Is there even a (mostly) universally agreed upon definition of "art" in academic circles? I honestly don't know but that would seem to be a reasonable standard for definition. And as for David's question, But what difference does it make!? Why must we moralize what we enjoy doing! I'm not sure that anyone in this particular conversation is moralizing anything. However, you may intend this simply as a rhetorical question not directed at anyone to which my answer would be, "I don't know the reason why (although there are many theories), but I know that seems to be a normal characteristic of human beings." Other thoughts: We (just humans in general) often define things that are destructive or hurtful as immoral. I can certainly think of reasons why 'lust' could be considered evil/destructive/hurtful although those who thought so would err in that they would attribute to lust what should more accurately be attributed to the human response to lust. It is in our best intereest to identify things that are destructive or hurtful so we can avoid them. Sadly when it comes to some things we blame the stimulus rather than the response. If, as so many believe, marriage is a sacred (or at least a good) thing, shouldn't depictions of things that are considered good and moral within its context be considered good and moral? In other words why would it be considered immoral to depict a married man boffing his own wife? Isn't that supposed to be a good and right thing?

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/