Is Pornography a Form of Art?

[The Trendy Wolf]

Quite possibly, the only reason that pornography has not been eliminated in many countries is because of the argument that it is yet another form of art (as well as the vast epidemic of those who are accustomed to viewing it). Based on your interpretation of what 'art' really is, would you consider pornography to be an art? Are there certain kinds of pornography that should be banned while others would remain art?

Also, do you believe that pornography should be banned, have more aggressive age restrictions, or should it be left alone entirely?

It is very clear that pornography is spread all throughout the internet in this day and age, but do you believe that it truly could be contained to a considerable point?

Honestly, I believe that art portrays the most natural and instinctual human emotions. Pornography, while it does stimulate a particular portion of our emotions associated with love, it is not to a level that I would consider 'true' love. It is an arousing feeling likely to all of us that we experience from some form of pornography, but if you have ever felt the absolute and undeniable dedication that arrives from true love, then you know what I mean when I say that it is not the same. I cannot consider pornography to be a form of art.

[Its Pretty]

Pornography is art, and any form of censorship is trivial.

[Zenos]

No I do not see Pornography as art as it degrades the human being,but then there is a difference between art where the person is nude but the art shows the human body in a manner that is respectful and tasteful.
That's art not Pornography,Pornography on the other had degrades humans but :

1) showing them having sex,
2) in positions that are meant instill in you the viewer lust.
3) depicts their various "parts" in vulgar ways.

So no Pornography is not art and only a pervert would say it is ,and would want to view the crap! I think the old obscenity laws should be brough back and upgraded for todays degraded and decadently moraless society

[Vlerchan]

No I do not see Pornography as art as it degrades the human being [...]

How is having sex degrading?

[...] but then there is a difference between art where the person is nude but the art shows the human body in a manner that is respectful and tasteful.

art (n): he expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Something being respectful and tasteful as in your opinion has nothing to do with whether or whether it is not art according to the above definition - and various others which I'm not going to bother posting for fear of only repeating myself. Feel free to present your own generally accepted definition as to what is art though.

So no Pornography is not art[1] and only a pervert would say it is[2],and would want to view the crap![3]

[1]: How so?

[2]: Mhmm.

[3]: Mhmmmmm.

I think the old obscenity laws should be brough back and upgraded for todays degraded and decadently moraless society

In other words: I want to impose my moral values on you, for no other reason other than my belief that they are superior, with no regard for what you may want or believe.

Great.

[Gamma Male]

No I do not see Pornography as art as it degrades the human being,but then there is a difference between art where the person is nude but the art shows the human body in a manner that is respectful and tasteful.
That's art not Pornography,Pornography on the other had degrades humans but :

1) showing them having sex,
2) in positions that are meant instill in you the viewer lust.
3) depicts their various "parts" in vulgar ways.

So no Pornography is not art and only a pervert would say it is ,and would want to view the crap! I think the old obscenity laws should be brough back and upgraded for todays degraded and decadently moraless society

Art is subjective. If it inspires some sort of emotion in someone, it's art, regardless of your opinion of it. And banning pornography would be an extreme intrusion upon the rights of the people. If two or more consenting adults want to film themselves having sex, who the fuck are we to tell them they can't? If you don't like it, don't watch it. But don't try to force your personal opinions upon the public.

[Zenos]

How is having sex degrading?


And how is having someone fliming or photographing people having sex not degrading? Or the fact that other people are going to be watching said film or seeing said photograph not degrading?

(Sorry but having it filmed or photographed or other people watching it is degrading!)


Something being respectful and tasteful as in your opinion has nothing to do with whether or whether it is not art according to the above definition - and various others which I'm not going to bother posting for fear of only repeating myself. Feel free to present your own generally accepted definition as to what is art though.

( sorry pornography is far from art and only a person with a degraded since of what is right and wrong would call filth oh like say for example whats in Hustler magazine for example art,Michelangelo’s David ,the Greek and Roman statues that's art not porn. Porn is just away to degrade people and calling it art is a mockery of real art)



[1]: How so?

[2]: Mhmm.

[3]: Mhmmmmm.



In other words: I want to impose my moral values on you, for no other reason other than my belief that hey are superior, with no regard for what you may want.

Great.

Look I'm not trying to impose my moral values but there has to be a line drawn some where as to whats right and wrong whats acceptable and whats not.

Art is subjective. If it inspires some sort of emotion in someone, it's art, regardless of your opinion of it. And banning pornography would be an extreme intrusion upon the rights of the people. If two or more consenting adults want to film themselves having sex, who the fuck are we to tell them they can't? If you don't like it, don't watch it. But don't try to force your personal opinions upon the public.

Porn is not and never will be true art!
It's sad that so many members of my generation have no morals,but that's the parents faults right there!



Please stop double posting. ~StoppingTime

[Gamma Male]

But why is pornography wrong? Because you don't like it? Because it disgusts you?
DON'T WATCH IT THEN. Pornography doesn't hurt anyone, and some people like it. Making pornography illegal because a small group of people consider it "profane" or "vulgar" is ridiculous.

And that's the remarks of a degraded pervert. Porn is not and never will be true art!
It's sad that so many members of my generation have no morals,but that's the parents faults right there!


I'm a degraded pervert because I respect the first amendment?
And who is pornography hurting? Why is it amoral?

Please use the edit or multi-quote buttons instead of double posting. ~StoppingTime

[Zenos]

I'm a degraded pervert because I respect the first amendment?
And who is pornography hurting? Why is it amoral?

What you think it's right to set down and watch 2 people have sex?

How about asking your parents for their views on that?

[Vlerchan]

And how is having someone fliming or photographing people having sex not degrading? Or the fact that other people are going to be watching said film or seeing said photograph not degrading?

I can't possibly counter your argument if you don't tell me why you believe acting in a pornographic film is degrading. Please do so.

sorry pornography is far from art[1] and only a person with a degraded since of what is right and wrong would call filth oh like say for example whats in Hustler magazine for example art[2],Michelangelo’s David ,the Greek and Roman statues that's art not porn[3]. Porn is just away to degrade people[4] and calling it art is a mockery of real art.

[1]: How so? Please read the definition of art I presented and tell me how it doesn't apply to pornography. Alternatively you can present your own widely-accepted definition of art and argue from there.

