A-listers and Explicitness

[Steve Sloca]

Dan Stiffler wrote:
"I don't see how in the hell becoming even more explicit--as Steve
suggests, more European--is going to put PLAYBOY back on the coffee tables
of America.  Full frontal nudity took it off the coffee tables in the first
place and eventually took it off the drug and grocery store magazine racks.
There must be some kind of reverse psychology that I am missing in Steve's
proposal."

No, it is a lot more simple than employing "reverse psychology."  I am
suggesting that despite the public pronouncements of the neo-Puritans
like Bush, Ashcroft and their ilk, a vast "silent majority" of
Americans ARE interested in viewing, talking about and reading about
explicit nudity and sex, as evidenced by their purchases of adult
videos and DVDs, their visits to strip clubs, and their purchase of
what the Ashcrofts would label "porn" over the internet. They now feel
that they have to explore these interests, as well as their interests
in fetishes and other such aspects of sexuality, "in secret," just
like they feel they have to hide any Playboys they may purchase,
because feminism, backlash public prudery and the lack of any socially
acceptable "coffee table" product make these interests and desires
"politically incorrect" at the moment.  This is EXACTLY the way the
American public felt about mere nudity itself 50 years ago when Hefner
tapped that "secret" interest in sexuality and made it part of the
public's consciousness.  Hefner did not "invent" the female nude or
the concept of an urbane professional who was interested in looking at
nudes.  He simply recognized--before anyone else--what men of the
'50's and '60's were really thinking and dreaming of in private; and
then found a medium in which to present these thoughts in a socially
acceptable way.  That is what Playboy is NOT doing today.  It has lost
touch with the sexual interests and desires of the current generation
of yuppies; and it is only trying to survive by mimicking what other
publications and media think will sell to this group.

Moreover, it is NOT "full frontal nudity" that took Playboy off the
coffee tables.  It is--for the liberals--the feminist concept that the
nude Playmates and any "undressed" celebrities were being exploited
and abused by being turned into sex objects, and--for the
conservatives--the concept that ANY form of public nudity is immoral,
harmful to young people and destructive of the family.  For this
latter group, Playboy is lumped together with nudity in movies and TV,
nudity in advertising, and nudity in any other media as an "evil"
which must be banned.  The opposition of feminists to the "Playboy
lifestyle," which they saw as the "objectivization" of women,
coincided with the social backlash against the hedonism of the '60's
to drive Playboy "underground," i.e., into the category of "girlie
mag" that the politically correct male could not be seen to read.
This, more than anything, is responsible for Playboy's loss of 4
million subscribers.

Moreover, Playboy regularly published "explicit" full frontal photos
in the '70's and '80's.  However, women did not shave their pubic hair
in those days, so what you saw in such photos was just the pubic
"bush."  Nowadays most women, and virtually all models, shave their
pubic hair.  Why?  Because they think it is a more attractive and sexy
look to be trim and neat in that erotic zone.  Most men would agree
with that conclusion.  So why would Playboy refrain from publishing
photos that were more attractive and sexy than those it was used to
publishing?  Because they were afraid of the Philistines and adopted a
more puritannical stance on nudity to try to molify them.  I am of the
opinion that if Playboy went the way Dan suggests, to become a
"topless only" magazine, it would lose the rest of its long-time
subscribers.

Where did those 4 million former subscribers to Playboy go?  Just
about the time Playboy began losing subscribers, the VCR became cheap
enough that everyone bought them; and the adult video business took
off.  Later the internet came into being, and pictures of naked
women--many of which were "full frontal"--became the most sought after
product that the internet has ever offered.  To ignore these facts is
to ignore the lesson of the "Emporer's New Clothes."

Donna Tavoso wrote:
" You can point to anything you want, but the fact is
that Americans are puritans at heart."

Wrong!  Americans are puritans just on the surface, just like most of
them profess to be Christian.  However, they are not monks at heart.
The huge volumes of dollars paid for vicarious and voyeuristic sex
tells us that.  As the old saying goes, "money talks"; and the money
paid by Americans for adult videos and internet porn dwarfs Playboy's
revenues.  You cannot judge America's conscience by Wal-Mart, whose
largest and oldest store base is in the Bible Belt South; nor can you
judge America's morality by Madison Avenue's distribution of ad
revenues.  Advertisers push the envelope as far as using sex to sell
products just as far as they think they can without encountering a
backlash from the vocal minority of "moralists."  (Some of them even
push further to create a backlash, to get their product in the public
eye that way.)  If Playboy's total circulation (subscriptions plus
newsstand sales) were to double, the advertisers would find a way to
justify advertising in the magazine.  And, if Playboy were to become
the institution of culture and sophistication it once was, the
"A-list" glamour celebrities who wanted to raise their standing in the
minds of such a large, cultured, sophisticated, "with it" audience
would find a way to justify posing nude for the magazine.

In short, the "silent majority" of Americans are far more interested
in sex and explicit sexual imagery than the moralistic-sounding
preachers and politicians would have us believe.  Right now, they are
spending their money on adult videos, strip clubs and internet porn
because it is not "socially accepable" to publicly display their
interests. But their economic interest in explicit sexual imagery, not
merely occasional glimpses of nudity, is clear.  What was labled
"daring" 50 years ago is passe today. Even the puerile types who
hunger to undress celebrities are disgusted when they get only topless
or partial nudity in a Playboy pictorial.

America today is much like America was in the '50's as far as this
schism between surface moralism and under-the-table reality is
concerned; and just like Hefner found in the '50's, there is a great
opportunity for a magazine with vision, courage and and a strong
philosophy (or "lifestyle message" if you prefer that) to bring
America's pre-occupation with sex back into the mainstream.  The trick
is to find the right mix of sophistication, literate writing, humor,
culture (i.e, music, art, fashion and food and drink) to accomplish
this end.  Playboy found it once, and then lost its vision and over
half of its audience.  I suggest it can find it again.