Masturbate

meant to say....
so this is what you were doing when i was flashing my tits in chat......
oh btw people, its porn enjoy it
....but edit time expired by the time i found where the comment went

My naked pictures were meant to be ART though! I feel so degraded!

You're full of it, you wank to them all the time, though, probably not as much as Jason ;-P

I haven't much followed the porn vs. art debate in the past, so I can only judge from what I've seen in this thread. What I find interesting is that the "pro-porn" faction keeps stressing the pointlessness of the debate - to which I agree - then proceeds trying to discredit the other side in a desperate attempt to prove their point. Which I find kind of... peculiar. So that makes me wonder why it is so important to you people to establish SG as a porn site. Maybe it would just seem so uncool to wank to a pin-up/art/whatever site? Or maybe it's something different. I'll get back to that later.

I really don't have strong feelings about the "proper" label. I'd probably go with pin-up because it expresses both the artistic and the erotic component.

Now about those two assumptions.

LITERALNESS: I think it's only porn if the focus is clearly on sexual arousal.

We can debate endlessly about what constitutes sexual explicitness. The truth is that it depends very much on each person's cultural and personal background. I would argue though that exposed breasts or full nudity do not constitute sexual explicitness because they are pretty common in non-pornographic art. Now if you want to declare most fine art nude photography as porn, you are free to do so, but that would probably leave us with little common ground to base our discussion on.

Now, while erotic appeal is clearly an important factor in the photo sets, I don't see that most of them are tailored to get people horny as quick as possible. Then again, I used to get aroused much easier when I was in my early twenties and hadn't had any real life sex at all. I am assuming that the site management knows their target demographics pretty well, so maybe I am just dead wrong here.

SQUEAMISHNESS: I don't think porn has to be degrading. You know, I've respected each and every one of my real life sex partners, so the idea that I can't be aroused by someone I respect is just hilarious. Now I think the real issue behind the porn vs. art debate on the "pro-porn" side is the wish to establish SG as the prototypical "positive porn" site. "Hey, it's porn, but it's so respectful to the models. Now I can finally wank to someone and not feel guilty about it anymore." Yeah, that's cool, I agree. The fact that the models have a certain range of freedom as how much they show is of course very important in that respect. Now those pesky people who insist on calling SG non-porn make you feel like a bloody idiot sitting there with your dick in your fist, don't they?

However, there are limits. No penetration, for example! Now why is that and how does it fit the porn theory? Would I lose all my respect for, say, Morgan, if I could see her shove a dildo up her vagina? Hell, no, I wouldn't. Again, I can't look into Missy's or anyone's brain, but I'd say those limits are designed to cater exactly to those squeamish people (models and members alike) who are more comfortable regarding SG as art rather than porn. So we'd have a porn site that goes to certain lengths not to be associated with porn. Very curious! Anyway, I wouldn't exactly say that such an attitude fits the positive porn paradigm.

In the end, you are free to call it whatever you like, but if you're trying to make me accept your point of view, you'd better come up with some arguments rather than trying to make me look like an idiot.