Art or Pornography?

Or only in America?

i think the photo is a beautful photo - but I could probably imagine that there would be those (some with sic minds) who would look at it and see it as they wish to see it. I would not let my daugher be photographed in that pose for publication though.

oh pfft, is that all? well, that's not a pornographic image... and besides, it's so silly how Disney see her as their "property". Ah well...

How about the picture at the bottom of this article? Is that pornography?

It's neither art or pornography; it's a picture of a girl's bare back.

Look at my link. Don't be scared. It is just a link to an ad for Chinese kids Disney underwear. I want to know what you all think.

Kenstripe, it's inappropriate. Images of kids in skimpy dress should not be encouraged. This is from someone who believes in nude images of the female form in normal poses.

Jatfla, if all could clinically analysis any image totally dispassionately like you then I'd agree with your analysis. Most humans have some passion and are influenced by these very expensive images. You might be able to view an exotic image with total dispassion. Personally, I glad I'm one of the herd that enjoys appropriate sexual images of the female form. A good looking hunk does nothing at all for you, Jatfla? Not even a little?

I think it's very artistic. I don't see it as porn pearsonaly.
Porn brings other images to mind not this.

Porn is in the eye of the beholder. The sick and strange part is that the idea of pornography is based on the idea that the sick thoughts an image provokes in the minds of prudes is universal.

The problem is the sick minds - not bare backed, or even bare assed children. Have you ever wondered why you can appreciate a naked horse for it's pure beauty, but not a naked human? Maybe we should all think on that. (And no, ain't gonna hand out cheap free "answers.")