Is Playboy porn?

[Joe]

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?

I figured someone would eventually called me on this. I should have elaborated a little more.

It's porno if it is designed to cause sexual arousal AND it portrays sexuality and/or nudity in a graphic manner.

[neoolong]

People, can't we just look at the nudie pics in peace without people trying to define it.

I think we should all agree that, it's a good thing.

[Stormbringer]

It's the softest of soft core porn in my opinion.

[paladin]

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".

That reminds me of a quote from The Family Guy, "You know the difference between Porn and Art? The government pays for art."

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

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'd like to field this question; I am, after all, a Certified Pornologist.

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

So then, cocktail dresses are porn? Couldn't resist.

According to my taste alone, I would say that Playboy is indeed not porn. The models are composed and/or enjoying themselves, but rarely are they enjoying themselves in a way which directly denotes a sexual context. I say rarely because whereas I have never seen it myself, neither have I read every single issue of Playboy, so I won't say they've never done so.

Technically... yes, I believe Playboy would qualify as porn, since nudity is the primary feature of the magazine. That's the line of demarcation for me. Playboy advertises itself as a "men's magazine", but I think that label more appropriately goes to magazines like Maxim or even Loaded -- which does feature nudity -- but not in such great quantity that nudity is its primary feature. Personally, I think this question comes up because when most people think "porn" these days, we think of anything from penetration to lewd acts involving vegetables. Desensitization at work.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

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.

So then, cocktail dresses are porn? Couldn't resist.

I'd like to field this question; I am, after all, a Certified Pornologist.

According to my taste alone, I would say that Playboy is indeed not porn. The models are composed and/or enjoying themselves, but rarely are they enjoying themselves in a way which directly denotes a sexual context. I say rarely because whereas I have never seen it myself, neither have I read every single issue of Playboy, so I won't say they've never done so.

Technically... yes, I believe Playboy would qualify as porn, since nudity is the primary feature of the magazine. That's the line of demarcation for me. Playboy advertises itself as a "men's magazine", but I think that label more appropriately goes to magazines like Maxim or even Loaded -- which does feature nudity -- but not in such great quantity that nudity is its primary feature. Personally, I think this question comes up because when most people think "porn" these days, we think of anything from penetration to lewd acts involving vegetables. Desensitization at work.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

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?

True, but still the same could be said for art in the past, to a lesser degree. It's not too far fetched to think that some poeple did beat off to nude art.

[Dorsk 81]

Pornography is described as something with no artistic merit and causes sexual thought, so if you see someone wearing a bikini or swim suit and you think of them in a sexual context the its porn. Playboy, I've never actualy bought a copy, but I'm better sure it doesn't have any artistic merit and I'm damn sure it causes sexual thought.
So.....lets look at it this way, your 13 and you could get turned on by aluminum cos your hormones have you mind thinking about sex every 5 seconds! And lets say you see a girl in a very short skirt. Does the skirt (or whats under it) have any artistic merit? Not really, and it causes you sexual thought, well its classified as porn.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Pornography is described as something with no artistic merit and causes sexual thought, so if you see someone wearing a bikini or swim suit and you think of them in a sexual context the its porn. Playboy, I've never actualy bought a copy, but I'm better sure it doesn't have any artistic merit and I'm damn sure it causes sexual thought.
So.....lets look at it this way, your 13 and you could get turned on by aluminum cos your hormones have you mind thinking about sex every 5 seconds! And lets say you see a girl in a very short skirt. Does the skirt (or whats under it) have any artistic merit? Not really, and it causes you sexual thought, well its classified as porn.

How exactly do you decide what constitutes "artistic merit"? Clearly, there's a difference between the Venus De Milo and the Budweiser Girls somewhere, but other than material composition and age, I defy you to tell me what that difference is... lol

[Darth Wong]

Every one of these definitions is completely subjective, relying totally on personal reactions. In the end, all of it is bullshit, no more useful for classification than "I know it when I see it." You can't define it in such a manner that 50 people could have 50 different approaches to determining if something is porn.

