This article crossed my radar this morning and after thinking about the issue, I have to say that I am disappointed that the directors/producers of extreme porn have been jailed, all the while A-list actors et al are jumping to the defense of Polanski. Yes, I know that his victim has asked that the charges be dropped and that the case be dismissed, but the rape he committed against a 13 year old was NOT consensual, but at least the same government that is prosecuting for play-acting rape is attempting to prosecute for real rape.
Filming a play-acted scene, albeit 'rape', acted out by consenting adults (people 19+), is a jail-able offense and no big names in Hollywood protested the censoring of the porn industry.
Yes it can be argued that Polanski creates art and that porn is base and degrading and does not qualify for 'art' status. Here's the question though, does the medium in which sex is portrayed make it art or porn?
This image is Arthur de Pins' from his archive gallery.
Arthur de Pins creates his sexy and sex-filled images by computer and they are decidedly cartoon-like but they most definitely portray human sexuality in its various forms.
If we begin to disregard the medium with which the art is produced or where it is displayed, at what point does it cross the line to become pornography, and then to further extrapolate, at what point does if become so offensive that the producers/creators/artists are jailed for their creations?
It is a rather subjective question isn't it? Like human sexuality, what offends about human sexuality is unique to each of us. There is no one simple answer, but the easiest is still this: what consenting adults decide to do with other consenting adults is OK.
The Mango Talk: Sex-Positive Conversations with Kids - My daughter asked me what sex feels like. Here is what I told her.
1 week ago