This is topic Sports Illustrated Not Sending Swimsuit Edition to Libraries with Paid Subscriptions in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
I am the news source. I work at a library, and part of my job is to keep track of our subscriptions. We have not received the Swimsuit Edition of Sports Illustrated. Normally, this wouldn't be that big of a deal, because issues get lost in the mail all the time. So, normal procedure is to "claim" the issue with the publisher, and usually they'll send a replacement if you claim it in time. Well, I claimed it with our vendor (someone who handles our subscriptions), and the publisher told them that Time, Inc. had made the decision to not send the issue to any libraries. I'm also on a listserv with people who have jobs similar to mine all over the country. When I saw that they were discussing not receiving the issue and were getting a lot of different answers from the publisher, I chimed in with the response I got.
Different ones of us have been told many stories. One librarian was told that "someone" at the university had requested that they not receive the issue; another was told that because of the complaints from doctor's offices and similar places, they had decided not to send the issue to any public institutions; others were told that they were simply out of the issue, and then offered to extend their subscriptions by 2 issues; another was told that it was now policy not to send the issue to any institution that used a vendor to handle their subscriptions; and, as I said, I was told that it was their policy not to send the issue to libraries.
(By the way, having a complete run of the issues of a magazine or journal is important to libraries. Having a missed issue is a problem that we try to avoid, although sometimes it is unavoidable. The publisher deciding to steal our money and not send the issue is NOT unavoidable. So, extending our subscription, apart from messing up bookkeeping dates, is not acceptable. A refund is also not acceptable, since we paid for the complete run, but if they continue to refuse to send the issue, then a refund is absolutely necessary.)
The content of the issue is completely irrelevant here. We paid for the subscription, and they are not honoring our subscription. I don't buy their censorship argument, but even if it is true, it is not acceptable. Libraries, as well as doctor's offices, may each individually choose not to display the issue--that has nothing to do with Time, Inc.
And when I say "we" paid for the subscription, I mean the STATE that I work for. This is public money, and I don't think our auditors (or the taxpayers) would like this situation very much. Individually, the issue costs us about 3 dollars. Not much by itself, but when you consider that there are hundreds, if not more, libraries that they're doing this to, that adds up to a LOT of money.
Personally, I think they wanted to up the individual sales of the issue as much as possible, and thought the presence of the issue in libraries were affecting their sales. They, no doubt, also diverted copies to newsstands rather than to libraries.
That doesn't matter either. We paid for the issue, we're entitled to it. They should simply print another run.
Anyway, our vendor is working on settling the problem. They have a lot of unhappy customers, and, for now, are acting in our behalf to resolve the problem.
So, I thought I would share this with Hatrack. Several people have leaked this to the news, but I have my doubts about whether or not it will be picked up. The ALA (American Library Association) has been informed as well.
What do YOU think?
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
cancel every magazine in the Time group.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I think you paid for it, therefore you're entitled to it. (My feelings on the issue completely aside.)
If they had given you a choice to not send that issue and instead charge a lower rate or extend the subscription by two months - at the time the library bought the subscription - that would be an entirely different matter altogether. But they didn't provide you with that option, therefore it isn't up to them to make that decision on your behalf.
They have not held up their end of the contract.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
How silly. I would guess that Time did this because it wants to avoid any bad publicity that would come from someone complaining about the swimsuit issue being on display in a library, though it would seem to me that they could simply say that they are not responsible for what a subscriber does with his or her magazines. Maybe they've found the public to be too stupid to understand that.
So are they going to extend the subscription or pay you back? In any case, I assume you can just buy the issue for archival purposes?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
But why should they have to pay for the issue again? They already paid for it. And why should they have to consume an employee's salary and expenses to buy an issue they already paid for?
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
Another thought. Can you purchase the issue on a newsstand and bill Time for the cost?
Seriously, though, if enough libraries told Time that they were cancelling every subscription to every magazine run by that company unless they all got copies of this issue, I'm sure they'd cave.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
If Time were really concerned about bad publicity from their swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated, they could stop publishing it.
quidscribis is exactly right. We already paid for it once. We're not about to pay for it again.
And it's not practical to cancel all of our Time subscriptions. They make some pretty well-known news magazines. But that decision isn't up to me, anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Since this is public money, then try to get someone from the state Attorney General (or the Inspector General for the library department) office to contact Time as part of an official investigation into fraudulent use of public funds. That will get them moving.
Edit: the problem with publicity is you'll invariably get someone to start a rally against use of public funds for the Swimsuit edition, and politicians might listen to them.
Legally you could probably recover the cost of a newstand copy, but it would almost certainly not be worth the time and effort.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Ooooh, fraud. Yes!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's most likely not fraud, of course. But governments don't like not getting what they've paid for.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The quote at the end is from the listserv that I'm on. But the person quoted isn't me. (Which is a shame, because I think I was quite eloquent. )
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So it sounds as if the immediate problem - getting the magazine - is solved.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:If Time were really concerned about bad publicity from their swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated, they could stop publishing it.
Doubtful. It's the best selling issue of Sports Illustrated every year. By far.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
No, it's not solved. They told Library Journal that we could get the issue, but that's NOT what they've been telling us when we've been asking for it.
We'll see if we actually receive it.
I wonder how suddenly it's available, considering they told numerous people yesterday that they were out of the issue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
True, it's not over until you have the issue. But with the quote, you should be able to get the person on the phone to cave immediately.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Yes. I sent it to my representative at our vendor, so hopefully that will help.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
She called the number, and we should be receiving it in 7-10 days. I'll let you know if that actually happens.
Hopefully SI and Time have seen the error of their ways and will not repeat the same actions again. This doesn't excuse their actions and their multiple stories, but if they actually make it right and send all of the libraries the issues, then the matter is settled in my mind.
I have no doubt that if we hadn't made such a fuss, nothing would have been done.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have no doubt that if we hadn't made such a fuss, nothing would have been done.
I'm sure you're right. I'm surprised they got in front of it this fast -usually corporations founder a lot longer when they screw up in such a big way.
They seem to lack internal communications - they didn't know this was a big deal until it was published. They should have been able to tell from the number of calls on the subject, but no one put it all together.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
As much as I don't want to see the swimsuit issue in my local library ... this is wrong. That decision should be made by the local library or the local people, not the magazine. It's paid for, let them get it and decide what to do with it.
Good luck.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I have no doubt that if we hadn't made such a fuss, nothing would have been done.
I'm sure you're right. I'm surprised they got in front of it this fast -usually corporations founder a lot longer when they screw up in such a big way.
They seem to lack internal communications - they didn't know this was a big deal until it was published. They should have been able to tell from the number of calls on the subject, but no one put it all together.
Yeah, and they still haven't spread the word through the company. Someone on the listserv just today got told that her vendor (same as ours) ordered with the wrong code, which indicated they didn't want to receive the issue. This has never been the case before, and I don't believe it is true, especially since this is the first anybody has heard of it, and it certainly doesn't jive with the rest of the accounts.
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: As much as I don't want to see the swimsuit issue in my local library ... this is wrong. That decision should be made by the local library or the local people, not the magazine. It's paid for, let them get it and decide what to do with it.
Good luck.
Yes, exactly.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I can't get too worked up about SI not sending their softporn issue to libraries...
They prolly thought they were doing a good thing given all the hysterical internet-porn-in-libraries bills being proposed (and passing?) all over the place. But it's definately violating their contract.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I blame all the people who probably called TIME magazine complaining the swimsuit issue is displayed in the library/public institutions where minors/children can see it, which led to TIME magazine being hesitant about sending them out at all.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by jh: I blame all the people who probably called TIME magazine complaining the swimsuit issue is displayed in the library/public institutions where minors/children can see it, which led to TIME magazine being hesitant about sending them out at all.
That's just it ... it should be the libraries who police this, not the magazines who sold them a subscription.
Now, if they wanted to change their soft porn issue for EVERYBODY, that'd be different, and not a bad thing in my opinion.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Since when is the SI Swimsuit issue soft porn?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't blame the people who complain. People complaining (absent some legal cause of action) is not adequate motivation to break your word to other people.
