When it comes to the whole "What is porn" debate I generally apply the old "I know it when I see it" saw. So when two respected mainstream magazines were recently accused of peddling "filth" I stumbled drunkenly to newsstands to apply the litmus test. And...um...I dunno? Upon rigorous scrutiny, I can only determine that neither of them gave me that funny "Uh, now would not be the time" feeling. (Although look! NY Mag just posted outtakes!) The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue was the usual assortment of photos of bodaciously babelicious babetacular Barbielike babes posing in bikinis in ways guys have always supposedly loved. The Lilo pictures: well, the color grainy and weird, so while the gratuitous addition of actual bare nipple seemed slightly more porniful than SI, it wasn't really doing it for me. So I leave it to you readers! What's more close to being actual porn? Some of the most prurient evidence I could scan up after the jump.

That's the out-and-out porniest shot I found in SI. It doesn't appear to be on the website. Still...tame, right? Or is that just conditioning?

Ah, Lilo.

This is Formula 1 driver Danica Patrick. I just stuck her in because I was fucking impressed that someone who wears one of those suits to work would bother to have such a flawless body. I mean, I understand — laxatives, Master Cleanse, photoshop — still. She tells the magazine she drives commando and that she'd never pose nude. Is there a difference?

I found this in SI, too. Thanks for reminding me I'm straight, guys!