View Full Version : Rant on Playboy
The Snark
03-15-2006, 07:42 PM
I'm no lawyer, but I do know that contracts don't have to be written. An oral agreement can be a legally binding contract, even though it's harder to prove the terms in court. My understanding is that Alba's film company told Playboy that it could only publish the photo in connection with the promotion of her film--and that Playboy violated the terms of this contract by publishing it in a totally different context.
Okay, I also really need to get back to surfing for porn.
evan_essence
03-16-2006, 06:59 AM
Jenny you said you like contract law. After looking over the Smoking Gun site what is interesting to me is what’s left out of the complaint. There was no mention anywhere of specific contracts, addendums, or agreements about ownership of photos for usage in publicity events. Only statements that amounted to “he said, she said.”To be clear about it, note that the letter which The Smoking Gun published appears to be only a private letter of complaint directed to Playboy, not a formal legal filing in a public court case. As you say, it is interesting what's left out of the letter, but I'm saying I wouldn't expect such a letter to have all the documentation that a court brief would normally include.
One wonders why the complainants chose to send a letter rather than file a case straight away. I wonder if California law requires that as a first step or if they just decided on their own to see what would shake out first from a legal threat and stating terms. One would think that the complainants would file a lawsuit quickly and ask for a timely hearing and injunction, considering their time-sensitive desire to stop distribution of the magazine.
One also wonders how The Smoking Gun got ahold of the letter and if they are opening themselves up for a copyright complaint since the document was private and clearly says not for publication, yet it was reproduced whole. Yes, SG's coverage is a news use which is a legal one, but I'm not sure that context permits the letter to be reproduced in its entirety without more extensive commentary accompanying it. Of course, it may be a moot point if the complainants are happy with the publicity for their side of the story.
Jenny, do your studies mean that you will be advertised as the stripping lawyer? I think there could be a strong niche market for combined legal advice and lap dancing in the VIP. Sorta like the TV series "Ed" whose main character was the everyman's lawyer in a bowling alley.
-Ev
Jenny
03-16-2006, 05:16 PM
Yeah, I suspected as much. Well then, to keep the boys entertained, we're going to have to resort to pulling hair and clawing each other's eyes out. How are you with that?
I suspect I'd be pretty good at that. But I'm a selfish, self-absorbed type, more interested in amusing myself than the boys.
Says what source? I am under the impression that there is no legal definition of pornography, only obscenity.
Huh. I actually don't know if there is a legal definition. I mean, there is no law against pornography, so there is really no definite need for an exact definition. They just seem to use a fairly normative understanding. A separation is made, however, between a "pruriant" display and one for artistic merit. Although "artistic merit" may sometimes be debatable - that is, not the quality of the photos, but whether they are being presented with any goal or context except to sexually excite - in the case of Playboy it is really not. You may argue that it is also debatable in Sin City. That I would agree. It is debatable, but not conclusive by any means. Like nobody could conclusively find that it was pruriant. Other words that are thrown around are "gratuitous" which means largely the same thing.
Again, I don't know whose definitions you're using, but they're going to be subjective since I don't think there's any legal test for anything other than obscenity.
No - or maybe not, I'm not sure. But in either case there is still a socio normative understanding - and various rating systems (like "R"). I did an impromptu survey today in class. I asked 7 people (3 women, 4 men) if they would, in a socially normative way, equate the cover of Playboy with a poster of Sin City. Not one of them really understood the question at first, but ultimately (and I explained as neutrally as I am able. But I am a lawyer in training, and apparently we are a dishonest breed) not one them thought it was. I think it is more or less the same conversation I was having before which is that we, as a group, have a fairly "hard core" understanding. Playboy is like Cosmo to us. To everyone else, that is not the case. (I did have one guy deny that he had ever LOOKED at a Playboy).
In a movie, depictions of sex acts in which nudity is a part are not pornography? As you say, it's all about context of the individual situation as to whether it's pornography. I think you're ignoring the context that can exist in which an R-rated movie can have more gratuitous sex than Playboy.