Time chooses to publish this as a regular issue of SI. They base their entire marketing campaign for the magazine on this issue - I've never seen an SI add that didn't mention the swimsuit issue. They're the ones who indelibly tied "swimsuits" and "sports magazines" in the minds of the public.
They have to accept the good and the bad of that association.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Eros: Since it is for visual sexual stimulation.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Eros: Since it is for visual sexual stimulation.
Oh. That's a really weird definition of pornography.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Eros: Oh! You're right. Guys are buying it to check out the hot new swimsuit fashions next year! That's why it's their hottest selling issue! Guys LOVE buying women's bathing suits.
Face it, dear, it's a whack-mag
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Face it, dear, it's a whack-mag
Oh, maybe you should write a letter to the editor so they can include that in the magazine, as I don't think a lot of guys know that (I sure didn't). Sure, you're looking at attractive people, but that doesn't mean physical satisfaction need necessarily follow. When you look at a picture and think, "Man, she's hot" it doesn't mean you're looking at porn and are about to "whack" it, it just means you're looking at a picture and thinking that the person it hot.
Are Orlando Bloom calendars soft porn?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Then so is every single clothes catalogue with attractive people in it, ever.
Actually, why stop there? All photos of attractive people must be softcore porn. And the entire Victoria's Secret website.
-pH
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
pH: The Victoria's Secret catalog is used to sell clothes. It is sometimes used as porn however. I have known more than one guy who uses it as such.
"Hey, ummm, <name withheld> Why do you have the victoria's secret catalog by your bed?"
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
According to many people, yes the Victoria's Secret catalogs and website are soft core porn. As is the swimsuit issue of SI.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
On the other hand, my roommate showed me some of the body painting photos that SI had online. Sure, it's soft-core porn, but it's also some rather impressive art. It reminds me of the sidewalk paintings that look like they have depth--many of the body paintings could easily pass for (very tight, granted) clothing.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: According to many people, yes the Victoria's Secret catalogs and website are soft core porn. As is the swimsuit issue of SI.
Again, really bizarre definition of pornography.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Hey, CT, come tell eros your definition because I don't want to mess it up.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Are Orlando Bloom calendars soft porn?
Depends on how many clothes he's wearing.
And eros, there is more than one kind of porn - there's the graphic porn, movies and pictures that actually show people having sex - and there's soft-core porn (which we now call "advertising" ). It's selling sex. It's pictures that are put there solely for the purpose of having you fantasize about erotic things with the person in the magazine. I know they're not entirely naked; but the difference between Playboy and SI swimsuit issue is really not much more than a couple of triangles of cloth. The intent is the same ... they're just trying to sell the magazine, to people who use it for the purpose of getting turned on.
That's my definition of soft-core porn.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The issue is used by several departments at universities, usually related to areas like pop-culture, marketing, journalism, photography, art, gender, women's studies, fashion, fashion-design, history, psychology and other human-studies sorts of areas.
In fact, an older female coworker of mine looks at the issue every year when it arrives because she likes to see the types of swimsuits the girls are wearing.
I also think that most guys who are old enough and interested will buy or download much more explicit material and not rely on the SI Swimsuit issue for visual stimulation.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: That's my definition of soft-core porn.
And a good one. I just disagree, and most people I've encountered use a different one.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
What do you consider to be soft core porn?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:It's pictures that are put there solely for the purpose of having you fantasize about erotic things with the person in the magazine. ... they're just trying to sell the magazine, to people who use it for the purpose of getting turned on.
I'm not sure that those two sentences mean the same thing. Which is probably why I don't know if I would classify the SI Swimsuit issue as softcore porn.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
My definition of pornography is anything with explicit sexual content, whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
I have no definition for softcore, because what constitutes softcore varies too dramatically.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: Hey, CT, come tell eros your definition because I don't want to mess it up.
I don't remember my definition!
I don't think about it that much.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:Are Orlando Bloom calendars soft porn?
Depends on how many clothes he's wearing.
And eros, there is more than one kind of porn - there's the graphic porn, movies and pictures that actually show people having sex - and there's soft-core porn (which we now call "advertising" ). It's selling sex. It's pictures that are put there solely for the purpose of having you fantasize about erotic things with the person in the magazine. I know they're not entirely naked; but the difference between Playboy and SI swimsuit issue is really not much more than a couple of triangles of cloth. The intent is the same ... they're just trying to sell the magazine, to people who use it for the purpose of getting turned on.
That's my definition of soft-core porn.
Which means that the Victoria's Secret website/catalogue aren't softcore porn, since I use them to decide if I want to buy underwear or swimsuits.
-pH
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: What do you consider to be soft core porn?
You're not asking me, but I'll give my answer anyway. My definition: any media showing female nipple and/or genitalia or non-aroused male genitalia that does not depict an explicit sex act. In other words, nudity without sex. Body painting is a gray line in between nude and non-nude that I haven't figured out yet. Also, for me, the word 'porn' doesn't have a negative connotation, nor an intent behind it, so I have no problem including famous artwork such as Michael in with my definition of soft core porn.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
You mean David?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: My definition: any media showing female nipple and/or genitalia or non-aroused male genitalia that does not depict an explicit sex act. In other words, nudity without sex.
Whereas I can look at pictures of people in which those body parts are shown, and not feel that it's pornography - such as National Geographic, or a how-to-breastfeed video. OTOH, I can look at pictures that have those areas covered and yet are obviously intended to arouse sexual feelings and feel that they are soft-core pornography.
Some of it is all in the viewer, though ... some people do get turned on by National Geographic, and some people can see Victoria's Secret as nothing more than selling underwear. Which is why the line is fuzzy, I guess.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: - and there's soft-core porn (which we now call "advertising" ). It's selling sex.
Nope. It's using sex to sell other things.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by MidnightBlue: You mean David?
Yeah, my bad. Mixed up the artist and the art.
And I agree Jenna, that's why the line is fuzzy and the gov't has such a hard time making laws about it. Nobody can really agree on the many different definition, but that doesn't make any of the definitions wrong, per se.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I am most happy with a very broad definition of what counts as porn for those very reasons. I'm happy to call lots of stuff "porn."
What follows is that if there is something objectionable about a particular item, it can probably be better expressed (and thus better argued against) by using the most specific terminology possible. Not "porn" -- that means so many different things to so many different people, that it doesn't really mean anything as a demarcator. It generally just sort of indicates disapproval.
(I don't disapprove of porn, by the way, given the standard consenting-adults-only caveat.)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: - and there's soft-core porn (which we now call "advertising" ). It's selling sex.
Nope. It's using sex to sell other things.
I'd argue that the advertiser is selling consumers/viewers to the company that purchased the advertising. I think that's the basic driving force and one of the more useful ways to view the transaction.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Eros: Oh! You're right. Guys are buying it to check out the hot new swimsuit fashions next year! That's why it's their hottest selling issue! Guys LOVE buying women's bathing suits.
How do you buy the swimsuits featured in that issue of SE? <scratches head> Purchase the correct paint tones and hire the painter to apply them to you? Do it yourself?
I can see a difference between VS and SE in this regard. VS would not sell as much lingerie if they simply displayed the lingerie. You need to see how it looks on a body. If VS used ugly or even pretty girls it would not have the same effect as a model posing in the lingerie.
SI is not selling anything (except its own magazine) when it does the swimsuit edition. Clearly using attractive sensual girls is purely an appeal to men's sexuality rather then a legitimate use of eroticism to sell a product.
Though perhaps you could argue that SE wants to rewards its subscribers by providing them with a well prepared model catwalk, complete with unique swimsuits and articles that make the models seem more accessible to common men.