[2]: I'm failing to see why ones sense of morality needs to be taken into consideration when defining art. Care to explain?

[3]: There's art that isn't porn, yes. What's your point?

[4]: I'd love to be presented with a reason as to why it's degrading. Excuse me if I don't just take your word for it.

Look I'mo not trying to impose my moral values[1] but there has to be a line drawn some where as to whats right and wrong whats acceptable and whats not[2].

[1]:You clearly are trying to impose your moral values on people. You wouldn't have called for the imposition of laws in line with your morality otherwise.

[2]: If you can rationally justify what's acceptable I'm all ears.

[Gamma Male]

I don't know, maybe because it's not hurting anybody and everybody involved is okay with it?
Seriously, I don't understand how you could think pornography is wrong.

[ksdnfkfr]

And that's the remarks of a degraded pervert.

Whoa, way too judgmental.

=======================

There's art and then there's entertainment.
Porn fits the entertainment category.

[Zenos]

I don't know, maybe because it's not hurting anybody and everybody involved is okay with it?
Seriously, I don't understand how you could think pornography is wrong.

Why is it wrong ? Simple because sex is something that should be between two people not something between two people and the whole world.

Whoa, way too judgmental.

No anyone that wants to watch two people having sex is a perv


Please stop double posting. ~StoppingTime

[Obsidian]

I don't think there's anything wrong with it but I don't consider it art either. Art is about creating something. Usually something emotional. You use your emotion to create something that is meaningful to you, whether it's through painting, drawing, writing, or whatever else. Porn is just about having sex and filming it so other people can get off. There's no emotion or thought put into it. It's just sex.

[StoppingTime]

Look I'm not trying to impose my moral values but there has to be a line drawn some where as to whats right and wrong whats acceptable and whats not.

But what you just said is completely contradictory. Essentially you said, "Look I'm not trying to tell you to believe what I do but c'mon guys we really need to not do this it isn't right/acceptable/whatever.

Who are you to determine what's right? What's acceptable? What's "allowed?" Generally for a society to function, that's decided more collectively than, "This is what I think so we're going to do it."

And that's the remarks of a degraded pervert.

That could be the same about anyone. Someone could have "the morals" to believe that a degraded pervert is anyone who's trying to tell them what they think is wrong...therefore making you the "degraded pervert." Throwing around that sort of language in a debate is completely meaningless.


Porn is not and never will be true art!

..okay? There's nothing wrong with that statement; if you don't see it as art (which is subjective), then that isn't a problem. But for you to say that it's "ruining morals" or whatever, is. Sure, it might be ruining your own morals, but not everyone does or should think like you.


It's sad that so many members of my generation have no morals,but that's the parents faults right there!

....Really. Did you really just..? Like anything else each person's morals are subjective and individual. Yes, there are some morals that are collectively agreed on (these people form somewhat of a society), but that doesn't mean that simply because someone differs from your beliefs, they're entirely in the wrong.

I don't know, maybe because it's not hurting anybody and everybody involved is okay with it?
Seriously, I don't understand how you could think pornography is wrong.

Why is it wrong ? Simple because sex is something that should be between two people not something between two people and the whole world.

Awesome, so that's your opinion. That doesn't make it right or acceptable...as I think you've found out.

[ksdnfkfr]

No anyone that wants to watch two people having sex is a perv

Please cite your official source on that. If you are going to make accusations, then you should have something concrete to back them up. I'm waiting...

[AlexOnToast]

No anyone that wants to watch two people having sex is a perv

If you can give me a legitimate explanation as to why, I will give you a lolipop.

And no religious reasons. Religion doesnt apply to society in general.

[Gamma Male]

Why is it wrong ? Simple because sex is something that should be between two people not something between two people and the whole world.

That's YOUR opinion. YOU think sex should always only be between two people, and that sharing it is perverted. But obviously others(myself included) disagree. Again, it consenting adults want to film themselves having sex so other consenting adults can view it, and nobody is getting hurt, what business is it of yours? Nobody's forcing you to watch porn. If you think pornography is perverted and disgusting and sex should always just be between two people, that's great. Go right ahead and think that. But stay the fuck out of other peoples business! People disagree with you. Deal with it.

[Harry Smith]

You could quite easily argue that it's an art form

Art is a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities; this article focuses primarily on the visual arts, which includes the creation of images or objects in fields including painting, sculpture, printmaking, photography, and other visual media.

The libertarian in me would also argue that as long as the people involved are happy to publish the material then there is nothing wrong with the act, it's pretty much the same as 99% of the stuff in P101 just in visual form.

[Its Pretty]

No I do not see Pornography as art as it degrades the human being,but then there is a difference between art where the person is nude but the art shows the human body in a manner that is respectful and tasteful.
That's art not Pornography,Pornography on the other had degrades humans but :

1) showing them having sex,
2) in positions that are meant instill in you the viewer lust.
3) depicts their various "parts" in vulgar ways.

So no Pornography is not art and only a pervert would say it is ,and would want to view the crap! I think the old obscenity laws should be brough back and upgraded for todays degraded and decadently moraless society

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=23512 This can help you.

Either way, regardless of how immoral you (or anyone else) believes it is, no one is being directly harmed and no clear problem has arisen due to it's presence in society.
1) Not all pornography features people engaging in sexual acts, pornography tends to be a diverse category with nothing more then nudity in common. (research moar pls)
2) That's very true! And all other forms of art are made to arouse the viewers interest! Is music not made to sound good, paintings to look nice? (think about things more pls)
3) Indeed, one may find the act of having sex (or of watching two people having sex) as disgusting and perverted. Why this is, I do not know, as sex (and reproduction) is necessary for human life, just the same as food and drink. You could then argue that trivializing it in movie is evil, because it shows lack of respect for sex (as the actors have no plans for engaging in reproduction,) however, art of all kinds is quite trivial as it has no purpose other then to satisfy a hungry mind. Why should paint and colors be used for anything other then stop signs?

Also, in the future, please attempt to recognize that an emotional opinion has much less value then a rational argument. It will have great measure in easing headache for you and everyone else.

P.S. In regards to you saying that 'moral laws should be returned' remember that the image of the human body and sexual acts has been included in art since around the time meat was first cooked. 'pornography' or similar forms of media has been around for a very, very long time.