Oh, lord no. I agree that R rated movies can have a lot of gratuitous sex. Although all the ones I think of offhand are non-gratuitous. But, on an intuitive level, I'm still sure that there are. I just don't think that the particular R-rated movie at hand can be categorized that way.
Although - sidenote. Have you heard of/seen Breillat? Specifically, "Anatomie de l'Enfer"? What do you think it does to art house movies, that have relied on "arty" status to, with fair impunity, portray sex and nudity as explicitly and graphically as any porno (probably not any porno, but the average porno) to then create a similarly graphic movie, with really pornographic sexuality, with porn actors? She had a porn star playing the male lead, and a porn "stunt vagina" for the female.
Which is tied to the pop culture of the day and is as fluid as it is.
Well, yes and no. Anything that has a past is necessarily less fluid than the day, because perception and understanding is tied to that past. Have you seen all the Playboy documentaries and movies that they've put out over the past ten years (my favourite was "A Tale of Two Bunnies" The best line "I'm a playboy bunny - and I take pride in my work." Hee hee) they are still at least trying to capitalize on a reputation as nudity trailblazers.
No, I'm saying there's little difference in how the public is going to perceive Jessica Alba between being featured clothed on the cover of and inside the pages of Playboy vs. how the public is going to perceive her for playing a stripper fully clothed in an R-rated move. Perception/reaction is what I'm measuring.
Oh. Huh. Yeah, I'm pretty sure you are just out of touch with the common person. The common person, as I said, intuits a difference between choosing a role, in which she is portraying someone else, and choosing to pose, in which she is not, for one thing. The common person also intuits a difference movies with nudity, and magazines that only exist to exploit nudity and (just an extra) canvases that have nudity in a museum.
Not the actual amount or style of nudity, which was zero in both cases. It's possible for someone, before fully seeing either one, to assume from only the surface information they have obtained (cover of Playboy, trailer showing her stripping) that she might be naked in the movie and the magazine,
It is possible, but really, not equally likely.
I think she's being hypocritical to claim one damages her reputation when the other apparently did not.
Again, because you are functioning under what I am really certain is an erroneous assumption, that the two are functionally the same in viewers eyes.
Again, you're focused on the actual elements involved, not the public perception of what might be revealed, which is the basis of a claim that her reputation has been damaged.
Okay, now I'm bewildered. You're saying that people could assume she was "equally" naked in Playboy and Sin City, despite the fact that the quantum of allowable nudity is different in each? Or do people generally expect to see vagina in R rated films?
You're focused in the wrong place for countering what I'm saying. The relevant factor is the external publicity and the public perception of what's inside, not what's actually in there.
Oh come on. That is just childish. The actual facts do have SOMETHING to do with it too.
Nudity for the sake of nudity can include art, if its primary purpose is not sexual arousal.
But then it isn't nudity for the sake of nudity. What makes it gratuitous is that it ISN'T for art.
I'm not saying Playboy is art, but I would maintain that Playboy includes elements that make its nudity less gratuitous than you and I are on the job. Well, than I am, anyway.
Playboy has amply demonstrated over 50 years that it is pornography, not art. (and I don't mean pornography in the horribly loaded way you think. It's just material created exactly, explicitly and exclusively for the purpose of sexual arousal. I'm okay with that conceptually, but I do appreciate that not everyone wants to be associated with it). The reason I am not pornographic is because there is no record; pornography in the nouny sense has have an object. But I would agree that my nudity is wholly and entirely gratuitous.
I'm too busy playing with you on here to have time for movies now.
And I do appreciate it. I really need the validation this time of year.
You're using fictional magazines in your arguments? You bitch! Just for that, I'm going to make up fictional legal precedent! Maybe I already have. Darling, I have a database at my fingertips to check up on you. We call it "The internet". Do your worst. And it wasn't fictional. It was "hypothetical".
