"Artistic Pornography"

[bruce terry]

Stumbled upon an interesting 1912 image 'Dance Study' by Baron Adolph de Meyer while browsing The Metropolitan Museum of Art website. I can't get the address into my copy but it's easy to find.

Baron de Meyer was born 1868 Paris, educated in Dresden, joined Royal Photographic Society 1893, a photo-seccessionist group in 1898 and in the early 1900s he and his wife's home (in Paris?) became HQ for a 'coterie' of artistic (including dance companies) and bohemian guests. (By 1914 he had moved to New York as head photographer for Vogue and Vanity Fair.)

That background in hand, I would just bet this dramatic study was considered heavy-duty porn back then. Now it is Art in a premier museum. Timing is everything sometimes.

 

[Salmonoid]

DMR,

Point well taken. But someone is get pleasure, no matter how destructive that pleasure may be to another human being. Good clarification.

 

[Salmonoid]

[ Do we have the right to tell a Muslim how to live their religion? In the end of all of this is it not respect for others beliefs, and culture?[/QUOTE]

If you care to look away as someone else is being sexually exploited, I would not call that the correct action. Is it tolerance and respect to allow one person to destroy another?

I have every right and duty to do good to my neighbor no matter what their religion is.

 

[Salmonoid]

Quote: And yes we can enjoy a host of lustful stimuli without having to actually create children, provide long-term care for their other parent, and all the other associations one can cite as 'love.'

My question is simply, which is more noble and human? To love or to lust? Which should we cultivate? Is there no pleasure in self giving love? Is that pleasure greater than the pleasures of lustful stimuli?

 

[blansky]

*Warning* Do not read if you are easily upset.

This is a very important subject for visual artists let me start by acknowledging some obvious and universal facts (things that are ignored by much of those contributing to this thread).

1. All sex is pleasurable. (heterosexual, homosexual, monosexual, s&m) This simply is how we're designed as sexual beings. It is very mechanical, and we are not vastly different from one another. Rub Y, get X. That simple.

2. Pleasure can be destructive. Just because something is edifying in one context, in another it can harm and destroy. For instance, fire does a wonderful job of roasting asparagus to that perfect softness/crispness to make it a pure pleasure, but fire all over the kitchen, or all over the forest is a terrible producer of death and destruction. Examples: Abuse of drugs is pleasurable but it leads to self destruction. To much alchohol leads to death on the highway and destruction of your liver. Licentious living leads to sexually transmitted deseases.

3. Sexuallity serves the essential function of reproduction of the human species. This is a very good thing. Nuff said.

4. Children are dependant on a stable environment, and need protection from those who can easily harm them. Healthy and lifelong heterosexual relationships are the most complete and healthy relationship for raising children who become healthy adults. Our society wishes to deny this so that we can excuse our adidiction to sexual pleasure at the expense of the healthy reproduction of our species.

5. Men are aroused visually. Women much less so. This is were pornography comes in.

6. Pornography is addictive to many males, and will lead to the foresaking of spouse and family for self gratification. It is a well established fact that all sexaul preditors are users of pornography first. Sexual arousal leads to sexual acts, most of which are destructive of healthy marriage, and nurturing of children.

Now I certainly hope that no one here would argue with any of they truths. If they offend you, you should ask yourself why reality bites. I would also hope that you would not produce art which leads to destructive sexual behavior, but would aim for a more edifying goal. Stop being an animal, and be human.

Rev. Timothy Gordish

Father of an adopted child who was the product of fornication, neglected by her mother, abused by a boyfriend and used for child pornography. We are currently dealing the the devasting effects of her early sexualization.

Good luck with the child. Seriously.

Beware of universal truths. They are rarely universal, and even rarer, true.

Children thrive on love, nurturing, and direction from whomever supplies it.

Don't marry people with addictive personalites. One day it's drugs, the next day religion. There is no end.

Humans thrive on mental stimulation as well as physical. On mans pornography is another's medical journal.

Eat your vegetables.


Michael

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

*Warning* Do not read if you are easily upset.

This is a very important subject for visual artists let me start by acknowledging some obvious and universal facts (things that are ignored by much of those contributing to this thread).

1. All sex is pleasurable. (heterosexual, homosexual, monosexual, s&m) This simply is how we're designed as sexual beings. It is very mechanical, and we are not vastly different from one another. Rub Y, get X. That simple.

