Online Casinos - Casinomeister Logo Online Casinos - Casinomeister

View Poll Results: Playboy Casino contains nudity. Do you consider this:

Voters
112. You may not vote on this poll until you register in our forum
  • Pornographic and unacceptable

    8 7.14%
  • Pornographic but acceptable for this brand

    25 22.32%
  • Non-pornographic but unacceptable

    1 0.89%
  • Non-pornographic and acceptable for this brand

    71 63.39%
  • No opinion (view poll)

    7 6.25%
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 68 of 68

Thread: The Playboy Casino Pornography Poll

  1. #61
    NASHVEGAS is offline Banned User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    MERS
    Posts
    2,235
    Thanks
    3,318
    Thanked 2,533 Times in 1,146 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation Points: 13325
    Quote Originally Posted by EasyRhino View Post
    Oh wait, depending on casino policy, this may have been below $3k. But still. Dang.

    And Nash, that seems like an awesome promo from the Palms. Free buy-in? Playmates? I gotta see if I can ingratiate myself with those guys!
    Legally in Nevada, you never have to provide a casino an ID. However, cause and effect can determine whether one choses to provide the casino ID....i.e. no ID, no credit line.............your original # was correct in all my experiences and it is the threshold where the law applies, that being said I assume any casino can have their own policy requiring ID but it may be mutually exclusive of the law........... ID's are a different issue for advantage gamblers and there are legal ways to not provide your own ID in Vegas iirc.........need to cease so I do not derail this stimulating thread

  2. #62
    rowmare's Avatar
    rowmare is offline WebMeister
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    328
    Thanks
    102
    Thanked 118 Times in 40 Posts
    Rep Power
    40
    Reputation Points: 730

    Angry

    I don't really have much of an opinion regarding Playboy Casino. It is what it is, I don't have to go there if I don't like it. If that's your thing and you want to promote it, then fill yer boots.

    Just to be a devil's advocate, though, the very definition of pornography is any picture, video, etc., whose intent is to cause sexual arousal. Therefore, IMHO, the only true answer to the poll, for those in favor of it, is "pornography but acceptable".

    I vote that all women everywhere start going topless, so these poor men can get over the boobie thing once and for all.
    Janet / Fergie

  3. #63
    paul02085 is offline Ueber Meister Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsFriends R Us
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,036
    Thanks
    1,074
    Thanked 380 Times in 181 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Reputation Points: 2094
    Quote Originally Posted by Simmo! View Post
    What I find most inteersting about the poll so far is that about 1 in 5 people view nudity as pornography.
    Thats from 40 years of being told that by feminists in the US.
    paul02085

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to paul02085 For This Useful Post:

    Pinababy69 (2nd June 2007)

  5. #64
    Vesuvio's Avatar
    Vesuvio is offline Ueber Meister
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,028
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 193 Times in 98 Posts
    Rep Power
    44
    Reputation Points: 1212
    Quote Originally Posted by Simmo! View Post
    What I find most inteersting about the poll so far is that about 1 in 5 people view nudity as pornography.
    Only nudity that's intended to "arouse" the viewers Playboy casino has the softest of soft porn, but it's still porn. Note that voting for that isn't the same as saying there's anything wrong with it

    As Rowmare said a couple of posts up... Note to self: "must read before posting..."

  6. #65
    tennis_balls's Avatar
    tennis_balls is offline donkey Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsPeople Likes You
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    1,568
    Thanks
    755
    Thanked 725 Times in 443 Posts
    Rep Power
    52
    Reputation Points: 3997
    Quote Originally Posted by rowmare View Post
    Just to be a devil's advocate, though, the very definition of pornography is any picture, video, etc., whose intent is to cause sexual arousal. Therefore, IMHO, the only true answer to the poll, for those in favor of it, is "pornography but acceptable".
    from wikipedia:

    "In general, "erotica" refers to portrayals of sexually arousing material that hold or aspire to artistic or historical merit, whereas "pornography" often connotes the prurient depiction of sexual acts, with little or no artistic value. The line between "erotica" and the term "pornography" (which is frequently considered a pejorative term) is often highly subjective. In practice, pornography can be defined merely as erotica that certain people perceive as "obscene." The definition of what one considers obscene can differ between persons, cultures and eras."

    IMHO the bunnies hold historical merit therefore they are erotica rather than porn.

