In defense of "I've got to potty" (was Re: This project)

[Brian Sorgatz]

Steve Sloca wrote:
> But then women started shaving; and Playboy started to chicken out,
> retrenching to what Mark Tomlonson calls the "I've got to go potty"
> legs-clenched, hips-twisted-to-hide-groin poses.

You make some good points in this post, Steve, but I must protest your
condemnation of this pose.  Frankly, I see it as an example of the
reverse puritanism I discussed in my Playboy Philosophy post.  When a
model puts her legs tightly together, the flesh of each thigh presses
quite beautifully against the pelvis.  I like the curvy, triangular
effect this creates.  So what if we see a little less of the female
organ?

Although I strongly disagree with Dan Stiffler's proposal to tame down
the flagship magazine overall -- it strikes me as a wimpy concession
to the prudes -- I do like the fact that the various non-Playmate
models are often allowed to seek their own level of exhibitionism or
modesty.  I find it fascinating and charming to watch the endless
struggle between these two sides of the female psyche.  When I read in
the press release for the "Women of Enron" pictorial that one of the
ladies insisted on revealing only her backside, I thought, "Awwww,
she's shy."  PLAYBOY is the best girlie magazine because it is the
most sensitive to this eternal drama.  This principle could well be
extended to the celebrity pictorials, which might help persuade
top-grade celebrities to pose.  Besides, there's always the hope that,
on the day of the shoot, the woman could say to herself, "Well, why
not?" and go all the way.

Brian Sorgatz