I don't have any clear line at all, and I don't think one exists. It depends on the intention of the director - if it's just to show life naturally even a film with explicit sex could be non-pornographic, not that I'd say an age limit shouldn't be applied. e.g. to take books, I'd class The Unbearable Lightness of Being or Lady Chatterly's Lover as non porn, even if they're more explicit than a Mills and Boon novel (ok, they're probably not - never got round to reading one!)
Quite
Reminds me of the scene with the "mammaries" in The Aviator. There's no clear distinction, but I don't think Playboy Casino falls into a grey area.
I again appreciate the responses, sans any derogatory verbage, and I hope I presented the actual questions likewise. This is how it could be in these forums, disagreement whilst still openly discussing ideas. Two people with different viewpoints will obviously learn more from each other than two people who share the same opinion, but only if they agree to speak civily. I whole-heartedly appreciate the reduction of tone, and hopefully my reciprocation is welcomed on your end.
As to the issue, one thing I have learned from this thread is, this seems to be as ambiguous as a discussion of religion. I feel, and have always felt, that the line between nudity and porn is as simple as saying whether a car is white or red in color. I understand that some religious folks move the bar much closer to porn, but they also seem to have a clear understanding in their mind. However, you are saying there is a "grey" area. My understanding of a grey area is that each case would have to be examined and a determination made. This works well for the individual, but some body of thought and legislation would have to clarify all of these cases. Clearly politicians have tried to even ban some forms of art, as well as specific pieces of art as pornographic (although these politicians are usually pushed quite heavily by religious fundamentalists). They say they are saving us from ourselves...
If you say that it is best left up to each individual to define his or her grey area, then unfortunately that will at some point get abused, and often does. There is never a shortage of those who will always test the line in the sand for their 15 seconds of fame, so we do need definitions. Your thoughts on this would be of interest... how do you legislate or control that grey area if it is so subjective and sensitive from one individual to another?
While you ponder that, and hopefully find time to respond, I'll just say that from my own personal upbringing, Playboy has always been much much closer to art, than say, Hustler or Penthouse...
Therefore the nudity contained in Playboy (the magazine) has never been considered porn of any sorts to me or anyone I have spoken to about it. One can argue that Playboy postured for business and acceptance, but their own stance and PR has generally tilted towards artform rather than any sort of pornography. Their entire brand relies
heavily on avoiding a relationship with porn. However, they do promote soft-porn out of general public consumption with videos and pay-per-view or subscription television channels. Larry Flynt, on the other hand, openly markets his product as pornographic and is quite proud of that. Again, differences arise which makes one wonder...
Will real pornography ever be defined? Probably not, if thousands of years of it have come and gone, and here we are in the 21st century still discussing it.
- Keith