BillD, thanks for your postings. well said.

ake, I don't agree with Playboy putting out the children's clothing, but I don't like ANY product line being featured on children's clothes. It makes them all prostitutes for whatever is being hawked, imo. The playboy one is worse, though, imo. I do not agree with your general comments on pornography, though.

Paul, thanks for the link. In the Didious Falco books there is frequently mention of the pornographic art in ancient Rome.

From Wiki:

In early times, erotic depictions were often a subset of the indigenous or religious art of cultures and as such were not set aside or treated differently than any other type. The modern concept of pornography did not exist until the Victorian era. Its current definition was added in the 1860s, replacing the older one meaning writings about prostitutes.[4] It first appeared in an English medical dictionary in 1857 defined as "a description of prostitutes or of prostitution, as a matter of public hygiene."[5] By 1864, the first version of the modern definition had appeared in Webster's Dictionary: "licentious painting employed to decorate the walls of rooms sacred to bacchanalian orgies, examples of which exist in Pompeii."[6] This was the beginning of what today refers to explicit pictures in general.

Some of it can really be classified as Fine Art, imo.

There needs to be a distinction, imo, between pornography and erotica.