Why are nudist magazines sold along side porn mags?

[veritasinchains]

What store were you in? I've never even heard of naturist magazines being sold in stores, let alone alongside adult magazines. I always thought it was an online business.

I bought the two most recent issues of Naturally at a Borders near me. The coolest part is that apparently the management of that store doesn't see it as porn since they keep it on the bottom shelf next to T.A.N. with the news and informational magazines like Utne Reader and Wired. Unfortunately, I can't find N magazine anywhere. I don't know if TNS stopped selling it in book stores but if not then no one in my area carries it. I think it is rather sad that most business in the US see nudism in the same light as pornography. And as far as the fear that eleven year old kids will be flipping through the pages and cause mom to go into a lawsuit happy rage. They encase any publications featuring nudity of any sort in plastic bags.

[dibbadong]

This seems to be the case in Indiana.  I was at Borders the other day and found a copy of Naturally under Men's Interest, which includes everything like Playboy and Maxim.  Interesting enough, I remember buying a copy of Maxim when I was 15 without issue. 

[King Pizza]

I can't speak for magazines but I do know that some "naturist video" lines have basically been a cover for showing images of nude teen & pre-teen girls.  Usually it's video from Eastern Europe & mostly just slow motion video of teen girls doing things while soft music plays in the background.

There was a SCOTUS decision in the 50's which I can't recall well enough to find on Google, but it resulted in a brief period in the late 50's and early 60's where nudist magazines were declared not-obscene and they flourished (along with nudist themed movies and other media), mostly because it was one of the few legal ways to get pictures of naked people. But they declined quickly as magazines like Playboy and eventually, real porn, became legal and accessible.

There are 2 SCOTUS decisions: Roth v. US (1957), which redefined obscene and made nudist magazines legal, so that the post office would carry them. In 1958, SCOTUS ruled in Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield Postmaster General and that decision cleared the way for the post office to deliver nudist and other magazines with full-frontal nudity. The Sunshine case was brought by Danny Boone of AANR, so that magazines could be mailed that showed the full nude body.  Hope that helps.  

[nudetrail]

cant understand as i have seen this countless times at newsagents in vic,south oz,nsw,qld should be away from these as they are unrestricted

[Westernyelp]

It is a shame and Shows some lack of understanding that we have to see Naturist magazines rated the Same as all they 'Legs spread' Porn magazines, In Ireland they are almost always displayed together on the top shelf, H&E magazine from the UK is trying to break these ties and have stopped publishing frontal nudity shots, even topless women in their magazine. they also have a a naturist couple on the front of the latest edition instead of the traditional single female, this is a brave step as stats show a dip in sales of about 10% with a male on the Cover ( this highlights the fact that a lot of people are not buying it for the naturist articles!)

Anyway I think the should be commended for this decision and hope it works out for them, I Just bought a subscription to try and support this move away from top shelf porn

[Dario Western]

I can't speak for magazines but I do know that some "naturist video" lines have basically been a cover for showing images of nude teen & pre-teen girls.  Usually it's video from Eastern Europe & mostly just slow motion video of teen girls doing things while soft music plays in the background.

There was a SCOTUS decision in the 50's which I can't recall well enough to find on Google, but it resulted in a brief period in the late 50's and early 60's where nudist magazines were declared not-obscene and they flourished (along with nudist themed movies and other media), mostly because it was one of the few legal ways to get pictures of naked people. But they declined quickly as magazines like Playboy and eventually, real porn, became legal and accessible.

The few magazines that are left (N, H&E, one or two others I can't think of of the top of my head) are genuine nudist interest mags, since no one *but* nudists would have any real interest in buying them. People with prurient interests have better outlets now - even people with a nudist fetish have their own pay sites, so there's literally no reason for them to buy magazines.

Though largely because of that, I can't imagine that they'll last much longer given the overall decline of the magazine industry.

The videos today seem to accomplish the same thing as the magazines did in the 60's, but for a much more nefarious purpose in my view. They're the closest thing you can get to legal child porn - and I'm quite certain that if you got your hands on the customer lists for these videos, the vast majority would be pedophiles. If ever the creation and distribution of child porn were legalized (and I certainly would never advocate such thing), you'd see the market for those videos dry up pretty quickly.

Family nudist videos have NOTHING to do with child porn.  Child porn consists of under-aged kids engaging in sexual behaviour regardless of whether nude or dressed.

[Delta]

I can't speak for magazines but I do know that some "naturist video" lines have basically been a cover for showing images of nude teen & pre-teen girls.  Usually it's video from Eastern Europe & mostly just slow motion video of teen girls doing things while soft music plays in the background.

There was a SCOTUS decision in the 50's which I can't recall well enough to find on Google, but it resulted in a brief period in the late 50's and early 60's where nudist magazines were declared not-obscene and they flourished (along with nudist themed movies and other media), mostly because it was one of the few legal ways to get pictures of naked people. But they declined quickly as magazines like Playboy and eventually, real porn, became legal and accessible.

The few magazines that are left (N, H&E, one or two others I can't think of of the top of my head) are genuine nudist interest mags, since no one *but* nudists would have any real interest in buying them. People with prurient interests have better outlets now - even people with a nudist fetish have their own pay sites, so there's literally no reason for them to buy magazines.

Though largely because of that, I can't imagine that they'll last much longer given the overall decline of the magazine industry.

The videos today seem to accomplish the same thing as the magazines did in the 60's, but for a much more nefarious purpose in my view. They're the closest thing you can get to legal child porn - and I'm quite certain that if you got your hands on the customer lists for these videos, the vast majority would be pedophiles. If ever the creation and distribution of child porn were legalized (and I certainly would never advocate such thing), you'd see the market for those videos dry up pretty quickly.

Family nudist videos have NOTHING to do with child porn.  Child porn consists of under-aged kids engaging in sexual behaviour regardless of whether nude or dressed.

Yes, but there is also a market for videos branded "nudist" that only serve to distribute pictures of naked children legally, for... umm... unwelcome entertainment. Saw it myself, though it was a picture.
Generally speaking, I have nothing against stuff like that, at least intellectually. I mean, if people with that interest are satisfied by harmless nudes and synthetic artwork only, it is a lot better than actual children getting raped to produce material. Still it twists my stomach to see the nudist label being abused for that.

[luvthemgiants]

i can buy H&E in my local book store, but its on the top shelf inbetween playboy and "car" magazines.....at least its there thought, which is a big step in Ireland

[Dan]

I have noticed however more recently that all adult magazines are now sold in a sealed wrapper which obscures the cover except for the title and price. I don't know if that is because of the law or just a change in attitudes, but I think that is a good thing. I can totally appreciate that a lot of people find adult magazines offensive and would rather not have them on display in a public newsagents altogether, so that strikes me as a sensible compromise.

I've yet to see that around here, we still continue to put them on the highest shelf. I think people offended at those magazines are just prude and seeing a pair of boobs on a cover won't kill them.

[Delta]

That said I remember visiting France and seeing "normal" magazines with topless women on open display

In Germany, a newspaper (not the most intellectual one, more like tabloid material in a broadsheet format, but a newspaper nonetheless) used to have a topless "page 1 girl" in every issue.

[Dan]

True, but I think the majority of people who visit Newsagents in the UK find the content of adult magazines to be objectionable and offensive, particularly in shops where children are present.

A majority might claim that because they believe that's what people expect them to say but I seriously doubt they really take offense to those magazines. A US lawyer made that point once because the obscenity law is based on the "community standard" by comparing "apple pie" and "orgy" on Google Trends to show that when people are alone, they aren't quite as prude as they let out in public.

I fail to see the issue with children, especially since those magazines are typically put out of their reach.

At least with the internet the user can view images in private without offending anyone, with a newsagent I think modest censoring is fair. Those magazines certainly don't exist to educate or inform, so there isn't any defence of public good in having them accessible by children or unsealed.

Then we ought to seal most of the other magazines too.

