Slug monitor brings up an interesting distinction.. that between art and the real world (or men, in that case). Maybe I am biased because I spend so much of my life either making images or appreciating them. If I am honest with myself, there isn't a lot of difference. Show me a picture of an apple and I will salivate. Clearly, there is a world of difference between an apple and a picture of an apple, but my response is the same. If there was such a clear distinction, why does somebody like Eli Langer get in trouble with the law (in Canada, of all liberal places!?) for drawings of children being lewd, when in reality, the kids were all in his head.
Its really sobering for me to think about what powerful proxies images can be. Jesus (speaking to men, of course) says that when you look at a woman with lust, its just as sinful as actually having sex with her. But then again, he didn't say pictures of women. but is there a difference? Would we make art if it was impotent? Isn't that the attraction? To make a piece of reality, to be creator?