Drawar

it depends on whether they use the rule that pornography is against social mores.

if they're doing that, i would think they'd go into a museum and cover up all the statues and paintings.

The human body is not pornographic. Images/sculptures/etc have to be manipulated in a way to display or imply sexuality to cross the line from "a body" to porn.

That doesn't mean a naked body won't stimulate erotic interest, but that's mostly up to the viewer at that point.

American culture has vilified the human form in a rather crippling way. Children generally grow up being taught to be ashamed of their bodies.

No.

An illustration of breasts, definitely not. A photo of breasts, well that all depends on presentation as to whether or not it's nudes or porn.

Depends on the context, like everything else in the world.

Breasts != pornography

Breasts being revealed by a dunk girl on camera for beads == pornography

Depends on whether or not they had nipples.

Breasts == barbie,
Nipples == pornographic

No... this isn't particularly helpful but it's an arbitrary distinction that seems to work in many cases. ;)

I'm with Stefani here: no, breasts are not pornographic.

One could depict them in a pornographic way, but that clearly doesn't seem to be the case.

Ozone's right too: pornography is in the eye of the beholder. The problem here is in the eye of your ISP, which is run by either freaks or emotionally underdeveloped teenagers if you ask me.

I'd switch ISPs immediately.

Sorry, if this sounds harsh, but this childish/prudish behaviour of some people out there just irritates me.

–Nils

Pornography is something sexually explicit produced with the intention of arousal. The medical documentary "The Human Body" on BBC1 many years ago showed erection (using heat-vision) and ejaculation footage, but because it was intended to inform rather than arouse there was absolutely nothing pornographic about it.

Heck, the intro sequence had a forest with nude males and females to represent every age from birth to 80 (or thereabouts), i.e about 160 naked people of varying ages.

I pretty much agree with everyone else here and its amazing that every other country in the world has a decent head on their shoulders when it comes to things like this, but the US goes ballistic.

OreoCEO: Don't Indians still consider ankles to be pronographic? What about strict muslims?

From Dictionary.com; "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal." is one definition of pornography. I think that what you're describing certainly doesn't fit there. I agree with everyone else here, that in America simply shown breasts are not pornography. Especially if it's being used in an instructional artistic manner.

An aside, your host is animeblogger.net? What kind of service building around an anime community doesn't allow pornographic content on some level? I'm pretty sure that I always exercise extreme caution when starting a new series around my wife.

No way its pornographic. If your ISP keeps giving you trouble you should consider switching.

Glad you guys agree ^^

@Ozone42 I agree whole heartedly.

@OreoCEO: just look at the Super Bowl where Janet Jackson showed a breast. I was waiting for the witch trials to make the evening news.

I agree with everyone else: it's all about the context of the boobage.

If it's about art, or done in a tasteful manner without any sexual connotation's, it should be treated as acceptable.

If you're showing a teet to be graphic or provoke a sexual response, well that's just diiiiiirty. ;)

Let's not forget that men have breasts too. Whoever says otherwise hasn't done anatomy or seen Mr Big Mac at the beach.

It's used in an educational context, how can it be offensive?

Strip a human down to nothing and there's nothing pornographic about it, it's who we are under all our "garb". It's what makes us... US.

It's all about context, if a naked woman is simply a naked woman I see nothing wrong with it...

If that same woman is engaged in sexual activity or taking her "bodily display" to the next level then it has become "pornographic" in nature. I still have no problem with it though :)

To answer your question first, no. On their own, breasts are not intrinsically pornographic. See everyone else's responses for the reasons why.

What I am actually more intrigued with is how your ISP knew in the first place?

The ISP has a dirty mind.

From a business stand point. If I am the ISP, I'd rather not take the risk and use the clearly defined: No boobs, no genitals rule. The risk of getting sued for millions out-weights the benefit of a few more clients that uses the hosting.

Now, to the actual debate of whether or not it is pornographic. I think it is not up to us to decide. Whoever views the art will interpret it the way they want. Have you wondered why people get arrest for humping nude statues in the park? While you don't think it's erotic, it certainly is at that time, for that person who humped the statue.

@Causalien - Seriously???? Statue humping?!?!

breasts - not pornographic 100%

Only on Saturdays, between 2 and 3pm.

Actually, no. Not at all.

Breasts are not anymore inherently sexual than any other body part (see foot fetishes). It is entirely how one looks at them. If it were the breasts themselves that caused arousal, no matter context, you'd have a lot more boys with Oedipus complexes. Perhaps your service provider is going through a personal crisis.

I just don't get it. Outside of some extra fat and some extra reproductive functionality, a woman's chest is exactly the same as a man's. One should be able to see it in art, at the beach and on a hot day where it warrants the taking off of a shirt.

Tell your ISP to crawl out of the Victorian Era. The Internet doesn't function well there.