2. Pleasure can be destructive. Just because something is edifying in one context, in another it can harm and destroy. For instance, fire does a wonderful job of roasting asparagus to that perfect softness/crispness to make it a pure pleasure, but fire all over the kitchen, or all over the forest is a terrible producer of death and destruction. Examples: Abuse of drugs is pleasurable but it leads to self destruction. To much alchohol leads to death on the highway and destruction of your liver. Licentious living leads to sexually transmitted deseases.

3. Sexuallity serves the essential function of reproduction of the human species. This is a very good thing. Nuff said.

4. Children are dependant on a stable environment, and need protection from those who can easily harm them. Healthy and lifelong heterosexual relationships are the most complete and healthy relationship for raising children who become healthy adults. Our society wishes to deny this so that we can excuse our adidiction to sexual pleasure at the expense of the healthy reproduction of our species.

5. Men are aroused visually. Women much less so. This is were pornography comes in.

6. Pornography is addictive to many males, and will lead to the foresaking of spouse and family for self gratification. It is a well established fact that all sexaul preditors are users of pornography first. Sexual arousal leads to sexual acts, most of which are destructive of healthy marriage, and nurturing of children.

Now I certainly hope that no one here would argue with any of they truths. If they offend you, you should ask yourself why reality bites. I would also hope that you would not produce art which leads to destructive sexual behavior, but would aim for a more edifying goal. Stop being an animal, and be human.

Rev. Timothy Gordish

Father of an adopted child who was the product of fornication, neglected by her mother, abused by a boyfriend and used for child pornography. We are currently dealing the the devasting effects of her early sexualization.

I would be interested to see where you got your statistics about porn use and sexual predators. I would also like to see where you got your "fact" that a heterosexual coupling is the superior way to raise a child. I have seen numerous studies that prove children raised in a stable, loving same-sex couple are indistinguishable from children raised in a heterosexual coupling. They are no more prone to psychological issues, poor academic performance, misbehavior, or any other problem than children raised in hetero households. They are certainly no more prone to being abused by their parents, if anything, they are less likely, since being a homosexual parent takes infinitely greater legal paperwork and governmental supervision than being a heterosexual parent does. It is a known fact that the vast majority of child sex abusers ( at least 90%) are heterosexual.

 

[Salmonoid]

"Beware of universal truths. They are rarely universal, and even rarer, true."

Is this a univeral truth? If it is not, then there must be universal truths. If it is, then it is self contradicting.

 

[bjorke]

And yes we can enjoy a host of lustful stimuli without having to actually create children, provide long-term care for their other parent, and all the other associations one can cite as 'love.'

My question is simply, which is more noble and human? To love or to lust? Which should we cultivate? Is there no pleasure in self giving love? Is that pleasure greater than the pleasures of lustful stimuli?

Straw men and teleological smoke & mirrors, all. Saying 'lust is good' does not preclude the value of love. 'Nobility' implies a pre-ordained heirarchy, among species and usually among humans specifically. I have little evidence that one set of humans is a priori intrinsically superior to another, or that humans are inherently superior to beetles -- considerable history hints that they are not. I enjoy being human and all that comes with being human -- not being some flawed copy of a 'more perfect' boogieman.

'Self giving love'... well I'm not going to guess at what that means but it sounds like lustful stimuli to me

 

[Salmonoid]

"I would also like to see where you got your "fact" that a heterosexual coupling is the superior way to raise a child."

I am speaking in idealistic terms. If you were to compare apples to apples, and not rotten bannas (maybe I should stick to vegetibles) then heterosexual coupling is superior because they model a relationship that is reproductive, vice simply erotic. Homosexual sex does not produce life, if life is superior, then heterosexual coupling is superior.

A homosexual couple as parents is superior to no parent at all, and this is often the case in real life, and not the ideal, but we should always strive for the ideal.

 

[bruce terry]

One of the best things about this photography site, above all the others, is that fools are suffered gladly, or simply disregarded - I of course speak of my inability to incorporate a website link in my copy a few posts back.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

4. Children are dependant on a stable environment, and need protection from those who can easily harm them. Healthy and lifelong heterosexual relationships are the most complete and healthy relationship for raising children who become healthy adults. Our society wishes to deny this so that we can excuse our adidiction to sexual pleasure at the expense of the healthy reproduction of our species.

