Maybe the first one was just flashing, but its my understanding that the more recent ones may start with flashing and stripping but ended up with your garden variety lesbian sex. So my question is, why do you see ads for these on TV, and the occasional party hot line commercial, but no ads for the new hot porn DVD or various internet sites? Is there some rule that GGW is able to exploit, or do the networks not know the content of the GGW videos, or do the porn people have the ability to air ads, but just choose not to?
Internet sites most likely don’t advertise on TV because TV ads are much more expensive than internet ads.
Internet ads? Hell, I still get catalogs.
Girls Gone Wild’s sibling line, Guys Gone Wild, also advertises on TV, but a) I’ve never seen an ad for it anywhere but LGBT channel Logo and b) there is no sexual contact on the Guys videos (other than an occasional swordfight).
Perhaps it’s because GGW videos contain scenes other than hardcore porn; relatively tame kissing, dancing, etc. that can still be considered titillating. Those no-nude/softcore scenes comprise the whole of the TV ads (I believe I read a thread here before where some people intrigued by GGW were surprised to hear that the titles contained HC; despite the kissing in the ads, it’s by no means 100% clear that things eventually (d)evolve into full-on lesbian sex); meanwhile, a standard HC porn movie has few scenes that can be taken out and shown somewhat intact in an ad.
That said, on occasion local porn purveyors advertise here on broadcast channels, though they’re usually limited to glamor-shots-type stills of actresses.
I haven’t seen a Girls Gone Wild tape, mostly because I’m really, really cheap, but I remember reading an article about the firm that appeared in someplace unexpected, like The New Yorker.
IIRC, the standard tv-advertised tapes have no more than mild kisses and light touching between the girls. They’re designed to lure you to the web site, where more explicit lesbian sex scene tapes, or DVDs now, are offered.
This might have changed since and the GGW at the Iowa Caucuses tapes featured have gone hard core. If not, and I think not, then what is advertised on tv is less racy even than Skinemax and not at all porn by my standards. They would be R-rated if a theatrical movie and so perfectly fine by any standards.
That makes sense, if the particular tape on screen is PG-13, but the other non advertised ones aren’t.
And I recommend if you do buy one, don’t buy it from their site, or buy a it with a credit card that you cancel immediately- I am told they are notorious for not answering the phone when you call to cancel, and will keep sending you shit and charging you.
Sports Illustrated has advertised on TV, and they are porn.
The “Swimsuit” issue outsells all the other issues combined, I hear. It is pretty obvious that the selling point of that issue is the pictures of scantily clad young ladies, which is pornography. If most of their sales are generated by their pornography, then they are pornographers.
I see that they aren’t sold in the pornography section of newsstands, and as far as I know most people don’t consider them porn, but I’ll be danged if I can see why not. Are there any bad assumptions or logical errors above?
Yes. Pornography is in the eye of the beholder. Since you admit that most people do not consider them porn, then ipso facto they are not porn.
The SI Swimsuit issue may have qualified as pornography in the US 100 years ago, and probably would qualify as porn in Saudi Arabia, but by generally prevailing community standards in the US today it is not porn.
They also feature guys masturbating.
The big one is that nudity is not pornography.
And the swimsuit pictures have no nudity: i.e. no nipples or pudenda are ever visible. Which makes them two degrees removed from porn.
Not pornography, in any way shape or form.
>Pornography is in the eye of the beholder.
>The big one is that nudity is not pornography.
What? Why is pornography defined by “the beholder”? And what bearing does the “nudity is not pornography” statement have? “A isn’t B and B isn’t C” hardly proves that “A is two degrees removed from C”.
I think the contents in question are photographs of women wearing very little, and they are bought for their sexually stimulating nature. Do you really think this doesn’t describe the contents in question? Or, do you really think this doesn’t describe porn?
If you’re going by a strict dictionary definition, such as “creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire” then you have a point via semantics. But I’d say for the average person, porn has a different meaning, involoving nude people have sex, with genitalia exposed, fulids flying, etc.
