# Is Playboy porn? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 21, 2011, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791 "2011-07-21T01:25:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/61 "2011-07-31T18:43:29Z")
> [@DMark](#): > > If that arouses you, so be it - you could probably also be aroused by the models in the Sears Catalog underwear section. You aren’t? 😛 > [@](#): > > I think kids of any age could look at photos in Playboy and see a nekkid person, but I hardly think they would need years of therapy to undo those horrid images. If nude models are just standing there and not masturbating or sitting on a banana, what is the big deal? I don’t think it is particularly harmful, nor do I think it is a big deal. I mean you can ( and many have ) make a cogent argument that it perpetuates harmful stereotypes about the perfect woman’s body. But at the end of the day I truly don’t think a Playboy is worth getting up in arms about. But that is a separate question from whether or not it is pornography. Like I said in my first post my first impulse was to say, no, it wasn’t. No penetration, no porn ( not quite, but you get what I mean ). But on second thought I changed my mind. Because Playboy has always been _explicitly_ about selling sex. Many other things as well, including a certain idealized, intellectual, well-heeled gentleman’s lifestyle. But at the end of the day it was still at base about sexual titillation. Whether you call it erotica or pornography ( and I don’t really draw that distinction myself ), it is less about the purity of beauty than it is about getting the juices flowing. It is about as bland and uncontroversial as porn gets, but I still would categorize it as cheesecake/softcore porn. It isn’t the nudity, it is the intent of the nudity. A lot of actual nude art photography play with notions of the erotic as well, but it is usually trying to engage multiple levels of interest at once. Playboy shoots are mostly after just one ;). But that doesn’t mean I think Playboy is _bad_, anymore than I think porn is bad. It isn’t ( to me ) - it just is what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/62 "2011-08-01T02:07:02Z")
> [@DMark](#): > > Maybe I lived in Europe too long, but the sight of a naked woman (or man) posing alone is not what I, nor most Europeans, would consider pornography. > > If that arouses you, so be it - you could probably also be aroused by the models in the Sears Catalog underwear section. > > I think kids of any age could look at photos in Playboy and see a nekkid person, but I hardly think they would need years of therapy to undo those horrid images. If nude models are just standing there and not masturbating or sitting on a banana, what is the big deal? > Sometimes I wonder where this American prude attitude comes from. > > My guess is that the same people who consider Playboy pornographic go see movies with a nude woman or man getting up from bed and walking to the bathroom. Is that a porno film? Oh for crying out loud. :rolleyes: Nobody here said that it was bad, or that kids would be permanently warped by looking at a Playboy. They simply said yes, it’s [soft-core](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softcore) porn. That’s it. It’s meant to be arrousing. Pornography =! bad. It just means it’s meant to be sexual. Tame, but sexual. Like those lame movies they used to show on Cinemax late at night. (Or maybe they still do, I don’t know) (My uncle used to subscribe to either _Playboy_ or _Penthouse_ when I was a kid. My cousins and I found them and started giggling. “Heheheh – check it out – naked people!!!” We thought it was funny. Of course, when you’re seven, anything relating to nudity is funny) ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/63 "2011-08-01T15:54:06Z")
It’s difficult to believe that in this day and age, there are still people who consider _Playboy_ porn. ---
**Author:** ![Plumbkrazy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f05b48/32.png) [@Plumbkrazy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plumbkrazy)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/64 "2011-08-01T16:18:52Z")
In my opinion, porn must include some sexual activity. Hustler is porn. Playboy is not. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/65 "2011-08-01T16:23:14Z")
Back in Texas, I knew someone who kept not one, but two (2) different volumes of a, um, literary journal titled _Girls Who Like to Suck Big Cocks_ on his coffee table. Now, _that_ was porn. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/66 "2011-08-01T16:26:25Z")
I consider it “porn-lite”. Like introductory porn. ---
**Author:** ![Plumbkrazy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f05b48/32.png) [@Plumbkrazy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plumbkrazy)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/67 "2011-08-01T16:35:14Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > It’s meant to be arrousing. If that’s the criteria then The Jonas Brothers have been making porn for young girls for quite some time now. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/68 "2011-08-02T22:22:09Z")
> [@Plumbkrazy](#): > > If that’s the criteria then The Jonas Brothers have been making porn for young girls for quite some time now. Oh god, Justin Bieber!!! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/69 "2011-08-03T00:22:03Z")
> [@DMark](#): > > My guess is that the same people who consider Playboy pornographic go see movies with a nude woman or man getting up from bed and walking to the bathroom. Is that a porno film? Your guess is incorrect. I don’t consider myself a prude but I certainly consider Playboy to be porn. Nor do I equate all nudity with porn. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Bosstrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstrain)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/70 "2011-08-03T00:40:37Z")
