The Instigator
shakuntala
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
j4k3
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Can this work be considered pornography

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
j4k3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2015 Category: Arts
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 500 times Debate No: 68379
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

shakuntala

Con

Can this work be considered pornography

https://www.scribd.com...
j4k3

Pro

Now you have to be careful with your choice of words. You asked 'can this work be CONSIDERED pornography'

Pornography by definition is a PRINTED or visual material containing the explicit DESCRIPTION or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement.

Do does this piece of poetry that you put to us contain printed material describing or mentioning sexual organs? Yes it does. I quote 'smooth like lovers lips to each other those c*** lips seek each other to embrace ah those curving lips softer than incenses fragrant smoke'

Now I am not going to comment on the appalling sentence structure, language and all round ability of this poem to keep me engaged (and certainly give me an erection, that didn't happen, unfortunately). I mean I am no poem lover but talk about bizarre. HOWEVER, what we do see here from the quotation above and from several other passages in the poem is a clear description (albeit subtle) of what I can only assume be be, lesbian sex, (c*** lips seek each other) and at the very least a clear mention of a female sex organ. This of course reverberates the definition that I provided above for what is considered to be pornography.

I can only assume that by including these certain erotic descriptions that the author intended to elicit some amount of sexual response from the reader. I mean why else include such thing. This further enforces the fact that this poem is living up to the very definition of what pornography is.

This poem DOES include the description and mention of a sexual organ, MULTIPLE times.
This poem DOES include what I believe to be sexual activity (not matter how subtly or hidden among terrible language)
This poem WAS I believe written to induce a sexual response from the reader (granted to a minor extent, but none the less, the sexual descriptions are there)

I don't know how my opponent is going to argue his case. I suspect he will insist that the language used in the book was not intended to be used in a sexual way and that I am misinterpreting the nature of what is going on in the poem. HOWEVER, I am not the author, I am a reader, and I will respond according to what I can see of the poem and what I understand of certain words and phrases, and I see such phrases as pornographic in nature. I mean Ron Jeremy could come up to you and say 'No this video where I am f****** a girl up the a** is not pornographic, it is art, you are misinterpreting it' - Uhm no, I am sorry Ron, saying it's art does not subtract from the fact that it is also in fact pornography.

And remember, my opponent asked, can this work be CONSIDERED pornography. It can indeed, whether the author intended so or not.

This poems content IS congruent with the definition of pornography. It is therefore, just that, pornography. Simple as that.

I am not saying that the poem is as hardcore or as hot as Lexi Belle's latest video, that it is certainly not. But it can definitely be considered pornographic albeit in it's most minor form.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Con

I will show-giving a definition of erotic-that this poem is not pornography but it is erotic

pro says
"Pornography by definition is a PRINTED or visual material containing the explicit DESCRIPTION or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual "

but that is the definition of erotic
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
"erotic
(=8;G2;r;4;t=8;k)
adj
1. of, concerning, or arousing sexual desire or giving sexual pleasure
2. marked by strong sexual desire or being especially sensitive to sexual stimulation"

so I say the poem is not pornography but it is erotic
j4k3

Pro

Well I am saddened to see that you have not even bothered rebutting many of the points that I made supporting this poem to be indeed pornography, which leads me to believe that you concede these points in argument.

The only rebuttal you gave was concerning the definition of erotic, in which you stated is the same definition as the one I provided for 'pornography' bringing you to your rather tenuous conclusion that this poem is therefore 'erotic' rather than 'pornographic' in nature - It is a shame to see that you have totally either failed to fully understand the definition that I provided, misinterpreted it or are being purposely obstinate to proliferate you own argument which I have already fully debunked.

The definition which I gave regarding 'pornography' was indeed different to the one which you provided for 'erotic' because it entails the 'PRINTED or visual material containing the explicit DESCRIPTION or display of SEXUAL ORGANS OR ACTIVITY' - This is the bit that you so conveniently disregarded.

You are right in that the definition given to 'erotic' is indeed synonymous with the content of the poem, just as is the definition of 'pornography' - Therefore this poem is indeed erotic, as it is also 'pornographic' - This poem therefore could be CONSIDERED pornography. Simple as that.

Your feeble argument that because the poem is erotic it cannot therefore be pornographic in nature is laughable. Tell me is a porn film not erotic but also pornographic at the same time?
Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Con

pro says

"You are right in that the definition given to 'erotic' is indeed synonymous with the content of the poem, just as is the definition of 'pornography' - Therefore this poem is indeed erotic, as it is also 'pornographic' - This poem therefore could be CONSIDERED pornography. Simple as that."

so pro admits that this work by Australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean is erotic
"Therefore this poem is indeed erotic"
but he also admits could be called pornographic
but says any way
it
" CONSIDERED pornography. Simple as that."

so I ask which is it
erotic or pornographic

is pro saying
that
a pornographic work is erotic
and
an erotic work is pornographic
is pro saying that erotic is a synonym for pornography and vice versa

what we get from pro is that deans work is erotic and pornographic simultaneously

so voter it is up to you
is a pornographic work is erotic
and
an erotic work is pornographic
is erotic a synonym for pornography and vice versa

if erotic is different to pornographic

then I must win the debate as pro admits the work is erotic
j4k3

Pro

Con says
so I ask which is it
erotic or pornographic

Con also says
what we get from pro is that deans work is erotic and pornographic simultaneously

There is your answer. I don't understand why you find it SO hard to grasp that a piece of poetry can be both erotic AND pornographic. The two are not synonyms as you try to imply, they are simply related and can coincide with each other in a piece of poem or a movie. Why can't you understand that?

Further more Con says:
if erotic is different to pornographic
then I must win the debate as pro admits the work is erotic

Well how pathetic, we can easily swap this around and proclaim that I win because I also admit that the work is pornographic, therefore (in your own mind it cannot also be erotic)

BUT, this stuff isn't even important. We must all remember the essence of the debate and in particular the wording used.

Con asked 'Can this work be CONSIDERED' pornography.

Note the word considered. Con is asking if somewhere, someone out there could possibly CONSIDER this piece to be pornographic. I would agree that perhaps many would prefer to call the poem 'erotic' but by the simple fact that the definition of pornography in in fact synonymous with the poems content the likelihood of there being people out there who might consider this poem pornographic is undebatable.

Can this poem be CONSIDERED pornographic? Of course it bloody well can, by some.

Con is not asking if this piece of work would be CATEGORIZED in the industry as 'erotic' or 'pornographic' - He/she is asking if it could possibly be CONSIDERED pornographic, he has not defined by whom and thus this remains open to people in general.

And indeed, obviously, anyone with an iota of intelligence can see that the poem could indeed be considered pornographic purely as a result of the link between definition and content.

Essentially Con has shot him/herself in the foot as a result of his/her poor choice of wording when creating the debate. If con was alluding to categorization of such a poem he should have said so.

There are some people out there who would indeed CONSIDER this work pornography. It is that simple. Debate over.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Hehe, I found it slightly repetitive.
Posted by shakuntala 1 year ago
shakuntala
hi Emilrose did you like the poem chushing
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
This again?
Posted by shakuntala 1 year ago
shakuntala
just take the challenge and I will debate that this work is not pornography
Posted by PapaNolan 1 year ago
PapaNolan
This is not a debate
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Yee
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tweka 1 year ago
Tweka
shakuntalaj4k3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments are not refuted at all.