[Lovelife090994]

I do not see porn as art. It is vulgar sex, not works of beauty. Art can have nudity even embracing but not sex because then it is pornography. Art is for all to see, pornography is not something you show publicly.

[PinkFloyd]

I'm gonna go with no. I mean, when I think of art, I think of Van Gogh, not some porn actress that's risking getting some disese from someone she doesn't even know.

[CharlieHorse]

It can be.
Some is, some isn't. The spectrum is HUGE.
Either way it's fine.

[Zenos]

I do not see porn as art. It is vulgar sex, not works of beauty. Art can have nudity even embracing but not sex because then it is pornography. Art is for all to see, pornography is not something you show publicly.

:eek: darn that's what I have been trying to say!

[Lovelife090994]

:eek: darn that's what I have been trying to say!

So is that good? Thanks I guess. I was just typing my thoughts.

[Its Pretty]

I do not see porn as art. It is vulgar sex, not works of beauty. Art can have nudity even embracing but not sex because then it is pornography. Art is for all to see, pornography is not something you show publicly.

I don't understand, can you please explain more?

[Karkat]

Ok, to put it this way: in my opinion, not all porn is art. I don't think it should be banned, (bestiality and child pornography aside, of course.) but entertainment ≠ art necessarily. Porn is mostly entertainment.

However, some forms of porn can be art. Erotic literature that is written more based on the relationship of the characters versus cheesy gimmicks to arouse is art. Photography that showcases sexuality in a serious manner are art. Cheesy fetish photos are not. Videos that are driven around the relationship or a plot in a serious light are art. Most porn videos are so far gone from art in my opinion.

I mean, it depends on how you perceive art to begin with, but I can't get around most of what is being circulated as being taken seriously as 'art' personally.

[NeuroTiger]

I'll consider Kamasutra as being an art of pornography but not pornography as an art.

Pornography, as a whole, is a lucrative business which satisfies or strengthens the lust of its viewers which obviously I'll not categorise as an 'ART'.

[Lovelife090994]

I don't understand, can you please explain more?

There isn't much to say.

[AlexOnToast]

There isn't much to say.

I think what he means is Why is it so wrong to show in public? Surely an act of love and pleasure could be interpreted as art?

I'm not saying that I like porn, because I don't. I dont find the sight of two people who arent me getting it on appealing, besides the fact that it gives people a false view of sex. But that's just me, and it's no reason to cast off other peoples opinions.

I'm of the view that ANYTHING be can considered as art, maybe not in a traditional sense, but if someone sees beauty, intricacy and what not in something, who are we to tell them there opinions are wrong?

[Blood]

I believe pornography is an art, and I don't see anything wrong with it. People should be allowed to express themselves as long as they aren't causing them or anyone else harm.

Now, I don't believe child pornography or gore/extreme BDSM pornography is art. It's wrong and quite frankly it shouldn't be allowed anywhere...but people are going to do what they want and get away with it one way or another.

Dancing is considered an art, and that's people using their bodies suggestively. So why shouldn't porn be considered one? Sex is natural and I wish the taboo on porn would be lifted at least a little.

But honestly the definition of art varies with each individual, so it just depends on who you're asking.

[Lovelife090994]

I think what he means is Why is it so wrong to show in public? Surely an act of love and pleasure could be interpreted as art?

I'm not saying that I like porn, because I don't. I dont find the sight of two people who arent me getting it on appealing, besides the fact that it gives people a false view of sex. But that's just me, and it's no reason to cast off other peoples opinions.

I'm of the view that ANYTHING be can considered as art, maybe not in a traditional sense, but if someone sees beauty, intricacy and what not in something, who are we to tell them there opinions are wrong?

You do not show porn in public. It needs to be wrong to show porn in public. Companies show what is on the edge as sexualized ads but even still that is pushing the line. False view or not, you do not display sex publicly.

[AlexOnToast]

You do not show porn in public. It needs to be wrong to show porn in public. Companies show what is on the edge as sexualized ads but even still that is pushing the line. False view or not, you do not display sex publicly.

I dont think it should be shown in public either, I can admit that I wrote the completely wrong thing there without thinking properly, my mistake.
But what was asked was can porn be considered art, the answer to that is yes, it can because there are people who view it as such, and who are we to tell them they are wrong?

[Its Pretty]

There isn't much to say.

If you don't have much to say, and I have so much, then who's word is stronger, do you think?

[Harry Smith]

You do not show porn in public. It needs to be wrong to show porn in public. Companies show what is on the edge as sexualized ads but even still that is pushing the line. False view or not, you do not display sex publicly.

No, you want it to not be shown. That doesn't mean that it needs to be wrong-your just trying to force your ideology on the public.

you do not display sex publicly.

Why not? This isn't the 1950's. Have you seen what 90% of the population do when they go out to the pub/parties/nightclubs.

Why are people so afraid of sex?

[everlong]

I would say yes, pornography could be argued as art. Art is the production of something appealing to the eye or ears. Technically speaking, a painting of a naked girl would be considered art, for the same reason a painting of a bowl of fruit would be considered art. A video of two people having sex could also be considered to be art.

[JamesSuperBoy]

Quite possibly, the only reason that pornography has not been eliminated in many countries is because of the argument that it is yet another form of art

Can you quote or link to any substantive source with this argument.

[Vlerchan]

I'm still waiting on a (generally-accepted - so: dictionary) definition of art that can't apply to pornography.

I do not see porn as art. It is vulgar sex, not works of beauty. Art can have nudity even embracing but not sex because then it is pornography. Art is for all to see, pornography is not something you show publicly.

Something being vulgar as perceived by you doesn't make it any less of a piece of art.

Contextualized: The vulgarity you associate with pornography isn't making pornography any less of an art form (- though I'm guessing it's makes pornography less of an art form that appeals to you.) Get me?

[...] but I can't get around most of what is being circulated as being taken seriously as 'art' personally.

You not being able to take something seriously as art doesn't make it any less of a piece of art.

There's always going to be good and bad art; good and bad music (also art); good and bad cinema (also art); good and bad literature (also art); and so on. Though something being a bad piece of cinema or bad piece of music or bad piece of literature doesn't make it any less of a piece of cinema or music or literature - it simply makes it a bad piece. The same is true with pornography.

