> >>> 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? No, because we weren't talking about anything but the first page > 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 Not necessarily. There are professional models too, both artistic and photographic. I've known two, and they were not "tarts" by any stretch of the imagination > My wife found the site extremely objectionable. She did not > consider that it has any positive features vis a vis promoting > women What if it had been men ? I've witnessed a couple of hen nights, and they were not pretty. Anyone will tell you that women are as bad or worse when it comes to having a good night out > Pornography, in all it's shades, is aimed at providing a sexual > experience in its own right I think you are drawing some pretty long bows trying to equate erotica or titilation with pornography > While it may be used to arouse a person for subsequent sexual > activity it is a counterfeit of sexual involvement with someone else So what ? > >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. I, a devout atheist, take more notice of what "the boss" says than some (dare I say many) "Christians" do. I'm a naturally pleasant and nice person who is kind to people and animals alike and resent being told I need guidance. Some of the biggest humps I know are churchies and religion's record re: sexual misconduct does not inspire me to take any notice of their holier-than-thou preaching when they can't even keep their own dirty hypocritical hands to themselves > 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 I'd agree that you can have too much of a "good thing". Although I do like a daily dose of the gorgeous Beatrice Schonberg on French TV2 > collection of somewhat less professional beauties with less emphasis > on the overtly sexual [[what IS he on about???]] would probably be > far more stimulating Oh yes, you would become blase about in your face, so to speak, porn > 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 Time was if you wanted to see a stag film you had to know a bloke who knows a bloke who can get one for a couple of hours on Friday night, maybe. The interweb has changed all that. You can now freely access virtually anybody doing anything to somebody else. And their donkey > 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" Comparatively, and historically too, mere nudity isn't porn as I would understand it. No more objectionable than a pin-up calendar. The boundaries have certainly expanded, but the material was always there. It's just more accessible now. > 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". I wouldn't have made that presumption about the front page of the site above > 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? With most couples that probably would (and maybe should be) be a problem. But viewing porn may be a manifestation of some other problem in the relationship Some couples, a minority, are right into porn or deviation. I can say that because of my involvement with the NZ BDSM community, and there are many couples You can't ignore body chemistry in this. Some people thrive on adrenalin - they race cars, they base-jump off buildings, they go on the stage or make programs like Jackass Some others thrive on endorphins. They run marathons or indulge in kinky sex and like to get spanked like a naughty British Cabinet Minister. Others still take it to further extremes, but that doesn't mean all do eventually. Most are content to stay within boundaries that are comfortable -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist