Replies

“I don’t think Playboy is porn..”

Playboy is the worst kind of porn.

http://ressurrection.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/the-disciple-of-dr-alfred-kinsey-hugh-hefner-and-the-playboy-brand-produces-child-pornography/

The Disciple of Dr. Alfred Kinsey: Hugh Hefner and the PlayBoy Brand Produces Child Pornography

“I will be Kinsey’s pamphleteer. I will train other people, tell them the truth about our parents and their sexuality,” Reisman says of Hefner.

I’ve been looking at Playboy since the 1960s

Never have I seen a child porn pictorial...

I’d remember that I think.

Morgana, the problem comes in from your link's shoddy scholarship. Dr. Judith Reisman's study is inherently flawed.

“The research was an investigative analysis of PLAYBOY, PENTHOUSE and HUSTLER over the period of December 1953 to December 1984 to examine for nonviolent, violent, and criminal image portrayal and scenario involvement of children. The research reported the findings of 14,854 images of crime and violence and 6,004 images of children (with the predominate group being girls between ages 3 to 11 years) as part of the overall sexual and violent scenario. There were 989 sexual scenarios which included children actively involved with adults; and each magazine portrayed children as unharmed and/or benignly affected by the child/adult sex. For related volumes, see NCJ 107147-107149.” – Judith Reisman, PHD

There are serious problems with Reisman's numbers. During the period of Reisman's study:

Playboy publish approximately 120 issues each with approximately 24 photographs of nude to partially nude women in them. Only from 1974 on were any men featured with the women. Total photographs, not including advertising = ~8,600
Penthouse started publishing in the UK in 1965, and in the US in 1969, with photographic content more risqué than Playboy's but still, no children. They carried a few more pictures per layout, say ~27 per issue over 20 years of the "study." Total photographs, less advertising = ~6,500
Hustler, with only a ten year record, was a thinner magazine with less high end advertising, and probably 26 very explicit pictures per issue. Total photographs, less advertising = ~3,120

Reisman reported that of a total of a possible 18,220 photographs published in the 30 year period, an extraordinary 14,854 (81.5%!) were found by Reisman to be images of "crime and violence" and 6,004 (33%!) of them to involve girls between 3 and 11 years of age in sexual encounters with adults! This doesn't pass the smell test!

Pick up any random Playboy. I doubt there will be a photograph of any children even in the advertising. It simply isn't there.

Reisman conflates those three magazines together in her "research" as if they were equal and reports that over the period in her study she found 989 images involving children in sexually compromising situations. I doubt I have even opened any of those magazines in the last twenty years but during the period in question, I did subscribe to Playboy from about 1970 to 1980, which Reisner consistently refers to as "Play Boy", showing her total lack of familiarity with the brand, and not ONCE was there an image of a child in a sexually compromising position, certainly none between 3 and 11, as Reisman claims in her "scholarly paper." However, Hustler Magazine—which published only from 1974 to 1984 during the period of Reisman's study—a sleazy hardcore pornographic magazine had a cartoon entitled "Chester the Molester" which featured children being molested by the title character, along with other cartoons featuring kiddie porn themes that probably totaled the entire number of images she used to blast the other two men's magazines.

Larry Flynt, Hustler's publisher was in court constantly for his smutty content. Hugh Hefner was not. Had Playboy published anything of the kind Reisner claims, Hefner would be languishing in prison.

Attack these magazines for what they did publish for what you don't agree with, and for their Liberal viewpoints, but don't swallow lies to make it worse. That only diminishes your position at best, and at worst destroys your argument when people know what you claim is not true.