The verdict is not yet out on that one, and there is a practical constraint on their value to the effect that because homosexual couples, less so ones with children, are not well tolerated in many societies, children reared in them can indeed potentially experience more travails than those reared in heterosexual couples. However, this is not conclusive to an essentialist argument about homosexual couples, which would go along the lines that such a milieu is inherently detrimental.

IF such a milieu is currently detrimental to children, we have to take into consideration the PRESSURES by bigots that contribute to make their situation difficult. So don't piss off the gay couples with children if you really want to know whether it makes a difference on kids. In saner societies, like European countries or Québec, there has not been significant evidence of inherently detrimental factors.

5. Men are aroused visually. Women much less so. This is were pornography comes in.

Baloney. Women's sexual arousing during the viewing of pornographical material follows a pattern similar to men. Tastes, however, are notoriously different. While men can be satisfied with scenario-less hump-and-pump clips, the current market for women pornography seems to indicate that other aspects come into play. Standard formulas would be: romantic settings, better light, man's sensibility to woman's need, etc. But woman still jerk off looking at picture of people having sex, you know.

6. Pornography is addictive to many males, and will lead to the foresaking of spouse and family for self gratification. It is a well established fact that all sexaul preditors are users of pornography first. Sexual arousal leads to sexual acts, most of which are destructive of healthy marriage, and nurturing of children.

Premises: yes. Conclusions: nay. You are having a severe case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. As you are a reverend, I will spare you the need to translate from the Latin. That sexual predators watch pornography, and that it has a deletrious effect on their condition is a fact. That pornography causes their condition is at best a hypothesis, not a logically following conclusion.

Now I certainly hope that no one here would argue with any of they truths. If they offend you, you should ask yourself why reality bites. I would also hope that you would not produce art which leads to destructive sexual behavior, but would aim for a more edifying goal. Stop being an animal, and be human.

Oh my! what did I just do? I dared discuss TRUTH? I have CRITICIZED? I have even pushed the envelope as to wonder whether ASSUMPTIONS are justified? You mean that I have wrongfully used REASON against TRUTH? That I have perverted the sacred truth that you luckily hold aloft? How dare I?

Father of an adopted child who was the product of fornication, neglected by her mother, abused by a boyfriend and used for child pornography. We are currently dealing the the devasting effects of her early sexualization.

If that last bit is true, you have my sympathy and my compassion for this child and for your efforts to help her. But I maintain my arguments, and return you to your claim "If they offend you, you should ask yourself why reality bites. "

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

"I would also like to see where you got your "fact" that a heterosexual coupling is the superior way to raise a child."

I am speaking in idealistic terms. If you were to compare apples to apples, and not rotten bannas (maybe I should stick to vegetibles) then heterosexual coupling is superior because they model a relationship that is reproductive, vice simply erotic. Homosexual sex does not produce life, if life is superior, then heterosexual coupling is superior.

A homosexual couple as parents is superior to no parent at all, and this is often the case in real life, and not the ideal, but we should always strive for the ideal.

How can you say that a homosexual coupling is purely erotic, if you have not been in one? Yes, there are many homosexuals who do not seek out permanent partnerships and only seek erotic fulfillment. However, there is a silent majority (or at least plurality) who do have committed, mature, adult loving relationships which are an infinitely preferable role-model to procreative relationships which are otherwise dysfunctional, abusive, or just unloving. I would not claim superiority for one or the other - either style of parenting can be a good or bad role model. Sexuality is obviously NOT given by nurture- 100% of gay people were born via heterosexual reproduction, but 100% of them are still gay. If the heterosexual role model is so superior, why are there all these gay people out there in the world?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Edit: I missed TheFlyingCamera's words on homosexual couples, so I guess I could change my sentence "The verdict is not yet out on that one" to the effect that verdict is, in fact, out.

 

[blansky]

"Beware of universal truths. They are rarely universal, and even rarer, true."

Is this a univeral truth?

No. A warning. A caution.

Like, don't eat yellow snow.


Michael

 

[Salmonoid]

snip* "I have little evidence that one set of humans is a priori intrinsically superior to another, or that humans are inherently superior to beetles -- considerable history hints that they are not. I enjoy being human and all that comes with being human -- not being some flawed copy of a 'more perfect' boogieman."

