I was listening to [Top Shelf radio with Robbie Buck](http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/topshelf/default.htm) yesterday. He was interviewing ‘Fanny’, a member of the [Suicide Girls](http://suicidegirls.com/girls/Fanny/). She’s touring as part of a live burlesque show.

Apparently the show is a little risqué but not pornographic. Unfortunately, they’re not coming to the nation’s capital.

So Robbie asked how she differentiated between ‘poster girl’ and ‘porno’. When is it art and when is it porn?

You mean there’s a difference? 🙂

She said that, to her, it becomes porno when the subject actually starts performing a sexual act. As opposed, to just posing without the ‘hands on’ so to speak.

That seemed like a good definition to me.

Wikipedia defines it as:

> Pornography (from Greek πορνογραφία pornographia — literally writing about or drawings of prostitutes) (also informally referred to as “porn,” or “porno”) is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal, similar to, but distinct from, erotica, though the two terms are often used interchangeably.

What puzzles me is why there is still so much taboo and general negative opinion about pornography. Without sex, humans can’t procreate naturally. It is arguably, THE most natural act there is. Pornography, like other art forms, simply depicts that on some form of media.

Before I ramble on, I should say that I’m classing ‘erotica’ as porn. Others may not. I am.

I can understand the concern if people are being hurt in some way (emotionally or physically). That’s not what I’m talking about.

I’m just raising the notion about whether we, as humans are so ashamed of ourselves that we put ‘sex’ (and it’s related activities such as porn) into the ‘taboo’ basket in a subconscious effort to slow the growth as a species.

It certainly makes sense to me if you consider it in the context of what the governments are doing to other people… children in prison camps, massive genocide over petrol …