| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
TheRizzo (0)
|
I would still call it porn, albiet softcore but still its porn to me. When I was a youngster it was definitely porn!!
|
01-08-09 12:40am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
Definition of porn: writing or pictures or films etc. of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.
I think Playboy (and softcore sites like Met-art and others) have nude pictures, but the pictures have value beyond sexual stimulation. Porn is a derogatory word, like smut. I don't think Playboy or Met-art is smut. That's my personal opinion.
But there's also nothing wrong with sexual stimulation. You look at a picture of a beautiful or attractive woman, you don't feel some desire or appreciation, maybe you're more dead than alive.
|
01-08-09 01:30am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
The American Heritage Dictionary, 1st entry definition is "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."
So we get into the legally important concept of intent. I suppose in theory it's possible for the publishers of a magazine that includes photos of nude women to NOT have sexual arousal as the primary purpose, but for it instead to display the nude as art. Anyway, their intent could be unclear.
Mine, however, IS clear. I'll turn art into porn if I can just by the way I look at it. LOL.
But much of a Playboy issue contains text which has other purposes, so taken as a whole, I wouldn't say that the magazine is porn.
|
01-08-09 01:59am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
elonlybuster (0)
|
I consider things done sexually or to provoke sex to be porn whether the person doing the act is fully nude or partially. So no I don't consider it porn. Neither do I consider Suicide Girls porn. If anything softcore, but that's about it.
|
01-08-09 04:16am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
surferman (0)
|
For most people who do not look at porn of any variety, I think Playboy would be regarded as soft porn. Maybe we who look at a wider range of porn have a different view point, but if you asked a cross section of the population I am sure that would be their definition. Having said that, it is so long since I have personally looked at a copy of Playboy I am unable to give my own true definition - just have hazy memories from 20+ years ago when I last looked at a copy.
|
01-08-09 04:17am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
TalonIcefire (0)
|
Different folks, different opinions… Online sites and printed material like Playboy, MET & DOMAI, when discussing the photography, are solely displaying the natural beauty inherent in woman. Nudity does not have to be sexually based. Look at some painters of old, there are galleries filled with nude and/or semi nude models around the world. Do people look at these images and thing art or pornography? In college, I have had the opportunity to pose nude for various classroom painting sessions. Was that art or pornography? Only the viewer can truly decide.
|
01-08-09 06:05am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
Porn is ANYTHING designed to sexually arouse by using images. Trying to draw the line is always the problem. In the end that's why some countries like Iran & Saudi Arabia keep women under blanket-like Burkhas and don't allow images of ANY kind.
Freedom means porn. Trying to repress sexuality is a slippery slope that leads to repression of women and men in the most basic way.
|
01-08-09 06:56am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
williamj (0)
|
Playboy is the first wack off material for most of us. Is it porn? I guess...
|
01-08-09 07:13am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
Jeffrey99 (0)
|
I guess my question is, would it have been considered porn before the interent? And I think most people would say yes.
In uptight America, I would still consider it porn but it's about as soft as you can go. Other countries where nudity is more acceptable, then I don't think it would be.
|
01-08-09 07:29am
Reply To Message
|
10
|
Monahan (0)
|
Are the "anatomically correct" nude statues and paintings created in the distant past and on display all over the world pornographic? Do those critically acclaimed artworks display anything more than Playboy does? Were those pieces intended to be arousing when they were created?
I suspect that, in the year 2501, if there are still people around, and Playboy hasn't drifted into total obscurity, it will be considered either an exemplar of our overly "puritan" obsession with anything sexual or an exemplar of ancient art, similar to Michaelangelo's David or Venus de Milo.
I answered no, it's not pornography.
In fact a video depiction of a man and woman who are copulating can be non-pornographic as well. The real issue is the definition of pornography...and the intentions of the person/people who create the definition.
|
01-08-09 08:12am
Reply To Message
|
11
|
Denner (0)
|
Things differs according to nationality, I guess.
I'd never consider Playboy as Porn - it's nudity - and nudity is not porn.
Porn is interaction - fucking, 69 or whatever - with two persons of different sex or same makes love/fucks in front of a camera (still or video).
|
01-08-09 08:14am
Reply To Message
|
12
|
Boobs4ever (0)
|
I would probably say Playboy is soft porn its made to arouse and not to bee art, and most softcore sites like met & doma doesnt get their members to signed up bc its art. They do get members through nudity, beutiful women in romantic locations and so on. Made for in firstcase for your enjoyment as arouse you. Like Playboy and other Mens magazines partly does.
|
01-08-09 08:29am
Reply To Message
|
13
|
Lionheart (0)
|
Playboy for me is softcore porn, but it was the first kind of porn that I ever saw, so it will always have a bring back memories. I think Playboy will always be a big part of American culture.
|
01-08-09 01:18pm
Reply To Message
|
14
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
Denner reflects what I was going to say. Nationality plays a huge part. When we lived in Germany for a short time we had ordinary weeklies on our coffee table that all contained nudes. We made no effort to hide these publications, because they were considered respectable and no one in Germany thought of nudity as porn. Neither do I.
|
01-08-09 01:59pm
Reply To Message
|
15
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
However, having written the above, I consider "Playboy" an abomination because the magazine taught two generations to admire big (mostly artificial) breasts and that unnatural glossy look as well as a hedonistic life style that makes it look acceptable for a young girl to spend her most productive years lounging uselessly around a pool or hanging from the arm of Uncle Heff.
|
01-08-09 02:05pm
Reply To Message
|
16
|
jd1961 (0)
|
Remember what Steve Martin said about the famous Farrah Fawcett-Majors poster?
