# 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:** 10\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![qualityleashdog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/9f8e36/32.png) [@qualityleashdog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qualityleashdog)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/81 "2012-09-13T12:35:04Z")
It’s ‘gateway’ porn. You know, the stuff kids start out with, then graduate to Hustler, videos and before you know it, they don’t consider it real porn unless it involves a donkey, a woman and a man dressed like Zorro. If Playboy isn’t porn, then I say a hardcore adult film that makes any flimsy attempt at a plot is a drama and not porn, either. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/82 "2012-09-13T12:48:21Z")
The way I used Playboy when I was young … it was porn and that was a great thing. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/83 "2012-09-13T13:50:40Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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). This. Context is everything. Hence “War Porn,” “Car Porn,” etc. the primary existence of which is to say, “OOh Comma 'ave a looka DIS!” as opposed to being instructive of the subject matter at … erm … hand. Oh and by the way – Zombie Porn! ---
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/84 "2012-09-13T16:13:46Z")
> [@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? As a European person who finds American prudishness funny, I have to disagree with you here. It’s still porn (or more accurately, contains porn) for the reasons others have so clearly stated above. The thing is that something is porn is not a value judgement, I would personally have no problem reading Playboy say on a train, a doctor’s waiting room, or in front of my gran. It’s the American reluctance to do that which we ought to be making fun of, not their definitions of words. Hypothetically mind. I haven’t actually ever read a Playboy (although I’ve seen plenty of images taken from them) so I’m only guessing the magazine content, it could be softer than I think. ---
**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:** [September 16, 2012, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/85 "2012-09-16T00:33:39Z")
> [@Bosstrain](#): > > 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. 🆒 If you think most porn stars aren’t “fake” and “airbrushed”, I’ve got a number of bridges here in Pittsburgh for you to choose from. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/86 "2012-09-16T01:48:42Z")
Here’s an interesting editorial. Here’s a review for ProductX. Here’s an ad aimed at guys. Check out this gadget. Here’s some advice for men. Here’s something to jack off to. Yeh, porn. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/87 "2012-09-16T02:04:18Z")
Porn is a hazy word. Think about pinups for the troops during any war, but mainly WWII. Even [**Walt Disney Studios**](http://www.hakes.com/images.asp?ItemNo=29263&ImageNo=001) sent out some illustrated pinups for the servicemen. Most guys, just by glancing, get a boost of dopamine by being stimulated in a very low, sexual level. Pinup girls are very popular among the military or blue-collar jobs where mainly men have to do miserable work in perpetuity. But, if the _intent_ on the artist or producers is to stimulate sexual arousal, then yeh, it’s pornographic in _nature._ And you can’t tell me troops wouldn’t wander to their bunk to wank one out with even Disney’s tame, almost innocently nude characters. You work with what you have. In the case of Playboy, seems they aim to remain a tolerable adult men’s magazine, that skirts pornographic material. No matter the subjective tameness. Essentially, that’s what made Playboy unique and is its backbone in its magazine. The company would suffer serious loss of customers if all of the porn content were pulled. Doesn’t mean it’s intrinsically bad or deviant. But do we really need to call it some other vague word to differentiate content that aims to at least stimulate arousal or pop a boner? ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/88 "2012-09-17T02:40:39Z")
I instantly said yes. I asked my GF yesterday, and she instantly said no, then when I was surpised, she said it was soft porn, but only very mild soft porn. I’d agree with that, but her reaction may have been similar to some others in this thread - thinking of porn as being more extreme than just naked bodies intended to tittilate. There’s no value judgment there - I have nothing against porn per se - but soft porn is still porn the same way a small fish is still a fish. If it weren’t porn, it wouldn’t sell. ---
**Author:** ![DMark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DMark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMark)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/89 "2012-09-17T16:04:48Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791/90 "2012-09-17T16:50:46Z")
> [@ronald33](#): > > 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. Do you have a cite for this? Did they specifically say that it was not pornography, or that it was not _obscenity_? By the way, you revived a year-old thread with your post. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-playboy-porn/589791.md?page=4)