From: Sil Horwitz (silh@earthlink.net)
Date: 09/20/00-10:56:03 AM Z
I had pleasured myself by keeping out of the fracas, but can't resist
posting a Q & A from Dr Ruth ("Ask Dr Ruth") which appeared in our daily paper:
Q: My boyfriend and I are arguing about Playboy. He says it is not
pornographic material, and I say it is. Who is right?
A: From a strictly legal perspective, pictures of naked women who are not
engaged in any sex act, such as those found in Playboy, are not considered
pornography. I consider erotica to be pornography only when it involves
children or violence or bestiality, but not just two people having sexual
relations. But to some extent, pornography is in the eye of the beholder.
Would you consider any picture of a naked adult pornographic? Is a painting
by Rubens of a nude model pornographic? If these images really disturb you,
then to you they might be pornography, and your boyfriend might wish to
appease you by not bringing home any nude photos. But Playboy is not
pornography by any standard measures, which I believe is your question.
Pretty much my sentiments. When I lecture, I always end up with something
like this: if you make pictures only for your own amusement or learning,
then don't show them to anyone and they can be anything you want. But when
you let others view them, be prepared for criticism! Thanks heaven, we are
all different!
Sil Horwitz, FPSA
Technical Editor, PSA Journal
teched@psa-photo.org
silh@earthlink.net
Visit http://www.psa-photo.org/
Personal page: http://home.earthlink.net/~silh/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:09:00 PM Z CDT