Essentially, this is just the "Fit Babes" thread, but with a twist; you have to put intellectual discussion on the table as well as pictures to illustrate your examples.

Say, for instance, you want to put forward an argument that modern sexuality has opened to the point where art or photography that was one considered risqué is now tepid and tame. You would then provide two images to illustrate your example, one fairly tame, and the other fairly sexy, each from their respective eras.

By all means, enjoy this thread as the many "Fit Babes" thread you have enjoyed beforehand, but try to put an effort into getting some discussion going on.

And to start us all off, what do you consider the boundary between Art and Pornography, and why?

What would Freud make of the desire to want to **** two twins at the same time?

I suppose it would depend on context partially; it probably wouldn't become art until you stuck it in a museum and called it art. My definition of art if something that evokes emotions or makes a statement (i.e. evokes the mind), and I guess this could be accidental as well as intentional. I don't think pornography and art are mutually exclusive; I think that anything that can genuinely be called art but is also claimed to be pornography, is still art none the less; but pornography in itself isn't art.

Who the **** holds this point of view? This bit is stating the obvious just a tad.

if i can crack one off to it it's porn.

I'm not sure if I agree that something has to be put in a museum or gallery to be art.

Art is different things to different people. I don't think something has to be tasteful to be art, nor do I think that there is any set boundry between what's art and what isn't.

There are certainly people who care about the outcome of their projects within the pornography industry - camera men, directors, atresses and actors, photographers. I'm sure a lot of them think of the final product as art.

^ This