Either way I would not spend my time navigating its pages.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
To be fair, the swimsuit issue does loosely fit in with SI's theme of celebrating the human body, both in its physical abilities and its aesthetic appeal. It seems that sports is almost inextricably linked to beauty. Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, Tiger Woods, Maria Sharapova, in addition to being amazing atheletes, they are also attractive people, and thus are very popular and very marketable. Appreciating physical abilities and admiring physical beauty are just two facets of the same thing, admiration of the human body. I think many times they even reinforce each other. That and the fact that the models are not generally in sexually suggestive poses makes me less inclined to classify this as softcore porn.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I dunno about you guys. The SportsIllustrated swimsuit model does nothing for me.
"...a legitimate use of eroticism to sell a product."
Associating sex with non-human objects is fetishism. While such advertising may be legal, that attempt to pervert normal human sexuality is hardly legitimate.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Are you saying that fetishism is not a part of normal human sexuality? I would be curious as to what constitutes "normal" in this case, as associating sex with non-human objects has been common practice for more generations than I have fingers to count.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
vonk, you beat me to it!
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I think we should require women to expose their breasts constantly in an attempt to roll back a perversion of "normal" human sexuality.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
aspectre: I said SE is NOT legitimately using eroticism to sell a product. I do not think that attractive female models enhance men's interest in sports. I do think that most sports readers are men, and they are interested in women, thus its ILLEGITIMATE.
If Wired magazine had a "Titillating Techettes" edition even if it was ONE edition in its history it would be guilty of doing the same thing IMO.
Though I confess I think girls featured in such a hypothetical edition of Wired would be more legitimately attractive, at least to me. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I think we should require women to expose their breasts constantly in an attempt to roll back a perversion of "normal" human sexuality.
Is your sarcasm meant to argue that a woman's failure to wear a burkha makes it acceptable for the "good"people to engage in sexual harrassment and rape?
Women shouldn't have to do anything. On the other hand, they should have at least the same degree of personal choice in covering or uncovering themselves as men.
It is a SICK society which finds the way a woman is dressed or is undressed to be an acceptable excuse for jerks to be jerks.
[ March 08, 2007, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I said SE is NOT legitimately using eroticism to sell a product."
I disagree. Sports is just a way to display the magnificence of the human physique, of human physicality. Excluding advertising, SportsIllustrated's product is to sell bodies as bodies. People are just going nutso whacko shouting "porn" at the fact that in 1 out of the 52 issues per year, women's bodies predominate instead of men's.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Because when men show off, it's okay. When women do it, they're either being forced into it, or they're floozies.
Okay, so I really just like having an excuse to use the word "floozy."
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Are you suggesting that a woman's failure to wear a burkha makes it acceptable for people to engage in sexual harrassment and rape?
Women shouldn't have to do anything. On the other hand, they should have at least the same degree of personal choice in covering or uncovering themselves as men.
It is a SICK society which finds the way a woman is dressed or is undressed to be an acceptable excuse for jerks to be jerks.
Could you quote the post to which you're responding in this, please?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
aspectre:
quote:People are just going nutso whacko shouting "porn" at the fact that in 1 out of the 52 issues per year, women's bodies predominate instead of men's.
Yes people are complaining because its WOMEN who are predominating the issue, it has nothing to do with the manner in which they are presented. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Just added the triggering quote to that post. However, the totality of my response is more generally directed at everyone who insists that the Swimsuit Issue is soft porn.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "I said SE is NOT legitimately using eroticism to sell a product."
I disagree. Sports is just a way to display the magnificence of the human physique, of human physicality. Excluding advertising, SportsIllustrated's product is to sell bodies as bodies. People are just going nutso whacko shouting "porn" at the fact that in 1 out of the 52 issues per year, women's bodies predominate instead of men's.
What sport, exactly, are these women playing?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Vacationing. What sport is TigerWoods playing?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "I said SE is NOT legitimately using eroticism to sell a product."
I disagree. Sports is just a way to display the magnificence of the human physique, of human physicality. Excluding advertising, SportsIllustrated's product is to sell bodies as bodies. People are just going nutso whacko shouting "porn" at the fact that in 1 out of the 52 issues per year, women's bodies predominate instead of men's.
What sport, exactly, are these women playing?
Whatever it is, the results are impressive.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Storm Saxon wins the thread!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "I think we should require women to expose their breasts constantly in an attempt to roll back a perversion of "normal" human sexuality.
Is your sarcasm meant to argue that a woman's failure to wear a burkha makes it acceptable for the "good"people to engage in sexual harrassment and rape?
Women shouldn't have to do anything. On the other hand, they should have at least the same degree of personal choice in covering or uncovering themselves as men.
It is a SICK society which finds the way a woman is dressed or is undressed to be an acceptable excuse for jerks to be jerks.
No, my comment was in response to your crap-filled assertion that fetishism (as you define it) is a perversion of normal human sexuality.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Of course it's soft porn. Back when I received SI, a third of those "swimsuits" would have been illegal on most US beaches.
And sports is not just a way to display the magnificence of the human physique. I could give a crap about the magnificence of the human physique. I can think of a dozen better reasons why sports are compelling to me.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Aren't we talking about a magazine that features well established models? They've spent their whole careers posing in magazines and advertisements and walking down runways; essentially doing the same thing they are in this issue of SI: wearing outlandish, exotic 'outifts' that no one would really wear. Sure, some of it is meant to be bought by consumers, but most of the things I've seen models wear on runways would never been seen on the street or in a club, much less be affordable to most incomes. I'm sure you can buy the bikinis that they wear in the SE, but it would cost an arm and a leg and be uncomfortable as all get out.
So I don't think it's intended to be pornographic by the models, or the photographers for that matter. Just because someone's going to be getting off on it later can't change what the creaters are trying to make. If the users intent defines the object, almost everything would be porn.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: Eros: Oh! You're right. Guys are buying it to check out the hot new swimsuit fashions next year! That's why it's their hottest selling issue! Guys LOVE buying women's bathing suits.
How do you buy the swimsuits featured in that issue of SE? <scratches head> Purchase the correct paint tones and hire the painter to apply them to you? Do it yourself?
I can see a difference between VS and SE in this regard. VS would not sell as much lingerie if they simply displayed the lingerie. You need to see how it looks on a body. If VS used ugly or even pretty girls it would not have the same effect as a model posing in the lingerie.
SI is not selling anything (except its own magazine) when it does the swimsuit edition. Clearly using attractive sensual girls is purely an appeal to men's sexuality rather then a legitimate use of eroticism to sell a product.
Though perhaps you could argue that SE wants to rewards its subscribers by providing them with a well prepared model catwalk, complete with unique swimsuits and articles that make the models seem more accessible to common men.
Either way I would not spend my time navigating its pages.
Just out of curiosity, is it o.k., or bad, to feel desire for someone with their clothes on, as long as you do not act on it?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Also, if you do, is what they are wearing (or doing, i guess) then considered pornographic?
Conversely, if what they are wearing or doing does nothing for you, can what they are doing considered to be not pornographic.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Just out of curiosity, is it o.k., or bad, to feel desire for someone with their clothes on, as long as you do not act on it?
Here's an answer, from Mathew 5:28:
quote:But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
vonk, fashion shows are usually put on for an audience of people who may be making purchases based on the show: buyers for department stores and such. They may not purchase the exact one-of-a-kind outfits that may be shown, but it's kind of like concept cars at an auto show. Nothing like that is going on with the SI swimsuit issue. So you can't say that the intent on the part of the creators is the same. The intent on the part of the people who put out the SI swimsuit edition is to sell a bunch of men pictures of scantily clad pretty women. It's not the user's intent, it's the publisher's intent.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Here's an answer, from Mathew 5:28:
quote:But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Adultery? Does this apply to people that aren't married?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Since when does one work of art/commerce/whatever have to be one or the other?
Undeniably, some people use VS catalogues to browse for new lingerie and purchase it. Equally undeniably, some people use VS for non-commercial recreation *ahem*.
One reason I have a problem with most laws regarding almost all forms of pornography, with the exception of child pornography, is that it's such a very tricky thing to define when applied to the general public.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Adultery? Does this apply to people that aren't married?"
Depends on the Greek I suppose.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ahh yes, DUAL sinning...once in thought, once in action, double dipping at it's finest.
I haven't had so much fun since my last visit to the dentist.
