Celebrities on the Newsstand

Alfred Urrutia rampagingsloth@yahoo.com
Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:37:15 -0700 (PDT)


--- Dan Stiffler <calendar-girls@mindspring.com> wrote:

> You clearly have missed my point, Alfred.  Certainly, men have
> fantasies about sex with women.  And, of course, they can apply those
> fantasies to any attractive (to them) woman, including playmates.  But
> the *particular* relationship that is offered by a PLAYBOY playmate,
> on account of her playmate story and, since 1977, her data sheet, goes
> beyond the primal and instinctual fantasies that men apply to all
> women they would like to have sex with.

Sarcasm, my friend.  I understood what you meant but I think you make
the distinction bigger than it is.  You assume that the Playmate's
personal story will be somehow interesting to the reader.  While I
think they are, who knows how many other guys care.  To put it another
way, what is the average level of caring when a guy is talking up a
girl in a bar/club?  Both examples of girl are equally unknown.

> I will give this one more try.  The original context for my thesis was
> feminist critiques of PLAYBOY.  Alfred's response above simply adds
> another barrel to their shotgun.
> 
> Many people will acknowledge that the female equivalent of male porn
> is the romance novel.  Women read these formulaic books because the
> stories fire their erotic imaginations.  Most of us understand that
> men are often excited by the visual, that women are often excited by a
> romantic story.
> 
> I am arguing that the playmate--with her story--gives the PLAYBOY
> reader a more holistic sexual approach to his fantasy.  He learns
> about the girl *at the same time* he sees her body on display.  Sure,
> he may have "*loads* of preconceived fantasies" that will come into
> play as he desires the playmate, but, if he takes the time to read her
> story, he will also be able to fire his imagination in directions that
> are not preconceived, that are playmate specific.
> 
> In this way, the playmate is a subtle but ingenious cross between male
> and female porn.  Of course there is her beautiful body that excites
> the male viewer.  But there is also the story about her background,
> about her dreams, about her favorite song.  And that story, by all
> accounts, is closely akin to the romance novel.
> 
> This is the point that feminists have often missed in their
> condemnation of the PLAYBOY playmate as simply an object for the male
> gaze: the playmate story.

You also made the point that Playboy is semi-unique in offering this
porn crossing when compared to celebrity pictorials.  I don't think
that's true.  As I said before, other magazines let us know something
about the celebrity through the accompanying interviews - what they're
up to, some "secret" or little known aspect of their lives before
stardom, etc.  So this fantasy fueling is just as effective when you
learn that Jennifer Garner, a celebrity, took ballet lessons as a kid
as when you learn that Tiffany Taylor, a Playmate, owns ferrets.  I
don't see the difference.  Also, many models and actresses who show up
in Maxim and GQ and the like are relative unknowns.  Who knows
anything, really, about Keira Knightley?  Anyone?  I don't, other than
she was in "Bend it like Beckham", so she's just as mysterious, just
as fresh as a Playmate. Yes, some celebrities are well known and their
lives have been sprayed all over tabloids and the news.  But the "in"
thing lately is to get the young actresses and models, the ones with
very little known personal story.  So I'd say that while we know less
about a brand-new Playmate than we do about Jessica Alba or Mandy
Moore, it isn't *much* less.






Alfred.

=====
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"When you're surrounded by midgets with hammers, you know
 you're going to get a pounding."
 - Triple-H, on how horror movies can help you to evaluate
   real life dangers.
Alfred Urrutia                     rampagingsloth@yahoo.com