Talk:Shūkan Gendai
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Boneyard90 in topic Category:Pornographic magazines?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shūkan Gendai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Category:Pornographic magazines?
editI have no doubt that this magazine is a raunchy tabloid, but is it really pornographic? It doesn't seem to be forbidden to minors. Featuring nude photographs doesn't make it more pornographic than any lowbrow British like The Sun. Bikasuishin (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- However this mag shows pubes, which the Sun doesnt. The article also implies that it shows several nude photos, not just one. Willy turner (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I see. So basically, it's oh-my-god-porn because it contains nudity. I don't even know why I bothered asking whether it is appropriately tagged. Bikasuishin (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nudity in the form of photos of nude or lightly clothed models in an idealized sexual context, so yes, "porn". Not artistic nudes, or cultural nudity like NatGeo, but porn. Classy, or not "hardcore", but sure, porn. And because its main focus is not porn, I would not be surprised it it was not restricted from sales to minors. Such periodicals and similar "light porn" are frequently seen in Japanese convenience stores and bookstores on shelves accessible to minors. - Boneyard90 (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I see. So basically, it's oh-my-god-porn because it contains nudity. I don't even know why I bothered asking whether it is appropriately tagged. Bikasuishin (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)