My (Dan Stiffler's) Final Words

[Steve Sloca]

I find myself in almost complete agreement with Dan's summary of what
ails Playboy and where it needs to go to recapture the esteem it once
had, both in America and around the world.  I especially share Dan's
"dream" that

"PLAYBOY will return to its roots and rediscover how it became great.
In this day and age, it will be generally accepted in all but the most
radical right or radical feminist households.  People who used to read
PLAYBOY, but gave it up for whatever reason, will try it again and
will like it.  Young people who are reaching for the "hilt" of life
will discover PLAYBOY and identify with its distinction from other
men's magazines.  A quality magazine, drawing upon its great history,
setting the current standard for male entertainment, doing so with
respect for its readers, its staff, and--most of all--its playmates."

We may differ on a few things, such as my belief that the world has
changed on how explicit a quality men's magazine should be about sex
and about a woman's body; but our goals are identical.  I, too, am
especially troubled by the fact that Playboy's editorial content has
devolved to a poor copy of "True Crime Stories" with juvenile,
Maxim-type sidebars.  When the New York Times Magazine runs major
features on such subjects as sex parties in New York and around the
country (where members pay to meet and have sex with fellow members)
and on the new crop of "dating gurus" who claim to be able to teach
men to pick up Playmate-quality women, I have to ask "where has
Playboy been?"  The same New York Times Magazine has in recent months
published long articles on internet dating sites and the people who
use them, on sex in the military (including among our troops in Iraq),
and on the lives and philosophy of those who are fighting to reform
Islam to eliminate its mistreatment of women and its anti-democratic
bias.  These are the kinds of things that Playboy used to cover every
month.  Why not now?  I suspect it is because Kaminsky and his crew
don't read the Times or anything more highbrow than Maxim.  At one
time, Playboy was in the forefront of the Sexual Revolution--I
remember first hearing about clubs such as "Plato's Retreat" and about
sex research on things like the extended male and female orgasms in
the pages of Playboy--but today it has abandoned that leadership to
chase after "fifteen minute failures."

Playboy's failure to use its history is also part of its
directionless, purposeless pandering to immature tastes.  In this
anniversary year, I would have expected to see monthly "Playmates
Revisited" or features (and Special Editions) on past Playmates such
as those that ran in the 10th and 25th anniversary years, pictorial
and written comparisons between the Playmates of yesteryears and those
of today, updatings of key stories from the past (e.g. a comparison of
the "club scene" over the years, Sex in Cinema then and now, sex in
fiction past and present, etc.), analysis of landmark legal
developments in the history of sex and free speech over the last 50
years, and similar themes.  Each month, there should have been a "50
Years Of......" retrospective which immediately led to a modern
pictorial or article on a current topic of interest to men.  In that
way, Playboy could have tied its past into the present and made its
historical importance understandable and available to a new generation
of readers.  Sadly, we on this forum and on the PML have a greater
understanding of, and a more favorable association with, Playboy's
past than does its current crop of editors.

Which brings me to my final point, which I hope gets into Peggy's
final product; and that is, Playboy needs new management, new editors
with an appreciation of its past as well as an adult understanding of
today's society, and new spokespersons to carry the magazine forward
for the next 50 years.  Hef is clearly at an age where he is not
interested, or lacks the energy, to oversee and direct the entire
content of the magazine as he once did.  Kaminisky and Maxim are
clearly not the answers--the last year has shown us that for sure.
Christie Hefner cannot run the company profitably (except with the
help of Playboy's porn offerings, which she refuses to even describe
in her annual reports), much less guide the magazine's editorial
content.  The "Playboy Philosophy" needs to be updated for this new
century; and the man or men who can write it should be in
charge. Playboy simply MUST get new management and editors if it is to
have any chance of fulfilling Dan's and my dream.

Moreover, any magazine that leads off every issue with a "World of
Hef" feature showing a bunch of geriatrics hanging out with bevies of
nearly-identical bleached blonde arm candies is forever doomed to be
"my grandfather's magazine."  Hef should be gracefully retired as the
magazine's spokesperson, and new figures brought to the fore as the
brand's primary promoters.  While Hef could still contribute with "how
it was" stories and insights, the magazine's focus and direction (and
its Playmate selection) should be in different hands.  I would like to
see the "World of Playboy" feature the Playmates (past and present) in
all their activities all around the country (not just at the Mansion)
and shown with their "playboy" companions (some of whom are going to
be movie and rock music types--because that is who many Playmates go
for--but some of whom are going to be "ordinary" guys).  If both old
and new Playmates get publicized every month, the entire spectrum of
Playboy's readership demographic will find something of interest in
the feature and will begin to identify with the magazine.  Let's face
it.  Very few of Playboy's readers fantasize about being in our late
70's partying with clone-like platimum-tressed, chest-inflated bimbos.
Yet almost all of Playboy's readers fantasize about being with a
Playmate, whether it is one of the newer ones or one we used to
worship in our younger days.  Those fantasies need to be catered to.
The "Playboy lifestyle" is and always was a fantasy, but it was one
that many men felt they could aspire to; and the magazine needs to
rediscover that basic fact and redirect its content towards creating
those fantasies anew for a new generation, while at the same time
holding on to those fantasies which still live in the hearts of its
loyal fans like Dan and I.