I am not extending my argument to say the “Glamour” magazine George Costanza jerked off to and caused his mother to be subsequently hospitalized was porn. But remember the definition: “writings, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement .” The key word there is “designed.” In other words, it’s a matter of intent on the part of the producer who enters into a compact with the viewer and that makes it stroke material.
You left an important clause out of your definition there.
In order to be considered pornographic the material concerned has to be of an erotic or sexual nature. Unless you want to insist that any form of combat between females is, by definition, erotic or sexual, which is clearly not the case, then making assumptions about the intent of the producer is not enough.
You have to look at the content of the material.
If a producer is filming and selling none topless wrestling or catfighting videos in which no sexual activity whatsoever takes place - just pure fighting or wrestling - then he or she cannot be held responsible, either legally or morally, for what happens in the minds - or the crotches - of the people who watch them.
I actually remember hearing Dana White say much the same thing when asked what he thought about the fact that many gay men regard his shows as erotic entertainment.
The reason why TUFF came to grief, BTW, was not because of the content of their videos, but because they were selling them via clips4sale, which is known as a vendor of porn.
I understand the point you are making though, and no way am I going to deny that the only reason I watch femfight material is because I get a sexual thrill from doing so.
What I am saying is that, to the ordinary man on the train, the suspicion that one of his fellow passengers might be getting a sexual thrill from watching something which has the sanction of mainstream acceptance would probably be of no concern, whereas something else might.
