You don’t think that porn can exist as the written word?
You can’t redefine pron to suit your preferences.
That’s just trying to justify what you know is wrong.
just read my posts.
i said that my natural instinct was to consider it visual.
but now I get where your coming from.
good to be on message.
sure it can, it’s just not what i think of as porn. it slipped my mind. and most people don’t think of words as porn either. the guy making the video did not think that he was making porn either. Clerks did get an X for language though, but it wasn’t porn. Usually spoken seems more obsenity than porn. I’m not saying that it isn’t porn, just that a lot of people would not think of what he was doing as porn, but as obscenely outrageous comedy. And he wouldn’t think he was doing porn, but comedy. He’s not going to show something on stage that he thinks is porn.
Something wacky happened between the late 70s and now.
Back in the late 70s, we were getting fairly close to nudity on tv. Charlie’s Angels was the classic, but there were a lot of other similar shows. Cheryl Tiegs in SI Swimsuit, pretty much full on topless shot (fishnet). And then some feminist/Christian antiporn alliance came in and changed everything around. Still no breasts. But weird gayness all over the place. I don’t want to see any weird gayness at all (that includes this thing with the kids). But I wouldn’t mind seeing nice breasts on tv, tastefully and whatnot. MTV should ease into nudity after 11pm, and with all that action, they could ease way way back on the gay stuff, and the other depravities. You do not want to know all the crazy stuff there is on tv, but it’s much worse than breasts. And telling you what it is is not what everyone wants.