I am speaking of nobility of action, not any intrinsic nobility. Some actions are more noble than others. Also, who said you were a flawed copy of a 'more perfect' boogieman? Is this a jab at Jesus Christ? Nobody was talking religion here. I thought the topic was pornographic art. I was just hoping that we would better understand the implactions of sexually arousing photographs.

 

[Salmonoid]

"Is this a univeral truth?
No. A warning. A caution.

Like, don't eat yellow snow."

Yes, this is a good warning. Those who seek truth should always be open to correction.

 

[blansky]

Somehow, I think we've seen your model before.

A puritanical society of repressed brainwashed people, women as slaves, child abuse through indoctrination, and of course run by "reverends" like yourself.

We've seen it here, it's flourishing in the Middle East and it always breaks down. Why? Because it removes free will and the celebration of human expression.

One should always fear religion and its power brokers more that one ever need fear sex in its many forms.

Michael

 

[Salmonoid]

MHV,

I think you are not communicating with me, but jumping into your own conclusions without reading what I said.

The verdict is not yet out on that one, and there is a practical constraint on their value to the effect that because homosexual couples, less so ones with children, are not well tolerated in many societies, children reared in them can indeed potentially experience more travails than those reared in heterosexual couples. However, this is not conclusive to an essentialist argument about homosexual couples, which would go along the lines that such a milieu is inherently detrimental.

I did not denigrate homosexual couples or their adopted children's rearing. You jumped to this conclusion yourself. See my reply concerning what I think about homosexual vs. heterosexual couples with children.


Baloney. Women's sexual arousing during the viewing of pornographical material follows a pattern similar to men. Tastes, however, are notoriously different. While men can be satisfied with scenario-less hump-and-pump clips, the current market for women pornography seems to indicate that other aspects come into play. Standard formulas would be: romantic settings, better light, man's sensibility to woman's need, etc. But woman still jerk off looking at picture of people having sex, you know.

I did not say that women are not arroused by pornographic material, only that men are to a greater proportion. Just check out the local magazine rack for this one.



Premises: yes. Conclusions: nay. You are having a severe case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. As you are a reverend, I will spare you the need to translate from the Latin. That sexual predators watch pornography, and that it has a deletrious effect on their condition is a fact. That pornography causes their condition is at best a hypothesis, not a logically following conclusion.

I said that sexual arousal brings on sexual acts. Read it again.

Oh my! what did I just do? I dared discuss TRUTH? I have CRITICIZED? I have even pushed the envelope as to wonder whether ASSUMPTIONS are justified? You mean that I have wrongfully used REASON against TRUTH? That I have perverted the sacred truth that you luckily hold aloft? How dare I?

Nope, you have pushed no envelope here. Thanks for responding, you don't seem to agree with what I am saying. Why is it so necessary to prove my points wrong if they are so unreasonable? By the way, what exactly are you trying to say that is contrary to my points?




If that last bit is true, you have my sympathy and my compassion for this child and for your efforts to help her. But I maintain my arguments, and return you to your claim "If they offend you, you should ask yourself why reality bites. "

 

[Salmonoid]

Somehow, I think we've seen your model before.

A puritanical society of repressed brainwashed people, women as slaves, child abuse through indoctrination, and of course run by "reverends" like yourself.

We've seen it here, it's flourishing in the Middle East and it always breaks down. Why? Because it removes free will and the celebration of human expression.

One should always fear religion and its power brokers more that one ever need fear sex in its many forms.

Michael

So far it seems my only offense to discussion is that I signed it "Rev." Sorry folks, that's my title. Sorry you hate me before you even know me.

My apologies for my title.

 

[blansky]

So far it seems my only offense to discussion is that I signed it "Rev." Sorry folks, that's my title. Sorry you hate me before you even know me.

My apologies for my title.

One wonders why someone would feel the need to use the title "reverend" on a photography site.

Hate?

My, what extremes you engulf yourself in.

Michael

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

a slightly sarcastic break in the thread ... then, back to sewing

*Warning* Do not read if you are easily upset.

... ... No problem, Rev ... I've got Pepto-Bismol

By the way, "Warning" yerself ... my response is totally tongue-in-cheek. It's late here, I'm in my "wise guy" mode (eventhough this is a relatively serious thread that I, myself began ), and Rev. Salmanoid's post is just begging me for comic dissection. Here goes ...