Women can look all they want, I guess. Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Which means that the Victoria's Secret website/catalogue aren't softcore porn, since I use them to decide if I want to buy underwear or swimsuits.
Did you know that the Victoria Secret website was down for two days after its initial site launch because the designes failed to estimate how many MEN were visiting the site, and hadn't scaled their web server farm in order to handle it? The more you know...
As for those that commented on the body paint... Have you seen the pictures in the magazine? You can't tell it's paint; there are no, how should we put it, "highlights" to speak of.
quote:Of course it's soft porn. Back when I received SI, a third of those "swimsuits" would have been illegal on most US beaches.
Then you're obviously going to the wrong beaches. Come back to South Florida beaches and let me know. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You know, I keep hearing about those South Florida beaches . . . they must not have been the ones I visited!
El Farito, 46th Street, Hollywood Beach, and Crandom Park were not, I'm fairly sure, top-optional.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote: They may not purchase the exact one-of-a-kind outfits that may be shown, but it's kind of like concept cars at an auto show.
And it is also like the bikinis in the magazine. These aren't meant to be worn't by your average woman, but they're a concept, to be built on by the department store suppliers, and sold at a lower quality to the general public.
I don't see how the SE is different. The suppliers can guage, based on the response from the magazine, which styles are most popular. Then they can sell the most of those styles.
The models almost certainly don't think of the pictures as pornographic (if you need me to email each individual model to ask, I will), the photographers almpost certainly don't think of the pictures as pornographic, and I, as reader, don't think of them as pornographic. Are you forcing pornography on me?
I admit, that was fecitious. Yet I can still insist on the intent of the creators being the same as for any fashion magazine. To take excellent pictures.
ETA: The clothese optional beatches in South Florida that I have visited would attract people that want to get naked, but almost certainly not people that want to look at naked people.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Just out of curiosity, is it o.k., or bad, to feel desire for someone with their clothes on, as long as you do not act on it?
Here's an answer, from Mathew 5:28:
quote:But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
/smartass
So, men are o.k., then!
/endsmartass
I think there are going to be a lot of dudes going to special hell, if that's a sin. I think very few men don't lust after a pretty woman on *some* level, and don't give me any backsass about no 'twitterpation' business, either.
On the other hand, I think if you're in a marriage, it's a great ideal to work for.
[ March 09, 2007, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The models almost certainly don't think of the pictures as pornographic (if you need me to email each individual model to ask, I will), the photographers almpost certainly don't think of the pictures as pornographic, and I, as reader, don't think of them as pornographic. Are you forcing pornography on me?
I realize you weren't entirely serious here, but this is the kind of point I was addressing. Does the line between pornography and everything else lie solely in the intent of the people involved in its production? Doesn't it necessarily, at least a little, involve the perception from the public for the society's definition?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
That is exactly the destinction I was thinking about. I was thinking that it robs the creator of the work if their work is defined by the reciever. But then, I can also see how that work is defined to the public by each individual ricipient. I'm not sure, but I can't help but lean towards the side that lets the creator choose what they create.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That is exactly the destinction I was thinking about. I was thinking that it robs the creator of the work if their work is defined by the reciever. But then, I can also see how that work is defined to the public by each individual ricipient. I'm not sure, but I can't help but lean towards the side that lets the creator choose what they create.
What exactly is the creator robbed of, though? The right to insist to the people viewing the creator's work, "This is what it is, and simply this!"? When I think about art (of all kinds), if I'm interested enough in it, I'll learn about the artist and the artist's intent...but I'll still make up my own mind, in the end, what it is for me. And that will be my own working definition for that artwork from then on, until I change my mind, of course.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Doesn't it necessarily, at least a little, involve the perception from the public for the society's definition?
Maybe a little, but hopefully not very much at all. Depending on the society, say a fundamentalist Muslim society, they'd probably find almost every picture of a woman, even on CNN/Fox News pornographic.
On the flip-side, if we saw fundamentalist Muslim porn (if it exists) we'd probably think it tame enough to be in National Geographic or something.
Intent seems more important than perception.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Would you define the work or the creator based on your particular view of the art?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Ahh yes, DUAL sinning...once in thought, once in action, double dipping at it's finest.
I haven't had so much fun since my last visit to the dentist.
Women can look all they want, I guess.
See, that's the kind of thing that, honestly, I have an issue with. Because honestly, I think that the ability to be tempted and to avoid temptation is an important one to have.
And because I check out men left and right. But that's okay, since it only applies to men lusting after women.
No, really. I think the idea of taking no notice of anyone other than your partner is both stifling and frightening. And unreasonable, besides. It's like one of my therapists once said: What happens if you tell a person, "Sit in a corner. You can leave the corner as long as soon as you can stop thinking of a white elephant."
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
When properly viewed, EVERYTHING is lewd!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
If you have the time, you can make ANYTHING rhyme!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Silly boy. I didn't.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mucus,
I disagree that intent is necessarily more important than perception--I could just as easily quote you some rather extreme social examples from the other end of the spectrum--but it seems you agree with the core point I was making, that perception is a part of the equation.
----------
Vonk,
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. Could you be more specific, please?
----------
pH,
quote:No, really. I think the idea of taking no notice of anyone other than your partner is both stifling and frightening. And unreasonable, besides. It's like one of my therapists once said: What happens if you tell a person, "Sit in a corner. You can leave the corner as long as soon as you can stop thinking of a white elephant."
I'm not sure I agree. I suppose it depends on how strictly you define "...take notice of anyone other than your partner..." I have known people who, so far as I can tell (and they say this themselves) don't take notice of others in a sexual way, and I would hesitate a long time before calling them stifled.
As for what happens with that person, well, if I were sat in the corner and told that, it'd be a helluva long time before I got out of that corner. But I could learn to do it, and there are people who know how to do it already. It simply takes a high degree of mental self-discipline.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Anybody want a peanut?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Anybody want a peanut?
There're enough nuts in this thread already.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
SI= Sports Illustrated SE= ?
Enlighten me, please.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Swimsuit Edition
-o-
I *am* talking about the creator's intent. Not the photographer, not the model: the publisher's.
Car shows are generally aimed at buyers of cars. The SE is not aimed at buyers of women's swimsuits.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Oh. *duh*
Thanks.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
Face it, dear, it's a whack-mag
I know what you mean by this, but at first I thought you meant a magazine good only for rolling up and whacking bugs with!
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Vonk,
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. Could you be more specific, please?
If a person looks at a shoe in a display window and gets aroused and goes home and does something about it, they feel that the shoe is erotic. Does that make the shoe erotic across the board, just because there is a good sized population of shoe fetishists?
If a person looks at the SE of SI and gets aroused and does something about it, the art is erotic to them. That, to me, doesn't make it erotic art across the board. There are a lot of people out there that don't think of it as porn, and I don't believe the creators think of it as porn, so I was asking, if you have a personal feeling about a piece of art, or media, will you then define that art, or media, based on that personal feeling?
quote:Car shows are generally aimed at buyers of cars. The SE is not aimed at buyers of women's swimsuits.
I do not know anyone that goes to car shows to buy cars, or gun shows to buy guns. Most people go to these shows to look at cool cars and guns. I'm sure there are a small number of people that do buy cars at the car show, and I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of people that buy the bikinis featured in the SE is about the same. If there is any way to check that, I would love to know.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I didn't say you buy the cars at the car show. When I've gone to car shows it has been to look at models from multiple companies to compare their features and prices across the board, and then based on that decide what dealer to go to for a test drive. I have bought two cars using this process.
You keep ignoring the intent of the producer. I suppose you believe that Sports Illustrated wants to drum up swimsuit business.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I believe that they want to drum up Sports Illustrated business. They are trying to increase distibution in order to increase advertisement sales. I don't see what the producers of the magazine have to do with it. Their intent is the same as it is for every edition of every magazine that they produce. Who, in any part of the production process, is thinking, "I wanna make some porn, lets make some porn?" I'd be willing to bet no one.
