Discussion
  • Read More
    SqarrKate Dries
    10/12/15 11:29pm

    Why, exactly, does the Playboy brand have a Snapchat?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      cynceritySqarr
      10/12/15 11:36pm

      How else are they going to reach the young wipper snappers? You know they spend all their time on their phones nowadays.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Sqarrcyncerity
      10/12/15 11:40pm

      Yeah, but what purpose does it serve? Who answers it? If it’s automated, what’s the point?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    creamcheesekingKate Dries
    10/12/15 11:15pm

    I can’t wait to go to a party at the Playboy Lean-to.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Snake Personcreamcheeseking
      10/12/15 11:18pm

      A+

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      goddessoftransitorycreamcheeseking
      10/13/15 1:22am

      An afternoon tea party where everybody sits around and talks about the weather, then goes home alone.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    the-fresh-prince-of-middle-earthKate Dries
    10/12/15 11:19pm

    I actually read the articles in the first porn magazine I ever owned, and it was a fun read.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      colukehthe-fresh-prince-of-middle-earth
      10/12/15 11:29pm

      I hit puberty around the time the internet hit, in the 90’s. I never had a real desire for the nudes in Playboy b/c it was unnecessary.
      I did buy issues, here and there though, when an author that I liked had a short story in Playboy.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      the-fresh-prince-of-middle-earthcolukeh
      10/12/15 11:38pm

      I remember watching porn in the time of low speed internet connection, I had to wait for seconds watching my computer screen slowly load and pixel pictures. You never went on the Playboy site during the early to mid 2000s.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    GregSamsaKate Dries
    10/12/15 11:13pm

    I hear Cat Fancy Magazine, too, is gonna stop showing pussies, opting instead for thought pieces by Lewis Lapham and Paula Poundstone.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      A citizenGregSamsa
      10/12/15 11:59pm

      Percentage of ivory towers to pantsuits: 105 to 107

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      GregSamsaA citizen
      10/13/15 11:29am

      Sample essay titles: “On Calicos and Condescension: A Year with Fluffles” and “The Woman Who Mistook Her Cat for a Hat.”

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    jpomonkeyKate Dries
    10/12/15 11:53pm

    Stealing my brother’s Penthouse and Playboy magazines and masturbating to the pics got me off during my formative years. (Sorry, brother, when mom found them in my room and you got in trouble.)

    I actually think this is a real bummer, because looking at “classy” naked pics of ladies vs. all the fucked up shit you can find on the Internet now made me appreciate sex/naked women much more than the gang-bang/choking/facials that the kids are getting exposed to these days.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      goddessoftransitoryjpomonkey
      10/13/15 1:26am

      I agree. Say what you will about Playboy, the women were never being degraded physically in the shots. Hef’s entire point was to make the photos pretty and appealing, not gross. He wanted to create a new kind of class act that involved beautiful nudes that were blatantly sexual but not “dirty” or cheap.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      PearlieMaygoddessoftransitory
      10/13/15 2:18am

      Oh man, some of the “classic” Playboy pictures? They’re practically WHOLESOME. The women are cute, they’re smiling, they’re doing normal-person stuff, they look like they may even be enjoying themselves, and they’re all fairly different, physically (within certain parameters, to be sure, but way wider parameters than porn or cheesecake magazines are now). For something that catered to the male gaze, it was relatively non-male-gazey.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    goddessoftransitoryKate Dries
    10/13/15 1:22am

    Sooooo....

    I don’t get the point. Are they trying to chase some nostalgic past by ditching the entire point of the magazine? Because the ENTIRE POINT OF THE MAG was to make nudity seem sophisticated and non-grimy—unlike the “rode hard and put away wet” shots in the other, rougher nudie mags that were all that was out there before Playboy came along.

    This is like a world class ballplayer deciding the thing that will keep him on the top of his game is ditching his contract with the Yankees to play T-ball in Peoria. This magazine brought about a sea change in media and now it’s trying to pretend all it wants is to sit on a black tar roof in Canarsie with a cooler full of Bud Lites getting skin cancer?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      jpomonkeygoddessoftransitory
      10/13/15 2:56am

      Are you saying that Playboy is like Kenny Fucking Powers?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ArtBoyXerogoddessoftransitory
      10/13/15 6:22am

      Big ups for the Canarsie reference.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    dcgirl13Kate Dries
    10/13/15 8:22am

    I feel like by name checking Vice, the were trying to make the connection between their somewhat historic interview with Carter and Vice’s work on the Obama jail visit. However, it feels like they missed three decades of journalism. Anyone who liked their somewhat edgy serious journalism, but gave it up when they didn’t want magazines with naked pictures and sex articles lying around because of the kids, isn’t a “guy with a job” he’s a retired or on the verge of retiring. The “kids” that were the reason he stopped getting Playboy are in their 40s and 50s. They get Rolling Stone or Esquire for their entertainment magazine that occasionally does real journalism if anything. This seems like a bizarre marketing plan.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      burnedoneanddonedcgirl13
      10/13/15 10:35am

      Rolling Stone still does great journalism, the UVA story notwithstanding.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      dcgirl13burnedoneanddone
      10/13/15 10:44am

      Right and I fail to see how Playboy without naked pictures is going to cut into that market.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    jkredwineKate Dries
    10/13/15 1:04am

    Interstingly, Playboy’s online content had been partially owned and operated in recent years (some of the tangential stuff still is) by the company MindGeek. Flanders specifically thought this was bad for their image because MindGeek owns a ton of porn sites and is in the “sex-act business.” So he’s been moving in this prudish direction for a while. Of course, the idea that porn is passé and ill-fitting in his “high culture” lifestyle magazine is exactly the mindset Playboy pushed back against at its inception.

    Flanders is rebuilding a wall that Hef (not particularly valiantly or radically) fought to break down. And I think its about much more than cyclical cultural changes. It’s about a traditionalist bent that is only growing, and it’s ultimately bad for other content we might call “good” porn and how we imagine it as part of our culture.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MisterJinglesjkredwine
      10/13/15 9:27am
      GIF

      Stupid sexy Flanders

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    I Keep Forgetting My KeyKate Dries
    10/13/15 9:40am

    I remember reading once that Playboy was the reason Esquire dropped its nude pictorials - “Playboy out-titted us”, according to some publisher or other. Now it seems that other magazines are out-not-titting Playboy.

    What’s interesting (and concerning) to me is that, at least back in the day, Playboy seemed to be a lot more respectful of its models than even technically non-pornographic magazines like Maxim. I’ve always thought that the treatment of women in new-wave lad mags was way more objectifying and exploitative. Playboy always had a matter-of-factness and kindness to it that the others lacked, and I’d much rather have to answer for someone finding a Playboy than a Maxim, FHM, or Stuff for Men.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Jane, you ignorant slut.Kate Dries
      10/12/15 11:11pm

      Thanks, Obama!

      Reply
      <