Sports Illustrated cover - practically porn?

[F4lconF16]

70. I think a better standard would be

Last edited Fri Feb 6, 2015, 05:57 AM - Edit history (1)

"Would I be embarrassed to be seen enjoying looking at that picture with my mom in the room."

There's nothing wrong with nudity or sex in itself; it's the objectification and degradation of healthy sexuality that should embarass you. I wouldn't mind watching a movie with a sex scene in it with my mom in the room (though she probably would, lol), but I would mind watching the vast majority of porn out there with her in the room (actually, with her there or not, but you get the point).

If you mean just whether something is porn or not, I think my bar is whether its purpose is to display sexual attributes or activity and involves nudity. For instance, in my definition, some art would be considered pornography and vice versa. Most nude art, however, would not, as sexuality is not often the main focus of those types of pieces.

Edit: I'd also say there's two broad categories of porn that blend to some extent. Artistic or commercial. One is made to express something, the other is to sell something. You can have commercial artistic porn--it is a business after all. Unfortunately the vast majority of it is dehumanizing people (and many, many more women than men) for the express purpose of profit.