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.
The way I used Playboy when I was young … it was porn and that was a great thing.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Porn is a hazy word. Think about pinups for the troops during any war, but mainly WWII. Even Walt Disney Studios 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?
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.
nm
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.