I'm asking if the license was in writing. The letter doesn't make it clear how the permission was spelled out. If it's not in writing, we have a verbal agreement that's going to boil down to "he said, she said."
Technically, it boils down what Alba and Columbia pictures says, versus what Playboy said. And really, in this case, I don't think Playboy has the better claim to credibility because they have a much better reason to lie and obtain the photos than Alba has to license her photo and then take it back. Unless, as you said, there are as yet undisclosed facts
Why is it okay for you to trot out context when you want to prove that a movie's nudity is not gratuitous, but if I trotted out context, that Playboy has women who are clothed in it, features no depictions of sexual contact and has literary and artistic value besides nudity, I'd probably be laughed right out of the thread. No fair.
I would never laugh at you baby. Unless you were being funny. (See? I am so your bitch). I would, however, say that the literary fiction notwithstanding, that Playboy has made, and continues to make its reputation based around the centrefold. That is the defining element of the magazine, not the short stories.
Jenny
03-16-2006, 05:22 PM
One wonders why the complainants chose to send a letter rather than file a case straight away. I wonder if California law requires that as a first step or if they just decided on their own to see what would shake out first from a legal threat and stating terms. One would think that the complainants would file a lawsuit quickly and ask for a timely hearing and injunction, considering their time-sensitive desire to stop distribution of the magazine.
Well, it is always faster and cheaper to seek out cooperation. That is just intuition on my part.
One also wonders how The Smoking Gun got ahold of the letter and if they are opening themselves up for a copyright complaint since the document was private and clearly says not for publication, yet it was reproduced whole.
I don't think (and again this is intuitive. You don't do IP in first year) that you copyright letters. The purpose of copyright is to protect value, not privacy.
Jenny, do your studies mean that you will be advertised as the stripping lawyer? I think there could be a strong niche market for combined legal advice and lap dancing in the VIP. Sorta like the TV series "Ed" whose main character was the everyman's lawyer in a bowling alley.
You might find this hard to believe, since I've made it clear that I know everything, but the legal advice of first year law students is not widely sought out.
Docido
03-16-2006, 05:48 PM
Jenny where did you get this silly idea that art shouldn't be arousing. Didn't you take art history? If I remember correctly this particular Manet painting caused quite a stir in the 1800's. Here's a link - http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/173.html
Now tell me what is this painting supposed to do if not turn you on. Don't give me my any guff about perspective, light and shadow, or chiaroscuro techniques either.
Jenny
03-16-2006, 06:10 PM
I said it shouldn't be ONLY arousing. And I agree - it is kind of a touchy and difficult definition. But its the only one we got.
And sorry, but I'm not turned on by it. I think I have the more pruriant tastes.
robertgrahammodel
03-17-2006, 09:00 AM
Good for her? Oh, get the f**k over it, Miss Priss. You're the one who chose to pose for that publicity shot. And you're the one who chose to play the role of a stripper on screen. What the hell, that doesn't lay the groundwork for the kind of sexiest celebrity status that Playboy awarded you?
And what is wrong with you, Mr. P? Next you'll be rooting for me to sue for sexual harassment in the workplace. I think you have a fever, you better lie down.
-Ev
Did you read that letter? Holy shit. She must be paying these guys a fortune.
evan_essence
03-17-2006, 03:39 PM
Huh. I actually don't know if there is a legal definition. I mean, there is no law against pornography, so there is really no definite need for an exact definition. They just seem to use a fairly normative understanding.That's a big retreat from your earlier observation that the actual legal status of Playboy is pornography. Now you're saying, well, um, there isn't actually any legal status of that nature; we're just going by what I believe to be majority opinion.
A separation is made, however, between a "pruriant" display and one for artistic merit. Although "artistic merit" may sometimes be debatable - that is, not the quality of the photos, but whether they are being presented with any goal or context except to sexually excite - in the case of Playboy it is really not.First off, I think you're describing the elements by which obscenity is determined with the implication being that pornography is measured the same way. But if pornography doesn't have a legal definition, then you're actually describing someone's subjective judgment of the "separation."
