This project

[Dan Stiffler]

On 7/30/03 4:19 PM, "Steve Sloca" <gokings@comcast.net> wrote:
 
> Dan completely missed the point of my citation to the Frank Rich
> article.  I have never suggested that Playboy "dumb down" and give the
> masses crappy stuff--like "uncovered" Survivor losers and sound-bites
> of trivia in every article.  My points were (1) that, contrary to the
> assumptions Dan, Donna--and yes, Hugh Hefner (remember that famous
> quote from him about "less" nudity)--were making, Americans are not
> died-in-the-wool puritans who are only interested in smirking,
> snickering "laddie" trash like Maxim; and (2) that mere nudity was not
> enough these days to satisfy their "real sex"-seeking, fetish-oriented
> desires for visual sexual imagery.

O.K.  I guess I got carried away with the Bruckheimer paradigm.

However, I feel I do need to clarify a few things because Steve continues to
misrepresent *my* point about nudity in the magazine.

First of all, Donna may have made a comment about Puritan America, but she
has denied making a call for less nudity in the magazine.  As far as I know,
I am the only one who has entertained the idea of returning to 60s standards
of nudity.  So Steve's linking the two of us on this subject is incorrect.

Secondly, I have (I thought) made clear that I have proposed dropping the
full-frontal photos only in the flagship magazine.  I have made this
suggestion for two reasons: increased advertising revenue and increased
distribution in the marketplace; i.e., the financial health of the magazine.
It's not that I don't enjoy the full-frontal nudes in today's PLAYBOY, but I
do believe that PLAYBOY will be stuck with a dwindling advertising base and
a behind-the-counter placement (if any at all) at the newsstands unless it
makes some adjustments regarding the explicit nature of its photos.  On the
other hand, I would fully endorse explicit, even hard-core, images and
videos for PEI's other venues and products.  Indeed, I have said several
times on this subject that the newsstand specials and the cyber-club offer
places for PLAYBOY to present playmates and other models in the
"'real-sex'-seeking, fetish-oriented" manner about which Steve writes (I
think).

James Kaminsky is fond of talking about "entry points" to the articles in
PLAYBOY.  I would approach that phrase from a different angle and use the
flagship magazine as an "entry point" (I am doing my best to keep from
punning here) to a larger range of porn that PEI could offer.  The
mainstream magazine then would titillate the reader and entice him to join
the cyber-club and buy other PEI products.  As it is now, when PLAYBOY
encourages its readers to "see video and more nudes of [the model] at
cyber.playboy.com," PEI is not upping the ante, only providing more of the
same.  Gosh, if a playmate wanted to get a little wild and do a XXX video
for PEI, I would most likely buy it, and others would too.  I bought Michael
Ninn's Temptations, starring Victoria Zdrok and Lynn Thomas, an X-rated film
that, as Steve has said, PEI should have made--if only they didn't have such
a schizophrenic, even hypocritical, attitude about porn, something about
which I have long complained on the PML (anybody remember my debate with
Craig Anthony about the meaning of "porn"?).

To be pedantically clear: PLAYBOY could improve its financial health and its
newsstand presence by returning to 60s standards of nudity; PEI could offer
porn at all-core levels with its newsstand specials, cyber-club, TV
channels, and videos.  And to make the package perfect, I would like to see
the content of the flagship magazine (including the covers) return to 60s
levels of *quality* too.  O.K.  So it's a long shot.

Finally, I guess I need some clarification about what Steve means by a
"'real-sex' seeking" PLAYBOY.  I understand his cultural arguments about a
post-feminist world, an internet-driven porn-providing world, and I find
those arguments convincing.  However, I don't understand what Steve is
expecting from PLAYBOY when he calls for the European-style open-crotch
shots, yet no pink or manipulated labia.  Hell, Steve, PLAYBOY has been
doing the spread-leg number since the mid-70's.  We are both old enough to
remember the drama of Debra Peterson's centerfold:

http://cyber.playboy.com/members/playmates/files/1976/06/centerfold-med.html

Or a few years later, Karen Morton's labia on display:

http://cyber.playboy.com/members/playmates/files/1978/07/centerfold-med.html

Since those days, the ones that Wil and others insist on calling PLAYBOY's
"nadir," PLAYBOY has not been at all squeamish about displaying its models'
genitals.  Furthermore, as I believe Steve has pointed out himself, with
today's shaving styles, it's damn hard to present a model full-frontal
without showing her genitals.  Maybe Steve wants the blue panties removed
from the photo of Luci Victoria on page 96 of the Sept 03 PLAYBOY.  And I
guess I want the cyber-club or a newsstand special to provide that shot.

While I may still be uncertain about what Steve's "'real-sex' seeking"
PLAYBOY would look like, I am quite certain that any move towards a more
explicit PLAYBOY will be just another move away from mainstream advertisers
and another step closer to Larry Flynt's publications, which are not carried
by Barnes and Noble and are filled with 1-900 advertising.

Of course I may be wrong.  Maybe all the GAP is waiting for is a PLAYBOY
that promotes its (the GAP's, that is) namesake.

couldn't resist forever,

Dan Stiffler