I think I have found the real basis of Jerry's frustrations: Seems to know a
lot about this subject for someone with strong Christian beliefs. Certainly
taught me a thing or two.:-)  I bet I get a threat for this one, but oh,
well, maybe Jerry will show some Christian compassion instead.:-)

Oh, and Jerry, you might want to correctly spell "emphatically" in your
reply header.
========================================================

Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphaticly, KYHighlander
laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...

As I have so little artistic talent that I flunked Crayons in
Kindergarten, I have refrained from commenting on the artistic
part of the OPs graphics or their obvious skill in creating same.
My entire line of replies was centered around their disclaimer
about porn.

I know what porn is, you know what it is, everybody knows what it
is. Right up until it goes to court, then everybody seems to
forget. But, here's my definitions:

Nudity, partial, full frontal, or whatever is just that, nudity.
Unless it is portrayed in some violent fashion, such as torture
or sex or some other perversion, then I tend to believe it is
art.

Soft porn is simulated sex, either with clothes completely or
partially on with one or both parties nude under the above def.
Lots of that in movies you pay to see and on cable TV.

Hard porn requires sexual organ or artificial sex organ
penetration of some bodily orifice usually associated with sexual
intercourse, with or without full frontal nudity or any nudity.
And, it seems, this is the deciding factor on whether a movie
will be shown even by the pay cable channels as an R or SX or on
tape or DVD in stores. Soft porn using my def is everywhere, but
you have to go out of your way - such as on the WWW - to find and
buy hard porn, usually with an X or XXX "rating."

Now, back to the picture being discussed here. It cannot possibly
be porn of any kind because it is simply a graphical image of a
female with no discernible race, full frontally nude sans pubic
hair, there is /no/ sex involved, so porn cannot be construed.
Except that in some states, counties, cities, or sub-comminities,
the common good is served by the people deciding that even full
frontal nudity of men or women does constitute porn and they
write laws against it.

Trouble is, if it commercial, the laws are virtually always
struck down eventually as unconstitutional. But, as I commented
on earlier we - that's all of us "we" - are on slippery, very
thin ice whenever we try to legislate even "normal" morality, as
the definition of same just isn't easy to come by, especially in
today's culturally diverse neighborhoods, cities, counties,
states, and countries. What one culture permits or even enjoys,
another may abhor. Easy example: most western European countries
- at least the ones I've visited - have legal prositution,
controlled by the government with regular medical exams and the
whole nine yards. I think it is only legal here in two places,
Las Vegas and Reno, NV, but I could be wrong. I am not suggesting
we pass a Constituional Amendment one way or another, but it is a
very sticky wicket.
 
>
--
ATM, aka Jerry

"English is a language hard to understand, but easy to
misunderstand" - Unknown or George Bernard Shaw

Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphaticly, W.Madison
laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...

> I think I have found the real basis of Jerry's frustrations:
> Seems to know a lot about this subject for someone with strong
> Christian beliefs. Certainly taught me a thing or two.:-)  I
> bet I get a threat for this one, but oh, well, maybe Jerry
> will show some Christian compassion instead.:-)
> 
I didn't post that picture, Wendy, but did comment on it. And, so,
for the third time, you have taken it upon yourself to annoy me.
Well, for the third time, I will return the favor - XXXX You, Very
Much!


--
ATM, aka Jerry

"English is a language hard to understand, but easy to
misunderstand" - Unknown or George Bernard Shaw