Pornography, as a whole, is a lucrative business which satisfies or strengthens the lust of its viewers which obviously I'll not categorise as an 'ART'.

Why?

I see no reason why art can't be either a) arousing or b) financially lucrative.

[Typhlosion]

Based on your interpretation of what 'art' really is, would you consider pornography to be an art?
I would consider 'art' any work by any organic party that is infused with the author's feelings and is also open to subjective interpretation. If the creator deems it as art, then art it is. For such reason, I do not see general pornography as art. However, I won't rule out all porn as not art, as there are many that are given meaning, theme and/or value. Such as art hentai, explicit nude posing and so on.
Are there certain kinds of pornography that should be banned while others would remain art? Also, do you believe that pornography should be banned, have more aggressive age restrictions, or should it be left alone entirely? Any sort of pornography that is product of abuse, such as child porn, should be (and is!) illegal. After that, one to their owwn fetishes. I also believe that the legal age to access and produce porn should be at the age of consent. You can do it, but you cant see yourself do it or others do it until you're older? What?
It is very clear that pornography is spread all throughout the internet in this day and age, but do you believe that it truly could be contained to a considerable point?An oppression to contain all pornography is at least questionable. To do so, you would severely limit internet access and all media. Plus, the Tor project.
Honestly, I believe that art portrays the most natural and instinctual human emotions. Pornography, while it does stimulate a particular portion of our emotions associated with love, it is not to a level that I would consider 'true' love. It is an arousing feeling likely to all of us that we experience from some form of pornography, but if you have ever felt the absolute and undeniable dedication that arrives from true love, then you know what I mean when I say that it is not the same. I cannot consider pornography to be a form of art. Truly. There is, however, homemade pornography which is at times closer to capturing the natural aspect of it.

Tl;Dr: No, I don't consider it art.

[Lovelife090994]

If you don't have much to say, and I have so much, then who's word is stronger, do you think?

Not what I meant. By there isn't much to say I meant no more to add. Sex is not art. Sex is not be in public. Art is. Yes some art is risque, but even that is the line that is often blurred. This is not a game of my horse in bigger than yours nor my fathers' richer. Everything has a place, pornography and sex is best behind closed doors.

I'm still waiting on a (generally-accepted - so: dictionary) definition of art that can't apply to pornography.



Something being vulgar as perceived by you doesn't make it any less of a piece of art.

Contextualized: The vulgarity you associate with pornography isn't making pornography any less of an art form (- though I'm guessing it's makes pornography less of an art form that appeals to you.) Get me?



You not being able to take something seriously as art doesn't make it any less of a piece of art.

There's always going to be good and bad art; good and bad music (also art); good and bad cinema (also art); good and bad literature (also art); and so on. Though something being a bad piece of cinema or bad piece of music or bad piece of literature doesn't make it any less of a piece of cinema or music or literature - it simply makes it a bad piece. The same is true with pornography.



Why?

I see no reason why art can't be either a) arousing or b) financially lucrative.

Business is one thing. You do not show sex in public. Pornography is very risque and not a good thing to put in the open. Pornography and sex have their place as everything else. Art is to be shared and comtemplated. Art can move and breathe ideas, and some art even risque can embody passion, love, and sexuality without the need for sexual acts to be shown. As long as pornography involves people giving up to lustful passions in daylight to be shown then it is not a thing to expose all to. Yes, sex is natural, but not to be everywhere.

No, you want it to not be shown. That doesn't mean that it needs to be wrong-your just trying to force your ideology on the public.



Why not? This isn't the 1950's. Have you seen what 90% of the population do when they go out to the pub/parties/nightclubs.

Why are people so afraid of sex?

Are you daft? I never said I was forcing anything. All must have some sense of what is right for when and where. You do not show sex in public, that is gross. Sex is to be between two people behind closed doors. Not out as an exhibitionist to voyeurs. It is not a question of fear but of decency. In the past sexuality was never mentioned and kept to one personally which makes sense. What pleases you is your business and not to be flaunted. Sex in public is very unbecoming and not humane to display. If you show sex in public then that is no better than exposing a child to a person charged of indecent exposure. People are not in fear of sex but most know to keep it behind closed doors. Those doing so in nightclubs and pubs are not 90%. 90% Where'd you get that? Just because one partis that does not mean their night leads to sex. Their must be lines drawn somewhere. Yes make porn available to those who want it, but don't show it in broad daylight. Really the 1950s? If anything the 50s are known for new technology and the idea of family, at least in America. Why the 50s?

[Its Pretty]

Not what I meant. By there isn't much to say I meant no more to add. Sex is not art. Sex is not be in public. Art is. Yes some art is risque, but even that is the line that is often blurred. This is not a game of my horse in bigger than yours nor my fathers' richer. Everything has a place, pornography and sex is best behind closed doors.



Business is one thing. You do not show sex in public. Pornography is very risque and not a good thing to put in the open. Pornography and sex have their place as everything else. Art is to be shared and comtemplated. Art can move and breathe ideas, and some art even risque can embody passion, love, and sexuality without the need for sexual acts to be shown. As long as pornography involves people giving up to lustful passions in daylight to be shown then it is not a thing to expose all to. Yes, sex is natural, but not to be everywhere.



Are you daft? I never said I was forcing anything. All must have some sense of what is right for when and where. You do not show sex in public, that is gross. Sex is to be between two people behind closed doors. Not out as an exhibitionist to voyeurs. It is not a question of fear but of decency. In the past sexuality was never mentioned and kept to one personally which makes sense. What pleases you is your business and not to be flaunted. Sex in public is very unbecoming and not humane to display. If you show sex in public then that is no better than exposing a child to a person charged of indecent exposure. People are not in fear of sex but most know to keep it behind closed doors. Those doing so in nightclubs and pubs are not 90%. 90% Where'd you get that? Just because one partis that does not mean their night leads to sex. Their must be lines drawn somewhere. Yes make porn available to those who want it, but don't show it in broad daylight. Really the 1950s? If anything the 50s are known for new technology and the idea of family, at least in America. Why the 50s?

So... why is sex not art now? why is sex so private and vulgar that it cannot be expressed in artistic form?

