Hot debate with some coworkers a few days ago, strictly divided among gender lines.
The women said yes, the men said no. I opined that Playboy is “soft” porn, but still porn.
IS it porn? Yes, there are actual articles in it – but there’s still naked women. But there are naked women in Hustler, too, and there’s definitely a difference between the 2 magazines. On the other hand, I can’t put Playboy in the same “not porn” category as Better Homes and Gardens.
So whatcha think?
Of course not. Pictures of a naked body isn’t porn.
Well, if the test is would I feel OK reading it in front of family members/co-workers/etc…then no. It doesn’t pass the “I’m not embarrassed of it” test. Not that that’s an official thing or anything.
At any time in your discussion did anyone want to perhaps discuss what the meaning of the word “porn” is for purposes of the discussion? Or do you work in a factory or something? Playboy is of course both porn and not porn depending on the definition of “porn.”
My own personal feeling on the meaning of “porn” in the abstract would include pictures of naked people designed to tittilate the viewer (as opposed to, say, designed to teach the viewer something about human anatomy). So, Playboy is porn.
Of course it is.
Wikipedia:
Oxford English Dictionary: (bolding mine)
A photograph of an attractive individual posing nude in a position designed for erotic appeal clearly fits the definition of “exhibition of sexual subjects … in a manner intended to stimulate erotic rather aesthetic feelings”.
Oh yes, we went a few rounds with that too. I just figured that issue has probably been hashed to death on here.
To me that’s way too vague of a test. There’s a lot of stuff that has no titillation factor but I wouldn’t be caught dead reading in front of family members, coworkers etc.
Some of it’s porn, some of it isn’t. The naked girls posed seductively are porn, articles on non-sex-related things aren’t porn.
Porn is a spectrum, and contextual. The photo spreads in Playboy probably register as “porn of the exceedingly mildest variety.”
Of course it is, next question.
Porn == wank material. Is that the purpose? Then it’s porn.
Soft porn is still porn. I would consider Playboy to be just on the porn side of the porn threshold, while American Phtotgrapher would be on the non-porn side.
Yes because it exists only to excite
If my choices are porn or not porn, then it’s porn. Just barely, but porn.
I however, read it for the articles.
In the 1950’s-60’s, it was the porniest porn you were likely to see in polite society, and some polite societies didn’t like it a whole lot. That was before Hustler and the Internet. How things change.
I was asked to put a Playboy away in a restaurant in the 1980’s even though there was no exposed flesh and I was simply reading an article to a girlfriend. It offended the manager that much.
Of course it’s porn. Even a book full of classical nudes is porn if it’s used or especially marketed as erotic material. (I’d draw the line at a book with only a handful of classical nudes since while people may also use it as a wank material there’s no way it was intended as such, while a compilation of entirely classical nudes may be iffy.)
Then I guess a Sears catalog would be out.
I haven’t looked at a Playboy mag since I was a kid and my dad had a subscription to it. I’ve watched porn and don’t believe that the photos in Playboy quite qualify as “porn.”
Of course it’s porn. I mean, not all of it–Playboy has or had its share of great writing and cartoons, but the centerfolds and model pictorials, of course it’s porn. Mild, inoffensive porn (in my opinion), but porn nonetheless.
Yeah it’s porn. It’s marshmallow fluff porn, but it’s porn.
But it’s somehow, I don’t know, “respectible porn”, if that makes sense.