Philosophy (was scattered shots)

Steve Sloca Steve Sloca" <gokings@comcast.net
Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:20:44 -0400


Donna Tavoso wrote:
" [M]y point was more that everyone is always griping about how
Playmates aren't on the cover enough etc, and here Playboy puts one on
the cover to help support her in her new movie and then does press to
support the issue and her movie (she's not the star, the studio wasn't
going to get her on any show) and she slams Playboy by telling people
not to buy the issue.  If she didn't like the photos she could have
spoken up at the photo shoot (and yes they do and can)"

Actually, the Playmates (and other models) have no say whatsoever in
which of the 100s of pictures taken at a photoshoot actually get
published.  All they see is the test Polaroids which the photographer
takes to test lighting, setting, etc.  They may like these, but not
like some of their poses during the shoot.  However, they are never
called back to evaluate their photos after the film is developed.  I
have heard dozens of Playmates say they didn't like the pictures which
Playboy published from their shoot, even though they liked other shots
which were not published.  Now that some of the "other" shots are
finding an audience in the Cyber Club, fans can see what they mean.
Very frequently, fans on the PML and in this forum have commented that
a Cyber Club version of a Playmate shot is much nicer than the ones
published.  More seriously, though, the reaction of Nikki when asked
about her Playboy photos is very typical of almost all Playmates who
get into mainstream acting.  They all try to play down their Playboy
appearances, saying things like "that is behind me, in my past" or
words to that effect.  One Playmate who recently got a part in a
series pilot called me to ask if she could "erase" all of her Playboy
photos on the Internet, because she thought it would hurt her chances
of having the pilot picked up if it were widely known that she was a
Playmate.  Once upon a time, Playboy was a "coffee table magazine,"
for which A-list celebrities were proud to pose, because it was
accepted and approved as a major, influential publication in a
majority of homes (particularly among the '60's and '70's
generations).  That is no longer true.  A combination of a reactionary
Puritanism, fear of casual sex as a result of the AIDS epidemic, and
the rise of feminism (which proclaims that posing nude is demeaning to
women and that men who look at nudes are sexist) has relegated Playboy
to the closet, to the back shelves of newsstands (or off other
newsstands altogether), and into the category of "distasteful girlie
magazine" in the minds of many.  Thus, you won't find many (if any)
A-list stars willing to pose for it--only "15 second celebrities,"
like the reality show losers seeking to capitalize on their brief
fame, or has been's seeking to revive a fading career (Belinda
Carlisle, Carnie Wilson, etc.) are willing to risk the opprobrium of
posing nude in Playboy.  The question of the moment is whether Playboy
can ever regain "coffee table" status in the majority of American
homes.  I think it can.  Despite the outward signs of conformity to
the neo-Puritan moralism of today, millions of Americans are accessing
nudity--and a lot more than that--on the internet, in adult films
purchased by mail or over the internet, and increasingly in mainstream
media as well.  When characters in popular shows visit strip clubs
(The Sopranos), talk about sex excessively (Sex in the City) or have a
pornographer as a main character (Family Business), you know that
there is a major undercurrent of demand for sex and nudity presented
in a sophisticated way.  The following story is indicative of how far
we have come in the Sexual Revolution:

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/exports/ct_email.asp?/news/934252.asp

But Playboy has to tap that demand.  Its current product is too much
"my Dad's stuff" for the younger generation--accentuated by having a
septugenarian spokesperson as Playboy's symbol--and it is not going to
keep its older audience by "Maximizing" its content.  You see this
already in longtime subscribers cancelling their subscriptions over
Carnie and the current product.  Maxim appeals to latent sexism in men
(leering at celebrities for that hint of nipples, as Dan describes
viewing Anna K pics in Maxim) and to their most juvenile impulses
(Maxim's obsession with farting being a big example).  As soon as the
women of the world put their foot down, Maxim and its ilk will be
"closeted" faster than Playboy was.

