>>14144084I think the key is the actual depiction of a sex act. That alone makes an image inherently pornographic
by contrast, any image lacking such an act can be transformed into pornography by the intention of the viewer, who projects a sex act on to the image. However, the mere probability of this can't on its own justify calling an image pornographic since in the case of warped sexuality anything at all, including animals, tile patterns, or other inanimate objects could be so transformed.
At the same time, the concordance of an image with elements of normative sexuality can't define a category due to the wide variations in personal or cultural expectations for chastity. Compare minoan open-faced breast display in everyday attire to islamic requirements for full-body niqabs which don't even outline the body at any point but the head.
