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

[AussieDave]

Hi all,

To bring everyone up to speed on this...

When I discovered that CM was promoting Playboygaming.com on site I was disappointed. I've always held the strong belief that porn (soft or otherwise) should not be part of online casino's.

I did however feel that if I raised this topic here I would be set upon by the zealots of this forum. Hence I chose to gain some feed back over at the GPWA.

Due to confidentiality I'm unable to post or directly comment on extracts I posted to the Private member area(s) of the GPWA. However I will state here that I started a thread about my disapproval of CM promoting the Playboy Brand.

To cut a long story short, I was very vocal about my views, not in a disparaging manner, but one based on how see CM and the role taken over the years as a watchdog site.

Today it was posted that CasinoCity, the company that owns the GPWA in fact is also promoting the Playboy Brand.

Apart from feeling like a total idiot...I have been left with no other alternative BUT to hand in my private membership to the GPWA.

The stand I took against CM for promoting the Playboy Brand, is still something I wont back down on. IMHO casino's and porn shouldn't be connected.

In regard to my Private membership at the GPWA, it would be unfair and it would certainly be unjust if I was to still hold membership, given the outcome I've learnt today.

I wont be part of an organisation that is happy to obviously be content to sit on the side lines and allow a member to post a thread about another webmaster (CM) whilst knowing full well that they are also doing the same thing, and not disclosing this in full.

The GPWA with its new seal states that no site will be approved for the SEAL if they are: (take from xxxhttp://certify.gpwa.org/verify/slotsgallery.co.uk/ )

The Seal of Approval linked to this page signifies that the operator of the site is a current GPWA member in good standing who has agreed to abide by strict criteria designed to ensure that the highest ethical standards are upheld at all times and in all situations.
An investigative team headed by GPWA's Fair Gaming Advocate has determined that this site:
Is managed independently of the online gambling websites it provides information about or promotes.
Respects and upholds copyright standards.
Does not send spam email.
Does not use malicious search engine optimization techniques such as posting spam-like comments in forums and interactive blogs.
Does not promote or display pornography.
Provides consumers with information extending beyond banner advertisements and links.
Acts professionally and respectfully in its business activities.


However, the above seal also resides on the front page of xxxhttp://online.casinocity.com/

Which is clearly not in accordance with the above seal charter.

One of the rules of Private membership states that a webmaster can not be connected to or promote pornography whilst holiding private membership to the GPWA.

Rules are rules & a charter set out for one is a charter and rules set out for all.

If these are (and it clearly is here) to be overlooked for some then it makes not only my posted thread a BIG joke, but, anything said a farce.

Hopefully those reading this thread will understand why I've chosen to post here, and why I've chose to hand in my Private membership of the GPWA.


Regards

Dave (Trezz)
GPWA - AussieDave


PS For those of you who feel the need to trash me go right ahead, to say I wont feel disappointed is not true, I will. But, if you feel the need to do so, that's your prerogative. Mine is to know the knowledge that I can hold my head high in the fact that I hold no alliances, I'll state it it as I see it and will state so in a public forum for all to see.

 

[hunterduke]

ive personally never been to the playboy casino so i have no idea how graphic it is. but my motto is..live and let live
since i live in the "live free or die state" i guess that reflects my attitude on personal choice. if what other people choose doesnt effect me why should i care? i care as much as if they are gay..straight or both...zilch
it simply does not effect my life in any way.
i do respect your freedom to voice your displeasure as much as you want though
but i think your issue can be easily solved
just dont go to casinos that offend your own personal values

id never go to the drown a puppy casino myself

hunter

 

[Da_Gambla]

Being completely comfortable as a human being, I have no problem with human sexuality. It's been proven a zillion times over that one's sexual outlook and health affects one's outlook on life in general, and maybe judging by Hef, one's longevity as well.

Are they actually mixing Porn with gambling, or just nudity? You are clearly willng to lump nudity into the definition of Porn, but that's not reasonable for the vast majority of civilized thinking. No offense, but someone that offended by simple human nudity might want to maybe seek some professional help.

Lastly, Playboy is a brand. A very successful, as well as international brand. Will probably be an interstellar brand in a few thousand years. Any sound business person would be a complete idiot not to promote a brand that is so able to maintain dignity whle offering a valid product line.

Nudity is not a bad thing. Sometimes I even shower without clothes.

- Keith

 

[lojo]

I have to respect you making a sacrifice for what you believe in, Trezz. However, I'm of the mind that there should be alot more 'excitement' in some games. Especially online it is an adult business, this gambling thing. (Sure in a B&M a kid could walk by a machine)

Adults get to make their own choices as long as they don't infringe upon another's dignity, liberty, or property (the only definition of 'crime' that I accept) or at least they should be able to if they don't live in a draconian, puritanical, victorian, or talibanistic society.

