Is Playboy porn?

[Admiral Johnason]

I read Playboy and a certian question that is all too obvious to you has been biting at me for some time. I once heard that it qualified as nudity because it did not degrade women that much.

[Darth Wong]

True porn has to show penetration, although most people also regard Hustler-style spreading of the wings as porn.

[Joe]

I read Playboy and a certian question that is all too obvious to you has been biting at me for some time. I once heard that it qualified as nudity because it did not degrade women that much.

Nope, it's porn.

It's not hard porn. It's barely even soft porn. But porno it still is.

[Darth Wong]

I read Playboy and a certian question that is all too obvious to you has been biting at me for some time. I once heard that it qualified as nudity because it did not degrade women that much.

Nope, it's porn.

Unless it's a statue made by Greeks, in which case the same exact thing is "art".

[Admiral Johnason]

Good point Mike.

Wait, what is the difference between hard core and soft core porn?

[Larz]

Its like the Venus de Milo except with arms, in color, and in a nifty portable form...

People use it to... further self happiness so in my opinion it is porn (okay, a majority of people, saying that maybe some depraved individual uses the Venus de Milo as a handball tool and some individuals buy playboy for its artsy portral of women...)

[Joe]

I read Playboy and a certian question that is all too obvious to you has been biting at me for some time. I once heard that it qualified as nudity because it did not degrade women that much.

Nope, it's porn.

Unless it's a statue made by Greeks, in which case the same exact thing is "art".

Nude shots in Playboy are meant to give men boners. The nudity in Greek statues is of a completely different context.

[Admiral Johnason]

Well, that is debatable, People could have used those statues for centuries to get boners. The question is wether it is porn because of the use or the purpose.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

Its like the Venus de Milo except with arms, in color, and in a nifty portable form...

People use it to... further self happiness so in my opinion it is porn (okay, a majority of people, saying that maybe some depraved individual uses the Venus de Milo as a handball tool and some individuals buy playboy for its artsy portral of women...)

Who's to say that back in those times predating nude pics that nude statues and and other artwork wasn't used as a form of self gratification, to some. Not that I'd know about it.

[Joe]

Well, that is debatable, People could have used those statues for centuries to get boners. The question is wether it is porn because of the use or the purpose.

I think purpose matters. If it's intended to cause sexual arousal, it's porn.

[Admiral Johnason]

I guess you are right.

[Coyote]

Of course, the Greeks saw women not as human beings, but as odd cow-like creatures that men were forced to interbreed with in order to have sons. So there is that aspect....

Playboy is not porn, it is nudity, and I do see more artful posing in Playboy than the "opening of the pipeline" shots of other mags. There was a time when Playboy was porn but that time has passed when stuff like Huster came out.

[Larz]

I doubt the Venus de Milo was a cities wanking pub during its day... Playboy on the other hand is mainly made for self gratification. How many people really just buy Playboy for its articles or so they can cut out the pictures to frame and put up in their homes as art?

[Sokar]

Playboy is not porn, in any way. The word 'porn' has been overused in modern society to mean anything sexually related. The original word 'pornography' was meant to refer to somethig shameful or sinful, wether it be in reallife or in some printed medium. T

he disertations of Martin Luther were deemed 'pornographic' for profaning the true faith of the Catholic Church, and even the papacy itself was refered to as the 'pornocracy' during the period when the powerful merchant princes controlled the Papacy, and the Popes were jumped up nobles who didnt have a holy bone in their body. Playboy is largely the tasteful depictions of one of any hetero males favorite sights, a naked lusty woman, giving him that 'come hither big boy' glance. Something that if we all loosened up a bit over sex we might all see more often When Playboy first appeared it was decryed by the conservatives of the day who attached the word porn to Mr. Hefners fine magazine in an attempt to demonize it, and be sure to keep fun out of the hands of the average person.

The title porn should be reserved for thoes things that are truly offensive, Funadmentalist phamplets and websites, pic's and movies of child exploitation, and possibily thoes movies that prominently feature individuals making no.2 on each other...*shudder* I've yet to figure that one out

[Crayz9000]

Actually, going to the Greek roots of the word, porno means prostitute IIRC, so pornography is the depiction of prostitution. Or something like that.

