This isn't exactly a response to your response, rather an expansion on what I said previously. I wrote it in between posting the previous time, and reading your response:


The whole point of calling something pornographic is to describe it as something designed to elicit lust. Without having the requirement for intent, we would wind up being forced either to classify many educational, medical, and documentary style videos and illustrations as pornographic or we would have to propose that pornography does not exist. At that point, we would find ourselves once again in the situation of needing a term to differentiate between media based on its intended purpose (either because we have eliminated pornography from existence or because the term has become diluted by including medical journals and the like). It becomes a circular problem where we find ourselves in an infinite loop of creating new labels to describe the same thing since someone didn't like the last label. Ultimately you must come up with a word to differentiate between media based on intentions if you want to break out of that loop. We have come up with that word already, it is "pornography" and the loop can end here.Without the element of intentions, the word pornography is of no value and we wind up needing to create another one in order to describe what pornography already describes.


*note: This still has nothing to do with legal definitions. Coming up with a legal definition is far more complex than coming up with a working general definition.