| > Such images are shown in books about human sexuality, or sex guides. The purpose of those books is not to tittilate in an erotic sense, but to provide information or education. How-to sex guides and the like are not appropriate for a high school library. > To go further, almost everyone agrees that a cartoon of a man and woman having sex in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation is not necessarily pornographic; this is a standard sort of picture in age appropriate sex education materials. Is it? I don't recall having been shown anything like that. And I would say a cartoon of two characters having sex and showing penetration would necessarily be pornographic. A medical illustration wouldn't (think stiff, cutaway diagram, narrowly focused on the necessary parts), but that's not a "cartoon." > Granted, these images concern sexual reproduction. However this only makes me question why people deem that image appropriate, but images of other positions or acts not worthy of learning about in other contexts. I think you need to figure out the difference between sex education and a sex guide on your own. You're playing fast and loose with categories, and getting yourself tied in knots as a result. |
I wasn't saying they necessarily are; I was saying that such a representation isn't necessarily pornographic.
>Is it? I don't recall having been shown anything like that.
I do, even if it was many years ago.
>I think you need to figure out the difference between sex education and a sex guide on your own.
I have figured it out; the fact is that there is a continuum of representations of sex between a cut-out diagram of the interior anatomy of a penis penetrating the interior anatomy of a vagina, a diagram showing how a condom is applied, a picture of one adult on top of another in a book in a "How are Babies Made" sort of book for children, and showing how sex with a strap-on works. I don't see any reason to consider any of these necessarily pornographic - as all lack the primary intention to titillate.