>>32531>>32536I think the general approach to issues like these is to not consider the image itself for what it is, but to consider the history and metadata associated with the image.
For example: Was the image made with the intent of producing arousal? Is the image marketed or sold on adult websites? By those metrics, even a fully clothed woman in a suggestive pose can be considered pornography.
Making it based on whether or not a certain body part is visible is pretty fruitless and arbitrary. (Unfortunately, that's what the dogshit retarded “obscenity” laws in many legal systems literally try to do)
