NationStates Jolt Archive

SI has pre-emptively surrendered to those who consider girls in beachwear a threat to "the children":

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258076,00.html

Where does it end, people?

We never had Sports Illustrated in our school libraries...boy did we miss out. :p

Considering that the swimsuit issue has no actual regular Sports Illustrated content in it, and is essentially a soft-core porn shoot, I can see why they'd take it off the school library market. It saves school librarians the trouble of constantly having to get the pages of that issue un-stuck.

The decision was made after receiving negative feedback from such institutions that tend to draw a "younger audience," according to Time Warner spokesman Rick McCabe.
Sounds to me like at least some of the libraries were asking for this action. Sports Illustrated is shit anyway, even when they're not doing the swimsuit issue.

I remember SI: Swimsuit being the first thing I wanked to as a lad.

Nowadays...

It's not so much that they wear bikinis and other 'earthly' delights, so much as the places that it's been pulled from are doing it because of general overall negative feedback.

It seems that the libraries and schools are trying to respond to the needs of the younger patrons and students. Though I don't see the problem, since the girls in this edition of SI tend to be rather under-clothed for lack of a better term. And it's not like the absence of this mag will hinder the students' ability to learn. Of course, it does have a place in sex ed, so I could be wrong. ;)

So schools don't want magazines that contain absolutly no information and are simply a catalogue of swimwear?

What, exactly, is the problem here?

I remember SI: Swimsuit being the first thing I wanked to as a lad.

Nowadays...

How lame do you have to be at 14 to beat off to SI: Swimsuit these days? I mean, finding better shit online isn't exactly difficult.

Surely offended institutions can simply choose on an individual basis not to put the magazine out. Its not like the students or young children are the ones sent to get the libraries mail. Seems overly pre-emptive. I can understand (sort of) them not wanting it out, but simply recieving the magazine doesn't allow it to march to the shelves all on its own.

How lame do you have to be at 14 to beat off to SI: Swimsuit these days? I mean, finding better shit online isn't exactly difficult.

seeing as the computer is in the living room (note: people) and the magazine is in my room, you could see why I picked the latter originally.

and yes it is pathetic. but such is life.

How lame do you have to be at 14 to beat off to SI: Swimsuit these days? I mean, finding better shit online isn't exactly difficult.

And there has always been Field Porn...

i'm surprised that sort of magasine was ever available in school libraries with the kind of puritanism there exists in the US especially. my school libraries never stocked magasines of any kind although the book selection never omitted anything i wanted. stocking magasines in shool libraries seems to defeat the whole object of school libraries anyway - they're supposed to be places that encourage the reading of books as far as i'm concerned. although i agree public libraries should be able to stock whatever magasines th like. self-censoreship in that respect is a little odd.

i'm surprised that sort of magasine was ever available in school libraries with the kind of puritanism there exists in the US especially. my school libraries never stocked magasines of any kind although the book selection never omitted anything i wanted. stocking magasines in shool libraries seems to defeat the whole object of school libraries anyway - they're supposed to be places that encourage the reading of books as far as i'm concerned. although i agree public libraries should be able to stock whatever magasines th like. self-censoreship in that respect is a little odd.

Not even National Geographic? (the OG of pubescent wank fodder, really...)

Magazines aren't inherently of no value just because there are Sports Illustrated, Maxims, and Cosmos out there. You can't tar the medium with its worst examples.

Considering that the swimsuit issue has no actual regular Sports Illustrated content in it, and is essentially a soft-core porn shoot, I can see why they'd take it off the school library market. It saves school librarians the trouble of constantly having to get the pages of that issue un-stuck.

"Soft-core porn shoot?" That's stretching it. Considering that nothing I have ever seen in the SSI includes simulated boy/girl, simulated girl/girl, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic areas, nipple exposure (at least that I recall), still less anything that would require compliance with 18 USC secs. 2257 or 2257a, I would say that the SSI cannot be considered "porn" of any kind, softcore or otherwise. Perhaps you have a different definition, but "sexy = porn" doesn't cut it.

A day for the republican party's Christian Conservative Family Values Decency base to celebrate!

Not even National Geographic? (the OG of pubescent wank fodder, really...)

Magazines aren't inherently of no value just because there are Sports Illustrated, Maxims, and Cosmos out there. You can't tar the medium with its worst examples.

oh well, i think there was National Geographic, and New Scientist and the Economist, Private Eye and that ilk, i was meaning magasines like the ones you listed. i wouldn't necessarily call these ones magasines, but now i think about it i'm not sure what i would call them, popular journals i suppose

Am I the only one who was expecting this to be a thread about how Sports Illustrated supports global warming or something? :rolleyes:

"Soft-core porn shoot?" That's stretching it. Considering that nothing I have ever seen in the SSI includes simulated boy/girl, simulated girl/girl, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic areas, nipple exposure (at least that I recall), still less anything that would require compliance with 18 USC secs. 2257 or 2257a, I would say that the SSI cannot be considered "porn" of any kind, softcore or otherwise. Perhaps you have a different definition, but "sexy = porn" doesn't cut it.

