only completed season 6.) shook her up. Unlike the other seasons where Buffy is set against some sort of unbeatable foe (Master/Angel & herself/Mayor/Adam/Glory), season 6 deals with Buffy's detachment from normal life, her exile from the gang and her spiralling into an emotional abyss. When first coming back to life she uttered the words "is this hell?". Her "boinking the undead" was a feeble attempt to feel something other than a void.

Of course, this is just my humble opinion on season 6, and can in no way be proven barring a surprise visit from Joss himself. Even then, we'd just have his word that the scenes with Buffy and Spike were not meant to create a tittilating response in the audience's nether regions.

So, your "intent" argument leads to the curious result that those episodes are or are not pornographic based on a remark that might or might not have been made in a meeting that never appears on the show and is at least at one remove from the show. Sorry, but that's too metaphysical to be of any value to me in identifying porn in the future.

When all we can do is speculate over what might or might not have been said (which is a form of entertainment both sides of a discussion can enjoy) one must look to the tangible. Although entirely possible, there is no indication that Joss ever said those words. ("Frankly, I'm all out of ideas...") When defining pornography, obviously intent has to be relatively evident. (Yes, I'm being vague for a reason.)
Unless the author, writer or creater actually admits his true intent the audience can never truly know his or her reasons behind the alledged piece of pornography.
Thus, the intent-argument is moot.

Therefore, I must go back and attempt a second answer to your question:

2. So, tell me again why the Buffy does Spike shows weren't porn according to your definition?

Obviously..

no nudity, no pornography

No nudity, no pornography.

Clearly you've never seen any leather or rubber freak "literature".

No, I haven't. So I take it your argument is that nudity is not a necessary property of pornography?

Admitting the intent-argument is void, I suppose the definition of pornography has to lie in the receiver and how he or she responds to pornography, meaning we're screwed. If this is indeed the case, then there really is no universal definition of pornography. Speaking of Law and Order, I seem to remember Adam Schiff quoting someone on this very subject:

I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it.

(edit: http://www.af.mil/news/speech/current/sph2003_19.html - "It may not be easy to define, but it calls to mind what Justice Porter Goss once said when asked to define pornography: he replied 'I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it.'")

I thought you were making a joke, but clearly you did not realize the significance.

Obviously I was unaware of any reference I made, but my point was simply that, from my perspective I was not on any form of tall animal.