[Dorsk 81]

Budwieser girls in ads are pushing a product, it's not art and I'd be damned if you could find someone who thought it was! lol
The Venus De Milo is in an art museum, thats kind of a hint, I doubt you'd a Budwieser girl in a art museum and have it called art!
It can be infulenced by your state of mind and your sexuality, a straight man wouldn't (most likely) think sexual thoughts by looking ar one of those topless fireman calendars, where as a straight woman probably would (just my opinion, I may be way out) and I wouldn't call it art.
Causing sexual thought with no artistic merit is not my definition, it's the American Supreme Courts (apparently). Which makes no sense because whats art to one person may not be to another and what causes one person sexual thought may not causes another person sexual thought.

[Crayz9000]

Every one of these definitions is completely subjective, relying totally on personal reactions. In the end, all of it is bullshit, no more useful for classification than "I know it when I see it." You can't define it in such a manner that 50 people could have 50 different approaches to determining if something is porn.

Which is why I brought up the Greek definition of the roots...

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Every one of these definitions is completely subjective, relying totally on personal reactions. In the end, all of it is bullshit, no more useful for classification than "I know it when I see it." You can't define it in such a manner that 50 people could have 50 different approaches to determining if something is porn.

Well I know it when I see it.............. since I have an objective defination.

[XPViking]

I would laugh my head off if someone actually got a government grant and studied porn.

XPViking

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I would laugh my head off if someone actually got a government grant and studied porn.

XPViking

Don't be silly by using the future tense, so much money is pissed away by the government that its probably already happened.......

[Master of Ossus]

Budwieser girls in ads are pushing a product, it's not art and I'd be damned if you could find someone who thought it was! lol
The Venus De Milo is in an art museum, thats kind of a hint, I doubt you'd a Budwieser girl in a art museum and have it called art!
It can be infulenced by your state of mind and your sexuality, a straight man wouldn't (most likely) think sexual thoughts by looking ar one of those topless fireman calendars, where as a straight woman probably would (just my opinion, I may be way out) and I wouldn't call it art.
Causing sexual thought with no artistic merit is not my definition, it's the American Supreme Courts (apparently). Which makes no sense because whats art to one person may not be to another and what causes one person sexual thought may not causes another person sexual thought.

Budweiser encourages you to drink responsibly.

[Dorsk 81]

XPViking Wrote:

I would laugh my head off if someone actually got a government grant and studied porn.

Yea, I bet George Bush is conducting a personal study of porn.

But seriously, things that may appear sexual to some ppl won't so others, there will probably never be a full proof definition to porn.

[Slartibartfast]

Budweiser encourages you to drink responsibly.

Because it tastes like crap...

[Joe]

I would laugh my head off if someone actually got a government grant and studied porn.

XPViking

I would venture to say that there probably already is such a grant, through the NEA or the NEH, on some level.

[Zoink]

I would use this definition from dictionary.com :

Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

[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?

True, but still the same could be said for art in the past, to a lesser degree. It's not too far fetched to think that some poeple did beat off to nude art.

I'm talking dominate culture. There are probably people that got or get there rocks off on nude art studies, just like there are probably people who do just buy playboys to cut out the picutres to frame and hang up on the wall while placing the remainders of the magazine by the couch to read... the point was that dominant culture, majority of people, a larger mass of society over another, ect. follows the point I made earlier.

[Coyote]

Actually, out of almost 200 pages of Playboy, much of it is devoted to advertising and articles. The nude pix are maybe a dozen pages total. It is true that this is what Playboy is famous for, but a lot of porn hounds I know won't go near Playboy because it's too "prissy".

The James Bond stories got started in Playboy; Stephen King and Isaac Aasimov have featured in the magazine as well. Arthur C. Clarke has also been a regular. There are numerous articles dealing with mena dn women's issues, interactions, and social commentary.

People who say "It's nuthin' but a buncha' nekkid pitchurs" obviously hasn't read an issue.

[Peregrin Toker]

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

Not to veer off topic, but that quote is signature material.

[Lord Pounder]

Personally i consider Playboy to be just one step up from FHM or some other lads mag. If you want to see real porn go to Holland and take an empty suitcase to fill while there.

[SAMAS]

I doubt the Venus de Milo was a cities wanking pub during its day...

What, you didn't know that the Venus DeMilo was once grey?