The producers of the car show aren't trying to sell cars, they're trying to sell advertisement space and sponsorships for their events. If they have a good event, ie high attendance, not lots of cars sold, they will get more exhibitors and more advertisers and more sponsors. The point isn't to sell cars, it's to get people in the door.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
What is the mechanism by which it is believed that sending pictures of swimsuit models to a mostly male audience of sports enthusiasts will increase magazine sales?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I honestly think both parties define pornography - the producer and the consumer. There are some things that are not intended to arouse that obviously do arouse some people (like shoes). To those people, shoes may be pornography. But they're not something that most people consider pornography because most people aren't aroused, and because the intent of the designer is to make something to protect your feet, not to arouse.
Then there are some things that are intended to arouse. Some people aren't aroused by them ... for example, explicit pornography makes me want to hurl. So for me it doesn't work. But I don't deny that it does arouse a huge number of people and it's the intent of the producer to do that.
Then there are those things that are intended to arouse without explicitly showing sex. I do believe the Swimsuit Edition falls into this catogory. They're not explicitly showing sex, so we can't call them hard-core pornography. But yes, I do believe that it's the intent of the producers to arouse people with pictures of nearly-naked women. Some people may look at those magazines solely for the purpose of buying swimsuits ... maybe it doesn't work as pornography for them. But I think it is sort of entry-level pornography for a lot of men (boys), with the knowledge and intent of the producers.
Now you could ask them and they'd probably say it's not their intent to sell pornography - they'll say they're "celebrating the physically fit body" or something like that. But they know who's buying their magazines and they know what sells them ... it's sex. Fantasy. Not swimsuit fashions.
So some things fall into that fuzzy area where for one person they're just an underwear ad and for another person they're pornography. If you're the kind who wants to stay away from porn, you need to know what's porn to you. But as a society we can acknowledge that when something is very arousing to a large number of people, and the producer intends it to be so, that's pornography. Soft-core, not explicit, but pornography.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: What is the mechanism by which it is believed that sending pictures of swimsuit models to a mostly male audience of sports enthusiasts will increase magazine sales?
Boys like to look at girls, I suppose. Are we going to label every instantance of boys liking to look at girls as porn?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:I believe that they want to drum up Sports Illustrated business. They are trying to increase distibution in order to increase advertisement sales. I don't see what the producers of the magazine have to do with it. Their intent is the same as it is for every edition of every magazine that they produce.
SI producers want to sell magazines. Victoria's Secret producers want to sell underwear. Playboy producers want to sell magazines. Video producers want to sell movies. To the producers, pornography is always about money. Just because their intent is to sell magazines doesn't mean that it's not pornography. By that logic, nothing is pornography ... because the producers really don't care about anyone's personal fantasy life, they only care about how to get our money. Just like the producers of the swimsuit edition.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Boys like to look at girls, I suppose. Are we going to label every instantance of boys liking to look at girls as porn?
No. I do think it's fair to label instances of people selling pictures of scantily-clad girls to boys as pornographic in nature, though.
It's actually not a value judgment for me. I don't have a moral problem with porn.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The purpose of the swimsuit issue is to sell the swimsuit issue.
And it works, because SI's reader base is predominately male, and males will spend money to look at hot female bodies.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:But as a society we can acknowledge that when something is very arousing to a large number of people, and the producer intends it to be so, that's pornography.
Thongs?
I suppose, if porn is subjective, and a piece of media can be porn to one person and not to another, then the word looses a good deal of it's meaning.
quote:But yes, I do believe that it's the intent of the producers to arouse people with pictures of nearly-naked women.
I suppose that's where we disagree.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:I believe that they want to drum up Sports Illustrated business. They are trying to increase distibution in order to increase advertisement sales. I don't see what the producers of the magazine have to do with it. Their intent is the same as it is for every edition of every magazine that they produce.
SI producers want to sell magazines. Victoria's Secret producers want to sell underwear. Playboy producers want to sell magazines. Video producers want to sell movies. To the producers, pornography is always about money. Just because their intent is to sell magazines doesn't mean that it's not pornography. By that logic, nothing is pornography ... because the producers really don't care about anyone's personal fantasy life, they only care about how to get our money. Just like the producers of the swimsuit edition.
That's what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what the people fronting the money's intentions are, it matters what the people actually creating the magazine's intentions are.
Edit: hot female body != porn. scantily clad girl != porn.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Vonk,
Thanks for clarifying.
quote:If a person looks at a shoe in a display window and gets aroused and goes home and does something about it, they feel that the shoe is erotic. Does that make the shoe erotic across the board, just because there is a good sized population of shoe fetishists?
Certainly not, and you'll notice that the point I was getting at is that there isn't an across-the-board definition for pornography.
quote:There are a lot of people out there that don't think of it as porn, and I don't believe the creators think of it as porn, so I was asking, if you have a personal feeling about a piece of art, or media, will you then define that art, or media, based on that personal feeling?
Of course! You don't? That's puzzling to me, I thought that everyone defined art, media, pornography, etc., based primarily on their own interpretations of the work and not what the creator says. They factor in the creator's intent, but that is not, in my experience, the deciding factor for most people.
quote:I do not know anyone that goes to car shows to buy cars, or gun shows to buy guns.
Actually, lots of people go to gun shows to buy guns. I can't speak to car shows, but there is usually quite a substantial piece of commerce going on at most gun shows.
quote:I suppose, if porn is subjective, and a piece of media can be porn to one person and not to another, then the word looses a good deal of it's meaning.
Pornography isn't subjective?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I think there's a difference between trying to be phyically attractive and trying to be sexually arousing or pornographic. You can be attractive without necessarily being sexually arousing. You can be sexually arousing without necessarily being attractive.
We all try to make ourselves physically attractive with such things like clothes, makeup, perfume/cologne, hair styles, and body condition. Many people workout, not because they want to be able to lift heavy objects, but because they want their bodies to look a certain way. We do these things to look attractive, not to be pornographic. Sure, some of these things may cause sexual arousal, but that is not the primary intent, merely a side effect.
I think the primary intent of the the SE is to show very attractive people. And they are obviously successful because many men find those models to be very attractive. And many women find them attractive too. We can celebrate beauty without having to always associate beauty with sex.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
vonk,
quote:That's what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what the people fronting the money's intentions are, it matters what the people actually creating the magazine's intentions are.
Well, alright then, if you insist...
Suppose I create a movie studio and call it 'Practical Anatomy and Toe Tappin' Music Studioes'. I hire the most attractive actors and actresses I can draw to my studio, and I film them having all sorts of sex. I distribute my videos as "training films", and honestly do think of it as an expression of human beauty through sexuality, and intend for it to be purchased in that vein and not as mere pornography. I'm honest in that intention.
Does this film become not-pornography just because of my intent? In my opinion, of course not. I'm welcome to my own opinions, and I may very well be completely honest when I say that's not, to me, pornography. But I don't get to pick the definition for other people, do I?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: vonk,
quote:That's what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what the people fronting the money's intentions are, it matters what the people actually creating the magazine's intentions are.
Well, alright then, if you insist...
Suppose I create a movie studio and call it 'Practical Anatomy and Toe Tappin' Music Studioes'. I hire the most attractive actors and actresses I can draw to my studio, and I film them having all sorts of sex. I distribute my videos as "training films", and honestly do think of it as an expression of human beauty through sexuality, and intend for it to be purchased in that vein and not as mere pornography. I'm honest in that intention.
Does this film become not-pornography just because of my intent? In my opinion, of course not. I'm welcome to my own opinions, and I may very well be completely honest when I say that's not, to me, pornography. But I don't get to pick the definition for other people, do I?
Such videos already exist, and are almost never categorized as pornography.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think there's a difference between trying to be phyically attractive and trying to be sexually arousing or pornographic. You can be attractive without necessarily being sexually arousing. You can be sexually arousing without necessarily being attractive.
I certainly agree with that. I don't, however, agree that other people will view the two as so distinct from one another. Just because you don't see someone and think, "Golly, I'd like to have sex with her!" does not mean you don't think they're sexually attractive and not just 'physically attractive', whatever that means.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Such videos already exist, and are almost never considered pornography.
