Obviously the OP’s position is a post-hoc-crock of shite.
But what I really can’t understand is getting irate over whatever happens at Playgirl. Quite frankly, I didn’t even know the mag existed anymore. I once asked my wife if she’d ever gotten a playgirl, and her reply, after making the “I just sniffed poo” face, was to say she’d rather look at Playboy; and she’s about the straightest woman I’ve ever met. I’ve only ever been in a gay bookstore once (Lambda Rising in DC), but they shure had a lotta other stuff besides Playgirl on the shelves that I would think would be far more interesting to the male of that persuasion. Apparently women think it’s supremely tacky, and men will probably think it’s pitifully lightweight. Could we possibly rage at anything more obscure here?
Go on, I dare you to admit it: Do you read Playgirl??
And if nobody does: Is that the best the Repugnicans can do to demonstrate Left-Wing media bias??? Cite logical fallacies surrounding management changes at a softcore porn mag that nobody consumes??
Well, when I was about 13, my friend’s mom. We were basically casing the house for porn, and in what I have since taken as an especially relevant object lesson in the importance of taking care in what you wish for, found several issues in her room.
My sister’s ex boyfriend got me a stack of Playgirl’s once (a gesture which, yes, pretty much grossed me out). He thought he was doing me some kind of favor; I think it got me about as aroused as High Classical Greek sculpture. Count me in as another straight woman that would rather look at Playboy. Actually, I’d rather just look at my husband in the nude.
Several of my girlfriends and I bought a high school friend an issue once for her 18th birthday as a gag, and spend a good two hours reading it together and laughing at the guys pictured. It was mostly funny because all of the guys had a “I wanna sex you up” look on their faces but were ahem quite flaccid.
A question: was there ever any copyright or trademark issues with Playboy that they had to sort out legally to use the similar name? Or is it different enough that that wasn’t an issue?
The OP put it in the pit. What’s your point? That something that does not touch your life is rendered irrelevant by that fact alone? IF, and I concede it’s a big if, somebody got fired for political affiliation, then it deserves debate.
I don’t have much faith in the souce, but I will admit that one must be able to bring it up, even if just to have it shot down by others. Yeah, who cares, it’s just a mag that you don’t read seems a superficial dismissal.
If you have a point, why not post it to the tread that set you off. Starting your own just looks like grandstanding. But that is just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
I hope no-one minds me butting in to answer the last question, but, though this is not pitworthy, it deserves to be next to the thread that inspired it.
I used to buy Playgirl, until I decided that tallywhackers are funny looking and I’d much rather ogle a hot guy in pants, and the men’s underwear section in the Sears catalog is free.
Well, it’s partly to be snide, but also partly because I suspect hardly anybody reads the damn thing, and I wanted to see if those suspicions could be born out. At any rate, I honestly didn’t mean it to be grandstanding; my question seemed like a hijack.
:::
So, Playgirl’s boys sport no wood, eh? That does seem rather…paradoxical.
Apparently, the main audience for Playgirl are closeted teenage boys with no access to the internet and not too many qualms about shoplifting. At least, those are the only circumstances underwhich I’ve ever heard of someone deliberatly seeking out the magazine. How this business model keeps them financially solvent, I have no idea.
Well, when it first came out (good Lord - around 1975 or so?), I’d buy it to scope out the guys, but that got old soon. The models all looked alike.
Then, in about 1996 perhaps, I picked one up to look at it, and I distinctly remember that a model was sporting a boner. Was that a freak issue, or are they generally still soft?
At least as late as 1998, Playgirl models are boner-less, hence the lack of appeal. Don’t know about now, but I am tempted to say that nothing has changed.
My mother and her friends bought the very first issue when it came out. All of her friends were too embarassed, but Mom just waltzed right in and placed it on the counter. The checkout guy made a comment about how disgusting it was and Mom shot back, “It’s no different from buying a Playboy, which I see you have prominently displayed as well.”
Being a former, naive, VERY innocent little Christian girl (and yes, I took care of that as soon as I could :p), I bought one sometime after my 18th birthday and then saw another that belong to an acquaintance. Like already stated, they didn’t do too much for me because they’re like the guys at Chippendale’s seem… all put-on glitz and trying way too hard to be smoldering and hotness personified. A definite turn off.
Plus, I think for me to be really happy in the porn I pursue, it has to be ‘in action and moving.’
Shortly after I met my darling Marcie, she became ill with the flu and was confined to bed for a couple of days. She gave me a list of magazines she wanted and I went out and bought them. As a joke, I bought a Playgirl and put it a couple of magazines down in the stack I brought her. She wasn’t impressed, or said she wasn’t, anyway. I’ve never bought another, nor has she, so far as I know.
Yeah, women aren’t really interested in looking at penises. They’ll admire every other part of the male body, but the penis, whether erect or flaccid, is not particularly erotic in and of itself. Anyone remember the nude centerfold of Burt Reynolds in Cosmopolitan? Methinks that his hand was placed as it was as much for coy appeal as for decency.
Someone said on this board years ago that porn for women is text, not photos. Anything from bodice-ripper romances to explicit flash fiction. But the appeal is what the man can do, not merely what he looks like. There’s a psychological explanation for this, but I forget what it is.
And Guin, yay for your mom.
Incidentally, what do y’all think of women who read Playboy? When I was a college student in the early '90s, I knew a guy who did that thing of papering every wall in his room with nudes. Now, at that time, PB was getting the most intriguing people for their interviews: Barry Bonds, Bill Gates, Lorne Michaels, Roseanne and Tom Arnold, Steven Hawking, President-Elect Bill Clinton, and so on. I noticed the stack of discarded pages and asked this guy if I could have them. He said okay, but one of his housemates gave me a very odd look, and kept asking, “What do you want to read PB for?!” and wouldn’t shut up until I waved the photos of Roseanne and Tom in his face and demanded, “Do you think I get off on THIS?!”
I bought the 2004 “year” edition. i.e., (can you start a sentence with that?) the one that had a little pic of every guy from 2004 they’d used or something like that.
I bought it for a number of reasons. (time for my favorite thing: a list!)
[ul]
[li] I was curious[/li][li] I’ve been brought up very conservatively. [/li][li] Wanted to teach myself to go into the store and buy it without shame. I bought it at Waldenbooks, along with another book, with my Preferred Reader Card. So they have a record of my buying it. [/li][li] I’ve only ever seen a handful of, ahem, nude male-type people. I suppose I wanted to expand my reportoire without actually expanding my reportoire.[/li][/ul]
I’d buy it again. Not often, but the guys were hard, at least in this one, and many of them were quite handsome. I wouldn’t buy it more than say, once a year, though.
[/li][li] I’ve only ever seen a handful of, ahem, nude male-type people. I suppose I wanted to expand my reportoire without actually expanding my reportoire.[/li][/ul]