pigbodine: maybe think about it this way... an image that is undoubtedly porn, say a woman with a dildo, in color its porn, in black and white, still porn. An image of a person, be it the whole body or merely a part, if done in a tasteful way, whether black and white or color, can still be art, but at the same time, evoke a stimulating response. So perhaps the definition of porn would fall in whether the image is sexual, or intended to be sexual (ie legs spread, toy used, etc) and someone merely nude would be art. There are plenty of images on this site (or the new porn site) where the person (usually female) is still partially clothed (ie upskirts or shirt lifted) which is much more suggestive or "porn-like" than many of the nudes which could easily be considered art.

I do agree that men are much more visually oriented than us women (yes I am female), but I can still fully understand the ensuing arousal after viewing an image of a hot girl. I think it is part of our nature that we are much more alluring... a simple look in our eyes is often enough to make many men quiver (happens to be one of my favorite parts of being female, a look, a touch, a word... you boys are so easy sometimes ;o) )

I wouldnt worry about any tendencies, latent or otherwise... appreciation for the human body should not be bound to appreciation of the opposite gender body. The human form can be very beautiful, male or female, and admiration for it does not indicate anything.

As for Sly, I've heard that about him. Havent seen it for myself, so I couldn't say. My favorite "bum" is returning home soon, after being away too long overseas. Tryfan's bum has helped the time to pass, but I can't wait to see "mine" again.

Sorry to be so long winded...