Something/someone can be regarded as beautiful/attractive/praiseworthy without it moving into the realm of "I want to stick my penis in it."
Art can be beautiful without sex entering into it at all. My favorite photo of my wife is of her coming out of the bathroom after a shower. Towels wrapped around her body and hair, a smile on her face. The picture isn't sexual or sensual. It's not even playful.
It's the woman I love, happy and contented with her life, truly beautiful... without sex being involved in any way. It always reminds me of how much I love her. Let's call this picture (A)
I have many memories of her being just a beautiful, and sex is involved, but she wouldn't want me sharing details. Lets call my favorite of these (B).
You seem to imply that (B) somehow bad, or at least "lesser". It's not. It's just a different kind of beauty. Just because "I want to stick my penis in her", doesn't make the second set "bad".
Well, both make me want to do that, but for different reasons... My point still stands though.
No "proxy of a blow up doll" was more literally an allusion to "anything with(or resembling) a hole will do."
By "anything" do you mean "another beautiful woman in the throes of ecstasy?" Because unless that's what you mean, I can't agree.
While we may not know anything about the woman in the scene other than how she looks, sounds, and acts during the scene, the same is true with Mona Lisa (though you can easily look up facts about either online).
I hate to point out what should be obvious, but Mona Lisa is completely interchangeable with many other women. It's not her real smile that is so famous. It's the techniques Leonardo used to create a painting that are important.
Da Vinci painted Mona Lisa in such a way that the eyes are the center of the viewer's attention and the mouth is the periphery. His sfumato technique ensured that both the eyes and the mouth were prominent features. When the viewer looks at the eyes, the mouth falls under the viewer's peripheral vision and therefore the features of the mouth are not clear, this along with a little shading at the cheek bones make the mouth look like a smile. But once the viewer focuses on the mouth (smile), the smile slowly disappears, as it was not meant to be a smile. That's the magic of Leonardo's skill and that's what made the Mona Lisa unique compared to other grand paintings.
She is literally interchangeable with any woman out there with the correct type of face and smile.
Just like porn stars are mostly interchangeable.
Which isn't a very good place to approach things from if you're giving a person the same amount of regard(or even less) as you would give to a fleshlight.
What are you talking about? Less regard than I'd give a fleshlight? I'm looking for beauty. I'm looking for the sight and sounds of a beautiful woman in the throws of sexual pleasure. That's not an insult to the women involved.
It doesn't imply that she is only good for sex. It doesn't imply that she is an object to be used. It doesn't imply that she is lesser.
It SHOULD be considered a compliment, but obviously our society doesn't look at it that way.
Don't excuse sexist male chauvinist attitudes by saying porn causes it.