Kudos for standing up for what you believe in, whether I agree or not. But the choice is yours to not enjoy a little mammory with your chips, and it ain't nunya bidness if I do, I'm sure you'd agree.

Being a yank I can't play there, but I always keep a box of tissue next to my 'puter anyway, cuz I tend to cry when I lose.

 

[dominique]

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. 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.

 

[luckydabberbingo]

Tell the truth Dominique ,you are waiting for Playgirl Casino to launch LOL

 

[jetset]

Matter of personal choice imo.

If you feel it's pornographic and offensive to you then you're right to stand by your principles and have no truck with it, Dave. But does the same apply to your membership here?

FTR I don't personally think it's a good idea for online gambling to be associated with real porn and I therefore think the general GPWA rule is not misplaced.

Taking a quick look at the (Playboy Gaming) site I don't find it pornographic and I doubt that the authorities in Australia or most other Western countries would regard it to be so, but that's a subjective opinion.

Clearly CM and GPWA feel the same way, or they wouldn't accept it.

I'm missing something here, though - other than making your personal stand public what was the point of posting here about your GPWA resignation? Was it to vindicate your criticism of Casinomeister at the GPWA?

 

[BBKPoker]

Dictionary.com defines pornography thusly:

"obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit."

I certainly think Playboy magazines do not fall under that category, unless you think the human body is obscene, that is (I don't).

 

[The Dude]

Hi Trezz,

Sorry, but this is idiotic. If you feel that "Playboy Magazine" is porn that's your prerogative, but simply it's not. By most definitions, pornography is obscene with graphic displays of sexual insertions and body fluid. Playboy magazine has none of this. The only thing you're going to see uncovered are boobs, butts, and on occasion pubes. Playboy Casino by the way is only connected by the brand - there are no nudies there. As for articles, Playboy magazine is about as obscene as Cosmo.

When is the last time you've been to an art museum? Nudes are common in sculpture and paintings for the past several hundred years. Do you find this obscene?

Have you been to Europe? At most beaches, tops are optional for women, and there are many nude beaches as well. Soap commercials on television commonly show women in the bath unclothed. Is this obscene?

When Playboy casino was launched, pornography never crossed my mind since Playboy is not porno. It's a huge brand powered by crypto that is backed by a very respected and well funded public company that has been around for over fifty years. That is my concern - safety and security of the player.

 

[suzecat]

Playboy magazine is not porn, IMHO. Debbie Does Dallas..........well that's another story!

 

[Vesuvio]

Playboy Casino by the way is only connected by the brand - there are no nudies there.

Actually they have their own slot [sic] machine with scantily clad/naked women - and for instance the info panel with your balance links to a video... or so I've been told *cough*

Playboy's clearly soft porn (your definition's for hard porn, Bryan). It's a matter of personal choice if you think that's a problem or not. I can completely understand your point of view, Trezz, though personally I think online casinos (and their promotion) are more of an issue than online pornography.

 

[Da_Gambla]

There are clearly two types of porn defined by my cable TV company.

Hard core is anything that shows penetration from -any- angle, and/or bodily fluids being exchanged.

Soft core is any depiction of any sexual situation, but without seeing any actual penetration. For the actors and actresses in soft core, there isn't any actual sex going on, it's all simulated.

Then you have the lowest common denominator: nudity

Nudity is neither hard core or soft core, it's just nudity. The instant nudity takes on a sexual tone, it becomes porn and can be classified as hard or soft core.

I've always held the strong belief that porn (soft or otherwise) should not be part of online casino's.

And there you go right there. If there's some nudity at Playboy casino, oh well... but I guarantee you there is no porn. I will also guarantee you that any nudity is extremely limited and quite tastefully done, or they would be threatened to lose quite a few potential female patrons (and yes, the gambling world has quite a few!).

Much ado about nothing there. You really gave up your private membership over this... You said there was a thread offsite from here.. did they not explain to you that nudity is not porn??

Just when you thought you heard it all, something like this gets posted...
Thank goodness you didn't chop off your "little friend" in protest!! A private membership I guess you can live without...

- Keith

 

[Vesuvio]

The instant nudity takes on a sexual tone, it becomes porn and can be classified as hard or soft core.
...
If there's some nudity at Playboy casino, oh well... but I guarantee you there is no porn.

You really think the nudity at Playboy has no sexual tone Sure, it's nothing much in this day and age and I certainly don't mind it, but that's a crazy statement. Someone would lose their job at Playboy if it was true

 

[Da_Gambla]

You really think the nudity at Playboy has no sexual tone Sure, it's nothing much in this day and age and I certainly don't mind it, but that's a crazy statement. Someone would lose their job at Playboy if it was true

You might need to re-read what I said. I never said the nudity in Playboy the magazine was non-sexual. I was surmising that the nudity (if any) at the casino would be non-sexual in nature; just plain ol' vanilla nudity.