Second, the problem with this entire line of reasoning is that you're talking in black and white terms, which only exist in hypotheticals or extreme examples. There's plenty in R-rated movies and Playboy that aren't that neat and crisp.
You may argue that it is also debatable in Sin City. That I would agree. It is debatable, but not conclusive by any means. Like nobody could conclusively find that it was pruriant. Other words that are thrown around are "gratuitous" which means largely the same thing.You've moved this whole argument to a field defined by your standards, and I still maintain the relevant issue is not pornography, but nudity. The issue of pornography is a red herring and a term for which there isn't any universal definition, nor is there a socio normative perception of it in cases like this one that are borderline. In hypotheticals and extreme cases, yes, but not around the edges. The relevant issue is not about defining pornography, but whether anyone thought she was nude or not and how much damage that might have done because of it. (Actually, the primary issue is the intellectual property permission issue, and that would exist even if the mag had been Maxim, not Playboy, but we seem to have focused on the issue of reputation the most for our own personal enjoyment.)
I did an impromptu survey today in class.Sure, point out that you have a CLASS in which to do an impromptu survey in, post-grad brainiac. Meanwhile, I have a lowly bachelors degree that I'm not even using.
(and I explained as neutrally as I am able. But I am a lawyer in training, and apparently we are a dishonest breed)That's cute, Jenny, how you keep bringing that up as an aside even though I explained what I meant by it. Remind me never to talk trash about you if we ever work together or else I'll never hear the end of it.
I asked 7 people (3 women, 4 men) if they would, in a socially normative way, equate the cover of Playboy with a poster of Sin City. Not one of them really understood the question at first, but ultimately not one them thought it was. I think it is more or less the same conversation I was having before which is that we, as a group, have a fairly "hard core" understanding. Playboy is like Cosmo to us. To everyone else, that is not the case. (I did have one guy deny that he had ever LOOKED at a Playboy).I see your point that two strippers are probably not the best judges of what the public generally sees as pornography. If there were a way to survey it, I'd be curious to know what percentage of people would define Playboy as pornography.
I agree that R rated movies can have a lot of gratuitous sex. Although all the ones I think of offhand are non-gratuitous. But, on an intuitive level, I'm still sure that there are. I just don't think that the particular R-rated movie at hand can be categorized that way.Well, you're judging after the fact. My point is that you didn't know what the movie at hand had in it by its cover any more than you would know whether someone is posing nude by a magazine cover.
Oh. Huh. Yeah, I'm pretty sure you are just out of touch with the common person.BS! I touch the commoners everyday on the job!
Again, because you are functioning under what I am really certain is an erroneous assumption, that the two are functionally the same in viewers eyes.Yeah, I do kinda sound like my assumptions are erroneous when you're mischaracterizing them, don't I?
Okay, now I'm bewildered. You're saying that people could assume she was "equally" naked in Playboy and Sin City, despite the fact that the quantum of allowable nudity is different in each?I'm saying that people could assume a degree of nakkidity that would damage her reputation in either.
Or do people generally expect to see vagina in R rated films?Speaking of rhetorical questions about the quantum of allowable nudity, do people generally expect to see simulated sexual intercourse in Playboy or is that more an R-rated movie's domain?
Oh come on. That is just childish. The actual facts do have SOMETHING to do with it too.Right. My hypotheticals are dismissed as childish; yours, I guess, advance discussion in an adult manner. Perhaps you could give me some pointers on the socio normative perception of the differences.
But then it isn't nudity for the sake of nudity. What makes it gratuitous is that it ISN'T for art.Now we're picking nit about phraseology. I don't know why you've chosen to define "nudity for the sake of nudity" as meaning "nudity for the sake of sexual arousal," but whatever; it's easier to agree to your definition than argue it since it's merely a matter of definitional boundaries.