There's a reason I included 'toe tappin' music' in there, erosomniac. Again, I think that them not being considered pornographic is a totally subjective judgement call.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: I do think it's fair to label instances of people selling pictures of scantily-clad girls to boys as pornographic in nature, though
This made me curious. Are comic books then pornographic? Lingerie catalogs? Newspaper insert advertisements that have underwear models? Magazines with articles on women's beach volleyball, or swimming?
I don't think "scantily clad girls" equates to "pornography".
Are the scantily-dressed models intended to appeal to an audience's sense of sexual desire? In most cases, yes. But does an appeal to sexuality make something pornographic? I don't think so, no.
A magazine with sex appeal does not automatically become pornographic. If it did, than any picture of any woman with sex appeal would become pornography.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Are the scantily-dressed models intended to appeal to an audience's sense of sexual desire? In most cases, yes. But does an appeal to sexuality make something pornographic? I don't think so, no.
I agree completely, FC. However, I do think they contain, for some people (and sometimes even in intent, to the extent that sex sells, people know it, and use it sometimes), such things contain pornographic elements.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'd further qualify that to say "such things can contain pornographic elements".
But even then, what is a "pornographic element" - other than the old "I know it when I see it" description?
It really feels like the idea of "pornography" is being painted with a very, very broad brush.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Such videos already exist, and are almost never categorized as pornography.
Maybe they're not categorized as such by some people, but I'm guessing that they would be by many.
quote:Are comic books then pornographic?
Some are, yes.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I avoided it as long as I could, but I have to jump in. So here's some stuff to argue over:
Pornography is a description of a genre, like "science fiction" or "romance." It is intended to arouse and marketed as such. Whether it is good (sometimes called "erotica") or bad (porn, smut, filth, choose your derogatory word) is entirely up to the consumer. The term itself should be nonjudgemental.
Some material may have an erotic element, as the swimsuit edition does. It is clearly intended to attract people interested in looking at barely-clad women. But it's not porn, soft or otherwise, just a marketing ploy, because the intention is merely to interest the consumer, not necessarily to sexually arouse him or her. Since "erotic" is wholly subjective, just about anything can be erotic to someone and the obvious sexual material may fall flat for others. (Personally, I can't understand the appeal of naked girls rolling on the beach. I grew up next to a beach, went on a lot of late night dates there, and whenever I see a model covered in gritty, painful, won't-come-off beach sand I just think "Ow.")
What it might be, however, is inappropriate, and that is also subjective. Erotic material where you don't expect to see it is startling and potentially disturbing, but that doesn't make it porn. Erotic material used specifically to attract sales to something that is itself unrelated to sex (the SI issue, most advertising) is pandering and reveals a great deal about human sexuality, which can also be potentially disturbing.
So, to recap. Adult movies, Playboy, "Molly Flanders" = "pornography," which does not indicate quality any more than "science fiction" does. Sexy advertising, SI, bikini contests, attractive people on the street = "erotic," possibly "inappropriate," your mileage may vary.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I avoided it as long as I could, but I have to jump in. So here's some stuff to argue over:
Pornography is a description of a genre, like "science fiction" or "romance." It is intended to arouse and marketed as such. Whether it is good (sometimes called "erotica") or bad (porn, smut, filth, choose your derogatory word) is entirely up to the consumer. The term itself should be nonjudgemental.
Some material may have an erotic element, as the swimsuit edition does. It is clearly intended to attract people interested in looking at barely-clad women. But it's not porn, soft or otherwise, just a marketing ploy, because the intention is merely to interest the consumer, not necessarily to sexually arouse him or her. Since "erotic" is wholly subjective, just about anything can be erotic to someone and the obvious sexual material may fall flat for others. (Personally, I can't understand the appeal of naked girls rolling on the beach. I grew up next to a beach, went on a lot of late night dates there, and whenever I see a model covered in gritty, painful, won't-come-off beach sand I just think "Ow.")
What it might be, however, is inappropriate, and that is also subjective. Erotic material where you don't expect to see it is startling and potentially disturbing, but that doesn't make it porn. Erotic material used specifically to attract sales to something that is itself unrelated to sex (the SI issue, most advertising) is pandering and reveals a great deal about human sexuality, which can also be potentially disturbing.
So, to recap. Adult movies, Playboy, "Molly Flanders": "pornography," which does not indicate quality any more than "science fiction" does. Sexy advertising, SI, bikini contests, attractive people on the street: "erotic," possibly "inappropriate," your mileage may vary.
THANK YOU. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Well, our definitions definitely differ. I certainly consider a billboard with sexy naked women on it pornographic, even though it's purpose was to sell something else, instead of as a consumer product itself.
I do not agree that pornography is a genre.
I also do not have a good definition about what is and what is not pornography.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
By the original and dictionary definition of the term, it's a genre. What many people think of when they use the term varies wildly, which is what I'm hoping to address.
What sort of judgement do you assign with the term "pornographic"? Would "inappropriately erotic" be accurate? If so, why not use that description instead since that way anyone reading it would know instantly what you mean?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Some are, yes.
True. There are pornographic comics.
I'll rephrase - are the vast majority of spandex-wearing superheroes considered pornographic? Because a heroine is drawn with tight clothes and an impossibly voluptuous figure, does that make her a porn icon?
I don't feel so, but with a broad enough brush, one could say so.
Edit to add: [snipped and posted later]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Honestly, I think that more people would understand the word "pornographic" to mean that instead of the phrase "inappropriately erotic".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'll rephrase - are the vast majority of spandex-wearing superheroes considered pornographic?
Yes, I have seen some covers for mainstream spandex superhero comics which I consider pornographic.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I dunno. But I'm betting we have different social circles
And my definition has the advantage of being easy to explain.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm putting my "edit to add" down here, because conversation moved on quickly past my post:
I'm very much on board with what Chris said. The difficulty, though, comes in the word "pornographic" - as in, "something akin to pornography". It's like calling something "science fictiony".
It seems, while the object of attention *itself* may not be pornography, one can *compare* it to pornography in the hopes of labeling it with the stigma pornography has.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Started to add something about "pornographic" but FC already added what I was thinking, so never mind. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: The purpose of the swimsuit issue is to sell the swimsuit issue.
And it works, because SI's reader base is predominately male, and males will spend money to look at hot female bodies.
Winner!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Of course, except for the fact that it's a subset of a larger magazine, this works the same with porn mags.
The purpose of Playboy magazines is to sell Playboy magazines.
And it works, because males will spend money to look at hot female bodies.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Some material may have an erotic element, as the swimsuit edition does. It is clearly intended to attract people interested in looking at barely-clad women. But it's not porn, soft or otherwise, just a marketing ploy, because the intention is merely to interest the consumer, not necessarily to sexually arouse him or her.
Well thank you for settling that for me, then.
Obviously, I disagree. I think some of the people arguing that it's not pornographic are arguing against a perceived condemnation of pornography. I don't condemn pornography. My definition of pornography is similar to yours, and I think this issue is a soft example of that genre. To differentiate between things that intend to arouse and things that intend to sell copies is ridiculous. Everything is intended to sell something. If you can argue that the publishers of the swimsuit edition are not selling pornography because their intention is to sell magazines, and not so arouse people, then you can make the same argument about Playboy and Hustler. They only care about selling magazines. If you buy their Magazine but don't get aroused, they don't care. And yet, if Playboy and Hustler are not pornography, then the word is clearly meaningless.
I think what people are saying is that they don't find the SI SE objectionable. Fine. That doesn't mean it's not pornographic in nature.
The difference between the SI SE and an issue of Playboy is only one of degree. They both intend the exact same thing: to arouse men, and in so doing, sell magazine issues. The only difference is that in one, the women have some clothing on, and so that one can be sold where minors can buy it.
quote: This made me curious. Are comic books then pornographic? Lingerie catalogs? Newspaper insert advertisements that have underwear models? Magazines with articles on women's beach volleyball, or swimming?
I don't think "scantily clad girls" equates to "pornography".