But thanks for attempt number 14 at twisting my post and then labeling it 'crazy'. If you brushed up on your reading comprehension, I'm sure you would make qute a few less wild assumptions with people's posts.

If there is any simulated sex depicted at the casino, then I would stand misinformed. If not, my post stands as-is.

- Keith

 

[Simmo!]

Playboy Casino by the way is only connected by the brand - there are no nudies there.

What Vesuvio said

PS. Trezz: just saw this: admirable post in sticking to your principles.

 

[Vesuvio]

But thanks for attempt number 14 at twisting my post and then labeling it 'crazy'. If you brushed up on your reading comprehension, I'm sure you would make qute a few less wild assumptions with people's posts.

If there is any simulated sex depicted at the casino, then I would stand misinformed. If not, my post stands as-is.

Since when does there need to be simulated sex for it to be soft porn? My reading comprehension may be a bit shoddy, but unless I'm very much mistaken you define porn yourself as nudity which is "sexual in tone".

Showing a naked woman when you hit a combination of symbols on a slot machine, or encouraging you to click on a link to a video of a woman slowly undressing in front of a shiny car - how in the world can that not be intended as sexual? It's not called "Naturist World Casino".

I know you think I've got some sort of vendetta against you, but I'd respond in the same way if anyone else posted the same thing.

p.s. if you'd read my earlier post you'd have noticed I mentioned a slot machine - you don't get many of those in the magazine - so yes, strangely enough on a casino forum, I'm talking about the casino.

 

[Simmo!]

Just a definition as an FYI to add to the debate:

American Heritage Dictionary
pornography (pr-nŏg'rə-fē) Pronunciation Key (n).
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: "Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the ... pornography of the era" (Morris Dickstein).

 

[The Dude]

When I discovered that CM was promoting Playboygaming.com on site I was disappointed. I've always held the strong belief that porn (soft or otherwise) should not be part of online casino's..

Funny how you never bothered to email me to let me know how you felt before getting bent out of shape about this in public. A heads up would have been appreciated.

However I will state here that I started a thread about my disapproval of CM promoting the Playboy Brand...

Ditto.

The stand I took against CM for promoting the Playboy Brand, is still something I wont back down on. IMHO casino's and porn shouldn't be connected...

Agreed but it's not porn - and it's really silly to take a stand against me or Casinomeister on this. The casino is branded with Playboy, you don't click the banner and get pummeled with spread eagled nudity or giant erections - it's a casino - pretend it's at the Playboy Club or whatever. It's not pornographic.

I don't appreciate the way you are trying to posture yourself here - it's absolutely unnecessary. Further, I feel you're being way too judgemental on this - and you know what they say about throwing stones...

...think about that one for a few minutes.

 

[Da_Gambla]

Since when does there need to be simulated sex for it to be soft porn? My reading comprehension may be a bit shoddy, but unless I'm very much mistaken you define porn yourself as nudity which is "sexual in tone".

Your reading comprehension gets worse by the post. No, that is not MY definition, I said it was the definition of our cable TV locally. They have to submit standards to city councils, and so therefore they have to try and "define" what content is what. Movies come with ratings. Anything showing nudity will get an R. Anything with repeated FULL-FRONTAL nudity will get a NC-17. Anything that simulates actual sexual intercourse will get a MA (designates soft core). Anything that shows penetration will start receiving X's.

These are not MY definitions, they are standards where I live. And from what I gather compared to European countries, our standards are pretty damn strict. The bottom-line is, nudity is nudity, and not considered sexual. Put a girl against a car, in a forest, on a beach, doesn't matter. It's nudity. As soon as she touches herself in a sexual way, or a second person is in the picture and performng anything sexual or simulated, you've now gone into porn. There have also been definitions tested with regards to men in nude pictures. If he's flaccid and just posing, it's considered nothing more than nudity. If he's erect at all, it then turns into soft-core porn. There has been argument that maybe if a woman's nipples are erect, the same should apply? Nope, the people who dictate morals AROUND HERE say no, it's not the same, since a woman's nipples can become erect from the cold, or a breeze, and not necessarily from excitement.

Showing a naked woman when you hit a combination of symbols on a slot machine, or encouraging you to click on a link to a video of a woman slowly undressing in front of a shiny car - how in the world can that not be intended as sexual? It's not called "Naturist World Casino".

I don't know.. ask someone else. You bore me silly with your useless rants about really nothing at all. Why we're even having this discussion is beyond me at this point. Calling nudity "sexual" under any terms is not reasonable. The term "sexual" doesn't mean it causes excitement necessarily. There are certain guys who might get hard looking at a bikini picture. Are those now sexually explicit too? No... and like Bryan said, topless and nude beaches are quite accepted in european countries. Should we start boycotting Spain and France? Rediculous notion that all nudity is sexual! It becomes sexual when someone does something sexual!

I know you think I've got some sort of vendetta against you, but I'd respond in the same way if anyone else posted the same thing.

Right. It must be coincidence. A shame really.. you appeared to be one of the more intelligent people at one time... someone I thought I would probably get along with. But then you went off into this Bonus Hunter crap, and since you wear it on your sleeve everywhere you friggin' go, it's impossible to be a friend to you. That's fine... you know, I'm actually more used to being stalked by the female variety, which is why I'm uncomfortable with this situation. If I clarify that I'm in no way shape or form homosexual, will you finally bugger off?

p.s. if you'd read my earlier post you'd have noticed I mentioned a slot machine - you don't get many of those in the magazine - so yes, strangely enough on a casino forum, I'm talking about the casino.

Well, here's the post I answered:

You really think the nudity at Playboy has no sexual tone Sure, it's nothing much in this day and age and I certainly don't mind it, but that's a crazy statement. Someone would lose their job at Playboy if it was true

Nope, nothing that says slots there! I can take your word that that's what you meant, but if you don't say what you mean, don't get upset if the other person makes a mistake in responding to it.

- Keith

 

[henryVIII]

. You bore me silly with your useless rants about really nothing at all.

Hilarious.

Saying this in the middle of a half page rant.

Of course teenage girls in lingerie flashing their breasts and bending over in front of sports cars is a type of soft porn. Were you brought up in a bordello or something?

You are hilarious though.

 

[henryVIII]

I'm actually more used to being stalked by the female variety,

hahahaha ...

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

Keep 'em coming.

 

[Vesuvio]

Da_Gambla - ok, let's just agree to disagree on whether Playboy casino showing naked women is sexual or not.

As to the "Bonus Hunter crap" - I'm only involved in on-line casinos for the bonuses. It's not that good service, fast payment and all the rest don't interest me, but don't be suprised if I mainly comment on bonuses.

Just a general point - I wonder if Playboy changed over to Crypto partly because Microgaming wouldn't allow them to have games with a sexual content? Anyone know anything about the reasons?

 

[Da_Gambla]

Hilarious.

Saying this in the middle of a half page rant.

Of course teenage girls in lingerie flashing their breasts and bending over in front of sports cars is a type of soft porn. Were you brought up in a bordello or something?

You are hilarious though.

hahahaha ...

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

Keep 'em coming.

Henry, you'll just have to take my word for this... once you actually DO get laid once, just pictures of girls naked won't do that much for you anymore. It's just another picture... After you actually experience sex, your definition of what's pornographic will naturally change, and the breeze will no longer leave a stain in your knickers.

Be patient, your time will come someday!

- Keith

 

[Da_Gambla]

Da_Gambla - ok, let's just agree to disagree on whether Playboy casino showing naked women is sexual or not.

: sigh :

I never said the casino showing nudity might be construed as "sexual". That's a very general term. But as to whether or not it is porn? I think we agree.

/end

- Keith

 

[tencardcharlie]

I see your point Trezz, but to be honest, sexual content is already a part of the industry. I see ridicoulus banners with chicks crawling around inviting me to "come and play" everywhere. It doesn't really offend me, I just think it is kinda stupid. At least if people go to playboy casino they won't be surprised over the content.

Anyway, I know that some people may be disappointed but the people operating the dealers doesn't really look like you might think. I know because I am working there myself. Here is a picture of me at work:

Expired Image

I'm sorry if I ruined the experience for anyone. Cheers!

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[Vesuvio]

But as to whether or not it is porn? I think we agree.

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

 

[NASHVEGAS]

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"< 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

 

[jetset]

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.

 

[The Dude]

..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?

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.

 

[The Dude]

...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!]

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:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-playboy-casino-pornography-poll.18004/

 

[Da_Gambla]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I feel a poll coming on:

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

 

[Da_Gambla]

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

LMAO!!!

:notworthy

- Keith

 

[Vesuvio]

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.

 

[Da_Gambla]

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

 

[Pinababy69]

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.

 

[patrina]

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. 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!
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.

 

[patrina]

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!!

 

[BBKPoker]

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.

 

[tennis_balls]

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!

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[kakata]

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

Seek medical help????? You deserve an applause if that happens....

 

[lauram]

Seek medical help????? You deserve an applause if that happens....

geesh hun are you that bored this thread is over a year old.