I know from a family member that in Japan for instance you can find perfectly normal magazines alongside pornography at a lot of news stands.

And in Japan you can find hentai (porn in comic form) in your newspaper instead of funnies.

[Dan]

1st point - I think pretty much every human being is guilty of saying one thing in private and another in public, but some things are best left there in the private domain.

I don't think it's a good line of reasoning because those things *won't* stay in the private domain. You most likely saw a porn magazine as a kid. So did I and so did everyone. If we were younger, we would have seen porn on the Internet as kids.  The idea that it does lasting harm to children just doesn't very likely in light of the evidence.

I think society has to rethink its approach to face this inevitability. For instance sex ed is terrible. It's either "abstinence only" bollocks or it's about the dangers of sex (pregnancy! STDs! HIV! Here's how to put a condom on a banana!). The latter doesn't lie like the former but it doesn't answer most questions kids and teens have and they'll get the rest from porn because we don't want to educate them.

2nd point - Parents can use software and parental controls to limit TV and internet access to adult material.

That's a cute little fiction but it doesn't hold up in reality.

A pair of investigative journalists put that idea to the test. They gave kids computers with Internet access and parental control software and timed how long it took for them to bypass them and being able to access porn. At most, it took minutes.

You might think that not all kids are tech saavy enough to figure out how to bypass that kind of software but they don't have to, only one has to find out to teach the others and the techniques turn into common knowledge quickly.

The fact they are on view in a newsagents is something that a lot of parents are not happy with, even if they are out of reach of young children.

I assume that in most of the world, it's a non-issue. We're not surrounded by prudes everywhere. I've yet to see a  parent take offense to it around here.

Equally a lot of women find it offensive and I don't blame them really.

I find the porn women read disturbing and I wouldn't advocate hiding it. Heck, it's prominent in any bookstore and not hidden on top shelves.

which would be a good thing offering an alternative to the airbrushed perfection seen in some magazines, which just gives more people insecurities about their bodies.

I wouldn't be too quick to blame the magazines for that. A popular magazine sold in Quebec tried for one issue not to rely on that kind of techniques and women refused to buy it, then went back to airbrusing the next months. Magazines give people what they want.

3rd point - censorship. If a magazine is publishing pornographic material likely to be accessed by persons under a certain age, then yes maybe it should be sold in a plastic wrap and in line with that cultures customs and values. As mentioned some cultures are perfectly comfortable with nudity and sex being in the open. We Brits just aren't at the moment.

Don't you think that having a culture that's too prude hurts the nudist movement?

It doesn't affect the decision to buy it, just restricts the exposure. I don't think explicit adult mags can be compared to other publications such as the Economist, Cosmo, or PC Gamer.

Well, I did compare Playboy once by sheer curiosity and it does have one or two good articles per issue (the rest is on par with Cosmo).

I think basic economics will actually decide if we have either naturist or adult mags in our newsagents.

And will mandate continued airbrushing.

4rd - Japan is a land of very strange contradictions!

Maybe, but easy access to pornographic material is not one of them.

[Delta]

That's a cute little fiction but it doesn't hold up in reality.

A pair of investigative journalists put that idea to the test. They gave kids computers with Internet access and parental control software and timed how long it took for them to bypass them and being able to access porn. At most, it took minutes.

In a way, that is an interesting way at self-selection. If you are smart enough to get around the filters, they probably have a mind that is good enough at using reason to not be scarred for life when they see dirty images.

I wouldn't be too quick to blame the magazines for that. A popular magazine sold in Quebec tried for one issue not to rely on that kind of techniques and women refused to buy it, then went back to airbrusing the next months. Magazines give people what they want.

I would think if people want synthetic perfection, they would switch to full 3D renders already. But apparently, people want the delusion that there is still a real human behind this.

[Dan]

I would think if people want synthetic perfection, they would switch to full 3D renders already. But apparently, people want the delusion that there is still a real human behind this.

How can you gossip about a 3D model?

[keiranmac]

Easier to find.