OK. At rist of getting kicked out of the forum; because, as many know my humor may hit "below the belt", I'm going to ask this question. Which seriously kinda bothers me. WHY IS PORNOGRAPHY ALWAYS CONSIDERED LACKING ARTISTIC QUALITY? I do have a life I've read a little, watched a little, and thought a little. But I think people often look down upon nudity just because it coule be considered porn. As we all are aware porn is simply images created to ilicit a sensual responce. I would think that sensual responce is more dificult than showing skin. Let's face it. Now all nude people excite us. Nor does just the idea of nude people excite us. HOWEVER, Britany Spears gets far more done with cheasy lyrics, riped jeans, and a halter top t shirt than 40 years of ice scaters at the winter olympics OR Ms America-Ms Universe pagents. So I suppose IF I could take a photo which constitutes PORN I would be honored. That would be one "HOT" photo as opposed to the usual. "Uh it looks kinda blury. What were you trying to do here. Reception" Notice I said PORN not SMUT. SMUT is tasteless, cheap, and lacking originality in my opinion. PORN is overly SEXY. I actually can't see anything wrong with being overly sexy. We, well most of us anyway, have participated in one "slow" dance in our life. We know if we enjoyed dance because of the emotions experienced or not. If a dance is fine. And if dimming the lights and giving and reciving a good kiss is fine; then why is a beautiful dress gown not alright? If a dress gown is alright, then lingerie should be fine. If lingerie is alright; what's wrong with nudity? Why is a painting by Michaelangelo, Gogan, and Rueben fine but Britany spears is tacky. Why is a photo of a lady bending backwards nude fine but a buxom lady holding eggs or a mellon in a magazine not? Just courious where others stand on this topic? Bsteph