In my opinion, Playboy cannot ignore, as it has tried to do for the
last decade, the new world where women are equal and partners with
men.  An upwardly-mobile yuppie male of today is not like the
"playboy" of the '60's, i.e. the sole breadwinner, making all of the
decisions, and having "arm candy" women surrounding him.  He has given
way to women who are major income sources, major players in business
and the professions, and who demand an equal say in all household
decisions--like which magazines to buy.  Thus, if Playboy is to regain
"coffee table" status, it must be acceptable to women too.  Its
Playmates must be real people that women can identify with, as well as
men.  Its articles and stories must be those which women are portrayed
as real people and which women might find interesting too.  It can
still be primarily "entertainment for men," but it must be at least
acceptable to women.  Given the number of women who secretly yearn to
be in Playboy--evidenced by the numbers who try out, the nude
calendars popping up everywhere with ordinary women posing, etc.--this
is a goal that is very reachable.  But Playboy needs to change to
adopt to this new world, not continue with its "'60's playboy" image.

Moreover, I agree with those who think that Playboy needs a new
philosphy for the changed times we live in, one which goes beyond the
philosophy of the '60's and promotes sexuality in a more aggressive
way.  It should not give in to the Philistines and try to hide its
women or its focus on sexuality as a major factor in human life, and
in the life of a "playboy" male (or female).  The huge market on the
internet now is for much more explicit photography, fetishes, toys,
and more interactive sexuality.  Millions, probably tens of millions,
of Americans have made known their interest in those things by their
"secret" internet purchases. Playboy can be the leader it once was by
bringing these "secret" desires into the mainstream of American life.
It has already learned that it can make a profit--its only profit--by
getting more explicit in its TV, internet, and video businesses; but
it resists bringing that into the magazine.  I am told that Hef is the
resistance; but whatever the source, somebody needs to see that
presenting what the audience wants in a sophisticated way (just like
Playboy did for mere nudity in the '60's) is the way to increasing its
readership.

Moreover, there is a great need for Americans to be reconciled to
their sexuality.  Most Europeans think we are strange prudes, afraid
to show openly that we are interested in things sexual, but gobbling
up cheaply made porn at a stupendous rate.  In their view, we are all
"closet pervs" in our sexual attitudes.  In the French Playboy, porn
stars are often in its centerfold--still presented in a Playboy style,
but with explicit open leg shots--and its stories and articles are
overtly graphic.  I am told that the French Playboy is even "tame" by
French standards, but certainly a "coffee table" publication in their
eyes.  I can't read most of the languages in the other foreign
editions of Playboy that I collect, but I suspect that they, too, have
adopted much more liberal standards befitting a greater openness about
sex.  [All of the PMLers who get all excited about tiny glimpses of
genitals in some Playmate portfolios should buy the foreign
editions--they use the mostly the same photos and others from the same
shoots, but without airbrushing the pubic area; and there are wide
open crotch shots of most of the current Playmates in one or more
foreign editions.]  Thus, just like Hefner realized in the '50's that
there was a need in America for a publication which was open about
nudity and sex as part of the "playboy" lifestyle, there is a need
today for a publication that covers all aspects of human sexuality and
brings it into the mainstream of American thought.  Only then will
Playboy regain the avant guarde, leading edge cache it once had, and
be left on the coffee tables of American homes.

Now I know Donna and others will say, "Oh they can't take that
risk...advertisers won't go for it...we've got to get back on Wal-Mart
shelves," etc.  But wasn't that what everyone said about Hef and
Playboy in the '50's?  He took the risks then; and it paid off in a 7
million circulation, huge advertising revenues and the Mansion.
Playboy needs leadership which is willing to take those risks today.
Its hard core TV, video and internet revenues will sustain it until
its publication becomes "coffee table" again; and then the advertisers
will come running (just look at the same advertisements in European
publications, where nudity is commonplace).  The Playboy I knew and
loved was a leader, not a follower, of public opinion; and that was
what made it successful.  Hef had a vision of the "playboy" which
turned out to be what American men most wanted to dream about.  We
need a new Hef with a vision to re-create the "playboy" in the 21st
Century, with his professional woman girlfriend, gadgetry, internet
savvyness, and fantasies about dominatrixes and girl/girl voyeurism.
Can that be presented in a "cool," sophisticated way?  I think so; and
that should be Playboy's Philosophy for the new Millennium.