This project

[Steve Sloca]

Dan Stiffler wrote:
"Steve Sloca recently used a Frank Rich article about Jerry
Bruckheimer to support his (Steve's) call for more a more sexually
explicit PLAYBOY....Steve Sloca apparently wants PLAYBOY to follow the
Bruckheimer formula.  Give the masses what they want, and make them
feel good about paying their $7.00 a pop."

Dan completely missed the point of my citation to the Frank Rich
article.  I have never suggested that Playboy "dumb down" and give the
masses crappy stuff--like "uncovered" Survivor losers and sound-bites
of trivia in every article.  My points were (1) that, contrary to the
assumptions Dan, Donna--and yes, Hugh Hefner (remember that famous
quote from him about "less" nudity)--were making, Americans are not
died-in-the-wool puritans who are only interested in smirking,
snickering "laddie" trash like Maxim; and (2) that mere nudity was not
enough these days to satisfy their "real sex"-seeking, fetish-oriented
desires for visual sexual imagery.  Bruckheimer, who "is the curve,"
as Rich describes him, has clearly understood point (1) and is
prepared to capitalize on it; while Playboy moves backward into
Maximization.  Bruckheimer has not gotten to point (2), but Rich's
column clearly shows that Rich sees that trend, because that is what
explains why "Skin" is now acceptable for mainstream audiences--and he
ends his column with what I interpret as a plea for someone to present
this kind of erotic sexuality with more class and style than the adult
film and mainstream TV industries are now using.  Fifty years ago,
most American commentators and media moguls believed that nudity could
not be shown in America in a mainstream movie or magazine.  Hefner and
Playboy proved them all wrong; and showed that if you present nudity
with class and style, as being a natural and important part of a
modern man's lifestyle, it will sell huge numbers of magazines,
attract millions in ad revenues, and become the foundation of a
popular "brand."  Nowadays, however, mere nudity is passe among those
who are spending money to buy sexual imagery.  But that doesn't mean
that all those purchasers are "dumb rednecks" or "closet perverts."
They are all average Americans who are seeking fuel for their sexual
fantasies; and if a magazine can give them that fuel in a manner which
makes them feel good about themselves when they buy it, it will become
what Playboy was in the '60's.  The way to do that--as Hefner proved
50 years ago--is to present the more explicit imagery which the *real*
buying public wants in a classy, upscale format and make it an
essential part of the "new lifestyle" that men (and women--because men
aren't creating a lifestyle on their own these days) can aspire to.
Penthouse could have done this, but they went much too far too fast.
There may be a time when full penetration sex acts become part of
mainstream movies, TV, etc., but we are not there yet.  But the trend,
I submit, is as Rich describes it; and so any magazine which wants to
be a trend-setter and leader in developing our culture in this decade
has to be keeping up with that trend.  Playboy is not doing that now;
and indeed, it is falling backward by copying Maxim.

Put it this way: who would you rather have presenting sex and
sexuality in the more explicit manner most Americans desire today?
Playboy with the style and class with which it opened the doors for
nudity in the '60's...or FOX, Murdock and Bruckheimer and that ilk,
who "pander" to the lowest level of human interest in sexuality by
treating it as prurient, or "naughty" and/or demeaning to the women
who pose for it?