  7. #66
    Simmo!'s Avatar
    Simmo! is offline Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience PointsSocial Magnet!Tagger Tenderfoot
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    You say UK, I say England.
    Posts
    9,277
    Thanks
    1,696
    Thanked 4,373 Times in 2,080 Posts
    Rep Power
    15
    Reputation Points: 23384
    Quote Originally Posted by Vesuvio View Post
    Only nudity that's intended to "arouse" the viewers Playboy casino has the softest of soft porn, but it's still porn. Note that voting for that isn't the same as saying there's anything wrong with it...
    Quote Originally Posted by tennis_balls View Post
    IMHO the bunnies hold historical merit therefore they are erotica rather than porn.
    There's an intersting observation in the latter, in that over the past few decades since Playboy started, public views on/acceptance of nudity and sexual content has been diluted. What one would have called porn in the 60's may be very different to today, and probably again in another 20+ years.

    What was probably considered porn wayback, is considered less so in this day and age and less so in the future. This poll 20 years ago would have shown a very different result I'm sure. Where TV obviously diluted the effect during the 70s and 80s, I guess the Internet has a huge say in the attitude in more recent times.


  8. #67
    Vesuvio's Avatar
    Vesuvio is offline Ueber Meister
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,028
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 193 Times in 98 Posts
    Rep Power
    44
    Reputation Points: 1212
    Quote Originally Posted by tennis_balls View Post
    from wikipedia:

    "In general, "erotica" refers to portrayals of sexually arousing material that hold or aspire to artistic or historical merit, whereas "pornography" often connotes the prurient depiction of sexual acts, with little or no artistic value. The line between "erotica" and the term "pornography" (which is frequently considered a pejorative term) is often highly subjective. In practice, pornography can be defined merely as erotica that certain people perceive as "obscene." The definition of what one considers obscene can differ between persons, cultures and eras."

    IMHO the bunnies hold historical merit therefore they are erotica rather than porn.
    I guess it all just adds up to there being no real definition! The naked women at the casino aren't bunnies, just nondescript naked women, and they certainly don't have any artistic or historical merit

    For me, "pornography" isn't pejorative. I've also seen elsewhere that "obscenity" is often a legal concept for what's considered unacceptable by law - so I don't think "obscene erotica" is a good definition.

    I like the Greek origins of "pornography" - "writing about prostitutes"

  9. #68
    jetset's Avatar
    jetset is offline Ueber Meister Achievements:
    VeteranCreated Blog entry50000 Experience PointsPeople Likes YouTagger Tenderfoot
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    12,357
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    2,063
    Thanked 5,468 Times in 2,356 Posts
    Rep Power
    257
    Reputation Points: 30016
    Good find, T_B - a useful addition to the argument.

    I think public morality changes with the times, as Simmo suggests and as Vesuvio references in the Greek definition of pornography. Some of the statuary and graphics from ancient Roman times would suggest that erotica/pornography or just plain naughty artwork and copy is not a modern phenomenon....and some cultures are obviously more open to discussion and display than others.

    For me, this thread represents a microcosm of just how subjective opinions and even definitions can be...and the point is well made that an all-embracing description of "pornography" is difficult to apply to the different shades of erotica and sexuality seen by others.

    The issue is clouded by what I see as a generally negative or uncomfortable perception that the word "pornography" tends to conjure up in many people, and the fact that even over the span of fifty or sixty years there has been such a dramatic change in how the public at large sees nudity, sexuality, erotica and what is acceptable or not.

    Highly graphic, penetrative, zoom-in and/or kinky (a word that means different things to different people, too) sex and who (or what) is engaged in it have many permutations, and opinions of those acts will differ widely.

    I think it's safe to say that most folks view the molestation of minors; injurious, coercive and violent sex and bestiality as way beyond the pale, but by today's standards more *conventional* (if I dare use that word) encounters can provoke lots of debate and exchanges of opinion as to whether it is hardcore, soft porn, erotica, artistic expression or something else.

    I still don't personally regard Playboy Gaming as pornographic, though!
    jetset

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone here run their own online casino?
    By mbcobretti in forum Online Casinos
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10th January 2007, 04:57 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Legal Statements and Privacy Policy
Casinomeister.com does not intend for any of the information contained on this website to be used for illegal purposes. You must ensure you meet all age and other regulatory requirements before entering a casino or placing a wager. Online gambling is illegal in many jurisdictions and users should consult legal counsel regarding the legal status of online gambling and gaming in their jurisdictions. The information in this site is for news and entertainment purposes only. Casinomeister.com is an independent directory and information service free of any gaming operator's control. Links to third party websites on Casinomeister.com are provided solely for informative/educational purposes. If you use these links, you leave this Website.