I'll give it a shot...

IMO, porn is a sex act depicted on paper, film, video, movie, internet, or live.

Quote from Incognito

I'll give it a shot...

IMO, porn is a sex act depicted on paper, film, video, movie, internet, or live.

So naked women posing for the camera are fine?

Quote from Incognito

I'll give it a shot...

IMO, porn is a sex act depicted on paper, film, video, movie, internet, or live.

I differ with that definition.

How many men do you know that have had to throw out thier stash of "porn" mags, after a girlfriend has moved in, while the GF can read anything she likes, it's like the woman telling the man that she is the only thing he is to look at.
Control from the start.

These womens mags are pure rubbish, with the trashiest of "stories" (man-bashing feminist tripe), readers letters (more man bashing tripe), pictures and a few recipes to try and legitimise them as a respectable magazine.

What a load of bollocks, with all these so-called womens mags, and there are literally thousands of them, are women damaging the environment?, all in the name of gossip and other such non-productive crap.

Let's face it!
Pornography has been around since before the pyramids and it will be here long after we're dead!!

Quote from MikeT

I differ with that definition.

How many men do you know that have had to throw out thier stash of "porn" mags, after a girlfriend has moved in, while the GF can read anything she likes, it's like the woman telling the man that she is the only thing he is to look at.
Control from the start.

These womens mags are pure rubbish, with the trashiest of "stories" (man-bashing feminist tripe), readers letters (more man bashing tripe), pictures and a few recipes to try and legitimise them as a respectable magazine.

What a load of bollocks, with all these so-called womens mags, and there are literally thousands of them, are women damaging the environment?, all in the name of gossip and other such non-productive crap.

Well for God's sakes man, differ all you like but at least then enlighten us? How do you define porn?

Porn, in its simplest definition, is that which arouses sexually.

It can be any 'representation', beit pictures, words (stories), sculptures, films etc.

That is an 'active' definition, with the arousability factor inherent in the object.

Hence a picture of a gilrl in her underwear may arouse in and of itself, so if it can or cannot do that whether a man or a woman views it, it remains porn, or not, but not both at the same time.

If a picture is pornographic in a men's magazine, it stands to reason that it must be so in a woman's magazine.

The 'passive' aspect is 'person-dependant'. That is, what is arousing to one person may not be to another.

So a woman may view a picture of a girl in her underwear and not be aroused. A man looking at the same picture might be. It is porn by the first - active - definition.

Does a representation have to be of a 'sexual act'?

This is a 'sub-defining' qualification.

I would not confine it that way.

What if a person is aroused by a non-sexual act that is, say, sado-masochistic? Eg, someone being whipped? What of a picture of an apple balanced on a nude tummy, or warm oil running down the skin of a thigh?

I would say that if it is of a genre that is deliberately formed so as to arouse a person (not necessarily 'any') then it is porn.

The 'normality' of the viewer has to be considered to some extent as some peculiar people can be aroused by clearly what are to most people non-sexual objects/representations.

Child-porn is defined (in law) in a most peculiar way. It is entirely passive, with pre-defined subjectivity. A photo of one's own baby in the bath is deemed pornographic by 'authorities' with purient minds.

porn, from the feminit wimyn's perspective, is a deplorable representation of sex in a virtual form where the feminits wimyn are not benefiting directly from eg

a man addicted to wanking over virtual sex is not buying
Ms Want It All For Nothing anything nor spending his time and money on her ! so zero return for her from his very existence ! and in fact she might never get a cent from this astute guy whatsoever unless she is the manager or the company publishing the porn

so naturally as this scenario is not beneficial for her it must be immoral and the porn banned

aborting the next generation however is not immoral ! but rather liberating for her as it expresses her penchant for clewless conduct to which she is addicted much to the same as the guy is to wanking porn

Quote from Percy

Porn, in its simplest definition, is that which arouses sexually.

It can be any 'representation', beit pictures, words (stories), sculptures, films etc.

That is an 'active' definition, with the arousability factor inherent in the object.

Hence a picture of a gilrl in her underwear may arouse in and of itself, so if it can or cannot do that whether a man or a woman views it, it remains porn, or not, but not both at the same time.

If a picture is pornographic in a men's magazine, it stands to reason that it must be so in a woman's magazine.

The 'passive' aspect is 'person-dependant'. That is, what is arousing to one person may not be to another.

So a woman may view a picture of a girl in her underwear and not be aroused. A man looking at the same picture might be. It is porn by the first - active - definition.

Does a representation have to be of a 'sexual act'?

This is a 'sub-defining' qualification.

I would not confine it that way.

What if a person is aroused by a non-sexual act that is, say, sado-masochistic? Eg, someone being whipped? What of a picture of an apple balanced on a nude tummy, or warm oil running down the skin of a thigh?

I would say that if it is of a genre that is deliberately formed so as to arouse a person (not necessarily 'any') then it is porn.

The 'normality' of the viewer has to be considered to some extent as some peculiar people can be aroused by clearly what are to most people non-sexual objects/representations.

Child-porn is defined (in law) in a most peculiar way. It is entirely passive, with pre-defined subjectivity. A photo of one's own baby in the bath is deemed pornographic by 'authorities' with purient minds.

Well now I'm just plain confused.

So I had an experience with a guy in one of my classes who sat next to me and stared (and couldn't stop staring) at my feet every time I wore high heeled shoes. That's not porn, though, right? Shoes aren't typically sexually-arousing objects, are they? (Maybe they are).

I've only ever actually come across two people with foot fetishes in my lifetime. That guy seemed to be one of them. The other had less control over his impulses.

Rightly, Tera, you see a distinction between objects not usually associated with arousal being seen as arousing by an individual. I did mention 'normality' above and this chap has a fetish.

Some shoes are however designed and bought with an eye to sexuality. High heels are a strange device all around. They are uncomfortable and damage the feet, yet women consider them as sexual accoutrements. In this instance it is woman who ascribe a sexual connotation to shoes which by themselves would otherwise be neither here nor there sexually.

A 'fetish' comes about when an unduly strong association is made in an individual's mind between an object and his/her sexual arousal mechanism.

By the way, Tera, it was you who suggested that you define porn and so far it has been a very weak. Let us see some anlalysis.

Percy forgot to say that the girls in women`s magazines were thinner

Quote from Feckless

Percy forgot to say that the girls in women`s magazines were thinner

Yeah and those girls in the magazines are fakers!

Quote from Percy

By the way, Tera, it was you who suggested that you define porn and so far it has been a very weak. Let us see some anlalysis.

I don't think it was me who brought up the discussion. I gave a definition. It is simple, yes, but that's really how I think of it. MikeT said he disagrees with my definition, but then fails to give his own. I'd like to hear his, though I really don't want to analyze it all that much.

Porn is an artistic representation of something that someone can wank over..