The problem is that everyone has their one idea of what constitutes pornography, and that line is constantly changing. If we use the condition that things that are made with the intent to cause sexual arousal are porn, than a good deal of modern advertising must be labeled as porn. Sadly, in US courts, it is becoming more and more common for juries to consider how a person views a picture or vid in determining what is and isn't porn. Under those conditions, a JC Penneys catalog can be considered porn. I think it boils down to the fact that many people, either consciencely or unconsciencely, want to rid the world of anyone who has an attraction to kids. So while simply the attraction isn't illegal, (YET) juries are much more likely to label something as child porn if the accused is shown to have looked at it with lust, regardless of what the picture actually shows.

My own opinion is that material must in some way depict sexual activity before it can be labeled as porn. Hard core would be actually showing the sexual activity and soft core would be suggesting it.

Dakota