This is the definition of art according to dictionary.reference.com
art, noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. See fine art, commercial art.

3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.

5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.



NOW according to you, this appears to be the definition.

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. but not porn.

2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria as long as it doesn't include acts of copulation; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. See fine art, commercial art. but sex isn't included.

3. a field, genre, or category of art that does not feature sex: Dance is an art.

4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture and porn: art and architecture.

5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art, but not sex of course, as sex cannot be artistic in any way.

Of course, not all art is good art. Many people find sex and porn to be a taboo subject that under no circumstance is beautiful. You seem to agree with this, and that is okay. However, just because it does not pique your personal interest does not mean it holds no artistic value to others.

[Lovelife090994]

If you don't have much to say, and I have so much, then who's word is stronger, do you think?

I'm still waiting on a (generally-accepted - so: dictionary) definition of art that can't apply to pornography.



Something being vulgar as perceived by you doesn't make it any less of a piece of art.

Contextualized: The vulgarity you associate with pornography isn't making pornography any less of an art form (- though I'm guessing it's makes pornography less of an art form that appeals to you.) Get me?



You not being able to take something seriously as art doesn't make it any less of a piece of art.

There's always going to be good and bad art; good and bad music (also art); good and bad cinema (also art); good and bad literature (also art); and so on. Though something being a bad piece of cinema or bad piece of music or bad piece of literature doesn't make it any less of a piece of cinema or music or literature - it simply makes it a bad piece. The same is true with pornography.



Why?

I see no reason why art can't be either a) arousing or b) financially lucrative.

So... why is sex not art now? why is sex so private and vulgar that it cannot be expressed in artistic form?

This is the definition of art according to dictionary.reference.com
art, noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. See fine art, commercial art.

3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.

5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.



NOW according to you, this appears to be the definition.

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. but not porn.

2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria as long as it doesn't include acts of copulation; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. See fine art, commercial art. but sex isn't included.

3. a field, genre, or category of art that does not feature sex: Dance is an art.

4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture and porn: art and architecture.

5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art, but not sex of course, as sex cannot be artistic in any way.

Of course, not all art is good art. Many people find sex and porn to be a taboo subject that under no circumstance is beautiful. You seem to agree with this, and that is okay. However, just because it does not pique your personal interest does not mean it holds no artistic value to others.

I know dance is art. I consider it so. But sex and porn should not be public. Embrace is one thing, a kiss is one thing, but the full on sex is another. I do not see all things sexual as taboo. And you seem offended by my idea that porn should not be publicly shown.

[Plane And Simple]

According to the art definition above, no its not art. You don't need creativity to have sex.

[Harry Smith]

Are you daft? I never said I was forcing anything. All must have some sense of what is right for when and where. You do not show sex in public, that is gross. Sex is to be between two people behind closed doors. Not out as an exhibitionist to voyeurs. It is not a question of fear but of decency. In the past sexuality was never mentioned and kept to one personally which makes sense. What pleases you is your business and not to be flaunted. Sex in public is very unbecoming and not humane to display. If you show sex in public then that is no better than exposing a child to a person charged of indecent exposure. People are not in fear of sex but most know to keep it behind closed doors. Those doing so in nightclubs and pubs are not 90%. 90% Where'd you get that? Just because one partis that does not mean their night leads to sex. Their must be lines drawn somewhere. Yes make porn available to those who want it, but don't show it in broad daylight. Really the 1950s? If anything the 50s are known for new technology and the idea of family, at least in America. Why the 50s?

I'm sorry the 1950's weren't know for technology-they were know to be boring, conservative do nothing years-Eisenhower sums up the 1950's for me.

Sex isn't about two people-sex can be between 3, 4 or even 5 people. And it doesn't even have to be done behind closed doors. I really don't understand your attitude towards it.

You claim that it's 'gross'-ok. I'm sure many people would say that gay sex is gross. That doesn't mean I should give up on a sex just to appease someone who's scared of sexual intercourse.

Sex in public is very unbecoming

90 years ago people would say that women showing off their ankles was unbecoming, get over it-it's just sex

[Vlerchan]

snip.

You considering a piece of art only belonging 'behind closed doors' does not make said piece of art any less of a piece of art. It's that simple.

According to the art definition above, no its not art. You don't need creativity to have sex.

A pornographic production tends to involve more that two people having sex: there's camera-men; (awful) scriptwriters; etc., etc. You telling me that creativity is in no way involved in creating a pornographic production? Anywhere?

[Plane And Simple]

You considering a piece of art only belonging 'behind closed doors' does not make said piece of art any less of a piece of art. It's that simple.



A pornographic production tends to involve more that two people having sex: there's camera-men; (awful) scriptwriters; etc., etc. You telling me that creativity is in no way involved in creating a pornographic production? Anywhere?

Yup I'm telling you. Cameraman are skilled operators, and scriptwriters are not artists to me, just people with imagination. Art is subjective, And I just dont feel porn is art.

[Vlerchan]

Yup I'm telling you. Cameraman are skilled operators, and scriptwriters are not artists to me, just people with imagination.

Creativity (n): the use of imagination or original ideas to create something; inventiveness.

Hmmm... See where I'm going with this?

Art is subjective, And I just dont feel porn is art.

What constitutes good art and bad art is subjective; what constitutes art can be objectively defined.

[Lovelife090994]

I'm sorry the 1950's weren't know for technology-they were know to be boring, conservative do nothing years-Eisenhower sums up the 1950's for me.

Sex isn't about two people-sex can be between 3, 4 or even 5 people. And it doesn't even have to be done behind closed doors. I really don't understand your attitude towards it.

You claim that it's 'gross'-ok. I'm sure many people would say that gay sex is gross. That doesn't mean I should give up on a sex just to appease someone who's scared of sexual intercourse.



90 years ago people would say that women showing off their ankles was unbecoming, get over it-it's just sex

First, th 50s brought much change and was the start of many items we take for granted today as well as influential music styles. Every decade has something. Gay sex to some is gross. Sex is sex although I question why some engage in orgies as that seems a little bit much. I never mentioned appeasement nor did I mention how women are repressed. Porn is sex, sex is not art because it is not something creative since two or more perople just do it. Sex should be behind closed doors unless in your home then you can do it on the floor if you want in the open to your couch but not in front of your children and public. My attitude for it is that sex is not to be displayed like a flag. A person's sex life and sexuality is that person's business. Even public displays of affection can sometimes be too much if in the wrong place.

