Anyway, recently, the property was bought by some church, apparently because you haven't seen Davey and Goliath until you've seen Davey and Goliath on the JumboTron.
Anyway, when they took ownership of the property, they found BOXES and BOXES of porn. Which, ha! So, they burned it. Because they're a church
Anyway, the interviewer, whose name is escaping me, fully called him out on Nazis burning books, and what, prey tell, is the difference, HMMMM?! And he blathered moralistically for a while without answering the question, mostly boiling down to the fact that they didn't wan anyone to see it, so what else were they gonna do with it, which, uh, Porn/Erotica historians and/or people who study sexuality, DUH.
Whatever. But it got me thinking. I mean, our justice system has tried (and FAILED) to distinguish a bright line between what is porn and what is art; what is prurient and what is pure. And there is no line. Because things by definitions cross over that line in either direction depending on the mores of the time, and whether or not you happen to agree with the point of view of the artist/producer of the piece. I'm not going so far as to say all porn is art, but if we can't actually define the difference between the nudes painted for supposedly artistic purposes and porn, then what's to say they didn't just burn the porn Mona Lisa? Like, maybe in 3000 years this will be like that Greek poet of which we have like 3 lines, but he was universally considered by his contemporaries as the greatest master of the form.
I dunno. Just thoughts. You know.
0 comments:
Post a Comment