What determines whether or not a film is "porn", and

I guess the quality of the work.

File: 1483893071987.jpg (52KB, 500x583px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x583px

>>82456561
If the film uses overt sexuality as a means of saying something/exploring a theme it isn't porn.

If it uses overt sexuality just to appeal to horny teenagers, it's porn.

There's exceptions, but that's basically it.

>>82456561
A 10 minute anecdote about fishing

if it's made by a porn production company?

>that scene of her lustfully admiring the big black cocks of the two lads who just double-penetrated her
jesus christ lars, cool it with the BLACKED porn

>>82457482
But how do you know what the intentions of the creators was?

>>82457486
HAHAHAHAHA I LIVE FOR IT

>>82456561
Artistic merit.

>>82457482
>>82457639
Is there any objective way of knowing though, or is it entirely subjective?

>>82456561
The key phrase is "Prurient intent," as established in the many obscenity trials held on the subject.

>>82457723
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

>>82457723
>>82457562
The intentions of the creator don't matter when making a personal decision on how you view a film. If you view it differently than they intended it's possible they failed to communicate their message effectively.

>>82457903
I think the premise of the OP is a general and not personal evaluation on what is/n't porn.