|
Another fine message from the rec.arts.movies.erotica reading room...
[Prev][Next][Subject][Thread] Re: RFD: rec.arts.movies.erotica moderated
Talking Head ([email protected]) wrote: : You plan to: : > relegate discussion of the morality of erotic : > movies to a.s.m. while preserving r.a.m.e. as a forum for the : > discussion of the movies themselves. : If I may say so, this part troubles me greatly. We have an : opportunity here to construct an intellectual framework for porn : (no I don't think that's self-contradictory). : If you limit discussion to gossip, reviews and the like, this : proposed group will be little more than an internet fan magazine. : Porn movies are an art form and a suitable subject for serious : discussion. See Brad's comments... BUT, I think the statement in the RFD was intended (although perhaps poorly worded) to indicate that r.a.m.e would not be discussing whether porn or other erotic motion pictures should exist. The Christian Fundamentalist's or MacKinnonite's assertion that erotic movies should be banned because (whatever) is not an appropriate subject for the group. However, if a poster wishes to discuss the appropriateness of certain images in erotic films--say, rape scenes, racist themes or images or marketing schemes, or product placement [like Karl Thomas taking a Budweiser bottle up his ass :) ]--or other "problems" with porn which do not reach to porn's very existence, then I would think it'd be a FULLY appropriate topic for a post. Again, I'd say that a.s.m. STILL remains an outlet for posts which might be rejected. But to be honest, I for one (as a proposed moderator) would never reject a post UNLESS it's intent were blatantly, obviously, facially to attack the very existence of erotic film. As the RFD says, the INTENT of the moderators is to AVOID moderation--not to seek it out. :) See ya... Tim -- References:
|