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

Admin note: Heads up in the forum

I'm gonna have a Drill Sergeant flash back in a New York minute if any more personal jabs derail any thread in this forum. We're talking suspensions.

Three derailed threads in one week is enough.
 
I respect the OP's values(not necessarily the way he went about his Agenda i.e. CM,etc.). That being said I live in the heart of the Bible belt so I already know I'm goimg to Hell(remember Frist) so I prefer at certain times to live by that gr8 line from the flick, Risky Business.........."SOMETIMES YOU JUST GOTTA SAY WHAT THE FUCK":cool:< even looks like T CRUISE. P.S.,Trezz another Nashville Bible Belt resident is the famous Aussie Nicole Kidman. Gotta luv her soft porn.,lol.......I request permission to change my avatar to nude shots of Nicole please:D:D:D:D:D:D
 
SEXY VC POKER AD CRITICISED

ASA says sexual association with gambling is irresponsible

The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled in favour of a complaint that a VC Poker.com advertising campaign was irresponsible in associating sex and gambling, and has called for a halt to the public presentation of the material.

The campaign featured a scantily clad woman with the strapline: "You love sex. She loves sex. You love money. She loves money. You have money. She loves you."

Agreeing with the complainant that the advert was irresponsible, the ASA said in its judgement that, despite Victor Chandler's claim that the ads had merely sought to suggest that "everyone loves a winner" the material implied that gambling would improve players' sex lives.

The watchdog also said the line "see how much you have in common," reinforced the notion that men "...even if socially inept, could obtain sexual success".

Advertising rules in the UK apparently prohibit the association of gambling with sexual prowess.
 
..Just a general point - I wonder if Playtech changed over to Crypto partly because Microsoft wouldn't allow them to have games with a sexual content? Anyone know anything about the reasons?

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

Playtech is publicly traded, Crypto is publicly traded, so is Playboy. What's this have to do with Microsoft - do you mean Microgaming? MGS is privately held.
 
...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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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!)
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.
 
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... :rolleyes:

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... :D 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
 
A bit off-topic, but I just wanted to echo one of the points you made D_G about Vesuvius. I've always pretty much found him to be a valuable poster here, even though we seldom agree on much when it comes to bonuses and the like. But he's entitled to his opinions as well, and I find that he presents them in a civil and intelligent manner, and I have no problems with that at all. If only more could understand that.... :)

Now more on-topic...you mentioned Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler. I would tend to agree with you that Playboy leans more toward the artistic side of "soft porn". Even the other two, I've never had a problem with....except for the one "meat-grinder" edition of Hustler. I didn't care for that too much. But I thought some of the Falwell stuff that Flynt published was hilarious. Larry Flynt's my hero actually, lol. You don't have to admire what he does...but damn, I admire his conviction and tenacity to stand up for his right to do it.
 
I have never seen the casino, but as far as the magazine goes, I don't consider it porn.

Personally, I can do without looking at nude women. :p But if someone wants to, it's none of my business.

I would kinda consider it distracting if I was to play a game which one wants to play with good strategy, like BJ.

Like I said, I have never seen it, but I doubt it's real porn. Everyone has a choice, go there or don't.

I agree with what dominique said. And I dont believe playboy is porn either. Everything playboy stands for is done with a degree of class. My mom was a member of the playboy club (years ago) and everything I know about playboy is done in good taste. That's why Hugh has done so well, I believe. All in all, not porn and a very distinguished gentlemens club!:thumbsup:
p.s. I dont believe Hef would of been able to wordly market his label in so many different ways if he were pornographic. I believe his success is based on the fact that he operates with class and dignity. Has anyone watched the girls next door? One example is where he is overlooking some pics, taken of his girls, exact pic but one done in a softer cleaner look, and so he picks the latter. He wants his business to come across as classy and to say otherwise would completely disregard everything he has worked for. That would be a shame.
 
Last edited:
hahahaha ...

Couldnt be bothered reading his whole rant but talk about self-love or what?

Keep 'em coming.
I must say HenryVIII, he got my attention!! And dont worry Keith I'm no stalker!!:thumbsup:
 
Even if you find playboy pornographic (I don't), I definitely agree that making a post lambasting them in a forum with no heads up is nothing short of blas moral posturing.

I can't really see how one can object to Playboy's nudity, and not online gambling, seems like a case of situational ethics.

Finally, lest we forget, online gambling is an activity for adults anyway. Teenagers are going to find the content on playboygaming.com very tame compared to almost any other site they can access with zero age verification measures. When I was fifteen, I had never placed a bet anywhere, but I sure as hell had seen my fair share of porn.
 
this thread has piqued my interest in the distinction between classy titillation and porn. i don't yet feel qualified to state an opinion on this matter. yes, much more personal research is absolutely in order!
 
And lest we forget, Playboy has been involved in the entertainment industry since the 1960s with its world-wide Playboy clubs and Playboy casinos in the UK.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top