Taming down PLAYBOY: desirable?

[Brian Sorgatz]

On the subject of taming down the flagship magazine, Dan Stiffler wrote:
>Peggy thinks this idea has the potential of being a disaster.  Steve thinks
>it would be a major error.  Brian thinks it would be wimping out.

Yes, I do think that.  But just as importantly, I think that relegating the 
nudity to other venues would deprive the magazine proper of its role as the 
heart center of the whole enterprise.  Even if it is no longer the source of 
the company's profits, it still has this mythically important role.  And 
don't tell me that my mythological concerns are mere sentimentality or 
idealism.  In the long run, these things have real consequences.

Now that this discussion appears to be winding down, I wish to reveal some 
of the sources of inspiration (besides PLAYBOY itself) for my posts here.  I 
have been greatly influenced by the writings of James Hillman and Thomas 
Moore (not to be confused with Sir Thomas More).  Whenever I wrote of "soul" 
or of "mythic" or "archetypal" matters, I took my cue from them.  For a good 
introduction to their school of thought, I recommend the 1992 book that 
Hillman co-wrote with Michael Ventura, *We've Had a Hundred Years of 
Psychotherapy and the World's Getting Worse*.  This book contains many truly 
radical ideas of interest to PLAYBOY fans.  Like Hef, Hillman condemns the 
widespread puritanism of American society, only Hillman's analysis is more 
sophisticated.  Hillman's ideas about destiny have enriched my understanding 
of the biographical information on PLAYBOY's models.  And Hillman believes 
that not only people, but also things, have souls.  This could have 
interesting implications for PLAYBOY's fascination with material goods.

I have enjoyed participating in this dialogue and getting to know the 
intelligent, good-natured people here.  Thanks to all.

Brian Sorgatz