| |
"William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote in message
news:m23d242o2n.fsf@komodo.home.wards.net...
> "John" <johnneal@qwest.net> writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, William R. Ward writes:
> > > "John" <johnneal@qwest.net> writes:
> > > > Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks
> > > > on Brickbay, you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
> > >
> > > If you go to the theatre and see a movie that includes a love scene
> > > where two characters are having sex, do you call that a porn film?
> >
> > If it were just one or two scenes, I would call it a film (probably
> > lousy, because any film maker who felt the need to include such
> > scenes is a money- grubbing hack with no artistic integrity IMO)
> > with gratuitous sex. If the film were about sex and portrays sex in
> > every scene or so, then yes, I'd call it pornographic.
>
> Your definition of "pornographic" is clearly out of sync with the
> generally-accepted definitions in society, then. I haven't seen the
> brickfilm in question, but my understanding is that it is not *about*
> sex, though it happens to have sex in it, just like any "R" rated
> Hollywood film. Just because the characters are gay doesn't mean it
> is about sex. Most movies or TV shows with gay characters don't have
> *any* sex in them at all!
Well - if according to you its similar to "R" rated films, then they should
be treated like "R" rated films. Those films are restricted to people over
18 unless they have adult supervision. Shouldn't the same apply here?
I agree with John - it is not being handled responsibly when it is freely
accessible to children.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
