People, people. Please read the first page before you go answering. I’m pointing fingers specifically at roger but also at dnooman. I already changed my statement:
From page 1:
Let me reiterate. Nekked people pictured for the purpose of arousal is porn, IMO. It would definitely come under the heading of soft porn, but still. Roger, you think you’re clever but Excalibre was cleverer* and quicker on the uptake than you, too.
*Yeah, I know it’s not a word.
a little surprising, but not terribly. The airport is a highly visible place that people from out of town might get their impressions of the City from.
For the record, the big magazine shop in downtown SLC (when I lived there) had a big porn magazine section, right up front. It was fenced off so only adults could go in, but you could see the mags from outside. And when Vanna White was on the cover, they put about 20 copies in the store window, Vanna’s bare butt and all.
We’re getting dangerously close to having this thing moved over to GD, but I’ll try to address it without getting all debate-like.
I always thought the Playboy photos were fun to look at, enjoyable to lust over and, later in life, compare with the girls a guy actually went out with. I don’t think Hefner ever labored under the illusion that guys used the photos of nude women to arouse themselves while masturbating, but I don’t think that was ever the primary purpose of the photos. I remember, as a lad, seeing gatefolds proudly displayed in machine shops and automotive garages all over town, but I seriously doubt one would ever have seen photos of nubile vixens spread-legged and feigning ecstasy.
Honestly, if one is so inclined, one could use photos of Margaret Thatcher and Barbara Bush to arouse oneself to onanism, but that does not make the official portrait of either woman pornographic.
For those who self-righteously sniff that all female nudity is pornographic, I’ll repeat a joke I heard many years ago: A man goes to a psychiatrist complaining that he’s tormented by images of naked women. The psychiatrist draws a straight vertical line and asks the man what he sees. “A naked woman standing up,” the man says. The psychiatrist draws a horizontal straight line. “A naked woman lying down,” the man says. The psychistrist draws a zig-zag line, and the man pronounces it a naked woman sitting down.
“I see your problem,” the psychiatrist says, “you have a filthy mind.”
“I have a filthy mind?!” the outraged man shouts. “You’re the one drawing the dirty pictures!”
Oops! Make that:
I don’t think Hefner ever labored under the illusion that guys didn’t use the photos of nude women to arous themselves while masturbating, but I don’t think that was ever the primary purpose of the photos.
The only self-righteousness I see is on the part of people trying to claim their smut is “art”. Like most dudes I prefer something a little nastier than that, but that doesn’t change the fact that a big part of what makes Playboy popular is that each issue contains an arousing picture, and yet they’re not particularly tawdry or nasty, which makes it a bit more socially acceptable to have around (and probably a bit easier to find in some communities.)
I don’t think there’s anything “filthy” about porn whatsoever. I’m seriously puzzled by the fact that you’re reading that into my and Anaamika’s appraisals of Playboy - I’m pretty sure neither of us has ever suggested we have anything against porn.
Look, it’s nudity in sexual context, with a small pretense of being “art” on the side. If it were about “appreciating beauty”, then the beauty depicted in the magazine wouldn’t be quite so one-note, would it? One month, naked chick. Next month, an anthology of photos by Ansel Adams.
It comes down to semantics here - exactly how is “porn” defined? You’re not going to be able to come up with a rigorous definition either. Argue it if you want, but there’s not likely to be any particularly interesting conclusions to be found in that argument.
This is a perfect line.
jeffrice, your post does come out somehow seeming as I think because it’s porn, I also think it’s filthy or bad. No, I don’t at all. Naked women are beautiful…but when they’re laid out in a spread like Playboy and are meant primarily for arousing people* what’s wrong with calling it porn?
(Why do we care, anyhoo?)
*I suppose we can debate all day about what Hefner really intended. Never having met the man I couldn’t tell ya. But you know, it strikes me that just because it was intended one way doesn’t mean it is that way.
(Sigh!) It’s not always about you, dude. It’s about people who self-righteously sniff that all nudity is pornographic. If you’re not among them, then it’s not about you.
