Sure, you can see naughty bits, but when I see the word "porn," I tend to think of naughty bits TOUCHING each other, rhythmically. Not naughty bits touched by the Soften tool in Photoshop.

And instead of just saying to myself, dammit, he stole my thunder, and moving on, I felt the need to tell you that. Playboy is NOT porn. But I suppose that it was the word that best fit the writer's purposes at the moment, even if it's not accurate.

It wasn't simply the female form men drooled over in Playboy. It was the gear as well. That's been taken over to a degree by Maxim and the other "let's pretend we're not porn" men's magazines, but Playboy was there first.

The exact cappucino machine to buy, the right Italian sports car, the perfectly tailored men's clothes...that was part of "the Playboy Philosophy" that made a lot of money for the magazine. In fact, an expensive, elaborate, flashy and basically useless device like the iPhone has probably been celebrated in the "gimmee" pages of Playboy by now, set next to a platinum-plated nose hair trimmer. It's supposed to be something more elegant than buying an F150 pickup or a Hummer, but all this stuff does the same thing; helping a man to define himself, not through any intrinsic qualities, but through the crap he buys.

Pictures of naked women or men, intended for sexual excitement, aren't porn? What an odd definition. Skin magazines prior to—what? Screw?—weren't porn?

"Anything that can be used for sex, and anything else, will be used for sex."

Corollary 1:

The first important employment of any new communication technology or medium, is porn.

Corollary 1a:

Somewhere, there is porn of it.

I deeply apologize for attempting to make a joke. But simply saying it wasn't funny would have sufficed. The constipated essays were unnecessary.

Porn = actual depiction of one hoo-ha entering another hoo-ha. Anything else might be called adult material. But we gotta keep a whole nuther word for depiction of the actual act. Otherwise, we got anarchy.