[Vlerchan]

Porn is sex, sex is not art because it is not something creative since two or more perople just do it.

I've already explained how a pornographic production involves more than just people having sex. Please refer back to them.

Though even then I find it strange people's belief that there's no element of creativity involved in sex.

[Lovelife090994]

I've already explained how a pornographic production involves more than just people having sex. Please refer back to them.

Though even then I find it strange people's belief that there's no element of creativity involved in sex.

What you fail to grasp is how sex is not something you'd display to all and to children. But art can be something for all regardless of media. Those productions are people with skills to produce and when they are producing porn which is broadcasted sex then that is just broadcasted sex and in no way fit for public viewing. People's beliefs? Which? Some think sex is sacred, some think it terribly horrid, others are neutral.

[Vlerchan]

What you fail to grasp is how sex is not something you'd display to all and to children. But art can be something for all regardless of media. Those productions are people with skills to produce and when they are producing porn which is broadcasted sex then that is just broadcasted sex and in no way fit for public viewing. People's beliefs? Which? Some think sex is sacred, some think it terribly horrid, others are neutral.


I've also already addressed this:

You considering a piece of art [not something you'd display to all and to children] does not make said piece of art any less of a piece of art.

[Lovelife090994]

I've also already addressed this:

True, but porn is different than art.

[Vlerchan]

True, but porn is different than art.

How?

You - and others - have presented no reason as to how pornography is not art.

[Lovelife090994]

How?

You - and others - have presented no reason as to how pornography is not art.

Me and others have but you haven't lisetened. What good is talk when the other is deaf to it even if it has the voice of one hundred fold? Porn and art are different. Porn is considered lewd and is dedicated to satisfying lust, art is unique and accepted, it is varied, it is emotional, it is beautiful.

[Vlerchan]

Me and others have but you haven't lisetened.

I have.

Porn is considered lewd[1] and is dedicated to satisfying lust[2], art is unique[3] and accepted[4], it is varied[5], it is emotional[6], it is beautiful[7].

[1]: There's no reason why art can't be lewd.

[2]: There's no reason why art can't be arousing or even for its sole purpose to be arousing.

[3]: Each pornographic production is unique.

[4]: By who? This makes no sense.

[5]: Pornography is incredibly varied.

[6]: There's no reason why art needs to be emotional. There's nothing emotional about most art I've always found. I accept that 'good' art might draw emotion but it isn't a necessity. Though, even then: who's to say that somebody somewhere doesn't find pornography emotional.

[7]: Define 'beautiful'. Then go google 'subjective'.

[Lovelife090994]

I have.



[1]: There's no reason why art can't be lewd.

[2]: There's no reason why art can't be arousing or even for its sole purpose to be arousing.

[3]: Each pornographic production is unique.

[4]: By who? This makes no sense.

[5]: Pornography is incredibly varied.

[6]: There's no reason why art needs to be emotional. There's nothing emotional about most art I've always found. I accept that 'good' art might draw emotion but it isn't a necessity. Though, even then: who's to say that somebody somewhere doesn't find pornography emotional.

[7]: Define 'beautiful'. Then go google 'subjective'.

In previous posts I addressed how art can lewd, I addressed how beauty is in the beholder, how art can be simple, but it is not porn. Porn is varied but it is not something you just put out there.

[Vlerchan]

In previous posts I addressed how art can lewd[1], I addressed how beauty is in the beholder[2], how art can be simple, but it is not porn[3]. Porn is varied but it is not something you just put out there[4].

[1]: And I addressed how others (irrational) sensibilities don't affect how an object can be defined as art. Unless you're referring to something else in which case I'll ask you to re-post it.

[2]: This is what I meant. You can't objectively label an object beautiful or not beautiful and therefore the perceived beauty of an object is not a criteria that should be considered when defining art.

[3]: Can you re-post this in that case? I can't seem to locate it.

[4]: Ones reluctance to openly display pornography does not affect its statues as art.

[Lovelife090994]

[1]: And I addressed how others (irrational) sensibilities don't affect how an object can be defined as art. Unless you're referring to something else in which case I'll ask you to re-post it.

[2]: This is what I meant. You can't objectively label an object beautiful or not beautiful and therefore the perceived beauty of an object is not a criteria that should be considered when defining art.

[3]: Can you re-post this in that case? I can't seem to locate it.

[4]: Ones reluctance to openly display pornography does not affect its statues as art.

I'll just paraphrase. What is art is very complex to answer but usually it does not cause reluctance but it can evoke emotions. Art is something anyone can do and pick up if desired. Beauty is very hard to say what is but beauty to most is what that person sees as appealing in a non sexual way.

One's reluctance to open display pornography can be for many reasons. Would you show porn to your mother? A child? I hope not. Porn should be kept away from most of society and only viewed in private from an adult with adults partaking in it. There is a key difference in porn and art, one is how porn is sex and art is not sex.

[Vlerchan]

I'll just paraphrase. What is art is very complex to answer but usually it does not cause reluctance[1] but it can evoke emotions[2]. Art is something anyone can do and pick up if desired[][3][/b]. Beauty is very hard to say what is but beauty to most is what that person sees as appealing in a non sexual way[4].

One's reluctance to open display pornography can be for many reasons. Would you show porn to your mother? A child? I hope not. Porn should be kept away from most of society and only viewed in private from an adult with adults partaking in it. [5] There is a key difference in porn and art, one is how porn is sex and art is not sex[6].

[1]: Ones reluctance to openly display a piece of art does not affect its statues as art.

[2]: I highlighted the key-word here: art doesn't necessarily have to evoke emotion.

[3]: This applies to pornography.

[4]: I highlighted the key-words here: beauty is subjective; regardless of how the majority or most might define beauty there's no set definition.

[5]: Ones reluctance to openly display a piece of art does not affect its statues as art.

[6]: There's no reason why art cannot involve sex.

[Lovelife090994]

[1]: Ones reluctance to openly display a piece of art does not affect its statues as art.

[2]: I highlighted the key-word here: art doesn't necessarily have to evoke emotion.

[3]: This applies to pornography.

