The "Urbane Sophisticated Man"... and Woman?

[Steve Sloca]

Peggy Wilkins wrote:
  "Actually, Playboy was aimed at men from "18 to 80" -- this according
  to Hugh Hefner's introduction in the very first issue.  It's only the
  marketing folks and advertisers who value 18-35 so highly, for
  whatever reason (they spend a lot of money?).  Of course Playboy needs
  to attract advertisers, so capturing that demographic in large numbers
  is especially important for that reason; but Playboy wasn't intended
  to attract an exclusively young audience."

While Hefner may have stated that he was targeting men from "18 to
80," this was hyperbole.  In the 1950's, most of the men of the 50-80
generation were supporters of Joe McCarthy or at best laissez faire
Eisenhower Republicans.  Racism was rampant in the South, led by
George Wallace and his supporters; and race riots took place in LA and
many other US cities in the '60's.  Even literary "liberals" like the
editors of Esquire were afraid to publish nudity, so prevalent was the
attitude of the "establishment" (read the 50-80 age group) that it
would be evil to do so.  Indeed, I doubt you can find a single male
over 50 who is quoted as having "endorsed" the Playboy Philosophy in
the '50's when the magazine began.  So while Hef may have claimed a
broader audience as a marketing gesture, there is little doubt that
the content of the magazine was aimed at the 18-45 year olds.

Peggy wrote:
  "It shouldn't be surprising that Playboy attracted a more educated,
  affluent crowd early on given its content; but I am having a problem
  understanding why content like that in Maxim et al would attract such
  an educated audience."

My point is that TODAY'S educated man has been "educated" into
believing that it is politically incorrect or "wrong" to want to ogle
nude women, that Playboy is "pornography" and demeans women or treats
them as objects of sexual lusts, or that sexual desires must be
suppressed, lest one be accused of sexual harassment.  Remember,
learned opinions of our courts have held that putting up pictures of
Playboy centerfolds on the walls of a workplace constitutes sexual
harassment of female workers; and many college courses teach the
Andrea Dworkin doctrine that women are "exploited" or psychologically
harmed by posing nude.  More importantly, a majority of young women
think that way; and a 18-45 guy who is dating or in a relationship (or
wants to be) with a woman who feels Playboy is pornographic is not
going to subscribe to the magazine or keep it around where it could be
seen.

BUT biology cannot be defeated by "politically correct" social
dictates.  Men are biologically compelled by their hormones to be
interested in sex nearly all of the time; and they are visual
creatures, turned on mostly by images or visual fantasies of beautiful
women. And we are surrounded by sex, in advertising, the movies and
TV, and on the internet.  So Maxim and its ilk have tapped that male
sex drive by giving men "politically correct" images of near-nude
women, especially of current media stars, presented in a sophomoric,
titillating way that allows men to fantasize about their favorite
stars or to relive their "male bonding" moments when they and their
buddies have discussed women without any women being present.  Thus,
because it is "PC" in this new youth culture, a man can leave his copy
of Maxim on the coffee table when his girlfriend is about, but would
not be caught dead with a Playboy there.

Peggy wrote:
  "Ah, so all Playmates should be Victoria Zdrok!  That could be the
  fantasy of some.  However, I think that there are many more types of
  women in the world than just the articulate intelligentsia who
  ambitiously push for their careers.  The Playboy world has always had
  room for all types of women, and individual women will be more or less
  smart, more or less ambitious -- they are individuals.  I don't see
  any overwhelming need to push only one type, except the beautiful,
  photogenic type."

No, there is only one Victoria Zdrok; and I doubt Playboy could find
anyone else with her credentials for both beauty and brains if they
tried.  But, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of women who are
good looking (or could be made so with proper makeup, hair styling and
photography) and who are also talented (in the arts, in academics, or
in other skills), intelligent and worthy of interest to the 18-45 year
old male.  I am advocating selection of these women as Playmates,
rather than those whose ONLY attribute is a "perfect" Barbie-doll
look, because (a) they are more like the "girl next door" and men can
thus relate to them better; and (b) most importantly, women can relate
to them better; and if a majority of women accept the Playmates as
individuals worthy of respect, then men will feel comfortable in
buying Playboy in great quantities again.

Peggy wrote:
  "Wouldn't an intelligent, ambitious Playmate be even more threatening
  to women than a more "average" type? "

I don't think so.  Right now, the "Playmate image" is ALL about looks,
and about a particular look which is almost unattainable by most
women, which makes it impossible for a woman to identify with a
typical blonde bimbo in the centerfold.  Take Victoria Silvstedt for
example.  If you have seen her "before surgery" photos, captured on a
Swedish beach in a bikini at the age of 18 or so, you would know that
the "real" Silvstedt looks nothing like her centerfold.  Her face was
at best "average looking," her hair was a stringy, dingy light brown,
and her body was downright skinny by Playmate standards--she could
have passed for an "average" high school girl.  But to get into
Playboy and the modeling world, she underwent massive surgery, not
only MAJOR breast enhancement, but also facial surgery, liposuction,
lip implants, the works.  What you see in Playboy is nothing but the
surgeon's art; and behind that, there is nothing, as she is one of the
dumbest Playmates you could meet.  No normal woman could ever begin to
identify with a Victoria Silvstedt; and for those who aspire to look
like that thinking that she represents the "ideal" woman, it is either
a matter of major surgery which she cannot afford or psychological
trauma such as is evidenced by eating disorders, fitness manias and
other ills that women have developed in just the last 20 years.  But
if you put a women looking like the pre-surgical Silvstedt--assuming
she had had other accomplishments to make her appealing to a man--in
the centerfold, women would not feel that threatened and would be more
likely to identify with her.

In short, the Playmate is not about "perfect" beauty or "classic"
beauty or Barbie-doll looks, but about "average" women made to look
their best by good makeup, styling, lighting (and a bit of airbrushing
where necessary...LOL).  That is the mystique of the "girl next door";
and Playboy has gotten away from that standard in a major way.  The
current trend of putting surgically reconstituted but previously below
average looking "Hefmates" in the centerfold is only an
intensification of this trend, which has increased Playboy's loss of
favor among 18-45 year olds.  (If you have seen the "before" pictures
of Brande Roderick, Jennifer Walcott or--God forbid--Tina Jordan, you
would know exactly what I mean.)  And my bottom line still stands: if
Playboy became acceptable to young women (which it was in the '60's
and '70's when I proudly displayed my collection), it would pick up
enormous new readership among the men of the 18-45 year old age group,
regain its advertising strength, and be visible on every newsstand
again.