I'm, uh, I'm glad I stayed away from this one. I guess.
Saying as though the definition of pornography is something that is made purely for sexual arousal, not artistic value, then a lot of music would not fit that definition, case closed. However, if an artist's attire, attitude, etc. are meant to provoke lust, and only lust, and it has nothing to do with the artistic value of their music or character, then I could see it fit a definition of being pornographic. That does not happen very often though, and I can't remember the last time any music gave me a boner, so I can't say I've had to avoid anything for being overtly sexual before.
A better question would be whether or not we dismiss a certain artist's talent based on how they look. I find that many people (perhaps not on here) regard those who are 'more attractive' as people who are incapable at having any other talent at all, particularly (women) in the film industry. Has there ever been an artist you're all like 'they're too attractive/sexual to be considered cool'?
There have definitely been cases in recent memory where the artistic quality of overtly sexual material has come up... when Elfriede Jelinek won the Nobel there was an uproar. I find no issue in oversexualization in the music industry as long as the music's good. Someone like Prince definitely comes to mind, perhaps Iggy Pop, Mick Jagger, etc...
And Britney's definitely had more misses than hits, but Toxic's still a banger. _________________ Doubles & Conch
RockyRaccoonIs it solipsistic in here or is it just me?ModeratorProfile Maryland
Even though it was an honest question from someone clearly expressing his acknowledged limitations of his own knowledge base, and wanting to expand his understanding?
Geez, if you weren't so quick to get your panties in a bunch, you might have actually been able to help enlighten someone who was looking for enlightenment, and to bring some understanding to others who need it.
But rather, you chose to act hurt and just perpetuate a stereotype by being yet another victim/drama queen.
If Gowi doesn't want to talk about something personal, he doesn't have to full stop, nor should you or anyone else disparage him for doing so.
I would appreciate it if we kept this on topic and away from personally attacking other members here. _________________ Progressive Rock
Even though it was an honest question from someone clearly expressing his acknowledged limitations of his own knowledge base, and wanting to expand his understanding?
Geez, if you weren't so quick to get your panties in a bunch, you might have actually been able to help enlighten someone who was looking for enlightenment, and to bring some understanding to others who need it.
But rather, you chose to act hurt and just perpetuate a stereotype by being yet another victim/drama queen.
If Gowi doesn't want to talk about something personal, he doesn't have to full stop, nor should you or anyone else disparage him for doing so.
I would appreciate it if we kept this on topic and away from personally attacking other members here.
I agree 100%. If he doesn't want to discuss it, that should be the end of it. The problem arises when he jumps into calling the question offensive when it wasn't inherently offensive and he just chose to receive it as such. I tire of people jumping straight to playing the victim when no attack was offered.
Rant over. I'll stay on topic from this point forward.
RockyRaccoonIs it solipsistic in here or is it just me?ModeratorProfile Maryland
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Tap
Tha1ChiefRocka
Hayden
RockyRaccoon
Fischman