Are the scantily-dressed models intended to appeal to an audience's sense of sexual desire? In most cases, yes. But does an appeal to sexuality make something pornographic? I don't think so, no.
A magazine with sex appeal does not automatically become pornographic. If it did, than any picture of any woman with sex appeal would become pornography.
I believe this has been answered, but then, it appears lately that you no longer fully read other people's posts in the topics you post in. *shrug* I think that scantily clad comic book women are pornographic in nature when the intent is to arouse the boys that read them, in order to get them to buy more issues. I think underwear catalogs and advertisements generally are not, unless the publisher starts to make some clear effort to target consumers of pornography rather than buyers of underwear.
I do not equate scantily clad women with pornography. I do equate the selling of images that are primarily sexual in nature, and that are clearly targeted at arousing people, to pornography. Of course we may subjectively differ on whether that's what's going on. I am fascinated by other people's capacity for error.
I don't think pornography requires nudity. I think nudity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for me to call something pornography. I don't think pornography is (always) evil or that it is (always) demeaning to women (or men); I think it certainly can be these things.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think Icky makes sense, here.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It is precisely because pornography is so difficult to pin down that I'd like to see it reserved only for the genre description.
The term as it is used today is effectively useless unless you're talking to someone who already knows what you mean by it and probably agrees.
"I think some of the people arguing that it's not pornographic are arguing against a perceived condemnation of pornography." I didn't say it wasn't pornographic, see the exchange above with FC. That's a subjective call. I said it wasn't pornography.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
Are comic books then pornographic? Lingerie catalogs? Newspaper insert advertisements that have underwear models? Magazines with articles on women's beach volleyball, or swimming?
I think we all know that there's no reason for female beach volleyball players to all dress as they do. Don't male beach volleyball players all wear ordinary t-shirts and shorts?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: The difference between the SI SE and an issue of Playboy is only one of degree. They both intend the exact same thing: to arouse men, and in so doing, sell magazine issues. The only difference is that in one, the women have some clothing on, and so that one can be sold where minors can buy it.
...well, that, and Playboy has better articles.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Hey! Icarus! Get out of my head.
(I almost wrote "get out of my mouth," but, well, you know. And then I almost made an inappropriate crack here. And then here, too. Help me, someone, please. )
Great post.
And I'll go on the record yet again for promoting a broad definition of pornography, in flagrant and total defiance of Chris Bridges' stated request for a strict definition with regards genre. Hah! You can't oppress me, you big peddler of persnicketiness. I'll just call you pornographic, too.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, I am...
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
My favorite definition of pornography:
"The difference between erotica and pornography is simple. Erotica is what I like. Pornography is what you like, you pervert!" -- Stephen Gilbert
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I think that scantily clad comic book women are pornographic in nature when the intent is to arouse the boys that read them, in order to get them to buy more issues. I think underwear catalogs and advertisements generally are not, unless the publisher starts to make some clear effort to target consumers of pornography rather than buyers of underwear.
The problem I have with this distinction is that if you were to take many of the SI SE pictures and then cut out some pictures from catalogs, fashion magazines, and pictures from a beach during spring break and then mixed them around, you wouldn't be able to determine where each picture was taken from. Pictures labeled as pornography in one source would not be pornography when found in a different source. I don't think that should be the case.
quote:I do not equate scantily clad women with pornography. I do equate the selling of images that are primarily sexual in nature, and that are clearly targeted at arousing people, to pornography
How do you determine "primarily sexual in nature?" This is where I was trying to make a distinction earlier between something that is overtly sexual in nature and something that is merely attractive (which might result in sexual arousal for some people). I feel the SI SE is merely showing attractive people without having them do anything overtly sexual (I don't feel lack of clothing in itself is classified as "primarily sexual in nature"). And because the models are not doing anything that I would consider sexual, I would therefore not consider it pornography. The fact that some people are sexually aroused by it is in my opinion irrelevant.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I believe this has been answered, but then, it appears lately that you no longer fully read other people's posts in the topics you post in. *shrug*
Well, I was asking you in particular, not the board as a whole. I was curious as to *your* reasoning, really, in making what was a very short post. I'm not sure what I didn't read in it (I've even gone back to check).
[though I admit I am guilty of starting a post and taking a long time to finish it (I'm posting between other tasks at work), and not reading the posts that have been made in the interim... so my words may seem to leave out bits of the posts immediately preceding them]
I understand that you aren't making a value judgement on pornography. I also feel as though your definition of pornography (or, more specifically, as has been since clarified, the word "pornographic") casts a very wide net. My questions were trying to find out just how wide of a net, out of curiosity.
There was no value judgement on whether "pornographic" is a positive or a negative thing - just that you are including quite a bit under that umbrella.
quote:I do equate the selling of images that are primarily sexual in nature, and that are clearly targeted at arousing people, to pornography.
And herein lies the "I know it when I see it" definition. When something is primarily (in your view) sexual in nature and clearly (again in your view) targeted at arousing people.
Was the Cindy Crawford Pepsi ad pornographic? I don't feel so, but you may (depending on how primary you feel the sexuality was, and how clearly it was targeted). Is a waitress who wears a slightly shorter dress and tighter blouse to get better tips considered pornographic?
I understand the maxim that "sex sells" - but I don't think that means using that advertising truism therefore makes your actions pornographic in nature.
quote:I don't think pornography is (always) evil or that it is (always) demeaning to women (or men); I think it certainly can be these things.
Absolutely. But that's not my disagrement with you. My subsequent comment regarding the stigma of pornography was aimed specifically at my perception of mph's motivations, not yours.
My disagreement is over how broad you've made your definition. It's similar to saying "science fiction" is any piece of fiction where any bit of science is used. While such a definition isn't wholly invalid, it isn't exactly very useful because it is overly broad.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
To me, I think a better term for pretty nudity stuff is 'erotica', and people engaging in sexual stuff 'pornography'.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't see the harm in a broad definition of pornography, since I'm not trying to legislate against it or anything like that.
I think the thing is that we come at this with different goals.
I just think the suggestion that the swimsuit edition exists for any reason other than capitalizing on the horniness of males is a specious one. I don't need to come up with the be-all and end-all definition of pornography to make that claim.
I will say that I don't have a problem with the possibility that "if you were to take many of the SI SE pictures and then cut out some pictures from catalogs, fashion magazines, and pictures from a beach during spring break and then mixed them around, you wouldn't be able to determine where each picture was taken from." (I don't agree with the statement, in point of fact. Not unless the SE has changed a lot since I used to get it. Or unless beaches and catalogs have.) But even if true, that's fine. It's not necessarily that porn is in the eye of the beholder, but that the medium or venue in which it is delivered matters. Put the Victoria Secret pictures in a catalog delivered free to whomever wants it, where any profit comes from the sale of underwear, and I'm disinclined to call it porn--particularly if the items in the pictures can be ordered. Put those same exact pictures as an insert in Mad Magazine, or Car and Driver, where you have to pay to get them, and there is no mention of being able to actually order them, and you brag about your annual hot bra and panty issue, and it is a very soft kind of pornography. It may not be obscene--and I wonder if that's really the more important question: not whether it's porn or not, but whether it's obscene or not.
Tell me where I need to try harder to answer your question.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Interesting.
I don't know if there's any harm in a broad definition, but I don't know if I see the use in one so much, either.
The delivery method angle is an interesting one, though. A free catalog like Victoria's secret is not pornography because it's free, but a magazine like the SI swimsuit issue is. Would then a provacative sweeps-week television show on network television (free) be less pornographic than the same show shown on cable (paid for)?
I dunno.
quote:Tell me where I need to try harder to answer your question.
I'm not sure how I've gotten your hackles up in this thread. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you without meaning to - my questions really have been made out of honest curiosity.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That wasn't asked in an angry tone of voice. I was trying to make peace.
-o-
It's not the fact that it's free that makes it not-pornography (considering how much internet porn *is* free.) It's the question of what you're paying for when you are paying.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I think I'm just poking with a sharper stick than I would like. I'm really just trying to understand a very different point of view (which I still can't quite wrap my mind around, I'm afraid).
