I'd ask him why he didn't just use the internet where you can access actual pornography for free, rather than waste his money on **** mags. Unless of course he found them in a ditch like we did in the olden days.
Alleged pornographer Richard Desmond, one of UK's richest men, sues Wikipedia
- Thread starter Mr Jack
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,283
- Location
- deep space nine
Get Phillip Cross on the case. "He" is a prolific Wikipedia editor
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 12,975
- Location
- Sunny Stafford
It's like saying that I like chess, but I'll sue you if you call me a 'pawnographer'.
The magazines were IIRC "pornographic" enough to be top shelf fodder, and from memory not meant to be sold to under 18's, often in plastic outer bag that obscured much of the front page.
They were not hardcore*, but they were very definitely porn by both the government and common definition of it.
All this talk reminds me of an old joke.
What's the difference between computer weekly and readers wives?
You have to go to a specialist store to get Computer Weekly.
Back when it was a print mag you had to go to WH Smiths or similar, whilst every corner shop/garage that sold papers tended to have readers wives.
*I suspect only because the UK government didn't allow hardcore porn to be broadcast and most retailers would not have carried hard core magazine/not been allowed to thus reducing profits.
Technically they were erotica not pornography, however at the time they were made the UK had a very draconian/non-standard legal definition of pornography into which they fell (most of the actual pornography was flat out banned). So while anyone with an internet connection would consider them laughable softcore the term pornographer was correct at the time for what he was making.
The best succinct distinction between erotica and pornography I recall was a quote in a feminist anti-censorship book I read a while ago - something along the lines of it's erotica when they drink wine afterwards. The distinction is, IMO, more of a class thing. Erotica is posh pornography. Or pornography with some style, if you prefer. Or sometimes not. I recall a porn brand from a while back called "Swedish Erotica" that certainly wasn't very refined. Most often IME, "erotica" means "pornography that the person calling it erotica approves of". Which ties in with the class thing, of course.
Apparently a billion pounds can't buy a thick skin about how he made his money.
The general public doesn't care but he's stressing over it
In a sense it's true that he's not a pornographer. But only because he's retired. He defintely was a pornographer. And, as you say, the general public doesn't care. The general public wouldn't have known if he wasn't currently making such a big deal about it. He's being rather silly.
I think it's porn if it's mass market and photo/film.
It's erotica if it's limited market and photo/film/etching.
It's art if it's it's old and it's painted.
Slightly more seriously it's funny when you look at what has been banned and what has been considered acceptable in the past, and realise exactly how often what was banned was chosen by a very small number of people.
I find the distinction a bit funny at times as it tends to rely very much on who is making the decision, it's a bit like what is literature (vs genre/mass market) in terms of books and the answer tends to be what ever the critics like.
I think it depends how you define porn.
I'd consider Page 3 erotica because it didn't have any sexual acts. Did his magazines have sexual acts?
From my limited knowledge of playboy I can only remember it being glamour style pictures.
I'd consider Page 3 erotica because it didn't have any sexual acts. Did his magazines have sexual acts?
From my limited knowledge of playboy I can only remember it being glamour style pictures.
