posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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]
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I think that more people would understand the word "pornographic" to mean that instead of the phrase "inappropriately erotic".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Started to add something about "pornographic" but FC already added what I was thinking, so never mind. Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
(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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
"The difference between erotica and pornography is simple. Erotica is what I like. Pornography is what you like, you pervert!" -- Stephen Gilbert
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, I think a better term for pretty nudity stuff is 'erotica', and people engaging in sexual stuff 'pornography'.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
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"
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
