It is a theory of mine (I just re-read this. I'm NOT the only one with that theory) that the more a desire is repressed, the more it will be sublimated and surface at another point. I believe sexual desire is as strong in women as it is in men, but slightly - somewhat - more surpressed.... therefore there is more of a need for release.
There was a classic defense to a felony charge of disseminating (oh, the irony of that phrase) pornographic material - "material that violated community values" in a town in Utah. The defense subpoenaed the local Cable Channel records that showed that the incidence of viewing "Adult" channels was *significantly* higher in that particular area - more than twice the national average. So much for "community standards". The case was dismissed.
Repression is not a good thing ... but there is something called "decorum" that is not to be ignored, either.
I guess the answer her is the same as it is is in many other areas of human activity -- BALANCE is nearly everything.
The definition of pornography need not be rigid, and I don't think it's possible to delineate it by content alone.
Pornography fundamentally is exaggerated sexual activity (or suggestion) construed in a way that will arouse the audience.
But why does that require penetration? The solo shoots in Hustler fully qualify as pornographic, even if no penetration is taking place.
In fact why does it even require nudity? You could film two people 'dry-humping' fully clothed, moaning, and talking dirty to each other, and most of us would agree it's porn.
I think when beauty and composition come into the picture, then you start to have an element of art -- and there's no reason why something otherwise pornographic couldn't cross over into that realm. Maybe the artistry of it would make it 'not quite porn' and the physical banality of it would make it 'not quite art', but why does there have to be a strict boundary between the two?
How about this:
A representation is pornographic if and only if it's main purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
A representation is successfully pornographic if and only if it's pornographic, and it succeeds in causing arousal.
A couple points: These definitions don't imply anything about the morality of pornography. Moreover, these definitions can admit of degrees, as some things can be more or less pornographic depending on the hierarchy of intentions involved. For example, I consider a number of commercials and television shows to be pornographic, and yet the main purpose of them is to make money. So not only are they pornographic, they're commercial.
Many definitions try to distinguish pornography from eroticism. I've never found any of these definitions to be remotely plausible. What they all come down to is the definer classifying sexual representations that they like as eroticism, and those they don't as pornography.
Here's an example, some people claim that sexual representations that show intimacy are good, whereas those that don't are bad. Well, what would representing sexual intimacy amount to? Showing tenderness? Cuddling? Leaving the door open when you take a crap? Yikes. Intimacy by itself doesn't necessarily make anything better or worse, and thus it can't turn something bad (pornography) into something good (eroticism). (I'm not saying that pornography is bad, but the people who make these types of distinctions tend to do so.)
Finally, words mean what we use them to mean, and since people use words quite differently, there's no reason to think that we'll come up with a universally acceptable definition.
You defined pornography as something involving penetration. I cited an example of something that is not necessarily pornographic but does involve penetration. Hence your definition is too broad.
Being a physician and having performed innumerable 'sensitive' exams on patients of both genders, nothing could be less sexual than an encounter like that. You're dealing with a patient who is scared, uncomfortable, ill, or all three. And all you care about is doing a good exam, getting the info you need, and making sure your patient trusts you and is free of any unnecessary discomfort or fear. Throw in gloves, exam room lighting, chaperones, etc, and I can't imagine how it would be an erotic experience.
But yes, there are people with all kinds of proclivities out there -- but hopefully few who practice medicine.