Have you heard of/seen Breillat? Specifically, "Anatomie de l'Enfer"? .... She had a porn star playing the male lead, and a porn "stunt vagina" for the female.Hahaha. Now I think you're showing how out of touch with the common people you are. No, I refuse to see anything remotely artsy with a French title. But I suspect you have more opportunities for that in Canada than we do here at the Ozarka 5 Cineplex or Cousin Clem's Adult Video Superstore.
Have you seen all the Playboy documentaries and movies that they've put out over the past ten years (my favourite was "A Tale of Two Bunnies" The best line "I'm a playboy bunny - and I take pride in my work." Hee hee) they are still at least trying to capitalize on a reputation as nudity trailblazers.Actually, I hadn't even considered the camp value of these things. I'm pretty sure pornography isn't supposed to make me gaffaw as much as Playboy bunnies do.
Playboy has amply demonstrated over 50 years that it is pornography, not art. (and I don't mean pornography in the horribly loaded way you think. It's just material created exactly, explicitly and exclusively for the purpose of sexual arousal. I'm okay with that conceptually, but I do appreciate that not everyone wants to be associated with it).So there's no qualitative difference between Playboy and Snatch then? There's nothing that distinguishes the two? The socio normative perception of the two is the same, and a woman who posed for one will receive the same impact on her reputation as posing for the other?
-Ev
Jenny
03-17-2006, 05:14 PM
That's a big retreat from your earlier observation that the actual legal status of Playboy is pornography.
It is. That's what Huh mean. It represents me rolling my eyes up to the tops of the sockets and contemplating the import of that statement. Or it could be casual dismissal, but in this case it wasn't.
Now you're saying, well, um, there isn't actually any legal status of that nature; we're just going by what I believe to be majority opinion.
I'm not sure. Movies are rated, and theatres exert control based on those rating; I know there are bodies in place that do rate various kinds of publications that are empowered by statute that use language such that I used below. They are just not embodied in the criminal law. So I don't think that it is SIMPLY a matter of majority opinion.
First off, I think you're describing the elements by which obscenity is determined with the implication being that pornography is measured the same way. But if pornography doesn't have a legal definition, then you're actually describing someone's subjective judgment of the "separation."
Well, in that sense EVERYTHING is someone's subjective judgment. Some subjective judgments, however, are endowed with more community importance than others.
You've moved this whole argument to a field defined by your standards, and I still maintain the relevant issue is not pornography, but nudity.
Actually I think you've done an excellent job in pointing out that nudity itself is not the defining factor.
The issue of pornography is a red herring and a term for which there isn't any universal definition, nor is there a socio normative perception of it in cases like this one that are borderline.
Well, it's not a red herring. It is clearly what is at issue. You just don't agree with my (or Alba's) characterization. That is entirely different from being a red herring. I am contending, as is Alba, that Playboy is pornography, or - if it makes you feel better - contains and delineates around gratuitous nudity and Alba does not want to be associated with that (which she obviously doesn't - witness the letter of complaint and the rejection of their offer). You are contending that there is no qualitative difference between Playboy and Sin City, and that the history and context of Playboy doesn't inform the viewship. (or that is what I am gathering)
Sure, point out that you have a CLASS in which to do an impromptu survey in, post-grad brainiac. Meanwhile, I have a lowly bachelors degree that I'm not even using.
Well, I am a show off.
That's cute, Jenny, how you keep bringing that up as an aside even though I explained what I meant by it. Remind me never to talk trash about you if we ever work together or else I'll never hear the end of it.
I would. With frequency.
I see your point that two strippers are probably not the best judges of what the public generally sees as pornography. If there were a way to survey it, I'd be curious to know what percentage of people would define Playboy as pornography.
Well it is the FAQ of Playboy enterprises. "Is Playboy Pornography". The reply is particularly cute - it doesn't characterize it as pornography, but says essentially that anyone who doesn't like it is an uptight prude.
Well, you're judging after the fact. My point is that you didn't know what the movie at hand had in it by its cover any more than you would know whether someone is posing nude by a magazine cover.
