The Playboy Casino Pornography Poll

[NASHVEGAS]

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

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

[rowmare]

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.

[paul02085]

Originally Posted by Simmo!

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.

[Vesuvio]

Originally Posted by Simmo!

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..."

[tennis_balls]

Originally Posted by rowmare

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.

[Simmo!]

Originally Posted by Vesuvio

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...

Originally Posted by tennis_balls

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.

[Vesuvio]

Originally Posted by tennis_balls

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"

[jetset]

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!