Isn’t pictures of people actually having sex legally obscene and illegal? Then how can Penthouse and Hustler (and maybe others, I don’t know) get away with publishing this kind of stuff? And I don’t mean pictures of people “pretending” to do it, but ACTUALLY having sex! You can clearly see penetration. They’ve been doing it for at least three years now. What gives?
What’s obscene about sex? Where do you think you came from? (No stork stories, please!) And if those magazines are obscene to you, why are you such an expert on what’s in them? Go read ‘Good Housekeeping’.
And, I suppoise, there’s a nother question. If publishing material like this has never been illegal, why didn’t they do it a long time ago?
tcburnett, you misunderstand me. I’m not asking because I think its “wrong,” but because it was never done before. I thought that was because showing penetration or mouth-genital contact was illegal. I’ve seen old Penthouse’s from the 70’s, and they were nowhere near as explicit as they are now. To answer your other question, I know because I look at those magazines. Duh! I have to admit, porn has never been so well made as it is now.
So why is it okay now?
Penthouse et al could be trying to maintain an air of dignity in a heavily controversial market. In previous years, showing actual penetration might have been “just too much”, whereas now the conservative views are more accepting. Some magazines have been showing penetration for years…I don’t know if they are monthy mags, but I do remember seeing them. (ahh…junior high)
It depends on the context in which it is shown. If the oral and vaginal penetration was performed out in public for everyone to see, then yes, it would be illegal. However, when presented in a hardcopy publication that only adults are allowed to purchase, then no, it is not illegal.
Who says it was never done before?
I’ve got photos from the 19th century that show all sorts of kinky sex that would never get into Penthouse (might sneak into Hustler though).
Pornography does have a legal definition, but almost nothing fits that definition. In order for something to be pornography, it has to be utterly without social merit. So if one marriage is saved because some husband got all hot for his wife after looking at a dirty magazine, said magazine is perfectly legal, and thus not pornography. Or, if drainthelizard testified that he thought Penthouse was way cool, then presto … no censorship. (The exception would be child pornography, which is a whole new world of illegality.)
Of course, the colloquial definition of pornography is okay too, it’s just not the same as the legal definition. In any case, how explict something is doesn’t necessarily determine whether or not it’s pornography.
One thing I’ve often wondered is why “real thing” porno doesn’t count as prostitution … after all, you’re paying someone to have sex. I don’t know the way the law works, but I guess as long as neither person involved in the act is the one paying for it, then it doesn’t count as pornography. So the payroll people never get invited in front of the camera 
Someone with a user name of drainthelizard forfiets the right to complain about what he sees in Penthouse magazine.
Boris is right, pornography is illegal, Hustler and Penthouse are not considered pornography by definition, hence they are legal.
I believe that pornography is legal. I think it’s obsenity thats illegal depending upon community standards. (in the USA) Many (most?) places in the USA had adopted the standard that penetration or genital contact pictures were obsene. That was why the standard magazines showed people posing really close, but not actually “doing it.” As to why the standards have changed, I think for most people in the US, Porno is no longer a big deal. Although were I live there are still no places that rent “dirty” movies. Every few years one of the mom & pop video stores tries it and soon gets shut down.
I find it curious that depictions of an act essential for the propagation of our species are considered obscene, but depictions of violence and murder are not.
Why is it that the porno movie business is regarded as morally corrupt, but mainstream movies are OK? After all, it is the mainstream movies that really heavily on “action” scenes, which are mainly violence and murder.
As we say in Australia, you can shoot them, but you aren’t allowed to root them.
This actually relates to something I have wondered, in porn movies you clearly have people having sex and getting paid, yet prostitution is illegal. Would it be legal to hire a prostitute to help you make a home video? After all, video equipment is common. Nope, I am not paying you to have sex with me, I am paying you to participate in my movie about a couple having sex.
The question of how it’s legal to pay “actors” to have sex, while you can’t pay a prostitute comes up on this board about once every 2 months- you can find some good discussions in the archives.
As I from them, in some areas it would be considered prostitution, and they would get shut down. Most porno movies are made in areas that consider it “art” (I think LA and New York City were mentioned).
I’d guess the bottom line is that it would be up to a jury to decide your intent if you tried to get away with it
Arjuna34
I havent looked at those magazines for years, I prefer the real thing. So, penetration finally? Hmmm.
It’s not a context thing, its a community standard thing. What a store can sell would depend on that.
I don’t want anyone to mistake me for drainthelizard’s sock puppet, but I don’t think that there was a complaint.
Wow, I guess you learn something new everyday. This explains a lot.
In an old magazine, like from the early 80s, it had pictures of Oral sex, except the oral sex was blurred out. I thought that was weird, but now I know the answer.
That legal argument has been used successfully in the past. In California, some porn film producers have been arrested and convicted for pandering. The legal premise is that they’re equivalent to pimps, since they’re soliciting women to have sex for money, the filming of the act is conveniently overlooked. So its illegal to put an ad in the newspaper saying “wanted: porn actresses.” I guess the women have to volunteer, in which case, they wouldn’t object.
We have covered why porno films are not prostitution here quite extensively already.
I would also like to say that during a strange course of events, someone posted this exact question in alt.mag.penthouse:
"Can anybody explain why/when non-adult bookstore magazines like
Penthouse, hustler, etc. started showing fellatio, and other full
contact sex? I remember when it was all “hidden.”
To which someone said:
“Don’t mean to sound insulting, but “Why?” is really a dumb question. Common
sense will tell you that that is what the customers looking at the photo sets
really want. The only reason that it hasn’t been shown all along is that there
were too many legal restrictions. Now, apparrently there has been enough laws
declared unconstitutional (in the U.S. at least) that there is enough chance to
win enough court cases to justify the expense of printing the more explicit
pictures. I know that near me anyone who carries adult magazines either caries
Penthouse and Playboy or, in the case of some of the smaller gas stations and
quickshops, just about every thing you could find in any of the local adult
stores…”