Russian oligarch's girlfriend sparks MLK day firestorm after posing on naked 'black woman' chair for

[redqueen]

114. I said the OVERREACTION was ignorant, not you.

How about you hop down off that cross?

No, You actually did call it porn based on you own words. You can deny it after the fact all you want, but it's there in black and white.

Ehh, actually, no. Allow me to demonstrate.

#

1 "it's porny". So far so good, you're entitled to view it that way. Would have been fine if you had stopped there, but...

It is that way. Call it "erotica-ish" if you like euphemisms, but it is what it is.

#2 "it's about sex". Hmm. Art, sex, "porny", sure seems like your infer it's "porn". I don't know, shall we look a little further? OK, let's...

No, you inferred I was saying, 'its porn' but I didn't. I didn't imply it was porn, either.

#3 "See, porn is a magical medium". Wait a minute, did you just change the subject? Are we now discussing "Debbie Does Dallas"? No, you never made that distinction, this post was entirely about the piece of art depicted in the OP and never veered from it.

This is where you veered wildly off track. I mentioned porn here in the effort to explain why this chair would be defended if it was presented as porn and not art. As art, it gets dozens of DUers lining up to say that its awful and racist and sexist. If you posted that same image as porn, it might get hidden by a jury, but most DUers would be lining up to defend it.

It's a comparison, see? Between two different things: this 'art', and porn. Cause they're two different things. Is this getting clearer now?

So here's my issue with your post. You used it to rant about porn (which you're entitled to do by the way), but then you throw in the dig about "liberal principles no longer apply". Now based on your body of work here on DU, my "kneejerk" reaction is not that you are referring to your own liberal principles, but those of your fellow DU members who do not feel as you do regarding porn. The funny thing is, nobody defended this piece in this thread for what it is. You choose to make it about porn and use that to backhandedly chastise people who disagree with your position

LOL, "rant", nice characterization.

The FACT is, racist, misogynist shit is defended in porn here.

Remeber the rape porn threads? Are you telling me that this CHAIR THAT LOOKS LIKE a woman being bound and sat on as 'art' is somehow more offensive than videos OF ACTUAL WOMEN BEING BRUTALIZED? Why? Because if they consent, that makes it ok to promote rape as something that should be captured on film and sold / shared?

Inanimate objects (such as chairs) can't be humiliated. Yet somehow this image of a chair is more offensive than racist porn, rape porn, etc.

I'm not "chastising" anyone. I'm making an analogy in order to make people think about why certain things are defensible if depicted in porn, but not as furniture/'art'.

If you don't like the point I'm making well good for you. It's not going to stop me.