Well yeah. And so was Alba - judging after the fact, I mean. This goes to the essential differences between movies and pictures - and the fact that Playboy has an established pattern of featuring women from its cover naked, and movie posters have no such strong pattern.
BS! I touch the commoners everyday on the job!
You dirty whore. If I worked with a skank like you, I'd claw your eyes out. And pull your hair. (see?)
Yeah, I do kinda sound like my assumptions are erroneous when you're mischaracterizing them, don't I?
Well, if you don't think they are essentially the same, how can you contend that one should define the other?
I'm saying that people could assume a degree of nakkidity that would damage her reputation in either.
But it is more likely in one than the other. For one thing. Although I still maintain that artists can legitimately use different criteria in choosing roles than in choosing to model for magazines, and the different mediums and genres makes a difference - even in public perception. I think the public are aware of the difference between movies and pictures.
Speaking of rhetorical questions about the quantum of allowable nudity, do people generally expect to see simulated sexual intercourse in Playboy or is that more an R-rated movie's domain?
That would be in the R rated movie. But technically you have have simulated intercourse without any nudity at all.
Now we're picking nit about phraseology. I don't know why you've chosen to define "nudity for the sake of nudity" as meaning "nudity for the sake of sexual arousal," but whatever; it's easier to agree to your definition than argue it since it's merely a matter of definitional boundaries.
Well, these aren't actually my phrases. They are used over and over again in the discourse of defining pornography. There is some background and standard here - we are not in vacuum.
Hahaha. Now I think you're showing how out of touch with the common people you are. No, I refuse to see anything remotely artsy with a French title. But I suspect you have more opportunities for that in Canada than we do here at the Ozarka 5 Cineplex or Cousin Clem's Adult Video Superstore.
Hey. I touch the common people all the time... ba dum dum.
It is artsy and french, but it does have porn stars and sex scenes that put Playboy to shame. Does that make it more appealing? There is a particular awesome scene in which after having sex, gallons of menstrual blood just pour onto the bed.
So there's no qualitative difference between Playboy and Snatch then? There's nothing that distinguishes the two? The socio normative perception of the two is the same, and a woman who posed for one will receive the same impact on her reputation as posing for the other?
Of course there is. I would say X to XXX. It doesn't change the status of X. I never claimed that there wasn't some porn that was grosser and lower brow, or more explicit, or for that matter higher brow than Playboy.
evan_essence
03-18-2006, 05:16 PM
It is. That's what Huh mean. It represents me rolling my eyes up to the tops of the sockets and contemplating the import of that statement. Or it could be casual dismissal, but in this case it wasn't.Well, feel free to downplay any major flaws I point out in your observations with an ambiguous response.
Actually I think you've done an excellent job in pointing out that nudity itself is not the defining factor.Are you just bound and determined to misrepresent what I've said? When have I pointed out anything other than the issue of nudity and the public expectation of nudity as the defining factors?
Well, it's not a red herring. It is clearly what is at issue. You just don't agree with my (or Alba's) characterization. That is entirely different from being a red herring. I am contending, as is Alba, that Playboy is pornography,Really? You must be able to see some invisible ink on that letter posted at Smoking Gun then, because there's not one mention of pornography in it. Nudity and reader expectations of nudity, yeah. Pornography, not one wit. It's an issue you seem hell bent on bringing up even though the lawyers did not. Why would they? They're smart enough (yeah, smarter than first year law students) to know they don't need to get bogged down in allegations of a subjective nature when it's totally irrelevant to making their point that an expectation of nudity was created. So yeah, stuff that you bring up that isn't in the original complaint nor relevant to making the case, red herring.
or - if it makes you feel better - contains and delineates around gratuitous nudity and Alba does not want to be associated with that (which she obviously doesn't - witness the letter of complaint and the rejection of their offer).No mention of gratuitous in the letter either. Just nude. No further qualification is necessary to advance the case.
But I already know what your response will be. Shall I write it for you? "It may not say pornography but that's clearly what any body of reasonable individuals atune to socio normative perception would conclude it means." And I keep trying to shoot at this moving target, folks.