"Farrah has never called me once. And after all the times I've held her poster with one hand!".
Playboy is the father of modern smut!
|
01-08-09 02:08pm
Reply To Message
|
17
|
turboshaft (0)
|
REPLY TO #11 - Denner :
I would have to disagree with Denner here; I like a lot of solo porn -- focusing on one model at a time -- and it is intended to be porn and nothing else.
Even though Playboy may be seen as nudity and nothing more, its intent still seems very sexual in nature, and not "art." I doubt many subscribe to or read it simply because it has good photography, or care deeply about what the models say. Yes, it is very mild by what creative perverts dream up today, but I don't think that suddenly makes it much more than good ol' smut.
The problem, of course, is that they publish a lot more than just a few photos of nude women every month, but whole articles, interviews, etc, very unrelated to porn. Honestly, I can remember more of what I read than what girls I saw last time I looked at a Playboy.
|
01-08-09 03:43pm
Reply To Message
|
18
|
turboshaft (0)
|
REPLY TO #15 - messmer :
Two? Probably a lot more, unfortunately. I would consider the lifestyle, or lack thereof, that Playboy has tried to effect -- from the breasts, to the materialism, and beyond -- all worse than the "harder" porn that I enjoy over their magazine.
I lived in Germany for a few years as well, and saw quite a bit of nudity displayed: billboards, weekly magazines, TV, film. But it was almost always for the purpose of selling some product or another, so it wasn't really sexual, just purely commercial.
Here we use sex, implied or otherwise, to sell just about everything, all without the benefit of full nudity. It gets ridiculous how we will be up in arms, in a sort of Puritan way, about how something goes a little too far with the sex or the nudity. No one cares about being enslaved to a product or company, but hint at a little nudity and suddenly the apocalypse is nigh!
|
01-08-09 04:06pm
Reply To Message
|
19
|
pat362 (0)
|
I consider Playboy porn albeit more along the line of softcore porn. It is true that you find many other articles and stories that have nothing to do with sex, but just because a porn movie has a storyline beyond the one involving sex. You still consider the movie porn because it will elicit a sexual reaction. A few playboy magazine were soiled by me in my youth, so how can I not think of it has porn.
|
01-08-09 06:32pm
Reply To Message
|
20
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #18 - turboshaft :
turboshaft wrote:
"Here we use sex, implied or otherwise, to sell just about everything, all without the benefit of full nudity. It gets ridiculous how we will be up in arms, in a sort of Puritan way, about how something goes a little too far with the sex or the nudity. No one cares about being enslaved to a product or company, but hint at a little nudity and suddenly the apocalypse is nigh!"
You are so right. The Janet Jackson "scandal" was a case in point, much ado about nothing! I could never understand and will never understand the North American attitude when it comes to sex. Movies showing a couple making love within the context of a love story will earn themselves an NC-17 for showing some flesh while the most brutal, violent movies are being shown under a PG rating. To me violence is much more obscene than even hard core porn (which I don't care for personally) could ever be.
|
01-08-09 06:54pm
Reply To Message
|
21
|
Goldfish (0)
|
Penthouse may cross over into the softcore porn realm but Playboy is simple nude photography.
|
01-08-09 07:37pm
Reply To Message
|
22
|
rearadmiral (0)
|
I’m not sure I agree with the comment that Penthouse may cross the line into porn. A couple of years ago, definitely it did. Penthouse had full penetration shots, so that clearly crossed the line into hardcore, and that is definitely porn. But today, I’m not sure. I bought a copy of the January 2009 issue yesterday (my first porn magazine buy in well over a year) and was really amazed by how much Penthouse has changed. Instead of chasing Hustler and the magazines at the hard end of the spectrum, Penthouse now seems to be chasing Playboy and maybe even Maxim. I was really disappointed. If I wanted softcore I’d wank to the Sears catalogue.
On a totally unrelated note, there was a pictorial of Teagan Presley in the Penthouse that I bought. I’m a big fan of her earlier work and to be honest I looked at the pictorial and didn’t recognize her until I read the print. Sure, she’s heavily airbrushed, but with her pumped-up front end she’s lost that girl-next-door look that I used to love about her. (I picked up a copy of the 1 Night is Paris DVD out of curiosity. I still have it only because one of the bonus scenes on the DVD is Teagan in Cum Drippers 6. She looks amazing there. Now, she has lost what I found appealing about her. )
|
01-09-09 02:50pm
Reply To Message
|
23
|
TrashMan (Disabled)
|
Gotta get some full imaged snatched to be considered full-blown porn.
|
01-09-09 03:28pm
Reply To Message
|
24
|
pr0n addict (0)
|
when i was younger i used to think so. i think it's more about showing the beauty of the female body. nude female photography.
|
01-09-09 05:34pm
Reply To Message
|
25
|
nygiants03 (0)
|
The definition says it is erotic behavior that causes sexual excitement. But to me playboy is not porn. After watching so much hardcore scenes a female nude body on a magazine doesn't quite cut it for me.
|
02-09-09 10:40am
Reply To Message
|
26
|
C Spanker (0)
|
I consider it porn. It's not all that explicate (although I haven't actually seen one for some time) but it will the the job for me if it is all I have handy.
|
02-28-09 09:09am
Reply To Message
|
