Even if she is completely nude and showing graphic details of her genitals, it is only considered "Pornographic" if it is sexually suggestive or if the main focus of the image is obviously the genitals. I am not here for pornography of any age... believe it or not, I am here to look at beautiful human landscapes, with gentle rolling hills and perfectly manicured hedges. I find it offensive that you would judge all of us to be among the filth of humanity. Hopefully, not all of you come here only for sexually explicit materials.
Technically (& legally), Jacked is correct, nude images, etc. do not equal sexually explicit material -- example: the Venus De Milo & Michelangelo's David are both completely nude statues of the renaissance, and both were sculpted from [reportedly] underage models -- No, Jacked is right: Nude human beings -- even underage ones; after all, we're all born into this world naked, aren't we? -- don't necessarily mean XXX.
The main difference is: One is Artistic Erotica, and the other is Pornographic Smut.
True, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I think we're mature enough -- if not mentally {around here}, then at least, legally -- to know & understand the difference.
FYI: There's nothing XXX in this entire post, so to all of the nay-sayers: It's called freedom of speech assholes, so stop getting your panties in a bunch, and grow the fuck up.
