your comment "why shouldnt people be able to watch porn on their front porches," or somesuch. thats where you were bordering on anarchy. why should they? because it has to do with sex? everything that has to do with sex is ok?
you said: "and the fact remains that these people who campaign against pornography lable anything where people are naked, or engauged in intimate activity as 'porn';"
i agree. but thats not what i'm talking about.
you said: "an important step I feel is separating nudity from sex first of all, and then the different degrees of intimacy from sex, and then deciding base on the norms and values of that society what in that spectrum is approtriate and inappropriate to broadcast publically, but not condem the whole practice as obsene or indecent;"
i agree. but thats not what i'm talking about, and i have not condemned the whole practice as obscene or indecent.
you're trying to expand the argument. i'm not. you stated your opinion about porn in cars and you tried to attach to it the very reasonable disagreement with the religious right opposing all indecency. that is what i'm arguing. only that. and i'm saying that if you argue the opposition to indecency using the argument that it's ok for kids to see porn then you're going to screw up the issue. because it's not ok for kids to watch porn. it would screw them up even more.
again, just because it has to do with sex doesnt make it ok for everyone to watch.