Mary, I use my trannyweb email account to receive promotional 'literature' from magazines, clothing, make-up manufacturers etc. The answer to your question is Dior.
Every other day I seem to receive an email of some seductive, tempting and provocatively beautiful thing from them that arouses the senses..
Answering your question, I must admit never to have been a user of pornography in the top-shelf sense, but if I was to read, watch or hear anything that physically or psychologically repulsed me - encouraging me to turn away, then I suppose that it would have crossed the line. Rachel

Mary, I have to agree with Cristene here.Then too, i too was a commercial artist at one time and I also lived near a commune in Southern Oregon back in 1973. Hell, there was so much nudity there you never saw anyone with clothes on cept when it rained or was cold . Even during the van events that I attended in Texas could be construed as Pornographic. by the way, I'm proud of the fact that women liked the way my rear showed too! Hey, I won those "Joe Namuth " contests fair an square too!
Seriously if you're mind is in the Gutter, it's always going after the lowest common denominator . That's all!
Ellen S.

I think Cristine gave an excellent description of porn.
Hugs,
Marsha

I think it was Potter Stewart, a justice on the US Supreme Court, who wrote that he could not define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. That's sort of unsatisfactory, but also true. An individual's view of what crosses the line is based on that person's upbringing, cultural milieu, maybe age and social group. Recall all the controversy around Abercrombie & Fitch ads, which might be fairly described as provocative to say the least, or some would say with reason soft porn.

I disagree somewhat with Christine's definition, as I think that art is intended to arouse strong emotional reactions, and that can fairly include sexual arousal, and be perfectly healthy, indeed, a way of celebrating the beauty and nobility of the human form and the ways we connect. Conversely, I tend to see porn as that which demeans and debases sexuality rather than elevates it. It is more likely to incite violent and misanthropic reactions. A lovemaking scene in a well made movie, within the context of a story about humans interacting can be breathtakingly moving (yes, I cry at chic flicks), but a very similar scene in graphic detail solely for the sake of showing graphic physical contact is utterly repulsive.

By the way, Mary, as an amateur (lightly talented) artist myself, I've taken a few figurative art classes. It surprised me at first, but no longer does, how quickly you get over the nudity as you try to tackle the technical issues of form, light, color, etc. I'm a great admirer of Edward Weston's nudes, which are more about light and form and beauty as they are about naked women.

hey ya Gracie, you mention porn i automatic think XXX sex flicks. Now when your talking about a nude or making love pic. or painting, that I would consider if it was tastefully done or trash.not porn. An ur right about fredricks. I had to dig a catalog an look for myself. huggs Jenn.

That is a good question. To me porn is showing bare boobs and the bare crotch area of eather gender. Including sex but thats just me.

Hiya Mary xxXxx

My opinion, is that porn is somthing designed to titilate and cause sexual arousel, as opposed to appreciating somthing as an art form, What you or anyone else concieve as porn others might find it artistic and vsa versa. Its a matter of conjecture,
Some might view an erotic picture, photograph as lewd and depraved others would look into it and see an artistic bent.
Obviously that doe'nt include hard porn designed and produced purely for sexual stimulation and gratification.