Excuse me? I don’t think paint qualifies as clothing, which makes the SI swimsuit issue chock-full of nudity.
Have you seen their pictorials lately?
I agree that nudity is not pornography, but these models aren’t selling swimsuits. The whole purpose of the photos is sexual titillation, which doesn’t make them two degrees removed from porn in my book. More like a short left turn away.
What about fetish porn which could very well have none of that?
If it’s meant to be beaten off to, it’s probably good enough to say that it’s porn.
First, the community standard rule is a legal one (relates to the famous line, "I can’t define porn, but I know it when I see it…). And as soon as you say the SI swimsuit issue is porn, there, too, go all the fashion magazines.
Second, you have to be extremely prudish to automatically associate nudity with pornography. In truth, you can define porn anyway you want to. If you associate mere nudity with porn, then massive amounts of classical paintings in museums around the world would be x-rated according to your definition. And yes, extremist Muslim countries already do that for us.
If, as you say, the purpose of the women in the bathing suits is to arouse us sexually and THAT’S enough to call it porn… then you’ve just included many other things that can sexually arouse someone. Poetry, perhaps. Music. Artwork. And I’m not limiting this to works with obvious sexual content. Heck, if someone with a weird fetish gets turned on by psalms, you’ve just included the Bible in your porn stash.
That’s why in legal matters, your opinion doesn’t matter. Not saying that offensively – you can be as sexually free or prudish as you choose to be, you have free choice in that regard. But to define porn in regards to legalities, a community standard is a better choice than an individual’s – ANY individual’s – standards.
And if you REALLY think that the swimsuit issue is pornography – as opposed to just making a point – then I DEFINITELY don’t want YOU defining porn in my neck of the woods.
As for GGW, I’ll personally agree it ranges from soft core titillation to hard core porn, and I don’t know why networks run even the ads they do. I’ve got no problems with porn, but I don’t want the ads on comedy central where my kids can watch it (and where my parental controls won’t necessarily block it) before they’re much older. But it’s far from the end of the world if my kids see some blocked out boobies.
I honestly didn’t know there was fetish stuff that some point didn’t result in sex- but I believe you.
If someone is sexually stimulated by a photo of a fully-clothed woman, does this also qualify as porn? By your standards, it would seem to.
The point is, the distinction between porn and not-porn is largely arbitrary. As has been noted, the legal definition relies on community standards. And by current community standards, the SI Swimsuit issue may be erotic, but it is not pornography.
>If, as you say, the purpose of the women in the bathing suits is to arouse us sexually and THAT’S enough to call it porn… then you’ve just included many other things that can sexually arouse someone. Poetry, perhaps. Music. Artwork.
>If someone is sexually stimulated by a photo of a fully-clothed woman, does this also qualify as porn?
It isn’t trivial to debate how we should define “porn” and to consider what different people mean by it. Like most of us, I imagine I recognize it when I see it. On closer consideration of photographic materials, I think it is the combination of three elements that does it for me: 1) intended titillation, 2) photos of attractive young adults wearing little or no clothing, and 3) no other plausible purpose.
>And if you REALLY think that the swimsuit issue is pornography – as opposed to just making a point – then I DEFINITELY don’t want YOU defining porn in my neck of the woods.
Well, I’m happy not to try to limit your access to entertainment materials. My preferences would guarantee us access to almost anything people are willing to publish, unless the creation of the materials themselves would seem to do harm. But I would wager that the people at Sports Illustrated imagine themselves as more distant from the people at Hustler than they deserve to.
I’m making a point, sure - but I also really DO think SI is porn, at least primarily.
There seems to be some confusion in this thread over the legal definition of “pornography” versus “obscenity.” It is obscenity to which the “community standards” test (as one prong of a three-pronged test) applies.
Smut, I’m glad to say, is in the mind of the beholder. When correctly viewed, **everything **is lewd. I can tell you things about Peter Pan, and the Wizard of Oz, there’s a dirty old man.