Playboy In 1958.

[Fiannan]

I won't leave a link but I thought it was interesting that Pravda ran pictures from Playboy in 1958 in one of their photo collections. What was interesting was that the pictures were mostly of women in bathing suits and a very little bit of nudity -- far less than one might see on a the catwalk of one of those fashion programs.

In the 1950s religious leaders generally condemned publications such as these. Ever hear of the term "systematic desensitization`? Just food for thought.

[BenRaines]

Finnian, that has always been a concern of church leaders. As the world accepts great levels of tolerance, as it is called, the morals of the world and even more of a concern what we as Latter-Day Saints find acceptable becomes more liberal.

Ben Raines

[Dr T]

Fiannan,

Is that 1958 Playboy sitting on your coffee table?

[Winnie G]

I believe what my stepfather told me that leaving things to the imagination sparked more feelings of a grater love.

In the fifty’s men know that if they “wanted” to be intimate it was in the bonds of marriage. Being married out of high school or early in collage was norm.

My dear husband told me that it was what drew him to me was my standers. He said I was different. W

When a army friend told him “good luck with that one” he was never more attracted to me.

Saying no meant a grater commitment was expected.

My mother always said “why would you buy the cow if you could milk it for free”

I remeber playboy as a child it was not todays sleazy and people did read it for the articles.

[prisonchaplain]

I could be wrong, but despite the quality of articles that may be found in PB (I've heard this, but cannot verify), it was always on the sleaze end of the market of its day...and still is. The fact that there is even sleazier sleaze doesn't garner the rabbit mag a pass in my book.

LOL...Maybe Playboy should be considered a "gateway magazine."

[Fiannan]

Yes PC but what I am trying to illustrate is that if a magazine came out today with the same "standards" that Playboy had in the late 1950s it could easily be sole in the general interest magazine section of your local supermarket.

So what was considered "sleaze" by most people in 1958 hardly passes that test in most people's minds (in the USA and most certainly Europe) today. Either people were uptight in the 1950s or standards have come down considerably.

[prisonchaplain]

So what was considered "sleaze" by most people in 1958 hardly passes that test in most people's minds (in the USA and most certainly Europe) today. Either people were uptight in the 1950s or standards have come down considerably.

Oh, I got your point. So, here's the question for us in the household of God: Should a good Christian man (LDS or otherwise) read the equivalent of a 1950s Playboy (i.e., the 2007 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition)? IMHO, probably not.

[Winnie G]

In the 50’s they hardly showed the breast and they had a good journalist articles and even interviewed political figures. I say in those days they were head of their time.

It was not until penthouse it all went to pot.

[sgallan]

I believe what my stepfather told me that leaving things to the imagination sparked more feelings of a grater love.

Should women wear Burka's then? If no, then what is the standard? Should nudes in art be banned? In otherwords.....should all nudity be banned in any form...... art or otherwise?

PS - This is not picking on you Winnie, I am just using your quote. My questions are to everybody.

[BenRaines]

I believe it should be a community standard. If a community as a majority does not want pornography, in whatever form they feel it is, then it should not be in the community. If the majority wants it then they can have their choice also. I then can vote my concience by moving from a community that allows that type of material or behavior.

Ben Raines

[Winnie G]

I did not think it was directed towards me no worry’s.

His remarks came on discussions over dress code as well as what was seen in the movies.

We had seen a movie about the first Burlesque houses and the people that worked in them, namely fan dancers. They never reveled themselves only moving large feathered fans to cover themselves as they took off pieces of clothing. It left nothing but the imagination.

It was very popular and sold more tickets then the stripper clubs years later.

As far as art work, I have no problem with nudes, only uneducated prudes find nudes offensive. Art is not always what you see but how you feel. That exsplans abstrat art.

I love art museums, well to be honest all museums, Love them Love them Love them.

That love also came from my step-father but I don’t think when he took my brother and I to the Michigan state University museum he excepted to find his wife hanging in there.

My mother was a model for the art department to earn money during university.

Some of those jobs were as a nudes.

My brother and I would wander ahead of our stepfather but he always know he would find us just ahead of him. My brother ran back to get me and told me “YOU have to see this”! around the corner there hung a big panting of our mother nude. We stood there as young kids would and discussed if it was really our mother. Dad caught up to us and he stopped dead in his tracks.

“Dad is that MOM”? he took a deep breath and said “Well yes isn’t she pretty”?

We were moved on to the next gallery.

I have some of my mothers modeling photos, one in particular she is only dressed in storm clouds, one on her head with a bolt of lighting going though it one that covered her chest and one for her lower half. It was for a add for Detroit Edison company.

When my oldest son saw it he was embarrassed, men can be so wearied. If I really want to get his goat I tell him to smarten up his grandmother was not a nun.

The point in all this is I don’t watch nude scenes in movies because I feel I am a voyeur. It is privet and between two people.