This is a very important subject for visual artists let me start by acknowledging some obvious and universal facts (things that are ignored by much of those contributing to this thread).

1. All sex is pleasurable. (heterosexual, homosexual, monosexual, s&m)

... ... You never met my first girlfriend... sex with her was either "monosexual" .. or just plain monotonous. She turned me into a bi-sexual (I use both hands).

Secondly, about "all sex is pleasurable" ... how did you like S&M ?

This simply is how we're designed as sexual beings. It is very mechanical, and we are not vastly different from one another.

.. .. .. you ever shower with Michael Jordan?

Rub Y, get X. That simple.

... ... You talkin' about sex, ... or fire-starting? Hope you keep the sandpaper away from your bedside

2. Pleasure can be destructive.

... ... On the other hand, destruction can be pleasurable (think of pyromaniacs or mercenaries)... now where's the perversion? Actually, Rev, can't too much of anything become destructive?

Just because something is edifying in one context, in another it can harm and destroy.

... ... Careful! Some have said that about religion!

For instance, fire does a wonderful job of roasting asparagus to that perfect softness/crispness to make it a pure pleasure,

... ... You roast asparagus? I've never tried that. Got any secrets for artichokes?

but fire all over the kitchen, or all over the forest is a terrible producer of death and destruction.

... ... We can't seem to escape the subject of fire, huh? Well, I guess it's natural for a religious guy ... anyway, don't forget the benefits of burning the underbrush in certain forests (or behind certain refrigerators). As for producers of death and destruction, I've always thought that Irwin Allen did a great job on The Poseidon Adventure, don't you?

Examples: Abuse of drugs is pleasurable but it leads to self destruction. To much alchohol leads to death on the highway and destruction of your liver.

.. .. .. or the Presidency? (no flames, please ... yes I know he no longer drinks. That's my point)

Licentious living leads to sexually transmitted deseases.

.. .. .. Not to mention back problems and tardiness at work.

3. Sexuallity serves the essential function of reproduction of the human species. This is a very good thing. Nuff said.

.. .. .. it also serves to keep a thread going for a reeel long time. Snuff is bad.

4. Children are dependant on a stable environment, and need protection from those who can easily harm them.

... ... Serious point with which I agree. No joke here, but see others, below.

Healthy and lifelong heterosexual relationships are the most complete and healthy relationship for raising children who become healthy adults.

.. .. ..because we heterosexuals never harm our children ... only those evil homos —or divorced, single parents— do. Oooo. I feel another thread coming on ... see you there, Rev, OK? Don't be shy ..

Our society wishes to deny this so that we can excuse our adidiction to sexual pleasure

.. .. .. or our "addiction" to divorce

at the expense of the healthy reproduction of our species.

.. .. .. Summary: sexual pleasure threatens the human race.

5. Men are aroused visually. Women much less so. This is were pornography comes in.

.. .. .. Of course, you're not saying that all pornography is for men, are you? 'Cause if that's the case, I'm gonna start buying PlayGirl magazines and gluing different heads onto the pictures of those guys .. I'll leave the rest of the bod as-is and just imagine it's a transsexual....

6. Pornography is addictive to many males, and will lead to the foresaking of spouse and family for self gratification.

... ... Hey! "Self gratification" is often a way for a guy to stay faithful to his wife instead of catting around (especially after the fire has left a relationship ..oops, here we go with 'fire' again) Jeepers, Rev .. you really think that men pack up the Playboys and skip out on their families to wank-off in some log cabin in the woods for the rest of their lives? (actually.. sounds like an attractive lifestyle ... put I'd have to take breaks to do photography and order-out for pizza and stuff .. Ah, nevermind)

It is a well established fact that all sexaul preditors are users of pornography first.

.. .. .. and towels, second

Sexual arousal leads to sexual acts, most of which are destructive of healthy marriage, and nurturing of children.

.. .. .. or, on the re-write: Sexual arousal leads to sexual acts ... which lead to children .. .. and the destruction of the marriage from which they resulted and their subsequent nurturing. WHAT?

Now I certainly hope that no one here would argue with any of they truths.

... ... Nope. Scout's horror ..eh, honor

If they offend you, you should ask yourself why reality bites.

