Q a few days ago seems to have aroused some discussion among visitors and regular readers as to what truly constitutes porn. Which I must admit surprised me - this blog has scarcely gone out of its way to avoid porn over the years; how strange that controversy arises when I turn my attention to something that isn't pornographic?
So perhaps we need to establish what we mean by the word "pornography."
For some people, the presence of non-simulated sex automatically renders a film pornographic, regardless of the presentation itself. And presumably this extends to other art forms too - paintings, photographs, sculpture, the frescos excavated from the remains of Pompeii - until all depictions of sex, whatever the motives behind their creation, are swept under the derogatory carpet of "porn." Because it is a derogatory term, one which ensures that nothing the creator says can defend or even justify his work in the eyes of the "majority."
Or perhaps "pornography" is simply any gratuitous exhibition that the exhibitor knows and intends step outside of the societal norm, and that can encompass anything from a true XXX movie (and anyone who describes Q as XXX material clearly hasn't watched much... if any) to a banker publicizing his latest bonus.
It is intent, not content, that defines pornography, and Q falls as far from that criteria as any other movie themed towards an adult audience... which is very different to an adult movie. I agree that there is a need for appropriate terminology, for Q and for those other movies that have stepped into similar waters. But please, keep "pornography" out of it.
We're meant to be clearing the waters, not muddying them further.
Win With We Three Kings!
9 months ago