[Milton-L] Re: porno vs. art?

BlevinsJake at aol.com BlevinsJake at aol.com
Tue Nov 29 13:35:08 EST 2005


Of course, once again the problem using specific characteristics to 
characterize something as porn or not is . . . well, problematic. If the presence of 
real humor frees something from the label of porn, then half of the pornographic 
film produced would certainly have to be called something else. 50% of 
so-called porn movies out there are explicitly meant to be funny (the annual porn 
awards in Los Angeles has a best "comedy" award category). I was flipping 
through channels late one night and on Cinemax I saw a film coming on called "Lord 
of the G-Strings." I admit I was intrigued and watched the first 20 minutes or 
so. The entire thing was a truly hilarious--albeit silly--parody of Lord of 
the Rings (There was a special "g-string" out there that "ruled all," a group of 
female warriors who would help the "throbbits" of the shire. It was really, 
really funny--but it was most certainly what one would call pornography. (When 
I was a teenager, I also remember see a movie that was a similar parody on the 
Beverly Hill Billies). I don't think humor makes or breaks the "pornographic" 
label and if fact humor has become a characteristics the porn film industry.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20051129/4313c4a6/attachment.htm

More information about the Milton-L mailing list