Then it was a complete and total hijack that just happened to interrupt a minor disagreement between me and Anaamika on one side and others who claimed Playboy wasn’t pornographic on the other side. If you were arguing against something other than what we said, then your argument was with someone who isn’t present.
Well, I apparently am chopped liver, anyway, seeing as how he only found fit to answer you. 
Maybe I wasn’t present and only thought I was.
The SDMB isn’t your personal playground, roger thornhill, so cool it with these mild and silly attacks on other posters. If you want to antagonize people here, well… don’t.
Hmmm, I read the sticky notes about the individual categories, and I don’t remember reading that we are required to respond to individuals by name or quote. If Excalibre thinks something in one of my posts failed to somehow directly address either the OP or a subsequent post within the thread, then I guess he/she is entitled to his/her opinion; again, I don’t remember seeing a regulation that requires us to directly address the issue with every single statement within each and every post. I told a joke. Two posters were offended. I wonder why?
Anaamika and I were arguing with some of the other posters in the thread whether Playboy counts as porn or not. It’s not a particularly high-stakes argument; I freely acknowledge that a lot of it is opinion; there’s no clear line. “Intent to titillate” requires that we be able to discern the creator’s intent, and that they have a single (or demonstrably primary) intent in creating a piece of work. I alluded earlier to Indian art that I would consider at least somewhat pornographic; a lot of classical Greek artwork strikes me that way as well, even if it also had non-sexual artistic significance. Whereas the bikini shots in Maxim, to me, are not porn, even if they are intended to titillate, since I think it doesn’t count if there’s no nudity (but then, what about fetish porn that might not feature nudity but is clearly intended to be titillating to certain people?) What about the underwear ads in the Sears catalog? Sure, they’re modelling undies, but I suspect Sears recognizes that there’s at least some potential to catch viewers’ sexual interest, and they probably want to do so.
So it’s a complex issue, and an interesting one to discuss. I don’t mean in any way to imply that my viewpoint is necessarily “right”, since I simply can’t think of any rigorous definition.
Anyway, what bothered me was this: “For those who self-righteously sniff that all female nudity is pornographic”, and the later joke as well that seemed to imply that people who protest indecency have “filthy minds”. You seemed to be addressing what Anaamika and I were saying - she and I agree, I think, that Playboy is pornographic. You conflated the two things - our suggestion that naked women are porn - with some suggestion that some people, somewhere, were being self-righteous like the dude in your joke.
You can forgive me for thinking the two points you were making - both at once in the clause I quoted above! - were both addressed to the same people.
No, it’s a word, though, admittedly, probably the wrong word in the context.
I’d say underwear ads in Sears, or the Victoria Secrets catalog are not, since it is a bit hard to sell that product without showing it - at least today. How about some extremely erotic clothing ads, with perhaps scantily clad female models in ads for men’s clothes? How about resort ads with models showing more skin than strictly necessary to get someone to [del]come[/del] go there? How about the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue?
Since porn is such a loaded word, it seems defining it to have something directly to do with sex is clearer. At least today - 70 years ago, by the standards then, Playboy might have qualified.
Why is it that I suddenly seem to find you following me around and insulting me constantly?
Shouldn’t you, like, have a life or something?
Hmm. How about Dolce and Gabbana ads showing naked men? Because I’ve seen a number of such ads with men’s asses in them. It struck me as illogical to advertise clothing by showing naked people, right up until I remembered that it was a fashion magazine and Dolce and Gabbana’s customer base leans a bit to the limp-wristed side. Same for the notorious Abercrombie and Fitch catalogs that they only sold to those over 18. The line between advertisement and deliberately titillating material is nonexistent in some circles.
Getting one more swipe in after a Moderator has already told you to stop is never a wise thing to do. Since this is not the first time you’ve decided to push your luck, your posting privileges will be under discussion.
So the only thing you are supposed to do with porn (or Playboy, even) is to jerk off?
Did I miss a memo?
No need – you’ve committed no sin. We were talking past each other. It happens. You may want to check out my post on another thread, about what people have realized about themselves. You’ll get a chuckle at my expense, I think. And you’ve earned it.