More skin or less....

[Brian Sorgatz]

Steve Sloca wrote:
>To me, the "debate" has only one answer: if Playboy is to be a leader
>once again, as it was in the '60's and '70's, in making sex and
>sexuality a natural part of a Playboy Man's (or Woman's) life, it
>cannot bow down to Bush (what an ironic name for a prude), Ashcroft,
>Wal-Mart, nervous advertisers--and the Religious Right which preaches
>and pushes the anti-sex platform each of these groups espouse--by
>covering up its Playmates and Playboy models.  If Hefner had listened
>to this bunch in 1953, there would not be any Playboy; and one of his
>major achievements which earns our respect was to make full frontal
>nudity so respectable and acceptable to a majority of American men in
>the '70's that the advertisers did NOT stay away, but fell all over
>themselves trying to advertise in Playboy (the '70's issues have far
>more advertisements than do today's issues).  Hef was a visionary
>then; and it is precisely that vision that has been lost by today's
>corporate monolith, now run by a Maxim cast-off who seems to think
>American men are perpetual juveniles and Hef's daughter, who seems to
>have no clue as to what the Sexual Revolution was all about.

I agree mostly--but not completely--with what Steve says here.  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).

But Steve hits the nail on the head when he decries the spineless lack of 
leadership at PEI these days.  Where is the defiantly bold spirit of 1953?  
Dan Stiffler's proposal to scale back the nudity is certainly not in this 
spirit.  But unlike Steve, I believe that bolder publicity and marketing 
strategies, rather than bolder pictures, are required.

Brian Sorgatz