It's soft core porn with the thin thread of "swimsuits" juuuust blurring the line between the USC and what's really being sold.

By the way, why all the accuracy over this subject when you're usually so incredibly scattershot with every other post? Did someone not get to see his swimsuit issue in the privacy of his high school bathroom stall during study hall?

"Soft-core porn shoot?" That's stretching it. Considering that nothing I have ever seen in the SSI includes simulated boy/girl, simulated girl/girl, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic areas, nipple exposure (at least that I recall), still less anything that would require compliance with 18 USC secs. 2257 or 2257a, I would say that the SSI cannot be considered "porn" of any kind, softcore or otherwise. Perhaps you have a different definition, but "sexy = porn" doesn't cut it.

He's using the old "I'll know it when I see it" standard.

Lenny Bruce is afraid.





I can't decide if that was more lame or more pretentious...probably equal measures of both...

Am I the only one who was expecting this to be a thread about how Sports Illustrated supports global warming or something? :rolleyes:

i was thinking they must have featured a muslim girl in one of of those bhurkinis. that'd be sure to piss off new mittani.

The swimsuit issue is basically crappy porn. If a school library is going to stock porn they should atleast spring for something decent like Penthouse instead of that piece of shit.

And there has always been Field Porn...

Porn with farm animals? :eek:

Porn with farm animals? :eek:

nothing so exciting. it's just turf with holes in it for the really desperate.

/doesn't know either

SI has pre-emptively surrendered to those who consider girls in beachwear a threat to "the children":

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258076,00.html

Where does it end, people?

Jeez, I need my fill of perversion.

nothing so exciting. it's just turf with holes in it for the really desperate.

/doesn't know either

Porn with farm animals? :eek:

Kids these days...

Time was that intreped 12-14 year olds would suddenly be endowed with the knack for finding discarded and tatered abandoned porn magazines in fields and such, usually catering to a fairly specific and odd fetish. You lose this ability as you age and can access porn on your own, but for that brief time in your life the Porn Fairy smiles upon you and you are able to find Field Porn.

I imagine its relavance has declined with the internet, but two months ago I actually stumbled across some field porn looking for a cutty place to have a toke. It took me back to a nostalgic, odd time.

Any kid can go into a store and buy this and it has no educational value. Truly a non-issue.

"Soft-core porn shoot?" That's stretching it. Considering that nothing I have ever seen in the SSI includes simulated boy/girl, simulated girl/girl, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic areas, nipple exposure (at least that I recall), still less anything that would require compliance with 18 USC secs. 2257 or 2257a, I would say that the SSI cannot be considered "porn" of any kind, softcore or otherwise. Perhaps you have a different definition, but "sexy = porn" doesn't cut it.

Isn't the official definition of porn "that which invokes sexual arousal and has no artistic merit"? It's a shit definition, to be sure, but using this definition probably means the SI:SSI is porn.

That issue shouldn't be in schools, anyway. What exactly did they do wrong here? Hm?

Any kid can go into a store and buy this and it has no educational value. Truly a non-issue.

On the contrary, I learned a lot from the swimsuit issue when I was a kid. I'm sure kids still do. :)

Kids these days...

Time was that intreped 12-14 year olds would suddenly be endowed with the knack for finding discarded and tatered abandoned porn magazines in fields and such, usually catering to a fairly specific and odd fetish. You lose this ability as you age and can access porn on your own, but for that brief time in your life the Porn Fairy smiles upon you and you are able to find Field Porn.

I imagine its relavance has declined with the internet, but two months ago I actually stumbled across some field porn looking for a cutty place to have a toke. It took me back to a nostalgic, odd time.

Ohh, right. I have fond memories of such too. My old home was surrounded with small patches of forest, which were, needless to say, filled with such material. Around here the age just was maybe 7-10 years, and the material was our prime source of sex education.

When I was a teenager, I mostly preferred lingerie catalogues for the spanking of the monkey.

It's soft core porn with the thin thread of "swimsuits" juuuust blurring the line between the USC and what's really being sold.

By the way, why all the accuracy over this subject when you're usually so incredibly scattershot with every other post? Did someone not get to see his swimsuit issue in the privacy of his high school bathroom stall during study hall?

You haven't read all of my posts, at least not many of my early posts. When I think the subject needs it, I'll go into plenty of detail. But when I'm just in the mood to shove sticks into the leftie beehive, then I keep it general.

As for my accuracy, this happens to be an area in which I have some professional knowledge (legal, not production ;) ).

Laaaaaaaaaame SI. Very lame.

Kids these days...

Time was that intreped 12-14 year olds would suddenly be endowed with the knack for finding discarded and tatered abandoned porn magazines in fields and such, usually catering to a fairly specific and odd fetish. You lose this ability as you age and can access porn on your own, but for that brief time in your life the Porn Fairy smiles upon you and you are able to find Field Porn.

I imagine its relavance has declined with the internet, but two months ago I actually stumbled across some field porn looking for a cutty place to have a toke. It took me back to a nostalgic, odd time.

eww! used porn! :p i've never been much into porn to be honest so it never occurred to me to go looking in fields and forests for it. not that i ever noticed any when i did go out to play in them anyway.

