The foot fetish argument was a silly one. But in defense of my definition of pornography, I would first point out, so it doesn't seem that I totally pulled it out of thin air, that the Oxford English Dictionary defines pornography as such:
The explicit description or exhibition of sexual subjects or activity in literature, painting, films, etc., in a manner intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings; printed or visual material containing this.
In general I find it a much more useful definition than the one that I often see, and the one that I think ataniell is arguing above, which is an argument about literary or artistic merit and usually goes something like, "If something is literature/art, it's not porn." And determining something's moral acceptability based on something as subjective as "literary merit" is not, in my mind, a useful exercise. In addition, the definition can get very easily turned around: "If it's porn [the meaning her is most likely "sexually explicit"], it's not art."
I think that in this context it's worth separating pornographic sexual content from non-pornographic (for a blatantly obvious example, a human anatomy textbook; most, of course, are more nuanced than that, which is why the definition is not perfect, but then none are). As I stated in my other comment, I think that you're using categories that I find too broad to be useful, which is why the arguments are breaking down (I don't see your comparisons as valid, and you don't see my distinctions as valid).
Re: #5
The explicit description or exhibition of sexual subjects or activity in literature, painting, films, etc., in a manner intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings; printed or visual material containing this.
In general I find it a much more useful definition than the one that I often see, and the one that I think ataniell is arguing above, which is an argument about literary or artistic merit and usually goes something like, "If something is literature/art, it's not porn." And determining something's moral acceptability based on something as subjective as "literary merit" is not, in my mind, a useful exercise. In addition, the definition can get very easily turned around: "If it's porn [the meaning her is most likely "sexually explicit"], it's not art."
I think that in this context it's worth separating pornographic sexual content from non-pornographic (for a blatantly obvious example, a human anatomy textbook; most, of course, are more nuanced than that, which is why the definition is not perfect, but then none are). As I stated in my other comment, I think that you're using categories that I find too broad to be useful, which is why the arguments are breaking down (I don't see your comparisons as valid, and you don't see my distinctions as valid).