>>45
For the instruction of any innocent young people who may have wandered onto this board:
Arguing that "high art" is about "pure and noble things" and "not comparable" to "getting your rocks off to a camgirl" is a fairly infallible sign that one is pretty much totally ignorant of "high art", i.e. has seldom if ever read a serious novel or listened to a serious piece of theatre or music theatre in one's life.
The number of significant works of serious art produced in the past three hundred years that DO deal with relations with prostitutes
"Manon Lescaut" in Prevost's and Puccini's versions
Flaubert's "L'Education Sentimentale"
Wedekind's "Buechse der Pandora", and Berg's operatic and Pabst's cinematic adaptations of same
Zola's "Nana" and Godard's adaptation of this into "Vivre sa Vie"
Brecht's "Drei-Groschen-Oper", along with the John Gay original
to name just nine, is equal, if not superior to the number that DON'T.
The scorning of "whores" and the idiot adulation of "art" is the sign of a man who probably knows very little about teh former - or who has been pathetically embittered by what he does know of them - and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the latter.