My life as a Playboy

Mark Tomlonson tomlonson@wmich.edu
Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:44:57 -0500


I was moderately surprised about how many of the things Peggy wrote 
(using CAPITALS no less!) resonate with me and my experience.

Most men respond in some way or other to pretty much any picture of a 
naked woman that is even remotely sexual, and a good deal that aren't. 
Yet of all the pictures of naked woman on the Internet and on the 
newsstand, Playboy is the only producer that I even bother to check out. 
As Peggy indicated, there is definitely something about the graphic 
allure of Playboy.

Context matters, and Playboy pretty much always shows their women in 
context, especially the featured women. They come from somewhere. They 
have a first and last name. They have family. They have hopes and 
dreams, likes and dislikes that have nothing to do with sex.

The sex in Playboy is also part of the larger context of life. Sometimes 
we're sexy, sometimes we're political, sometimes we want a good story, 
sometimes we want to laugh. Because Playboy presents sex in context 
rather than solo it holds my interest long after other nudes have faded 
away.

Playboy is not the only magazine to have published pin-ups with artistic 
value. But they have done it longer and more consistantly than any other 
magazine. It's out of this that I say that Playboy wouldn't be Playboy 
without the centerfold. It's a unique viewing experience on the magazine 
racks. It's not just that the picture is big, it's that most of the time 
it reflects a great deal of thought and preparation on the part of its 
producers. Quality will out, and I can't say too strongly how upset I 
was with Kim Stanfield's centerfold. The Stepford-wife plastic look 
seemed a betrayal of the standards on which Playboy had built its empire.

In an open comment to Peggy, I have no trouble understanding a 
heterosexual woman who appreciates male-oriented erotica on Playboy's 
level. Why do so many ads and features in women's magazines include 
high-quality female nudes? On the surface, it's the basic response to an 
attractive arrangement of form, light and line. On a deeper, 
monkey-brain level, it's the evolutioanry need male and female babies 
have to respond to adult women. Even if you take the heterosexual male 
elements out of a typical Playboy photograph, there is still a lot to 
admire.

As to how I started reading Playboy and why I keep doing it, the reasosn 
have all been spelled out by previous posters. I started reading in 
secret, then buying my own and then realizing how much value is in the 
aerage issue.

Mark Tomlonson
Kalamazoo MI