.. .. ..naw, Rev. The expression is, "reality sucks". Feels better than a bite. (Hope I don't offend you).

I would also hope that you would not produce art which leads to destructive sexual behavior,

.. .. ..nor destroy art which leads to productive sexual behavior

but would aim for a more edifying goal.

.. .. .. because art is about edifying, and nothing else. Plus, never create art because something pleases you ... create art to fulfill someone else's goal (aka, a "product shot", or now known as "the edifying shot":rolleyes

Stop being an animal, and be human.

.. .. .. That's what I would have said to the religious guys who burned Joan of Arc alive, or the religious guys who burn crosses and bombed churches, or the religious guys who today in Africa preach abstinence in place of advocating the use of condoms, putting religious dogma ahead of human suffering. I'd say, "Stop being religious animals. Be human."

[signed] Rev. Timothy Gordish . .
Father of an adopted child who was the product of fornication, neglected by her mother, abused by a boyfriend and used for child pornography. We are currently dealing the the devasting effects of her early sexualization.

.. .. .. Rev, it is admirable of you to have adopted that child. I mean that sincerely. However, you seem to be "using" this child to give yourself credibility for some of your questionable points (sorry, not "truths", but your opinions), above. As no-one even questioned your "authority" (yet), it's bit of overkill, don't you think? Leave the kid out of it, and best of luck raising her. Best of luck to her, too.

If some of my sarcasm has irked you, well ... then I've reached half my objective. The other half is to provoke you to think —from another angle, or with more reflection. As my late, wise mother used to say, there's always some truth in humor. As a man of the church, you should be used to finding truth. Go for it.

Christopher Nisperos
PS - friendly suggestion: get SpellCheck

 

[bruce terry]

Somehow, I think we've seen your model before....One should always fear religion and its power brokers more that one ever need fear sex in its many forms.

Sums the bottom line of this tangented sub-thread in spades. Amen.

 

[Salmonoid]

Ya, my spelling sucks...(not bites) but that has always my downfall in the literary arts. I guess that is why I enjoy photography.

So... what is the point? That I am a hypocrite simply because I have ideals. That I burned Joan of Arc? That I am sexually repressed? (I guess I suffer a lesser of two evils) That I be irked? That you can't address my points directly? I guess I just don't get it because I didn't study hard, and strive for academic excellence, and ended up in the church?

What exactly is it that I said that evokes your response? What is the essence of your disagreement? Spoken like a high school student in chemistry class..."I don't get it!"


BTW I checked the spelling on this one so hopefully it is better.

 

[Aggie]

Can we get back to friendly smut?

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Ya, my spelling sucks...(not bites) but that has always my downfall in the literary arts. I guess that is why I enjoy photography.

So... what is the point? That I am a hypocrite simply because I have ideals. That I burned Joan of Arc? That I am sexually repressed? (I guess I suffer a lesser of two evils) That I be irked? That you can't address my points directly? I guess I just don't get it because I didn't study hard, and strive for academic excellence, and ended up in the church?

What exactly is it that I said that evokes your response? What is the essence of your disagreement? Spoken like a high school student in chemistry class..."I don't get it!"


BTW I checked the spelling on this one so hopefully it is better.

Naw, relax. I'll agree with you that comedy can be a cowardly —and sometimes hurtful— way of confronting an issue. I feel that I'm guilty of both here. It's certainly not my intention to be hurtful, and if I have been, I heartfully apologize to you.

My points of contention are a little overdone 'cause I'm trying to be funny. But as they are given almost sentence-by-sentence, I don't think further explanation is really necessary.

My main point is that a (Fine Art) photographer shouldn't have to think it's necessary to create work with a pre-conceived, dogmatic agenda in his head. Otherwise what you get is called propaganda (religious or political). If expression is real, it has to flow -or pour out naturally, and the best expression comes from unbridled thinking, that's all. If an artist is animalistic, well ... we'll see that in his or her work. Why should every artist produce clean, "edifying" work? That's not what I would call variety. The spice of life is about
contrasts and differences. Ok, sure... not everybody wants variety in their life, but that doesn't give them a right to impose that lifestyle on others and —furthermore— define what art should be, based upon their own morals or values.

Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, I'm free at last ... even to create porn art.
(there, Aggie ... Happy?)
.