Jump to content

In other news...


tkdguy

Recommended Posts

 

I haven't actually looked at a Playboy in decades. So my views could be out of date.

 

But there has always been this idea of "I only read it for the articles" being a joke. I always figured anyone who thought that was a joke was someone who never ever actually looked at the magazine. There WAS no other reason I could see to read it except for the articles and fiction. You could have taken the nudity and sexual matter out and 90% of the magazine would still be there and it would still have been a world class magazine. If I wanted sexy pictures, I looked at Cosmopolitan or at one of the men's magazines that really specialized in that sort of thing - which playboy didn't.

 

So my reaction to the news they're dropping nudes is - who's going to miss 'em? I suspect they long ago passed the point at which having nudity was driving away more readers than it was drawing in. All they did was draw attention away from everything else the magazine had to offer.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I doubt anyone reads my posts just looking for the palindromedary tagline either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must disagree.  Yes, Playboy has had, and undoubtedly will continue to have, world class articles and fiction. But that wasn't the reason the magazine became such a huge hit.  And it wasn't just the nudes in and of themselves that made Playboy a hit--granted, they were what got people's attention to begin with, and certainly there are more explicit images of female nudity, both still and moving, which can be found quite easily on the Internet or almost anywhere else. That does not mean there is not a place for Playboy in men's entertainment--or in society for that matter.

 

One of the things that Playboy did when they first started photographing their own Playmates and models was that they depicted the women as enjoying sex and being with men as much the men enjoyed being with them. This was done through the choice of props to reflect, as I understand how Hefner put it, "the presence of a man." A necktie draped across a chairback, the woman wearing a man's shirt, two half-full cocktail glasses rather than one--all that and more (especially in the cartoons) were part of cultivating this idea, which at the time seemed quite revolutionary, and even in an age where it seems like everyone and her sister has a page on a webcam site, it's an idea which to my mind is still worthy of attention.

 

I don't know what Playboy hopes to accomplish by getting rid of the idea that made it a hit in the first place, and no matter how they attempt to spin it, it still seems like a win for the anti-sex activists who have dogged Playboy since its inception. I remember an interview with Hefner in which he described the history of sexual liberation in America as being "two steps forward, one step backward." It always seemed to me like Hefner and Playboy were the ones leading the two steps forward, and I don't know who, if anyone, will take their place.

 

Just my thoughts on the subject--take them as you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe--but Hefner does have two sons, Marston and Cooper, by his second wife Kimberly Conrad.  Both of them are young adults and have dated Playmates in the past,  It's possible they might step into his slippers and slip into his smoking jacket when the elder Hefner passes on, becoming the heirs to the Playboy spirit, if not the actual business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be an insurance issue.

 

It is. It's easy and I'm sure fun to paint the woman as a villain and boo and hiss at her for suing her nephew, but the villain in the piece is the insurance company that offered one dollar towards her medical bills because they knew they could use an 8 year old boy for a legal human shield.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And have you ever tried to insure a palindromedary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must disagree.  Yes, Playboy has had, and undoubtedly will continue to have, world class articles and fiction. But that wasn't the reason the magazine became such a huge hit.  And it wasn't just the nudes in and of themselves that made Playboy a hit--granted, they were what got people's attention to begin with, and certainly there are more explicit images of female nudity, both still and moving, which can be found quite easily on the Internet or almost anywhere else. That does not mean there is not a place for Playboy in men's entertainment--or in society for that matter.

 

One of the things that Playboy did when they first started photographing their own Playmates and models was that they depicted the women as enjoying sex and being with men as much the men enjoyed being with them. This was done through the choice of props to reflect, as I understand how Hefner put it, "the presence of a man." A necktie draped across a chairback, the woman wearing a man's shirt, two half-full cocktail glasses rather than one--all that and more (especially in the cartoons) were part of cultivating this idea, which at the time seemed quite revolutionary, and even in an age where it seems like everyone and her sister has a page on a webcam site, it's an idea which to my mind is still worthy of attention.

 

I don't know what Playboy hopes to accomplish by getting rid of the idea that made it a hit in the first place, and no matter how they attempt to spin it, it still seems like a win for the anti-sex activists who have dogged Playboy since its inception. I remember an interview with Hefner in which he described the history of sexual liberation in America as being "two steps forward, one step backward." It always seemed to me like Hefner and Playboy were the ones leading the two steps forward, and I don't know who, if anyone, will take their place.

 

Just my thoughts on the subject--take them as you will.

 

Yes, it was radical to present women as playMATES rather than playTHINGS - as sexual and social equals desiring sexual fulfillment and entitled to it. To present sex as a source of mutually beneficial pleasure rather than something men need to be ashamed of because it's a base and sinful compulsion inflicted upon reluctant women. And you are right that these are still radical ideas in need of attention, discussion, and even advocacy. The role of Playboy in the sexual revolution, and the nature of that revolution, like the civil rights movement, as a still ongoing struggle, could easily be the basis of its own thread.

 

But I don't see this particular move on Playboy's part as "a win for the anti-sex advocates." If anything, it looks to me more like an acknowledgment that the front lines of the revolution have moved on.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I'm not even going to try to explain to the palindromedary what we're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the feel good to the WTF?

 

The camerawoman who tripped fleeing refugees plans to sue a) Facebook and B) one of those she tripped.

 

She's doubling down on it and still claims she's innocent because she tripped them out of fear....or something.

 

http://mashable.com/2015/10/20/camerawoman-kick-refugee-sue-facebook/#abakf_BwYEqr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...