The movie From here to eternity, the one were the love seen is two people kissing in the serf then panda away. You know what happened you did not have to be voyeuristic and watch. That movie was the first time I felt a stir sexually and I saw nothing. Boy that movie tell my age. Imagination is a wonderful thing, works for me.

[Fiannan]

Okay, I have said it before on the forum that nudes are hardly an issue to me. That being said anyone who believes that nudity is all that pornography today is about is way out of touch with the issue. To give you a clue many of the actions that pervaide porn today on the internet were actually illegal in the 1950s (i.e. homosexual sex, sex with animals, etc.). In the 1950s young men might steal a glance at the nude Africans in National Geographic (or get their hands on a Playboy or nudist magazine if they had connections) and that was a great deal of their foundational sex education. Today young men AND women are frequenting sites on the net that most often depict sex between couples in a casual manner, quite often depict lesbain sex as an innocent passtime or show group sex as the new recreational sport. Not only that but many mainstream movies and TV programs aimed at younger audiences (while not necessarily showing actual sex) depict the themes I have just mentioned as totally acceptable.

Times have certainly changed, haven't they?

[Gwen]

the issue here in my opinion is that of the sexual nature. the difference between art and playboy is the intended purpose of the picture. playboy depicts people in positions that are intended to create sexual arousal, art however is not (not typically and if it is it is not art). the human body is beautiful and was designed to be so. all art is intended to stir emotions, it wouldn't be good art if it didn't. the question is which ones is it intended to stir? when i see a picture of a mother breastfeeding a child it does stir emotions, that of a mother, the memories i have of those days with my own children, the beauty of that, not sexual. by the same measure you can have pictures of someone fully clothed who are in very provocative positions that is intended to stir sexual feelings, in my opinion that is as bad as the nudity.

i have formed my opinion based on the teachings of the church. to quote the "For Sreangth Of Youth" (bold added my me)

"Before marriage, do not do anything to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not allow anyone to do that with you. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.

In cultures where dating or courting is acceptable, always treat your date with respect, never as an object to be used for your lustful desires. Stay in areas of safety where you can easily control your physical feelings. Do not participate in talk or activities that arouse sexual feelings."

this says to me the activities are to be determined by each individual, there are some absolutes, but you must eveluate yourself and if there is any activity or conversation that arouses you it is up to you to sensor and not participate. ex. if a foot rub is arousing it is off limits.

to continue from the for streanth of youth

"Dancing can be fun and can provide an opportunity to meet new people. However, it too can be misused. When dancing, avoid full body contact with your partner. Do not use positions or moves that are suggestive of sexual behavior."

again same message to me, the issue here is the sexual implications and the issue of purpose to cause arousal.

that is how i see it, it's not he amount of nudity, the purpose designed when created. so old playboy, new playboy, spots illistrated, victoria secret cataloge, it's all the same. oh, and the tv comercial (that my children can potentialy see) where the two people are dancing suggestively in the rain to sell tires, or the one that is extreamly suggestive to sell rice, those too are the same.

so to repeat the phrase from the 1st post "systematic desensitization", absolutely.

[sgallan]

If the majority wants it then they can have their choice also. I then can vote my concience by moving from a community that allows that type of material or behavior.

Are you therefore saying it would be okay with you if the community you lived in forced the women in the community to wear Burka's? Are you also saying that majority rules in all cases without concern for the minorities? Do you understand the implications this could have for your very faith in many communities in the United States?

i have formed my opinion based on the teachings of the church. to quote the "For Sreangth Of Youth" (bold added my me)

I do not have an issue with your standards being guided by your faith. But I am not of your faith. Nor are most people. So how does society broker the differences?

[BenRaines]

So should we allow 2% of the population dictate what is normal for the other 98%? There has to be some tolerance for others but to require others to accept what 2% of the popluation demands.

I find it interesting that those who most want tolerance of others for their beliefs have little tolerance for others beliefs.

Ben Raines

[Snow]

Do not participate in talk or activities that arouse sexual feelings."

Meaning that if you are a single, red-blooded American male, anything short of being comatose is off limits.

[Gwen]

lol i should have seen that one comming.

all activities intended to produce that result, was my point. you can't help the natural occurances in the body, that is the way god intended it. that must be delt with, that is why we were also given inhibitions and self controle. you shouldn't go seeking temptation and then expect sympathy when you partake.

sgallan

"I do not have an issue with your standards being guided by your faith. But I am not of your faith. Nor are most people. So how does society broker the differences?"

i don't have all the answers as to how society brokers the differences. i do know that individuals not of my standards have done studies to show that this kind of material is damaging to a culture and society. maybe that less biased info should be used to come up with the answer. as for myself, that is the standard i use. and i have been given self controle and good sence to govern myself even if i think society is way off. my problem is when this imaging is being put on my children without my consent, ie, the commercials i mentioned. keep it in the id required section please, to respect my standards. that is what i would like to see happen.

