10-14-2007, 09:54 AM
I cannot remember which Supreme Court justice said this, but he said that he defined pornography as recognizing it as such once he saw it. That, of course, reflects how dependent it is on perspective. While one of my friends views anything that exposes "private parts" as pornography, it takes an image of a BJ, for example, to make me pass judgment.
Anything that is sexually arousing could possibly be viewed as pornography. While some people see National Geographic as an educational tool or a Victoria's Secret catalogue as merchandise on display, others can use it for sexual means.
|