At 06:06 PM 1/24/97 -0500, Ben Kosse wrote:

JH>Define "perverted".
JH>You can't.  Your definition may not be the same as my definition of
perverted.
JH>You have no right to impose your morals on me, as I have no right to impose
JH>my morals on you.
JH>In other words, if you don't like it, don't read it.

RL>Do you see?  You may consider that fanfic in bad taste.  I don't.  So
RL>the question remains open:  whose standards should we try to live up
RL>to?  Not yours.  Not mine.  It is up to each person to write what they
RL>want.  There is no way to establish an objective set of standards about
RL>taste, so don't even try.  Live and let live.

    Would you support a picture of a 10-year old girl eating the shit of a
man deficating on her face while a 12-year old boy pissed all over her?
What if it
was obviously not taken of a willing girl?
    Jeanne and Richard, is that good taste?
    Now, obviously if such a picture was taken and released, the photographer
thought it had some sort of artistic merit. Would you support it on those
grounds? (The picture described above is, I hope, fictional)

What you describe sounds much like the "infamous" Robert Maplethorpe photo
exhibition.  Some called them pornography (most prominently, the city
government of Cincinnati, Ohio).  Others called them art (most prominent art
critics in the US).

Your scenario is a call of personal judgement and taste.  How do you know
the girl was not willing?  If her unwillingness was some physical expression
on her part, seen in the photo, how do you know she was not acting as part
of the photo's scenario?

I may not personally like it, but unless I know the circumstances of the
photograph being taken, I'm not going to fry the photographer.



Jeanne Hedge
http://www.accsyst.com/jhedge/