First, let me say that while you complain that I have an annoying habit of shifting the debate to topics that you didn’t speak of, let me say that you have this annoying habit of changing the debate to topics that I didn’t speak of. For instance, when I was talking about the Power Girl cover and MJ statuette, you shifted the conversation to the more extreme HFH cover. Now, when we are talking about the HFH cover, you are shifting it to some other covers that are no longer in mainstream comics, aren’t even produced by Marvel or DC, aren’t superhero comics, to my knowledge aren’t marketed to kids, and for all I know are the covers of porn comics. I’m not going to talk about them because they are too far outside my experience for me make an intelligent comment.
In regard to the HFH cover, the definition you supplied for pornography was “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.” OK, I can go for that. But the HFH cover is “a depiction of violent behavior in pictures intended to cause sexual excitement.” It is not depicting erotic behavior. You are eroticizing violent behavior. In order for it to be pornography, the behavior should be sexual in nature. Most of the definitions I’ve seen use the term “explicitly sexual.” The HFH cover is “implicitly sexual.” Implied sexuality is not porn. I saw an old Joe Schuster glamour shot of Lois in the book “Men of Tomorrow” where she is a negligee and looking back over her shoulder with smoldering bedroom eyes. It is absolutely a depiction of a behavior in a picture intended to cause sexual excitement, but I don’t believe the behavior is erotic enough to rise (or lower) to the point that we can call it pornography. Porn, in the definition of most people, is explicitly sexual, not just implicitly sexual. I’ll give you that the cover is to a degree sexual imagery. I would even say that the people who wrote the article you linked to would say that it is sexualized imagery. But it is not pornography. It is similar to the covers that are on real tentacle porn, but let’s fact it, if someone bought this and expected to find hentai, he’s going to be disappointed because while this has the tentacles, it does not have the porn.
no subject
In regard to the HFH cover, the definition you supplied for pornography was “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.” OK, I can go for that. But the HFH cover is “a depiction of violent behavior in pictures intended to cause sexual excitement.” It is not depicting erotic behavior. You are eroticizing violent behavior. In order for it to be pornography, the behavior should be sexual in nature. Most of the definitions I’ve seen use the term “explicitly sexual.” The HFH cover is “implicitly sexual.” Implied sexuality is not porn. I saw an old Joe Schuster glamour shot of Lois in the book “Men of Tomorrow” where she is a negligee and looking back over her shoulder with smoldering bedroom eyes. It is absolutely a depiction of a behavior in a picture intended to cause sexual excitement, but I don’t believe the behavior is erotic enough to rise (or lower) to the point that we can call it pornography. Porn, in the definition of most people, is explicitly sexual, not just implicitly sexual. I’ll give you that the cover is to a degree sexual imagery. I would even say that the people who wrote the article you linked to would say that it is sexualized imagery. But it is not pornography. It is similar to the covers that are on real tentacle porn, but let’s fact it, if someone bought this and expected to find hentai, he’s going to be disappointed because while this has the tentacles, it does not have the porn.