The "Urbane Sophisticated Man"... and Woman?

[Peggy Wilkins]

>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Sloca <gokings@comcast.net> writes:

    Steve> ... as conceived by Hefner in 1953 and continued
    Steve> for several decades, Playboy was targeted to the "urbane
    Steve> sophisticated man" in the 20-45 year old age group.

Actually, Playboy was aimed at men from "18 to 80" -- this according
to Hugh Hefner's introduction in the very first issue.  It's only the
marketing folks and advertisers who value 18-35 so highly, for
whatever reason (they spend a lot of money?).  Of course Playboy needs
to attract advertisers, so capturing that demographic in large numbers
is especially important for that reason; but Playboy wasn't intended
to attract an exclusively young audience.

    Steve> ...  This new generation of college graduates went to
    Steve> school with ... competitive professional women,
    Steve> who see themselves as the equal of any man... Playboy
    Steve> could reach this audience by eliminating full nudity
    Steve> and copying the Maxim fomula of sophomoric humor and
    Steve> "laddie" lechery, but this would be the end of OFM as
    Steve> we know and love it. 

It shouldn't be surprising that Playboy attracted a more educated,
affluent crowd early on given its content; but I am having a problem
understanding why content like that in Maxim et al would attract such
an educated audience.

    Steve> Instead of this approach, I suggest that Playboy needs
    Steve> ... to treat women, not as the object of
    Steve> jokes and snide whispers like Maxim and its ilk portrays
    Steve> them, but as equally urbane, sophisticated players in the
    Steve> sexual dance.

I was under the impression that Playboy had always treated women that
way, since the Playmate concept first developed in the '50s and
matured in the '60s.  I know that you are referring more to recent
history, where many Playmates get involved with Playboy for hope that
it will help their acting or modeling careers; but the concept of
women as equals is not new to Playboy.  That was, I believe, one of
their innovations.  Perhaps what you want, then, is for them to return
to that earlier concept, or to give the current one a rest for a
while?

    Steve> It should start by remarketing its
    Steve> Playmates, [who] should be picked not just for their
    Steve> beauty ..., but on their accomplishments as
    Steve> professionals, on their personalities as spokespersons, and
    Steve> on their varied interests and achievements as women "on the
    Steve> rise."

Ah, so all Playmates should be Victoria Zdrok!  That could be the
fantasy of some.  However, I think that there are many more types of
women in the world than just the articulate intelligentsia who
ambitiously push for their careers.  The Playboy world has always had
room for all types of women, and individual women will be more or less
smart, more or less ambitious -- they are individuals.  I don't see
any overwhelming need to push only one type, except the beautiful,
photogenic type.  (Of course we could argue that that is precisely
what they have been doing with the LA Club look that has become so
prevalent in the past few years.)  If anything, I suspect making over
the Playmate image in such a singular fashion would result in a lot of
manipulation of the women's stories to make them fit the mold, much
like when the Playmate story details were made up out of thin air; Wil
and Gretchen will probably particularly remember this.

There's no reason a pin-up girl can't be portrayed as the real woman
that she is; but to me there's no question that the number one
attribute of a pin-up girl is that she is photogenic.

    Steve> ... When the
    Steve> average college-educated woman of the '00's can pick up a
    Steve> copy of Playboy, flip to the foldout, and tell her husband
    Steve> or boyfriend that she would like to be like the current PM,

Wouldn't an intelligent, ambitious Playmate be even more threatening
to women than a more "average" type?  I just can't see most women
looking at a sexy nude photograph -- the competition, in a woman's
eyes -- and not seeing that as threatening.  Perhaps many would think
that not only don't they measure up in looks, but also in
accomplishment.  I don't see this having the effect that you are
envisioning.

To me, the fact is that Playboy is just not meant for everybody, and
changing the presentation of the Playmate isn't going to change that.
If the magazine overall is good, then those who like it will read it.

Build it, and they will come.