I think you are confusing eroticism with pornography, and they are not necessarily the same thing.
The fact that a publication features nudity or very sexually suggestive imagery does not automatically make it pornographic. Art has explored the naked human body and sexuality for centuries, long before pornography became the industry we know today.
Yummy is an artistic publication that celebrates the male body, sensuality and sexuality. Its purpose is not simply to produce sexually explicit material for the gratification of its audience. There is an artistic vision, an editorial identity and a creative process behind what they do.
You are absolutely entitled to find the content sexually appealing. Nobody is denying that, and I have never suggested otherwise. But the fact that someone finds an image sexually stimulating does not automatically turn it into pornography. Otherwise, practically any explicit nude artwork could be classified as such.
And once again, my original argument was never about what subscribers find attractive or what they do privately while looking at the content. It was about the disrespectful language some people use when discussing models and the sense of entitlement that comes with demanding increasingly explicit material.
You can appreciate erotic imagery without reducing the people appearing in it to sexual objects. That is the distinction I have been trying to make from the beginning and Yummy has never presented itself as a pornographic publication, and it has no obligation to become one simply because you or some subscribers would prefer more explicit content.
There is nothing morally superior about asking people to treat models with dignity and respect. It is simply something that should be common decency.
