Pornography is in th eye of the beholder and the artist.

I thought I posted this before I wanted to quote it in a comment on another's blog about "Porn or Art" about peoples reactions to her self taken "French Postcards", but can't find it so here it is:

Pornography is a construction of some sort of societal or religious framework. Without such constraints, there would be no point in anyone objecting to any image. So pornography for a devout Muslim, may be a little less racy than pornography to a practicing nudist.

It boils down to intent and objectification.

If the portrayal is an effort to "use" the figure for salacious purposes rather than just an expression of beauty, it is probably pornography.

If it really is the intent of the photographer or artist to portray beauty as seen in The Creator's works, then the artist has not "sinned" in creating such a work. That said, it still is upon the viewer and his intent. If one wants to view certain types of images strictly for the buzz of sexual arousal, its probably porn for that viewer.

If I were gay,I'd have to say that Michaelangelo's David is pretty sexy. If I were a serial killer,I'd find Venus de Milo pretty arousing. If I were a lesbian I'd have a thing for Mona Lisa...(hmm she is kinda hot...)

When I was a boy (maybe 8 or 10) and cut pages Penney's lingerie section and pasted them in a book, this was my first pornography. It matters not that the models by today's standards showed less flesh than I might see in public today and certainly less than one sees during the family friendly (so-called) hours of the major networks. It matters not that as at the time I was pre-pubescent and didn't really understand things sexual and obviously wasn't using it for m@sturbation. What matters is that I had heard of magazines that featured scantily clad or (Shock!) nude girls, and I enjoyed the naughty secret of having a view into the mysteries of the female form (and in hindsight the lingerie!!).