More skin or less....

[Steve Sloca]

Brian Sorgatz writes:
"I am somewhere between Steve and Dan in the explicitness debate: I
like the status quo.  In particular, I defend the thighs-together pose
that some guys derisively call the "I-have-to-pee" pose.  I think it's
charming.  Good cheesecake is an interplay between exhibitionism and
modesty (or at least mock-modesty)."

I agree that Brian's definition is a good one for "cheescake," but
"cheesecake" is what you will find in Maxim, FHM or any movie mag--or
in earlier years by Esquire and the "saucy" calendars of the 1950's.
But Playboy has always, to me, represented a level of erotica beyond
"cheesecake."  In Playboy, women have always been presented as truly
sensual, with the promise of erotic enjoyment always at least implied
in their photos and in their treatment in the articles.  For example,
if you talk to any of the PM's about their posing, most of them will
tell you that Playboy's photographers wanted the "pouting" look,
rather than a friendly grin, in their CF's and pictorials.  That
explicitly sensual look is really the hallmark of Playboy glamour
photography; and it is what makes the Playmates such objects of
fantasy for so many men.  Unfortunately, today's Playboy tries to hide
that sensuality when the photograph includes the lower body.

It didn't use to be that way.  If you look at the pictorials and CF's
of the '70's, you will find many open leg, explicitly erotic poses in
almost every issue.  Of course, Playboy's airbrushers added extra
pubic hair or shadows to hide the labia and clitoris in the US edition
in those days, so unless you can find the European issues with the
same pictorials, the full erotic appeal of those images is somewhat
muted.  However, even airbrushed, those '70's pictorials were a lot
more sensual--and thus true to Playboy's image--than are the "gotta go
potty" or awkward-contorted- pose-to-hide-the-pubes photos of today's
issues.  The modern practice of women shaving their pubic hair plus
PEI's fear of the Religious Right has combined to give Playboy's
photography a case of schizophrenia.

I suspect that one reason some men, particularly those over 40, prefer
the less explicit, less erotic poses is that in their fantasies, women
are shy, fragile creatures, almost virginal in their sexual
experience, i.e., women who need to be coddled, protected and "taken
care of" by the strong, masculine fantasizer who dreams of becoming
her master and guide in the bedroom.  That was an attitude that women
were encouraged to cultivate for hundreds of years; and a belief set
that men have held for many, many generations in what was a
male-dominant culture.  However, while there may still be some shy,
fragile, virginal women out there, they are fast becoming a dying
breed; and most men--and thus most potential Playboy readers--are
going to have to develop their fantasies and their relationships with
more modern women.

For example, my 28-year old Vietnamese niece has a face which is
clearly PM material (think Lisa Marie Scott) and a 34-22-33 body on a
4'10" frame which is as curvy as Angela Little's.  If it wasn't for a
crippled leg from childhood polio, she would be a shoo-in for a
centerfold; and with an M.B.A. in taxation and a position as a
corporate benefits planner for Fortune 500 companies, she is a perfect
example of the intelligent, educated and strikingly beautiful woman
with whom today's "Playboy man" would love to develop a relationship.
Yet, she constantly complains to me about her boyfriends, who always
try to "protect" her, or to "take charge" of their activities, or to
treat her as "fragile and innocent" in the bedroom.  In her mind, she
is every bit as capable as a man in building a flowerbox for her
condominium patio, in planning a long weekend at an out-of-town
resort, or in investing her (or his) funds in a good growth
investment; and she believes she knows far more than any man about
what turns her on when the lights go out.  I think my niece is the
kind of woman that the 21st Century playboy is going to be romancing;
and this kind of woman is not happy about being thought of as merely
"cheesecake" or as some man's arm candy.  They would rather be seen as
highly sensual, "in charge" women; and the more explicit style of
photography which I favor actually fits that image.

Indeed, if you ask a Playmate who has shot both Playboy "gotta go
potty" style and more explicit open leg photos (such as Victoria
Zdrok, Lynn Thomas, Debra Jo Fondren or Charlotte Kemp), they will
tell you that they prefer to pose for the more explicit photos. They
feel it is more "empowering" for a woman "show it all" and to look
straight into the camera with an expression that says "are you man
enough to deserve this"!  It is a modern woman's way of saying that
she won't be limited by the conventional view of women as "the weaker
sex"--just as the Playmates of the '70's proclaimed when they proudly
showed off their pubic hair in defiance of the convention that said
women should be demur and "decently covered."  It may be difficult for
a "traditional" male to deal with the bold, assertive and overtly
erotic women of today; but that where the future lies and where
Playboy needs to go if it wants to be part of it.