Going Forward

[Donna Tavoso]

Steve wrote:
> Actually, the Playmates (and other models) have no say whatsoever in
> which of the 100s of pictures taken at a photoshoot actually get
> published.

Steve is right Playmates don't, but cover models do get some say and
that was what she was this time.  So she did have some input in how
she was shot --

> 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.

Playboy was never, ever, ever a coffee table magazine in mainstream
American homes -- except maybe the Hefners and I guess yours.  I grew
up in a house where my father read Playboy but it never sat on a
coffee table and I seriously challenge the assertion that it did in
too many others.

> 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

A lovely story, again let me point out that a very large group of
Americans just had the clout to pull Maxim and FHM off the shelf at
Wal Mart and succeed in getting blinders placed in front of Cosmo and
other women's magazines.  That completely negates any other point you
want to make.  You can point to anything you want, but the fact is
that Americans are puritans at heart.

> As soon as the women of the world put their foot down, Maxim and its
> ilk will be "closeted" faster than Playboy was.

What women of the world want Maxim closed, I don't.  I don't love it,
although at time I will admit to finding it humorist.  I'm not
intimidated by it and while I think that it plays to a men's lowest
denominator but so do the cheesy romance novels that alot of women
read.

> 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.  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.

I couldn't disagree more and I again feel as if we read different
magazines.  Playboy is a magazine for men and while it I think it's
great that women embrace it, I love reading it, it shouldn't be
written or edited to appease women or make them comfortable -- it
should be written for the men for who it is intended.  And there are
plenty of articles in the magazine that portray women in a real way.

> 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.

I don't think anyone would argue that Europeans are more open sexually
than Americans, most of my European friends also think that being
faithful in marriage is old fashioned as well.  Americans don't and I
think it's unrealistic to think you are going to change the culture we
live in.  Yes, Playboy should do a better job of pushing the envelop
and challenging Americans to step outside their box and see the world
in a different way, but I certainly have no desire to see the American
edition of Playboy show the explicit shots that are in the foreign
editions.

> 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.

You're darn right I'll say it, and I'll say it because you can't
compare two completely different economic times and make them equal.
During it's heyday the magazine didn't need to depend on advertising
because circulation was its main source of revenue -- that is no
longer the case.  Not for Playboy and not for any major magazine.

> 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).

Great, when they take the risk and another 80 people lose their job
because it doesn't work (which it won't because we live in America and
as much as you might wish it was more open sexually it's not), do they
call you Steve.  Not to be harsh but you are so far off base that I
almost feel absurd responding.  To think that advertisers who are
already sensitive to the nudity in Playboy (and yes a great many run
in the foreign editions) would come running to Playboy if the magazine
became even racier is beyond words to me.

As far as Playboy being a leader rather than a follower, I couldn't
agree more -- I don't think that needs to be done by being more
explicit just more creative and trying to make changes that are
innovative.  I believe those things take time --

Donna