This project

[Steve Sloca]

Peggy Wilkins wrote:
"What have I left out?  What do you see as being the important factors
in this decline in quality?"

--Loss of leadership on issues affecting "Playboy" lifestyle:

 ----In the past, Playboy was a leader on issues like civil rights, the
First Amendment, and the war in Vietnam, with interviews with Malcolm
X, Martin Luther King, and Dick Gregory, articles by top writers on
political and social issues, the Playboy Philosophy, etc.  This is no
longer the case; and except in the Forum and an occasional article
(the Matt Taibbi piece on the religious right in the September issue
is a rare example), the social ferver which was always associated with
Playboy in the '60's is gone.  Examples of issues that Playboy should
be "out in front" on are freedom vs. censorship on the Internet, the
"Patriot Act" and how it affects individual rights, civil rights for
gays and lesbians, discrimination against Muslims or persons of Middle
Eastern origin, and/or conditioning trade with China on increasing
civil liberties there.

--Failure to keep up with the times on sexuality:

 -----everbody knows my views on showing more in photography, but also
millions of people are buying and using toys these days, buying and
watching hard core videos, experimenting with S & M and a raft of
other fetishes, and engaging in a variety of sexual lifestyles that
would have been very rare 50 years ago.  People have always bought
Playboy because it was in the forefront of sexual issues; but today,
it seems to me to be totally "out of it" as far as sex is concerned
(except on Playboy TV, which still carries some of the spirit of the
"old" Playboy in this regard).  I think this is one of the big reasons
why young people think Playboy is "my Dad's magazine," because it no
longer reflects or even reports on the sexual lifestyles of the
younger generation.  On this point, I saw an hour long program on the
History Channel last night about the legalization of porn in Denmark.
Among many interesting bits, they interviewed this pretty 14 year old
Danish girl; and she very matter-of-factly said, "Yeah, I've seen some
of those videos with women and animals; and they're stupid.  I'd never
buy one.  But people who want to watch such things ought to have the
right to buy them.  It doesn't affect me if other people watch them."
Hearing that, I said to myself, "I wish this girl was an American
because I could trust my First Amendment rights to someone who thought
that way."  This is the kind of thing that Playboy should be covering
and reporting on.

--Failure to broaden its lifestyle to include the international community.
	
  ----Today, we have a growing "world culture," where events, ideas and
lifestyles in Europe, Asia and Latin America particularly, directly
affect almost all of us, in the workplace, in our stores in what we
buy, and in what we see on TV and the media.  Yet, Playboy seems to me
so insular and narrowly focussed on America.  We have previously
mentioned diversity in choosing Playmates; and that is part of what
they can do better, but it is an across-the-board thing.  Playboy has
French, German and Turkish editions; and I am sure they can get some
writers, stories, ideas and viewpoints on the Iraq War from those
editions that its American readers would like to read.  It has
Japanese and Taiwan editions: what are they saying about the nuclear
threat of North Korea, about the failures in the Japanese banking and
industrial system, or about "swinging" in Taipei?  Playboy wants its
brand to be a global brand, like Coca Cola, so its magazine should
likewise be global.  Indeed, the classic "playboy" lifestyle may be
more prevelant now in the large cities of Asia than in America.
Shouldn't we be broadening our horizons, just like the '60's Playboy
did?