[4]: I highlighted the key-words here: beauty is subjective; regardless of how the majority or most might define beauty there's no set definition.

[5]: Ones reluctance to openly display a piece of art does not affect its statues as art.

[6]: There's no reason why art cannot involve sex.

Have you not heard me? Art can be lewd but when it is be careful with whom sees it. I am an artist but I do not show everything I do and I am always practiing and I refrain from sexual art. Does this make me a bad artist? No. Does this make me too traditional and moreso in improvement? Maybe.

[Vlerchan]

Have you not heard me? Art can be lewd but when it is be careful with whom sees it. I am an artist but I do not show everything I do and I am always practiing and I refrain from sexual art. Does this make me a bad artist? No. Does this make me too traditional and moreso in improvement? Maybe.

So you accept that pornography can be art?

[Its Pretty]

You considering a piece of art only belonging 'behind closed doors' does not make said piece of art any less of a piece of art. It's that simple.



A pornographic production tends to involve more that two people having sex: there's camera-men; (awful) scriptwriters; etc., etc. You telling me that creativity is in no way involved in creating a pornographic production? Anywhere?

I think the script writers do a great job sometimes, I find the plot of some movies to be quite captivating. Also, one of the main appealing aspects of hentai is it's story.

[Lovelife090994]

So you accept that pornography can be art?

No. I accept that art can have sexual undertones and innuendo without showing sex positions. I guess if censored enough then the pornographic image can loose some of the intention.

[Vlerchan]

I guess if censored enough then the pornographic image can loose some of the intention.

I don't see why the intentions of an artist when producing a piece of art need affect what we define and what we don't define as art.

[Lovelife090994]

I don't see why the intentions of an artist when producing a piece of art need affect what we define and what we don't define as art.

Perhaps, but porn is something to be censored to protect minors and computers from viruses so you know dead ahead, don't click. Plus, most artists have some intention if not some sort of idea.

[Its Pretty]

According to the art definition above, no its not art. You don't need creativity to have sex.

You're not making any sense.

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

No where in this definition does creativity define art. For one thing, creativity is not possible to measure in this day, so the amount of creativity one sees in a work is entirely subjective. Sex, to some, is a beautiful and appealing thing, so doesn't that by definition make the production and expression of it an art?

1. the quality, production, expression(filming), or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing(sex), or of more than ordinary significance.

-

[Vlerchan]

Perhaps, but porn is something to be censored to protect minors and computers from viruses so you know dead ahead, don't click. Plus, most artists have some intention if not some sort of idea.

I'm not seeing how any of this takes away from pornography being art.

Can you explain how aiming your piece of art towards a particular audience for a particular reason makes it less a piece of art?

[Lovelife090994]

I'm not seeing how any of this takes away from pornography being art.

Can you explain how aiming your piece of art towards a particular audience for a particular reason makes it less a piece of art?

Pornography is a business for one. For two, pornography and full on sex and on one subject which again is sex. Porn just isn't art. That's my opinion and it isn't changing because of a conversation on virtual teen.

[Its Pretty]

Pornography is a business for one. For two, pornography and full on sex and on one subject which again is sex. Porn just isn't art. That's my opinion and it isn't changing because of a conversation on virtual teen.

So then the only reason youre replying to people is to push your beliefs on them, something you clearly said you weren't trying to do on page one of the topic :P

[Lovelife090994]

So then the only reason youre replying to people is to push your beliefs on them, something you clearly said you weren't trying to do on page one of the topic :P

A debate is not to change one's ideas. And I just don't see a point in continuing if we are both saying our opinions again and again. I push nothing.

[Vlerchan]

Pornography is a business for one[1]. For two, pornography and full on sex and on one subject which again is sex[2]. Porn just isn't art[3]. That's my opinion and it isn't changing because of a conversation on virtual teen[4].

[1]: The business potential of a piece of art does not affect its statues as a piece of art.

[2]: And? I'm failing to see why a taboo subject - or any subject for that matter - being the feature of a piece of art affects its statues as a piece of art.

[3]: I'm still not finding myself particularly convinced of this apparent 'fact'.

[4]: That doesn't matter. You're responses have allowed me to better demonstrate to everybody else why pornography should be considered art.

[Lovelife090994]

[1]: The business potential of a piece of art does not affect its statues as a piece of art.

[2]: And? I'm failing to see why a taboo subject - or any subject for that matter - being the feature of a piece of art affects its statues as a piece of art.

[3]: I'm still not finding myself particularly convinced of this apparent 'fact'.

[4]: That doesn't matter. You're responses have allowed me to better demonstrate to everybody else why pornography should be considered art.

Look, I don't care if you see porn as art or not. That is your view, your opinion, your mind. I can't change anyone's mind on anything. I just see porn as taboo and taboo is not art.

[Its Pretty]

A debate is not to change one's ideas. And I just don't see a point in continuing if we are both saying our opinions again and again. I push nothing.

No, see, the thing is, I'm not just pushing my opinion. I'm giving you fact that the word Pornography can be classified as the word art. You, however, are simply stating over and over your opinion that porn =/= art.

[Lovelife090994]

No, see, the thing is, I'm not just pushing my opinion. I'm giving you fact that the word Pornography can be classified as the word art. You, however, are simply stating over and over your opinion that porn =/= art.

I know I just said that. True there can be an art to almost anything, art of life, art of love, art of war. But art is a word that can mean an expression of ideas, a unique expression of actions, or a bold display to embody an idea.

[Plane And Simple]

You're not making any sense.

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

No where in this definition does creativity define art. For one thing, creativity is not possible to measure in this day, so the amount of creativity one sees in a work is entirely subjective. Sex, to some , is a beautiful and appealing thing, so doesn't that by definition make the production and expression of it an art?

1. the quality, production, expression(filming), or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing(sex), or of more than ordinary significance.

-

Look. I'm not going to change my opinion. I think sex is not art. That is it. Period.

[The Trendy Wolf]

But why is pornography wrong? Because you don't like it? Because it disgusts you?
DON'T WATCH IT THEN. Pornography doesn't hurt anyone, and some people like it. Making pornography illegal because a small group of people consider it "profane" or "vulgar" is ridiculous.




I'm a degraded pervert because I respect the first amendment?
And who is pornography hurting? Why is it amoral?