You are contending that there is no qualitative difference between Playboy and Sin City, and that the history and context of Playboy doesn't inform the viewship. (or that is what I am gathering)For the last time, I am saying that the context of an R-rated movie preview showing a stripper character will garner the expectation from many viewers that the actress will likely be naked at some point in the film. Judging by the letter to Playboy, that's an expectation that is not desireable in Miss Alba's judgment.
Well it is the FAQ of Playboy enterprises. "Is Playboy Pornography". The reply is particularly cute - it doesn't characterize it as pornography, but says essentially that anyone who doesn't like it is an uptight prude.My goodness, how did you read that and not read something more into it? That's so obviously an admission if you'd filter it properly.
Well yeah. And so was Alba - judging after the fact, I mean. This goes to the essential differences between movies and pictures - and the fact that Playboy has an established pattern of featuring women from its cover naked, and movie posters have no such strong pattern.R-rated movies with stripper characters have no pattern of showing them naked? Yeah, that's certainly intuitive.
You dirty whore. If I worked with a skank like you, I'd claw your eyes out. And pull your hair. (see?)Now you're getting me hot. Stop it, I want to stay irritated with you and not weaken.
Well, if you don't think they are essentially the same, how can you contend that one should define the other?You've lost me there. I don't understand the references or erroneous conclusions inherent in the question.
There is some background and standard here - we are not in vacuum.I don't know; one could argue this thread is definitely sucking.
It is artsy and french, but it does have porn stars and sex scenes that put Playboy to shame. Does that make it more appealing? There is a particular awesome scene in which after having sex, gallons of menstrual blood just pour onto the bed.Oh, yeah, I see the appeal in that. Anyone have diarrhea in it? How about an artful statement with chunky vomit? No wait, that's been done in The Exorcist. Perhaps a guy who plasters a girl to the wall with gallons of high-pressure output from his "happy ending"?
Of course there is. I would say X to XXX. It doesn't change the status of X. I never claimed that there wasn't some porn that was grosser and lower brow, or more explicit, or for that matter higher brow than Playboy.Aha. You are contending that there is higher brow pornography than Playboy, which may very well include Sin City. (or that is what I am gathering because I'm parroting your interpretative powers)
-Ev
This is good stuff. I especially like the part where Evan suggested that Jenny was getting her hot. It sucks to be a guy where you have to have direct physical stimulation. Women can just talk and get juicy :P
I am feeling a little depressed though. I recall that MrP and Jenny are going at it in another thread. Im fearful that his ass may get kicked to the curb due to Evans superior verbal skills. ;) Kind of bleaches out the Blue if you know what I mean :O
FBR
Jenny
03-22-2006, 10:27 AM
Well, we've lost all passion for this conversation. But I can't resist the opportunity to flirt a little more. So.
Well, feel free to downplay any major flaws I point out in your observations with an ambiguous response.
Completely not ambiguous. That was, like, a detailed description.
Why would they? They're smart enough (yeah, smarter than first year law students)
Pshaw. This is nonsense you speak.
Now you're getting me hot. Stop it, I want to stay irritated with you and not weaken.
Just lay down and take it, bitch.
Perhaps a guy who plasters a girl to the wall with gallons of high-pressure output from his "happy ending"?
So no time for Boogie Nights, but all the time in the world for "Scary Movie"? Oh Evan. It's a good thing you're pretty.
Aha. You are contending that there is higher brow pornography than Playboy, which may very well include Sin City.
Actually I said earlier - or mean to say, albeit tangentially - that this is certainly contentious. I mean as in possible to contend. So rock on with your mad interpretative powers.
Docido
03-22-2006, 03:51 PM
Well, we've lost all passion for this conversation. But I can't resist the opportunity to flirt a little more. So.
