Sunday, November 29, 2009

Bonnie Goldstein vs Levi Johnston: Since When is Playgirl Magazine Considered Porn?


I just read an interesting piece, written by Bonnie Goldstein, of Politics Daily, about Levi Johnston. She claims that by posing for Playgirl Magazine, Levi has now fallen from respectable society and entered into the dark, multi-million dollar porn industry.

Wow! Bonnie. PORN?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of Levi Johnston. I think he could have played his cards differently. If I had been him, I would have. But this post isn't about Levi or Palin or what's been going on between them. This post is about Bonnie Goldstein referring to Playgirl Magazine as "porn."

Last time I checked, Playgirl, according to wikipedia, is described as, "The magazine was founded in 1973 during the height of the feminist movement as a response to erotic men's magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse that featured similar photos of women." I see the word "erotic" all over the web when I google Playgirl. But I've never seen it referred to as porn, on a professional level. Amateurs can think what they want. But there are rules within the industry that define these things. Bonnie Goldstein knows this.

And as far as I know, Levi didn't even pose for full frontal nudity. So what makes his photos porn? And, Bonnie didn't forget to put in links show Levi's Playgirl photos. If she was so against the "porn" photos, you'd think she would have left out the links so she wouldn't offend her readers.

I'm sensitive about this issue because I write erotica and erotic romance. And there is a difference between porn and erotica. Porn is just sex for the sake of sex. There's no story and there are no layers of emotion. And erotica is an actual story, where the sex moves the story and the romance forward, and there should be many layers of emotion. And if you remove the sex from erotica, the story should be able to stand on its own.

I also know there is such a thing as "journalistic porn." And that's what Bonnie Goldstein's piece is: absolute journalistic porn. If she didn't like what Levi Johnston did in Playgirl, she could have written the piece differently to get her point across without calling Playgirl Magazine porn. But then she wouldn't have gotten anyone riled up over it. And this, I am certain, was her intention. It's very transparent. Writers like Bonnie Goldstein are only interested in getting attention. They write misinformed pieces for innocent people who don't know the difference. And they get away with it.

7 comments:

Tyler said...

not sure what he did is porn i guess it could be if men and women are using it to get off. all i know is my brother is hook up on this guy i think he has the pics already or most of them he was talking and showing when we were down there. thanks for your comments.

Eirik said...

Dude, hope your Thanksgiving was fabulous - I had a nice quiet family one which was cool by me.

Like the post. I think I really do agree with you on this subject; of course you put it much better than I would have. To me, Porn is "dirtier" for a lack of a better word.

Out of curiosity; what might the "rules" that actaully define each? Is it simular to the differences between what is labeled as "art" vs porn? I thought that was all settled with the National endowment things some years back with that photo shoot. IDK.

afk4life said...

Ryan
Just more of the American war on (especially gay) sex.
Doug

ryan field said...

You said it, and Ms. Goldstein likes to play with her readers. otherwise she wouldn't have posted links to the article she wrote.

ryan field said...

Hey Eirik...Thanksgiving was great, hope yours was too. I have a lot to be thankful for, and I'm sure you feel the same way after going through a successful surgery.

The porn vs erotica issue has been going on for ages. Everyone has a different definition. In professional circles, Playgirl has always been considered erotica. But there are people who believe that Playgirl is porn, and they have every right to believe it. And they don't have to buy it or look at the photos. But by Ms. Goldstein publishing links to the photos in the article, it tells me that she was only playing up to her readers emotions, which to me is journalistic porn. As I said, she could have written the article differently.

ryan field said...

I don't think Levi's photos are porn. There's no full frontal nudity and there's nothing sexual about them. He's just posing nude, and he's hiding everything. The statue of David shows more than what he showed.

If anything, I think his photos were more artistic than pornographic. But there are people who would disagree with me on that.

As for people using his photos to get off. That's also subjective. I'm sure there is someone, somewhere in the world, that thinks Bonnie Goldstein's picture on her blog is sexy and they use it to get off. I'm also sure there aren't many people who think Bonnie Goldstein is sexy, but it takes all kinds to make up this world.

Robert said...

Levi's pictures are not porn,...there not anything. What a chicken! Show us!