i have an issue with these because as far as im concerned pornography is men or women showing off there body??!!
Am i right in saying that mags such as Zoo and Nuts and Front are pron magazines i know they have ohter stuff in them too but they are porn right????
Pretty much yeah.
I disagree with your definition of porn - I think the intention of the photos are important, they have to be intended to have an erotic effect on the viewer (you could have someone quite covered up, but it still be considered porn). Of course, the photos in Zoo and Nuts are intended to have an erotic effect, so yes, you could say they are porn mags.
What exactly your issue with porn magazines?
If you're definition is a man or woman showing off their body then this would also classify most lingerie and perfume ads, would it not?
I guess Zoo and Nuts are a mild form, I'd class them more as men's mags but I guess there's not much difference to being a porn magazine.
LittleKitty wrote:
What exactly your issue with porn magazines?
If you're definition is a man or woman showing off their body then this would also classify most lingerie and perfume ads, would it not?
I guess Zoo and Nuts are a mild form, I'd class them more as men's mags but I guess there's not much difference to being a porn magazine.
I thanks for replys
my issue is with men denying they are porn magazines. i agree it is very mild porn but the line of what is porn and isnt is very blury you could say. i would say again that perfume ads and lingerie is porn very mild porn thou very very mild lol
Labels don't help me much. I would call page 3 and lad's mags images soft core porn. Although these magazines aren't just picture after picture, they're also interviews, articles and adverts I'm happy to call them magazines and leave it at that.x
Tigerlilies wrote:
Labels don't help me much. I would call page 3 and lad's mags images soft core porn. Although these magazines aren't just picture after picture, they're also interviews, articles and adverts I'm happy to call them magazines and leave it at that.x
This.
I'd also go as far to suggest many women/teen mags are 'wordy porn'.
Not that I'm particularly bothered by it.
Mmmmm, I dunno. Very soft, if you ask me. I'd always classified something as pornographic only if it was in some way sexually explicit. I'm not sure that I agree with Western Society (whatever that is) sexualising breasts in this way, but that's all you get - women's breasts and a cheeky smile. Sometimes not even that...
How would you class those "naturist" films of the 70's? They were trying to be porn, sure, but were they really?
Would they still be porn if the people watching didn't think so? So are naturists all porn-stars? And porn-watchers?
sc wrote:
as far as im concerned pornography is men or women showing off there body??!!
What about art? Dance? Photography? Circus skills and acrobatics? Gymnasts? Athletes, come to that? Body builders show off their bodies, but is it porn? Fetish models can be completely enclosed, but is that not porn?
And does it matter if something is porn? What about it bothers you? Surely people have the right to display themselves as they see fit, so long as they take reasonable steps not to offend others' sensibilities? And surely other people have the right to look at something that is presented for viewing, if they so wish?
Good shout Hella! Agreed. SG
Lovehoney - Hella Rouge wrote:
I genuinely couldn't disagree more with that statement. Sexually suggestive/nude/partial nude images are erotica - titillation. A naked body doesn't equal pornography.
Pornography is a depiction of a sex act itself - sexual touching, penetration etc.
I very much agree with this!
paradise found wrote:
Lovehoney - Hella Rouge wrote:
I genuinely couldn't disagree more with that statement. Sexually suggestive/nude/partial nude images are erotica - titillation. A naked body doesn't equal pornography.
Pornography is a depiction of a sex act itself - sexual touching, penetration etc.
I very much agree with this!
SEXYGET 69 wrote:
Good shout Hella! Agreed. SG
Although we're all very probably in the same boat, on a semantic level I don't agree.
Pornography doesn't have to depict an act. It is not what is depicted in erotica/porn but rather the intent of the content. Erotica is sexual art or writing which has 'artisitic' merit, porn is purely sexual.
You can have more explicit erotica than porn I presume? Erotica doesn't become porn just because it involves acts?
The legal wranglers behind these issues appear to take this view too.