I can see the "pornographic" angle if someone goes out of their way to buy the swimsuit issue off the newsstand, when they have no interest in SI at all otherwise. They are buying the magazine for the sex appeal, and it could be considered a very mild form of pornography in a loose sense of the word.
But what about someone who subscribes to SI all year and pays for it for the sports content, who receives the swimsuit edition as part of that subscription? That seems to fall far less under the looser pornography definition - at least to me.
Does the intent of the viewer partially govern whether something is pornography, or is it generally defined outside of consumer intent?
I'm pretty open minded when it comes to pornography, myself, and maybe I'm desensitized to the sexuality everpresent in the world around me, but the term "pornography" seems to be a higher intensity word with a more focused definition.
I suppose with a wider definition, the word would have less power, and therefore less social stigma. I just feel that definition is too imprecise for my tastes.
Do you have a different word for more hardcore pornographic material, such as that restricted to adult purchase? Or is intensity of sexual content not a factor?
To call both pornographic seems to lend greater intensity to more innocuous sexual content and to downplay the intensity of more graphic sexual content.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
Apropos of nothing in particular, I just wanted to say that my local grocery store has plenty of copies of this year's swimsuit issue.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I can see the "pornographic" angle if someone goes out of their way to buy the swimsuit issue off the newsstand, when they have no interest in SI at all otherwise. They are buying the magazine for the sex appeal, and it could be considered a very mild form of pornography in a loose sense of the word.
But what about someone who subscribes to SI all year and pays for it for the sports content, who receives the swimsuit edition as part of that subscription? That seems to fall far less under the looser pornography definition - at least to me.
*shrug* It's pornography they didn't ask for.
quote:Do you have a different word for more hardcore pornographic material, such as that restricted to adult purchase? Or is intensity of sexual content not a factor?
"softcore porn" "porn" "hardcore porn" "stuff they only do in Japan"
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:This made me curious. Are comic books then pornographic? Lingerie catalogs? Newspaper insert advertisements that have underwear models? Magazines with articles on women's beach volleyball, or swimming?
In the last Summer Olympics, Women's Beach Volleyball had the highest viewership of ANY event in the ENTIRE Olympics. TMYN...
And, for the record, every single picture in the SI:SE magazine can be seen on the SI website for free, in high resolution and with very little advertising for anything other than SI itself. You can even download a free calendar software with the pictures.
And, let's face it, looking through the SI:SE magazine or website doesn't make me run out and buy the next football or baseball issue. It might get me injured when I tell my wife "you would look good in that."
I don't know to what extent the SI:SE is designed to sell more of that issue; I think at this point it's become more of a tradition, something that SI has to do every year because people expect them to. I mean, in this day and age you see more skin watching prime time TV than you do in the SI issue, so I hardly think it's anything out of the ordinary.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:"softcore porn" "porn" "hardcore porn" "stuff they only do in Japan"
Rereading some previous posts, I noticed that you divorced the word obscene from pornography. It's actually very interesting. Part of me thinks that to remove that modifier makes the definition meaningless, and part of me thinks that since obscenity is based on the viewer (not the creator) that it shouldn't be part of a general definition.
Right now I don't know what I think about it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think I could predict with about 85% accuracy what some given individual that I know very well would judge as pornographic or not. That is, for a close friend, I could probably pick out correctly how that person would categorize 85 out of 100 instances (visual, audio, etc).
I think I could do this with a close friend with reasonable accuracy because I would understand them well enough in so many other ways that I could pretty well get what "pornography" means to that person.
That error rate would go way up (in my experience) for people I don't know as well. For strangers, it would be a very crude estimation.
---
Edited to add: I write this to explicitly acknowledge that I am not denying a sort of objective quality of pornographic. Yes, when I am talking with a given person, I might be able to swing it so that we are talking about mostly the same thing when we use those words. But the society-wide discussion of what is pornographic is much, much harder -- and that doesn't deny the individual case, though.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I heard there's also going to be a story in the New York Times's business section.
Really highlights how they're getting to the story late, I think.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Here's an answer, from Mathew 5:28:
quote:But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Adultery? Does this apply to people that aren't married?
Boo hoo!
Fine substitute "fornication" in for "adultery."
But I think even Porter agrees that having the thought and dispelling it is better then having the thought, entertaining it, and not acting on it.
To say nothing of having the thought, entertaining it, and acting on it.
Also I think "Swimsuit Edition" is VERY misleading.
"Paint On Birthday Suit Edition" would be more accurate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But I think even Porter agrees that having the thought and dispelling it is better then having the thought, entertaining it, and not acting on it.
Even Porter?
Actually, I'd say that entertaining the thought is acting on it.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:It's not necessarily that porn is in the eye of the beholder, but that the medium or venue in which it is delivered matters.
So do you consider the advertisements in the SI SE featuring models with less clothing than many of the SI models and containing sexually suggestive phrases to be pornography? SI does include the brand name, price, and contanct information for the manufacturers of the different swimsuits that are featured, so yes, you could possibly purchase the swimsuits if you really wanted to. Would your perspective change if they displayed the brand more prominently on the page? What if they divided the SE edition throughout the year and inserted a couple of pictures into each regular issue of SI with the brand prominently displayed so that they are just the same as the other ads? Would that change your classification of those pictures?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:But I think even Porter agrees that having the thought and dispelling it is better then having the thought, entertaining it, and not acting on it.
Even Porter?
Actually, I'd say that entertaining the thought is acting on it.
As opposed to "Porter thinks that having the thought and dispelling it is just as bad as having the thought, entertaining it, and not acting on it" or "Porter thinks that having the thought and dispelling it is morally equivilant to acting on it."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Fine substitute "fornication" in for "adultery."
But Jesus didn't say fornication. He said adultery, correct? How are you justifying substituting fornication?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It depends on whether one thinks Christ was making a statement about one sin or a more general statement using one sin as the specific case up for discussion.
If the intended message is "committing a sin in one's mind is the same as actually committing it," then the substitution of "fornication" for "adultery" is an accurate way of applying the message to the specific issue at hand.
Of course, substituting it in the quote - to suggest Jesus said X when he actually said Y - would be dishonest. But I don't get the impression anyone suggested that the gospel actually says "fornication" there. Rather, that the message in that passage applies just as strongly to fornication as it does to adultery.
If one believes Jesus though adultery was somehow unique in this respect (that is, in being a sin when committed in the mind), then the substitution can't be justified.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It depends on whether one thinks Christ was making a statement about one sin or a more general statement using one sin as the specific case up for discussion.
If the intended message is "committing a sin in one's mind is the same as actually committing it," then the substitution of "fornication" for "adultery" is an accurate way of applying the message to the specific issue at hand.
Of course, substituting it in the quote - to suggest Jesus said X when he actually said Y - would be dishonest. But I don't get the impression anyone suggested that the gospel actually says "fornication" there. Rather, that the message in that passage applies just as strongly to fornication as it does to adultery.
If one believes Jesus though adultery was somehow unique in this respect (that is, in being a sin when committed in the mind), then the substitution can't be justified.
Thanks Dag, are you sure you shouldn't be somebody's PR rep? Publicist? Editor?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry for the double post, but Porter:
Are you saying that if I say check a girl out and imagine seducing her and having sex with her that it matters not if I actually get up and accomplish my fantasy? God will not condemn me any more then if I did not actually do it? I agree entertaining the thought is certainly a sin.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: I think you paid for it, therefore you're entitled to it. (My feelings on the issue completely aside.)
(Italics added)
Excuse me, but was there a pun intended here? No one seems to have commented on it, unless I'm blind and missed it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
BB: no, I said no such thing, and I have no idea where you think I did.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). It's selling sex. It's pictures that are put there solely for the purpose of having you fantasize about erotic things with the person in the magazine. I know they're not entirely naked; but the difference between Playboy and SI swimsuit issue is really not much more than a couple of triangles of cloth. The intent is the same ... they're just trying to sell the magazine, to people who use it for the purpose of getting turned on. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)