Please use the edit or multi-quote buttons instead of double posting. ~StoppingTime

Consider how young many of the viewers of pornography really are. Do you not believe that seeing such videos and portrayals may skew their very perception of sex? Saying that it doesn't hurt anyone is quite closed-minded, however, I agree with the statement when speaking of the adult population.

[Gamma Male]

Consider how young many of the viewers of pornography really are. Do you not believe that seeing such videos and portrayals may skew their very perception of sex? Saying that it doesn't hurt anyone is quite closed-minded, however, I agree with the statement when speaking of the adult population.

It is the parents responsibility to regulate what their children watch. Shoukd we ban M rated videogames and R rated movies as well because children might get ahold of them?

[StoppingTime]

Look. I'm not going to change my opinion. I think sex is not art. That is it. Period.

Then you probably shouldn't be posting in a debate forum if you're not willing to change your mind on anything as that kind of defeats the purpose of a debate.

[Plane And Simple]

Then you probably shouldn't be posting in a debate forum if you're not willing to change your mind on anything as that kind of defeats the purpose of a debate.

Okay let me try again. If someone gives me an argument without Subjectiveness, then I may give it a think, but it's not a Change-Nick's-Oppinion's topic is it?

[workingatperfect]

Pornography is a business for one..

First, not all porn is made for profit. A lot of things can be porn. If my boyfriend and I took pictures during sex or even a video, that would be porn. Even if we keep it for ourselves and never sell it or show it.

Second, just because someone makes a profit doesn't mean it isn't art. The music industry is a business pretty much, but music is art still.

Third, if someone writes poems that are really detailed about sex, it's still a poem - an art form, but it's also a form of porn. Erotica is still creative writing. Nude or sexual pictures are still photography. A porno is still a film.

Finally. Not all porn is "dirty." Pictures, wtitings, clips, even the occasional video can depict emotions. Sex can be emotional. It can be beautiful. In certain circumstances sex is a direct act of love and therefore porn that shows that relationship is depicting that bond. So while some porn is just actors in a film, some is real people expressing real feelings. To me, that is art. (For the record, even typical porn is art to me because someone is putting creative effort into it to make it entertaining and aesthetically pleasing)

[Vlerchan]

I think sex is not art.

As I've already explained a pornographic production involves more than just two or more people having sex.

If someone gives me an argument without Subjectiveness [...]

Would you mind pointing out to me whereabouts he subjectivity in my argument is? I can't seem to locate it.

Do you not believe that seeing such videos and portrayals may skew their very perception of sex? Saying that it doesn't hurt anyone is quite closed-minded [...]

How can watching sex 'hurt' anyone?

It may give one unrealistic expectations of what sex is like or (perhaps) devalue the act somewhat though I'm not seeing how this could be termed as 'hurting' them.

[Lovelife090994]

Then you probably shouldn't be posting in a debate forum if you're not willing to change your mind on anything as that kind of defeats the purpose of a debate.

Hearing this from you is scary. No one should be forced to change opinions and a debate or discussion is not to change opinions.

[Gumleaf]

I can give my opinion and say that I don't believe porn to be art. But i'm not artistic minded and others will have different views on that. For the most part I believe people only participate in porn under some sort of duress and not because they want to be involved in the arts (although i'm sure there are exceptions to that). My belief is that if the porn material was created for the sole purpose of giving pleasure to those who view it, it is not art and i'd struggle to accept any argument to the contrary. However, paintings of people nude in a non sexual way and some erotic literature that has a proper storyline I would consider as art and would agree that it serves a purpose as art and not just pleasure to viewers.

[Vlerchan]

No one should be forced to change opinions and a debate or discussion is not to change opinions.

He's not saying that a debate is about forcing another to convert to your opinion but rather that if you're not going to enter a debate without both an a) openness to others opinions and b) willingness to alter your own opinion based on what you learn from the debate then there's little point in debating. The point of a debate actually is to convince your opponent that you hold the more rational or sounder argument; if your opponent is not going to be open to your argument in the first place - either due to bias' or something else entirely - then there's little point debating with them.

[workingatperfect]

He's not saying that a debate is about forcing another to convert to your opinion but rather that if you're not going to enter a debate without both an a) openness to others opinions and b) willingness to alter your own opinion based on what you learn from the debate then there's little point in debating. The point of a debate actualyl is to convince your opponent that you hold the more rational or sounder argument; if your opponent is not going to be open to your argument in the first place - either due to bias' or something else entirely - then there's little point debating with them.

Actually I think the technical point of a debate to convince an audience that your side is more correct than your opponent's. If you go into a debate thinking the other side will probably change your mind, you probably won't do well. Just saying.

[Vlerchan]

Actually I think the technical point of a debate to convince an audience that your side is more correct than your opponent's. If you go into a debate thinking the other side will probably change your mind, you probably won't do well.

In a public debate: sure and this is what I always aim to do. But debates aren't always public.

It should be a goal to convince the opposition of your arguments superiority but not an expectation to do such; that's probably a much better way to phrase what I just said.

[StoppingTime]

Hearing this from you is scary. No one should be forced to change opinions and a debate or discussion is not to change opinions.

I never said anyone should feel forced to change their minds about anything

There's a difference between going into an argument completely close-minded and going into one more open-minded. But open-minded doesn't mean you're going to change your opinions, it simply means you'll consider and respect the opinions of others, which not too many people seem to be doing here.

[The Trendy Wolf]

How can watching sex 'hurt' anyone?

It may give one unrealistic expectations of what sex is like or (perhaps) devalue the act somewhat though I'm not seeing how this could be termed as 'hurting' them.

When using the term "hurt," I am not just referring to physical harm, if that is what you are getting at.

I certainly could see how early exposure to pornography may damage a child's perception of sex and how it should be emotionally charged, and not just about pleasuring themselves, as that is primarily how the majority of pornography portrays sex.

[CosmicNoodle]

I think some kinds of porn can be considered art, for instance, two people going at it in a grotty hotel with a bottle of lube and a vibrator is far from art, but done in a tasteful way I think it can be classified as art.
And should we bad some kinds of porn? So long as it is consensual and is not hurting anyone in any way, or in a way they don't want to be, don't ban it, why ban the most fun stuff? ;)