Jenny, I agree we've lost all interest in continuing this thread. So let's get right to the important stuff - you and evan_essence lezzing up. :D
evan_essence
03-24-2006, 09:17 AM
Jenny, I agree we've lost all interest in continuing this thread. So let's get right to the important stuff - you and evan_essence lezzing up. :DYeah, um, believe it or not, I participate here for my own enjoyment, not you guys. Coz, let's face it, you'd have to pay for that kind of service. So if Jenny wants to "lez" it up with me, as you so sensuously put it, she's certainly welcome to PM me, but you won't be reading the interaction. Unless, of course, you'd like to buy the transcripts. :P
-Ev
Jenny
03-24-2006, 09:48 AM
But Evan, baby - I actually post here for your enjoyment. So way to make me feel used/unappreciated.
Docido
03-24-2006, 10:39 AM
Yeah, um, believe it or not, I participate here for my own enjoyment, not you guys. Coz, let's face it, you'd have to pay for that kind of service. So if Jenny wants to "lez" it up with me, as you so sensuously put it, she's certainly welcome to PM me, but you won't be reading the interaction. Unless, of course, you'd like to buy the transcripts. :P
-Ev
Oh poo!! It seems everytime I wanna watch someone gets upset!! Like that time in the city park's bushes. :P
evan_essence
03-26-2006, 12:51 PM
But Evan, baby - I actually post here for your enjoyment. So way to make me feel used/unappreciated.Oh, sweetie, you may feel used, but I'm never unappreciative. }:D
-Ev
robertgrahammodel
03-29-2006, 07:07 PM
I think this has a lot more to do with Jessie's "Q" Score than any porn/nudity issues.
What I hear is that when an actress/model (Pam Lee excepted) chooses to pose for Playboy (the implication of Jessie's cover)... it's because their star is falling. (aka "Q" score).
A Playboy cover could project a sense of desperation for a waning celebrity Q status, killing her market value. Q scores are extremely volatile and incredibly important to "star" $.
View from the biz.
evan_essence
04-05-2006, 11:53 PM
Oh, look. Jessica has kissed and made up over Playboy hurting her image.
http://www.hecklerspray.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/jessica_alba_girlfriend_1.jpg
Oh, wait, that's the wrong link. Here's the link to the story about the end of her spat.
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/tittletattle/article_21212969.shtml
Oh, wait, that's the wrong spat, or spit. Try this one:
http://people.aol.com/people/articles/0,19736,1180254,00.html
-Ev
Docido
04-06-2006, 03:46 PM
Isn't the world of entertainment just wonderful! Makes the cynic in me think that this was just a publicity stunt from the get-go. ::)
SportsWriter2
04-07-2006, 04:53 AM
http://www.ndcontent.com/sl/girls/8th.gif
...or to get publicity; take your pick.
evan_essence
04-07-2006, 09:28 PM
Isn't the world of entertainment just wonderful! Makes the cynic in me think that this was just a publicity stunt from the get-go. ::)Of course it was. She wanted it in the news that she didn't consent to being on the cover, and have it understood far and wide that she wasn't nude inside, for all those who didn't bother to look and discover that for themselves.
-Ev
robertgrahammodel
04-08-2006, 07:17 AM
Of course it was. She wanted it in the news that she didn't consent to being on the cover, and have it understood far and wide that she wasn't nude inside, for all those who didn't bother to look and discover that for themselves.
-Ev
Whatever gets the Q-score up. "She" does and thinks what she's told. Or else she'll be back working as an Appleby's hostess before the dailies are out.
Docido
04-08-2006, 09:10 AM
Of course it was. She wanted it in the news that she didn't consent to being on the cover, and have it understood far and wide that she wasn't nude inside, for all those who didn't bother to look and discover that for themselves.
-Ev
I never took her protests that seriously either. Because if she was truly upset about Playboy's cover, her first move would have been requesting a cease and desist order or getting an injunction to stop publication. When that didn't happen, you can be assured that Playboy's lawyers and her agents had already hammered out a deal. With the controversy ending this way, it's a win/win situation for everyone. In retrospect, the most interesting thing about this pseudo-event is the media manipulation aspects.