I don't want to annoy (rather than just challenge) anyone here. Odds are that I will though. Genuine apologies in advance - and you're welcome to annoy me right back :-) Firstly, Dictionary.com has a good enough range of definitions and discussion on pornography to cover most of the arena. Even a smart comment at the very end. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pornography Obviously not an area where one definition is going to please all people. Even if a definition was agreed on the application will be disagreed on. As we'll see :-). In reading this, be ware that I am a male, am married, have typical enough male feelings and understand people and the ranges of human nature at least as well as the average list member. I find some pictures of women, in whatever state of dress, highly attractive. Others far less so. A key factor in such conversations is attempting to allow the mind to be the predominant decision making organ. Often not easy for men. _____________ >>> Not porno by my definition that I am aware of but ... >>> >> Had a look at the front page. >> Yep. That's porn. > I dunno. By most definitions, I thought mere nudity didn't > qualify as porn; that doesn't mean it's acceptable to everyone, > or in good taste, of course. Just not "pornography." > It's a nice site, and certainly not porn by my definition! Did you look past the front page? OK. Had a look at the site with my wife to gauge her reaction (and mine). While I said the front page indicated it was essentially porn site by my understanding of the word, the site proper is very significantly more so. Given that it limits itself to "only" pictures of naked women it has limited material to be objectionable with - but it does amazingly well considering. Nice to look at ?- quite possibly. Variably so to some. I find it, on balance, rather sickening. It's entirely conceivable that there may be sites full of pictures of naked women that I find in no way sickening - my reaction to the site is not largely based on the nakedness per se - but it's an obvious factor - and a necessary but not sufficient condition for the subsequent reaction) . But this page is significantly further up the scale from "just plain nudes" than it claims to be. It may be less obvious to those who are more inoculated by porn - as I noted before, continued exposure to any pleasure centre activity leads to habituation and the need for an increasing does. This site is for those who have already got past the beginners does stage. To me, and my wife, the gradation was immediately clear. It's OBVIOUS that many of these women are involved in the sex industry in one way or the other - pornography or prostitution or whatever. A surprising statement? Not one I'm (probably) going to justify, but if you don't agree that it's obvious then you've been looking at too much porn yourself :-). Some to whom it's obvious why I consider it obvious may raise objections to my stereotyping. I'll stand by the comment. My wife found the site extremely objectionable. She did not consider that it has any positive features vis a vis promoting women. Now, James said: [WELL SAID! I was going to chime in by saying... "well, there is porn and then there is porn" but I think you beat me to it. Some of it is really bad, degrading to women, destructive to families, etc.. and some of it is really good, raising up women as goddesses, promoting loving relationships with stability and honor, and so on. The problem is telling which is which without seeing it all first. ... ] Pornography, in all it's shades, is aimed at providing a sexual experience in its own right. While it may be used to arouse a person for subsequent sexual activity it is a counterfeit of sexual involvement with someone else. [[NB: These statements do not seek to make moral or other judgement on such sexual experiences in their own right or the validity of using counterfeits to assist or add to other sexual experience.]]. Moral judgements follow later :-). >From my perspective as a committed Christian I find it useful (of course) to see what the boss says and what the operator's manual has to say. Non Christians don't have to ascribe the same weight to these resources as I do, but they may find them useful as a guideline or as a burr under their saddle. The boss says * that any man who looks at a woman lustfully has, for practical purposes, committed adultery. "Lustfully" is obviously a debatable term, and many will debate it long and loud, while in all honestly getting the point very clearly. Now we could note that, as recorded, the boss DIDN'T say "look at images in written or printed media, data retrieval and storage system, whether electronic, electromechanical, optical or other, or ..." BUT I'll wager with utter confidence that "looks at a woman" includes any image of a woman in this context. And almost certainly any artificially generated picture of something that looks something like a woman if one wants to push one's luck. One may also with certainty add in here "look at a woman", "look at a donkey" and anything else that thy heart may desire. His point is clear (hopefully). [[ I've wondered for some while whether paedophiles might legally deal in completely machine generated images with legal impunity. I don't know what the law has to say on the matter, but I do know what the Lord has.]]. NOW: Is it possible for we red blooded men within the range of normal (several standard deviations [unfortunate term :-) ] either side of male normal, to look at eg web sites of naked women without behaving "lustfully". I can say for myself, that in the case of the above mentioned website's photos, that the generation of a degree of sexual stimulation was unavoidable but that the generally repugnant nature of many of the images (see above) rather damped my ardour. A collection of somewhat less professional beauties with less emphasis on the overtly sexual [[what IS he on about???]] would probably be far more stimulating. Even the website presented represents, for me, an invitation for lust that is unacceptable. First such site I've ever actively sought out and I can't imagine it happening again any time soon. But highly interesting to see that many (probably, based on extrapolation of a dangerously small sample of commentators) find such a site "not porno", "mere nudity", "nice site, and certainly not porn". Also, presumably, " ... really good, raising up women as goddesses, promoting loving relationships with stability and honor, and so on." and not at all "really bad, degrading to women, destructive to families, etc". By now I will have annoyed at least some people. But consider. Just because Christ said it, is it wrong? What would your partner say? If you spent hours (or minutes) per day browsing through such "mild" material, would it make you appreciate your partner more?, would they approve and encourage you, would you or they consider you were raising up them or other women as goddesses, promoting your marriage/relationship, adding to the stability of your relationship [I can see arguments for an against there], honoring (or honouring) them etc. How many of you would be happy to contribute equivalent photos of your wives, children and parents etc to a website for all list members to help honour and promote their own loving relationships? What lower age limit would you set? if this is a harmless or indeed affirming activity should you draw the line at 18 years, or 13 or 3 ? Upper age limits are probably not a problem :-). Should similarly affirming sites of naked males be posted on the list? I think I may have partially made my point. Anyone want to address anything raised. Please attempt to deal with points raised - it's easy to create and demolish straw men that were not intended by the writer in such cases. Just for interest: re relationships with women (specifically 'women of ill repute' were in the writer's mined when he penned this) - Proverbs 6:25 in KJV has a cute way of putting things. " 25Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids." :-) I doubt that many men won't be able to understand the eyelids bit. I find it extremely hard to believe that pornography of any sort does not inure a male to sexual responsiveness and make him either less responsive to his own sexual partner AND/OR desiring of greater and greater means of sexual gratification. Also, I also find it extremely hard to believe that exposure to pornography does not increase the expectation of sexual input from all women that a male encounters. A person who routinely browses websites containing pictures of 100's of naked women will necessarily (sez I) routinely browse daily lives filled with 1000's of women seeking sexual input in whatever form it may be found. Paradoxically, the porn may have the opposite to desired effect - the best argument for porn that I can think of :-) Russell McMahon _________________ * Matthew 5:28 -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist