So commercial and political propaganda can only use emotionally neutral, flat, boring, test pattern pix?
Why is it deplorable to sell pix of pretty girls or hot boys to titillate and excite and get money for doing so? Exploiting the performers is one thing, but why is this a special sacred nonmarket realm? (In contrast, the sale of honors makes no sense.) Because it's sex? Do we recall what is the second oldest profession? Seem to me that this Victorian prejudice buys into the virgin/whore stereotypes we ought to be resisting.
Porn is or can be fun. It can also be a way to make a living. It can be exploitative, but hell, this is capitalism, what isn't? So you fight for better conditions for sex workers. Unless one is going to go all Networking.
--- Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> Doug:
>
> -
> On May 28, 2007, at 2:20 PM, joanna wrote:
>
> > half porn
>
> So? What's wrong with that?
>
>
> [WS:] Porn is a quintessential scheme of
> transforming emotions into a lure
> for crass profiteering - which is deplorable. Ditto
> for any other attempts
> to use emotionally charged pictures as mere
> signifiers in commercial or
> political propaganda (cf Roland Barthes,
> _Mythologies_).
>
> Wojtek
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/