Not presented (and hence why I didn't even bother responding to this the first time): an explanation for how that definition of "intent" prevents it from being paired with the word "subconscious", and an explanation of when, exactly, Hard-Light Productions became a court of law, or alternatively, how you can make any categorical statements about philosophy.
The subconscious, or to do something subconsciously, is to do it without awareness. Intent or intention is with purpose, plan, or a given aim. The two are mutually exclusive. You cannot form a purpose, plan, or aim without being aware of it. Your actions can be influenced by your subconscious, but then they are by definition not done with intent. Intent is a wholly conscious formation. This is from the english definition of the terms, which is in turn what is then the meaning for the logical purposes of philosophy, and is the plain meaning to which the term is also used in law.
I'd like to see the psychological leaps involved in formulating an example of an act that has subconscious intent. It's certainly not anything recognized in clinical psychology or law, or any field of philosophy based on logic.
I'm not even entirely sure what the argument is about any more, is it about whether these poses are sexual fantasies or power fantasies? Because, in a way, they are both, it could even be argued that the two overlap in a big way.
That's pretty much what I've been saying, too. There's no real difference.
EDIT: We are going in circles, kara; at this point I'm not opposed to thread closure.