I’m a man, and no it’s not porn…why you ask, the ‘pornographic’ pictures in the magazine are so mild and the girls so airbrushed and fake, it’s not stimulating on any level, whatsoever. Plus, there’s plenty of free (and virus free) porn on the internet, if you know where to look (like I do :D), and it’s much more intense, dirty, nasty, and gritty. Guys that read the Playboy are really wanting to read a magazine, that just so happens to have nude women in it, or at least nowdays they are, 20-25 years ago, yeah, it was still porn back then. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/71 "2011-08-03T00:44:12Z")
It’s not _good_ porn, but it’s porn in the sense the the images are - at least in theory - intended to be sexually arousing. We don’t really have a good, solid definition of pornography, though. Are videos of women’s bare feet pornographic? For some people they are. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/72 "2011-08-03T00:49:17Z")
I’m in the camp of “it’s the softest, most bland and non-offensive pablum porn possible”. In fact, Playboy is usually a good dividing line. It is, perpetually, exactly one nanometer on the ‘porn’ side of the divider between ‘porn’ and ‘not porn’. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/73 "2011-08-03T17:03:46Z")
Yes, it’s pr0n. Just very mild pr0n. Very, very vanilla. Training wheels pr0n. Usually reasonably tasteful, but even when not so tasteful, just doesn’t have the guts to go completely over the edge into disgusting tasteless trash. ---
**Author:** ![ronald33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/13edae/32.png) [@ronald33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ronald33)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/74 "2012-09-12T22:44:32Z")
People,nobody seems to have mentioned the Supreme Court ruling (decades ago) that specifically said, “_Playboy_ is NOT pornography”. That’s why that publication can legally be sent through snailmail. And I tend to think the same thing about the Internet (especially since other sex sites tend to usually contain “viruses”. PLAYBOY corporation would never allow that…_PLAYBOY_ is “socially redeeming”.) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/75 "2012-09-13T00:06:00Z")
> [@Shmendrik](#): > > 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”. If that’s the definition you’re gonna use, then most advertising, the SI swimsuit issue and countless other things that most of society considers fairly mundane and -par-for-the-course are also porn. ---
**Author:** ![Jaledin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Jaledin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jaledin)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/76 "2012-09-13T00:17:58Z")
No, it’s not really porn. I had a subscription for about a year – in fact this woman-thing-wife-type entity got it for me. Great fucking interview every month. Basketball-sized tits and no penetration can either make it or break it. Yeah, sure, I’ve been strokin’ to some of them (cue Dr. Lonnie Smith’s tune), but not that big a deal. All that stupid crap about prosumer audio and shit is retarded, but what do you expect? It’s a mass-market magazine. I don’t get the hate – the interviews and ocasionally articles are OK. And, it’s a bonus if there’s some fur and early morning dew. Nothing wrong with that, ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/77 "2012-09-13T00:51:34Z")
It’s been a while since I saw a Playboy magazine. Doesn’t it have, uh, gynaecological detail? All those magazines kind of blur into one for me, as I don’t think my cousin segregated his stash by title! ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/78 "2012-09-13T03:12:53Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > If that’s the definition you’re gonna use, then most advertising, the SI swimsuit issue and countless other things that most of society considers fairly mundane and -par-for-the-course are also porn. No, we don’t. The purpose of most advertisements is, guess what? To sell a product. The purpose of Playboy, as they flat out admit, is to titillate. And of course the SI swimsuit issue is porn. That’s specifically why it was made. And that’s specifically why people look askance at you looking at it in public. Look, I have a foot fetish. You want to know one of the biggest rules on any foot fetish website? No underage girls. It’s just feet, not anything remotely involving having sex with them, but it’s banned. And if you ask the owners why, they will report that they could get in trouble for child pornography, since they promote their pictures as wank material. If porn were just about showing sex, then nudity wouldn’t constantly be assumed to be child porn. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/79 "2012-09-13T03:18:59Z")
Didn’t think to mention it earlier, but at my undergrad university in Texas, I worked as a student assistant in the library. We had every _Playboy_ back to the beginning, full years bound in hardcover like we regularly did with periodicals. But they were all stored in the Rare Book Room, to prevent theft. You had to leave an ID to check anything out of that room, and only a staff member was allowed in. We’d go in and get whatever a patron ordered. But it seems all the naughty pictures had been scissored out of the earlier issues by an old-prude Texas librarian. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/80 "2012-09-13T12:13:52Z")
It’s poft sore corn And very well done at that, mostly because it’s part of an overall compendium of arts, sports, leisure, politics, and humor, with the sexy pictures, jokes, and cartoons occupying less than 50% of the total, and with the rest of the stuff of high quality. That, and the hidden bunny on the cover. There actually _was_ a philosophy buried at the bottom of all that verbiage, and they’ve stuck to it. All of this is why, despite all the free internet porn, the magazine is still around. It’s got a loyal core of readers and an identifiable brand. Its competitors (those still around\_) have much more hardcore without pretensions of style [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791.md?page=5)