Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2002 11:02 pm
by DDave
Howdy,
Pander was recently labeled by someone as pornography. I'm interested is all y'all's definition of pornography, and whether you think Pander fits that definition.
Best,
Dave
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2002 11:01 am
by Flareon454
No.
Pander is porno in the same respect that nude-still life is. Its art.
Infact this verges on the question, can cartoons be porno?
I belive that unless its solely created for *that* reason, that it can represent more than just the body. It shows that your vunerable, soul-searching etc.
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2002 8:44 pm
by Blackbox
I think a difference between "Pornography" and "Nudity" must be made. Nudity is more artistic and is viewing the human body in its weakest form, without clothes and other facades (Spelling? Sorry, it's late here.) to hide behind. It's seeing that we are indeed different, and that we are actual people inside and not just models showing off the latest "Tommy Hilfiger" outfit.
On the other hand, porno is graphical sex designed to stimulate the reproductive system.
Pander is kind of a bit of both, but it is much moreso artistic. That's my opinion, anyway.
-Blackbox
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2002 10:16 pm
by Icewing
I don't think that rape is sexy.
Pander is drama, art, whatever.
I'm NOT thinking this is porno.
Pander might be disturbing because of some sexual content, but this is in a completely different way from porn. Pander gets to you because you CARE (well I do anyway) about the protagonist's problems; porn is just disturbing because it's stupid. Stupid is worse than "immoral," which is why I don't like porn... and I guess I like Pander for the opposite reason, because it's intelligent... now I'm babbling without making sense
