• There is nudity that is art.. then there is nudity that is considered porn. This is a really difficult question. There is stuff that definitely not porn and then there is stuff that is raunchy hard core porn for sure. A lot falls into "gray" or subjective arenas based on personal taste and local culture.
  • Supposedly, porn is designed to arouse without artistic value, while erotica has artistic value, and may or may not arouse. As with all art, the definition lies in the eye of the beholder. For example, a foot fetishist could have an extensive porn collection consisting of photos of womens feet, both bare and in steleto heels. The whole collection would pass FTC regulations for Saturday morning TV. On the other hand, an artist could photograph artistic abstract landscapes that are closeup shots of penises, vaginas and anuses. Even though you could not tell what they were by looking at the photo, I doubt you could show them on network TV. Take a look at how our society views women going topless- it's forbidden, because it turns men on. Men can go shirtless however, and it does not mater that it can turn women (and gay men) on. It's all perspective, not absolutes.
  • Whatever gets you up in the morning, whether it's a photo of your wife's penis, images of clothed pedestrians performing interpretive dance or an ancient Mayan stone artifact. People assume porn does bad things to people - it doesn't. Not a chance, it's just that people who do bad things to other people may or may not enjoy porn. There may be a relationship, but porn doesn't lead to rape.
  • Films, pictures, and stories of people having sex, or pretending to do so (remember "soft-core"?) made to support and promote male fantasies of attractive women being readily and easily available to them for sex.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy