--you sure take comments on a message board personally. It doesn't matter whether my definition or yours is correct. Whatever turns you on. I said I'm not in favor of censorship, except where it concerns children. But let's not deny that this SI cover is soft porn, porn-ish, porny. In general the previous swimsuit issues are not porn--they're a gimmicky ploy to sell the magazine, which is obviously not working as well as it once did--but not porny.
You're the one who said this image was porn for 12-year-olds (implying that there's better stuff for adults). And yet you agree that it shows women as objects (imagine if the same poses featured men). You made the direct analogy, not me.
OK so your definition of porn does not involve the objectification of women. Mkay. Mine does. (I did qualify my definition by saying "porn of the type that objectifies women," implying that some doesn't). Nuff said. No need to debate it. 
We disagree.
(This kinda reminds me of "depends on what the meaning of is, is"...)
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read