When I'm wrong I'll admit it!!!

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by jetset

...Advertising rules in the UK apparently prohibit the association of gambling with sexual prowess.

Interesting - I believe Playboy casino is marketed like the Playboy Club. We should pay attention to the ad copy to see how much is geared towards sex, and how much is geared towards being classy.

[Simmo!]

Originally Posted by Vesuvio

No, we disagree - I think it's soft porn. Lame (I think that's the word ) and innocuous, but still porn.

I feel a poll coming on:

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...aphy-poll.html

[Da_Gambla]

Originally Posted by Vesuvio

No, we disagree - I think it's soft porn. Lame (I think that's the word ) and innocuous, but still porn.

You're correct, as I did just go back and re-read your first offering attributing nudity to porn, sorry. I believe I had just read Bryan's post and somehow attributed his view to you by mistake.

Well, we then differ, but all I can say is that society overall treats them as two very different things.

An R rated movie with simple nudity: someone underage may go in with an adult (parent).

A NC-17 with more explicit nudity which usually also involves intense sexual situations: NO ONE under 17 allowed, perod.

MA or X: No one under 18, period.

So there are clear levels to each one, and as such, there is nudity almost everywhere you go. Anything that goes into the realm of porn is pretty much pushed underground here, stateside.

Just to clarify, please answer this... you have a movie where the actress quickly removes her top and bra, and then changes into a different blouse. You saw brief breast, definitely nipples, for about 2 seconds. You consider this pornographic? This film should be rated MA? Just curious to know where other's standards are...

- Keith

[Vesuvio]

Originally Posted by Casinomeister

Eh? Do you mean some Crypto moving to Playtech? (Ritz/Club on the Park)?

Sorry, that got completely garbled! I meant Playboy moving to Cryptologic - they used to use MG. Post now edited.

[Vesuvio]

Originally Posted by Da_Gambla

Just to clarify, please answer this... you have a movie where the actress quickly removes her top and bra, and then changes into a different blouse. You saw brief breast, definitely nipples, for about 2 seconds. You consider this pornographic? This film should be rated MA? Just curious to know where other's standards are...

Unless it was done in some peculiarly gratuitous way, no, it's not pornographic. Playboy having a slot where you can get pictures of naked girls for certain combinations, or a video of a girl doing a striptease - that's pornographic. It depends on the intention.

[Da_Gambla]

Originally Posted by Vesuvio

Unless it was done in some peculiarly gratuitous way, no, it's not pornographic. Playboy having a slot where you can get pictures of naked girls for certain combinations, or a video of a girl doing a striptease - that's pornographic. I don't really see the connection.

Very well then, and I appreciate your answer.

That is where we clearly differ... I do feel that all nudity is just nudity... until someone puts a hand or other object in the wrong place, then it is instant porn.

I very clearly have in my mind what criteria must exist for nudity to cross the line into porn. I wonder if you might explain yours? What exactly is gratuitous nudity? In the movie scene mentioned, the producer could have -easily- edited out the breast shot entirely, so why isn't this nudity considered gratuitous?

I just feel that if you gave a committee 500 nude photos of every variety (no sexual depictions), and had them try to label each one either porn or not-porn, they would go nuts inside of 10 mins! I don't know how you would go about creating a standard for this...

- Keith

[NASHVEGAS]

Originally Posted by Simmo!

I feel a poll coming on:

Try a cold shower!If lasts more than 4 hours seek medical treatment!

[Da_Gambla]

Originally Posted by NASHVEGAS

Try a cold shower!If lasts more than 4 hours seek medical treatment!

LMAO!!!



- Keith

[Vesuvio]

Originally Posted by Da_Gambla

I very clearly have in my mind what criteria must exist for nudity to cross the line into porn. I wonder if you might explain yours? What exactly is gratuitous nudity? In the movie scene mentioned, the producer could have -easily- edited out the breast shot entirely, so why isn't this nudity considered gratuitous?

I don't have any clear line at all, and I don't think one exists. It depends on the intention of the director - if it's just to show life naturally even a film with explicit sex could be non-pornographic, not that I'd say an age limit shouldn't be applied. e.g. to take books, I'd class The Unbearable Lightness of Being or Lady Chatterly's Lover as non porn, even if they're more explicit than a Mills and Boon novel (ok, they're probably not - never got round to reading one!)

Originally Posted by Da_Gambla

I just feel that if you gave a committee 500 nude photos of every variety (no sexual depictions), and had them try to label each one either porn or not-porn, they would go nuts inside of 10 mins! I don't know how you would go about creating a standard for this...

Quite Reminds me of the scene with the "mammaries" in The Aviator. There's no clear distinction, but I don't think Playboy Casino falls into a grey area.

[Da_Gambla]

Originally Posted by Vesuvio

I don't have any clear line at all, and I don't think one exists. It depends on the intention of the director - if it's just to show life naturally even a film with explicit sex could be non-pornographic, not that I'd say an age limit shouldn't be applied. e.g. to take books, I'd class The Unbearable Lightness of Being or Lady Chatterly's Lover as non porn, even if they're more explicit than a Mills and Boon novel (ok, they're probably not - never got round to reading one!)
Quite Reminds me of the scene with the "mammaries" in The Aviator. There's no clear distinction, but I don't think Playboy Casino falls into a grey area.

I again appreciate the responses, sans any derogatory verbage, and I hope I presented the actual questions likewise. This is how it could be in these forums, disagreement whilst still openly discussing ideas. Two people with different viewpoints will obviously learn more from each other than two people who share the same opinion, but only if they agree to speak civily. I whole-heartedly appreciate the reduction of tone, and hopefully my reciprocation is welcomed on your end.

As to the issue, one thing I have learned from this thread is, this seems to be as ambiguous as a discussion of religion. I feel, and have always felt, that the line between nudity and porn is as simple as saying whether a car is white or red in color. I understand that some religious folks move the bar much closer to porn, but they also seem to have a clear understanding in their mind. However, you are saying there is a "grey" area. My understanding of a grey area is that each case would have to be examined and a determination made. This works well for the individual, but some body of thought and legislation would have to clarify all of these cases. Clearly politicians have tried to even ban some forms of art, as well as specific pieces of art as pornographic (although these politicians are usually pushed quite heavily by religious fundamentalists). They say they are saving us from ourselves...

If you say that it is best left up to each individual to define his or her grey area, then unfortunately that will at some point get abused, and often does. There is never a shortage of those who will always test the line in the sand for their 15 seconds of fame, so we do need definitions. Your thoughts on this would be of interest... how do you legislate or control that grey area if it is so subjective and sensitive from one individual to another?

While you ponder that, and hopefully find time to respond, I'll just say that from my own personal upbringing, Playboy has always been much much closer to art, than say, Hustler or Penthouse... Therefore the nudity contained in Playboy (the magazine) has never been considered porn of any sorts to me or anyone I have spoken to about it. One can argue that Playboy postured for business and acceptance, but their own stance and PR has generally tilted towards artform rather than any sort of pornography. Their entire brand relies heavily on avoiding a relationship with porn. However, they do promote soft-porn out of general public consumption with videos and pay-per-view or subscription television channels. Larry Flynt, on the other hand, openly markets his product as pornographic and is quite proud of that. Again, differences arise which makes one wonder...

Will real pornography ever be defined? Probably not, if thousands of years of it have come and gone, and here we are in the 21st century still discussing it.

- Keith