So, in a very loose sense, Playboy can be considered pornography. But since its models aren't exactly prostitutes, it doesn't fit the definition completely.

[Joe]

Playboy is not porn, in any way. The word 'porn' has been overused in modern society to mean anything sexually related. The original word 'pornography' was meant to refer to somethig shameful or sinful, wether it be in reallife or in some printed medium. T

he disertations of Martin Luther were deemed 'pornographic' for profaning the true faith of the Catholic Church, and even the papacy itself was refered to as the 'pornocracy' during the period when the powerful merchant princes controlled the Papacy, and the Popes were jumped up nobles who didnt have a holy bone in their body. Playboy is largely the tasteful depictions of one of any hetero males favorite sights, a naked lusty woman, giving him that 'come hither big boy' glance. Something that if we all loosened up a bit over sex we might all see more often When Playboy first appeared it was decryed by the conservatives of the day who attached the word porn to Mr. Hefners fine magazine in an attempt to demonize it, and be sure to keep fun out of the hands of the average person.

The title porn should be reserved for thoes things that are truly offensive, Funadmentalist phamplets and websites, pic's and movies of child exploitation, and possibily thoes movies that prominently feature individuals making no.2 on each other...*shudder* I've yet to figure that one out

Fundamentalist literature does not appeal to a prurient interest. It is not porn.

As understood in our society, pornography is anything that is designed to cause sexual arousal and/or appeal to an erotic rather than aesthetic interest. Not that that's a bad thing; there are varying degrees of porn, some of which are genuinely evil, most of which are not wrong at all. But it's all still porn.

[irishmick79]

Frankly, my litmus test for pornography is this - if it's jerk-off material, it's porn. If it doesn't make me want to jerk off, it isn't.

Playboy fits into the jerk-off material on most occasions, but not on all.

Granted, this litmus test succeeds in direct proportion to the amount of sex I get. The more I get, the less porn there is. The less I get....well, you get the idea.

[Defiant]

<sarcasm>

Playboy is a sound source of excellent articles. The writing is top notch, and completely above reproach.

Porn? Absolutely not.

</sarcasm>

[Joe]

<sarcasm>

Playboy is a sound source of excellent articles. The writing is top notch, and completely above reproach.

Porn? Absolutely not.

</sarcasm>

Actually, Playboy does have good articles. But the porn that accompanies it is not affected by this.

I don't really like how anytime you say that Playboy has good articles you're met with contempt. It really does!

[Sokar]

Fundamentalist literature does not appeal to a prurient interest. It is not porn.

Hmmm....bounced one right off the humor shield there, a joke was buried in there somewhere....

[Montcalm]

I don`t think Playboy could be qualified as porn,the best word for it is erotic.

[aerius]

Wait, what is the difference between hard core and soft core porn?

If it shows the guy's dick going in and out of the woman's vagina, butt, or mouth it's hardcore. If it shows naked people having sex but doesn't show anything in the groin area, it's softcore.

[Enforcer Talen]

Well, that is debatable, People could have used those statues for centuries to get boners. The question is wether it is porn because of the use or the purpose.

I think purpose matters. If it's intended to cause sexual arousal, it's porn.

thats my view. nudity as beauty Im fine with, nudity as arousal, I dont like.

-considers- as clarification, I dont have problems with the second when it's on a personal base - not in mags, movies, or paid dances.

[Darth Wong]

As understood in our society, pornography is anything that is designed to cause sexual arousal and/or appeal to an erotic rather than aesthetic interest.

That is a hopelessly subjective standard which relies upon personal reaction and psychic interpretation of creator's intent. In essence, it is crafted and used in order to PREVENT an objective standard from being used, so people can employ double-standards at will.

PS. Miniskirts are designed to cause sexual arousal, and often succeed brilliantly in that endeavour. Does this make them porno?

[irishmick79]

"PS. Miniskirts are designed to cause sexual arousal, and often succeed brilliantly in that endeavour. Does this make them porno?"
-Darth Wong


Depends on if you can see panties or not...

Seriously though, miniskirts depends on the attitude of the wearer tremendously. If the attitude says "come hither," then yes, they would be porn. If not, no. I realize that this test would be subject to personal opinion, but that's essentially what this debate boils down to. Personal opinion.