>> Yep. That's porn. Mild by many standards.

> Not even close to porn

> You must be kidding.. I can't see why this should be porno. Far 
> from. At
> least not more then a classical nude painting or is that porno to?

See my recent lonnnng post.
This site has the same core intention of the hardest core heterosexual 
porn sites.

The difference is one of scale, not of intention.

There are no doubt sites where the intention level is lower. This site 
definitely aims to sexually provoke and stimulate and generate male 
lust. Many classical nude paintings also had the same intent fwiw. 
Whether this is good, bad or interesting is orthogonal to this.

The message from this site is far far more subtle than for many porn 
sites. But for people at the right place on the curve it will 
adequately satiate the pleasure centre for the moment. The time will 
come, *possibly* has come for those who respond as above, when what 
would at one stage have been either exciting or even repulsive, 
becomes inadequate to produce a requisite level of excitement.

Note that I'm NOT making moral comment on the merits of running up or 
not running up this stimulus - response curve. Just noting that all 
forms of sexual stimulation, especially for men, is a classic pleasure 
centre activator and provision of regular stimulus always leads to 
desensitisation with the the desire to maintain pleasure levels and 
the attendant need for higher dose levels to achieve the same results.

And you thought that it was just that you were getting old :-)

Nobody has used the word "erotica". Erotica is pornography by another 
name. Ignoring, for a moment, any concept of whether pornography is 
good or bad or whatever makes it far easier to decide what constitutes 
pornography. Once decided you can turn back on the morality channel 
and hang on tight.



            Russell McMahon


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist