As defined on Wikipedia "Pornography or porn is the depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer. Pornography makes no claim to artistic merit, unlike erotica which does."
So was that sexually exciting government officials? Can any one normal in mind and body called such pictures as sexaully exciting? I see why we have fools for leaders and sick people who can look at such pictures as sexaully exciting. Perverts!
Someone took pictures which should not be taken and thats true. But what led to such a situation. Women were there and probably the only ones involved in the issue. Do you think one would take a picture of a woman giving birth for pornographic matters? Can anyone who is not MMD even think of calling those pictures as porn? Can any normal human being regard such pictures as porn? That is the worst thing anyone would look at to get sexually excited, but maybe MMD would.
Lets address issues the right way. The picture was unfortunate. MMD's rule is unfortunate. So we need to correct issues the way they should be corrected not hunting people who bring out the wrongs that are happening. What kind of a country is this? You want to kill people who show how government is killing its people? Where are we heading? Government should be blamed for that woman's death. After all, they want people to die so thay can use the 100 hearses to carry them to the resting place and nothing else.
I think its about time that we put our heads together and see what this government considers priority or we will all die. If it means banging their heads to get some sense pumped in, we just have to. I feel for the family and understand why they allowed pictures to be taken of that poor woman. May her soul rest in peace and may God look at RB's government and its deeds.
2 comments:
Your defination of pornography is too restrictive. Consider these two definations
1. sexually explicit material: films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal
2. sexual images industry: the production or sale of sexually explicit films, magazines, or other materials
Microsoft® Encarta® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
I think like your point. And I think the key is the words sexually explicit. Which in one way are used as a euphemism for pornography. And in the other, used to express the nudity or is it obscene in the material?
I think the issue is the distinction of what material is porngraphy. Not what pornography is. That way, we will approach the issue from an angel which alot of us will agree on.
Pornography is obviously material which are sexually exciting not just any Genitalia material. The pictures in question are not meant to sexually excite, they are of genitalia but not porn. So if they took the issue as oscene, we woul look at it differently. But I think the issue is to label them porn so the state forces can be used to silence people. That is what I know the idea to be.
Thanks for the observation, I felt I should add that so we see the restriction used to handle the issue.
Post a Comment