[prisonchaplain]

If the majority wants it then they can have their choice also. I then can vote my concience by moving from a community that allows that type of material or behavior.

Are you therefore saying it would be okay with you if the community you lived in forced the women in the community to wear Burka's? Are you also saying that majority rules in all cases without concern for the minorities? Do you understand the implications this could have for your very faith in many communities in the United States?

This is the classic "slippery slope fallacy." IF we allow ANY community standards, then we might as well pull out the burkas. In reality, courts generally do default to "community standards," and wisely invoke the more tolerant end of that. Additionally, these courts also keep in mind the rights of minorities.

We love to complain about our undemoncratic courts, but they really are what allow communities to have some standards, and yet, they are what allow minorities to live in relative freedom as well.

i have formed my opinion based on the teachings of the church. to quote the "For Sreangth Of Youth" (bold added my me)

I do not have an issue with your standards being guided by your faith. But I am not of your faith. Nor are most people. So how does society broker the differences?

Through the combination of community standards, the Bill of Rights, with courts as mediators.

[Winnie G]

This is a slippery slop that is for sure.

I believe that the Bill of Rights has the final say and, there is little we can do about that.

BUT for being an example teach the truth help those who are lost to find their way.

We all act surprised! but we know that is what to expect in the later days.

You cannot legislate morality we can only vote and ask for small stop gaps to protect those who are not yet at the age to make those decisions.

I have not been home to the states in some time but there are things that are done to at lest assist parents with preteen issues.

In Canada, cigarettes are keep out of sight and before that happened half of the pack is not only a warning but graphic photos of throat cancer and others forms of health issues. Cigarette company’s use to sponsor festivals along with alcohol, they still can but no signage. Men’s magazines must be kept up high enough I would have a hard time reaching them (5’4) and there is a tall cover that only shows the top head line of the magazine. All these were legislated in and none one cared but for the stores who had to implement the cost to comply.

I think even Computer porn is losing its draw as well.

It is illegal to posses, child porn in Canada.

Is it the same in the states???

Even if you had nothing to do with the making of it to own it is an accessory to the crime. The jail terms do not make it worth even checking it out. Cyber police who monitor child porn know who you are and were you live. It sounds a little big government but I want them there, I have nothing to hide.

We can complain all we want but if we do nothing about it then what can you except?

We need to become active in government issues.

Waiting for someone else to do it has gotten us to were we are today.

[BenRaines]

I live in one of the if not the most immoral city in the United States. Las Vegas, Nevada. Remember our city motto by our almost always intoxicated mayor "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas". I guess that doesn't count if you take it home to your wife or husband.

With that said Nevada is one of the most conservative states in the way they vote. Our most recent election, two days ago, the voters passed a very restrictive No Smoking law that will outlaw smokers in restaurants and bars where food is served. That includes those on the strip. So you can't smoke but can watch naked dancers while you eat your food. LOL

Ben Raines

[sgallan]

i do know that individuals not of my standards have done studies to show that this kind of material is damaging to a culture and society.

Whose studies? What were standard they used? Who did the studies? And so on. The reason I ask, and this is especially true now with the internet, is that anybody with any google knowledge at all can find a "study", or information, to use to buttress a certain cause..... no matter what that cause is. More legitimate questions, there are cultures who believe that women should be entirely covered except perhaps for their hands. What is you opinion on this? Why would your opinion be anymore valid than theirs, or mine, in a societal way?

The reason I 'pick on' these things is so many seem to have a simplistic solution....... their solution. However their solution doesn't suit either me, nor those on the other side of the argument such as conservative Islam.

Through the combination of community standards, the Bill of Rights, with courts as mediators.

Exactly!

[BenRaines]

I know in the US we have the Bill of Rights. Original document of the Magna Carta. Should we force them on the conservative Islamic countries. It is a US Bill of Rights. Would be nice if the world adopted it but they haven't and we have learned that it is not easy to do nation building especially in the Middle East.

Ben Raines

[sgallan]

So you can't smoke but can watch naked dancers while you eat your food.

I find it odd you find watching strippers as worse than smoking. I think I can safley document more people dying before their time by smoking, than by watching strippers. So when you say LOL..... what is it you find so funny?

[BenRaines]

Funny that workers that work in those establishments have to inhale the smoke of smokers because there is no food served there.

I am all for non smoking venues. I do not and never have.

One of the ads that ran during the campaign was the following. "Would you like to swim in the non peeing part of the pool or the peeing part?" Person says "That is disgusting it all gets mixed" Same is true of smoking and non smoking sections of the restaurant. No matter what you do it mixes. I am all for non smoking public areas. I would even prefer that it was regulated to within 100 feet of the entrance of buildings. It is almost just as bad to walk through the smoke to get in to non smoking buildings.

Ben Raines.

[sgallan]

Fair enough. The comparison just seemed odd is all.