I'd say there are a lot of good arguments for why pornography, or at least the public distribution thereof, could be made illegal, and it seems that many countries in the West are beginning to regulate internet pornography more strictly lately.
Some arguments I find interesting:
1. One argument is that an actor in a pornographic film doesn't have the physical ability to consent to being viewed by strangers on the internet, therefore a 'contract' of consent to a porn company is null and void; and a person viewing a stranger in a sexual situation would typically be criminally charged under laws such as voyeurism laws; therefore viewing internet pornography is the same as voyeurism, and therefore could be made illegal to view or distribute.
2. Likewise, an argument could be made that producing or viewing pornography violates the property rights of one's body, and while legally a body is one's living property, much like a horse one owns, one isn't legally allowed to do "anything" they want to it in practice; for example one can't legally give a person written permission to murder you and have them escape murder charges.
So using these facts, a case could be made that producing pornography for the viewing of strangers is permitting them to engage in a property rights violation against one's body, and therefore could be illegal regardless of one's consent.
I think these arguments have good philosophical bases, and apparently the trend in the West is to begin cracking down on internet pornography, so it will be interesting to see where this trend leads; likewise the popularity of 'amateur' pornography seems to be helping to drive commercial pornography out of business, much as internet piracy has more or less done CD music, so it'll be interesting to see the direction things go.
Hopefully not an excessive backlash like the Victorian Era of England, or the rise of the Ayatollah in Iran following the Shah's removal from power, but if society on the whole is showing signs of backlash against the more uncultured and sub-literati elements in mass culture, a la internet pornography and lots of "quasi-pornography" which doesn't meet any artistic merit despite barely being over the 'legal' threshold, this may be a good thing.
Well you've got an actual artist telling you that you're wrong about art and you nonetheless argue, and you've got an actual lawyer telling you that you're wrong about law and you nonetheless argue, so you can see why the evolutionary biologist wouldn't be particularly motivated to explain anything to you.
And a writer can self publish a book of any sort as well, at little to no cost to themselves. So should we take your word that as a published author you have the authority here?
Fact is, as an artist myself, just because you don't see something as artistic doesn't mean it's not art, and is not a defensible position. You can not defend an opinion.
Please post a link to this book that you've published. I'd be quite interested in it...
And the funniest part is that most so-called experts on art are generally talking out of their asses:
Read that last one carefully. It's pretty clear. So-called experts are prone to over-valuing exclusivity, elitism and snobbism OVER ACTUAL AESTHETICS.
Art experts are simply proponents of their own opinions which, as Liam pointed out, usually contradict one another (there is very little consensus among art experts) and, as I pointed out, are mostly BS since art experts are actually biased against aesthetics and beauty, and towards exclusivity, elitism, prestige, etc.
And you're calling me a troll??
How is your post forwarding your argument at all? You're only diminishing any logical statements you may have made by outright attacking folks on a personal level..
Why don't you post a link to "your" book so that we can evaluate your credentials as a published author??
It sure is!
"Pornography isn't considered art for example, because it appeals to the more visceral, unevovled senses (like that of any animal), as opposed to the more evolved, creative senses (like that of reason and aesthetics)."
Opinion / assumption; not fact.
Well sorry, but if a person's arguing that "it's entirely subjective" then that immediately strikes as ignorant even on a layman's level.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
-Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, 1878
...but of course some people have 20/200 vision, and others 20/20, so not every beholder's eye is created equal.
So ignorant statements like that make me think you don't have any actual knowledge of aesthetic theory, and simply being a "published artist" in America isn't hard, since by the loosest definition, Insane Clown Posse are published music "artists", but of course are a far cry away from Beethoven or Mozart in terms of actual artistry.
As far as credentials goes, I've read various literature such as "A History of Art and Music" by Joseph Kirman, and I'm a published writer, though I'm not sure of exactly where the fine line between published writing and published art is.
Even aesthetic philosophers disagree, and have done so for centuries.
The Dadaist movement alone proved that beauty didn't have anything to do with art.
You have read a few books. I have taken a dozen college level courses, both on design and art theory, as well as the philosophy, and given lectures on the subject, worked as an art director and photographer (for 20+ years), and I would never assume someone random in a forum I was relatively new to, knew less than I did on the subject. Much less that they knew so little as to not comment meaningfully.
e.g. Check yourself. Before you wreck yourself.