On the contrary, I learned a lot from the swimsuit issue when I was a kid. I'm sure kids still do. :)

As a kid, I just became confused with the swim suit issue. Now, Penthouse; there is a tome that can truly instruct.

Isn't the official definition of porn "that which invokes sexual arousal and has no artistic merit"? It's a shit definition, to be sure, but using this definition probably means the SI:SSI is porn.

The photographic composition value alone takes the SSI out of that definition.

Beyond that, it sounds like you're confusing pornography with obscenity. There's a difference between the two. Not all porn is legally obscene. Porn can still have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and thus not be legally obscene. The Supreme Court established the three-part test for obscenity in Miller v. California (1973):

(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

I'm sure nobody would argue that the SSI constitutes obscenity under the Miller test.

eww! used porn! :p i've never been much into porn to be honest so it never occurred to me to go looking in fields and forests for it. not that i ever noticed any when i did go out to play in them anyway.

When I was in 7th grade we had a case of dumpster porn. The nuns were not amused to find that magazine being passed around, let me tell you.

Good. There is no reason for soft core porn in to be in schools in the 1st place.

Beyonce Knowles donned this year's cover.

Sounds like a strange outfit to me...

Sounds like a strange outfit to me...
I'm getting a mental image roughly akin to a certain Hasselhoff-image that we're no longer allowed to use, here.

Good. There is no reason for soft core porn in to be in schools in the 1st place.

You're no fun anymore! :p

What he used to be fun?

In his own special way.

You're no fun anymore! :p

What he used to be fun?

You're no fun anymore! :p

Porn to him obviously is any picture of a female who isn't wrapped up in a black potato sack. :p

Am I the only one who was expecting this to be a thread about how Sports Illustrated supports global warming or something? :rolleyes:

Sports Illustrated DOES support global warming! :eek:
Latest cover: "Sports and Global Warming; As the Planet Changes, So Do the Games We Play"

And to another comment, there has been nipple exposure in some SI swimsuit a couple years back, I remember my friends making a big deal over it. I remember someone brought it to school and some teacher got a hold of it and a big deal was made. It was before I had a subscription to SI though.

They got rid of one magazine but they still have the entire internet.

Considering some of the other magazines you can find in schools and libraries censoring the SI swimsuit issue seems pretty lame and pointless to me.

Considering some of the other magazines you can find in schools and libraries censoring the SI swimsuit issue seems pretty lame and pointless to me.

Name some other magazines. And list some reasons why the Swimsuit Edition should even be offered by a school library.

My school had a car magazine and Rolling Stone. The library wasn't just for education but entertainment as it also had a small fiction section as well. You can certainly make the case that if it has no educational value it shouldn't be there but with the other two magazines I don't see the problem with allowing that prticular issue as well.

Rolling Stone and car magazines are not the same as porn.

Name some other magazines. And list some reasons why the Swimsuit Edition should even be offered by a school library.

My school had a car magazine and Rolling Stone. The library wasn't just for education but entertainment as it also had a small fiction section as well. You can certainly make the case that if it has no educational value it shouldn't be there but with the other two magazines I don't see the problem with allowing that prticular issue as well.

And unless I misread the article, apparently you can't take it out of the public library anymore either which is amazingly stupid if accurate.

Porn with farm animals? :eek:

No, that's the Discovery Channel. Any kind of animal you want, Discovery will show them going at it. Bonobos, elephants, frogs, you name it. Even clams, though that is less exciting than you might think.

:D

Rolling Stone and car magazines are not the same as porn.

And I reject classifying the swimsuit issue of SI as porn. Sounds like the hysterics of the Christian right to me.

And I reject classifying the swimsuit issue of SI as porn. Sounds like the hysterics of the Christian right to me.

Now this is one thing I'm actually serious about, no sarcasm. *nods*

I can't see any other reason to publish a women's swimsuit issue in a men's magazine (Or atleast a magazine that the majority of readers are male) for anything other than for.. em.. you know. Pleasure.

And I reject classifying the swimsuit issue of SI as porn. Sounds like the hysterics of the Christian right to me.

Porn or not, the security surrounding the production of the swimsuit issue is unreal.

Nothing pornographic is present after all since no "naughty parts" are shown.

If you allow this, why not allow pornography?

What's the difference?

Now this is one thing I'm actually serious about, no sarcasm. *nods*

I can't see any other reason to publish a women's swimsuit issue in a men's magazine (Or atleast a magazine that the majority of readers are male) for anything other than for.. em.. you know. Pleasure.

I think there can be a line as enjoying the sight of an attractive woman and material simply meant to jerk off to. I think this can meant this standard. Besides, if a school is going to have a sports magazine to begin with I don't see why they can't have this as well. Nothing pornographic is present after all since no "naughty parts" are shown.

Porn or not, the security surrounding the production of the swimsuit issue is unreal.

I'm not surprised. Who wouldn't want to get a close look at a swimsuit shoot?