On Playboy's decision to get rid of nudity
It isn't every week that a magazine makes international news simply because it changed editorial direction. But then, Playboy was never just any magazine.
There were magazines with nude women before - but they were low-brow and way, way underground. Hugh Hefner wanted Playboy to be classy. Boundary pushing, libertine in sensibility, but classy. It managed to accomplish something no other American magazine ever quite did. It showed nudity and talked about sex without ever delving into outright pornography. I would argue that the "nude and respectful" thing actually worked.
So what is going to happen now that the "nude" part is going away?
There is an old joke about reading Playboy "for the articles." Thing is, as anybody who actually read it would tell you, it actually has legitimately good articles. In-depth investigations. Interesting profiles. Insightful interviews. Great cultural reporting. And it has some great fiction. Heck, the very fact that, in this day in age, a lifestyle magazine publishes fiction on regular basis is something of a miracle.
So, if the nudes are going to go away, you'll still be left with an interesting magazine.
Heck, so long as you are going to remove a significant facet of the magazine, why not remove Playboy Playmates? It's not that I don't get the appeal, but, in this day and age, simply being nude doesn't cut it. At least when there are nude celebrities, there is a certain novelty factor, and the interviews are a bit more interesting.
Or, let me put it another. A couple of years ago, when it was still in its heyday, Suicide Girls released a photo book of its members (for those who don't know, the site specialized in "alternative" women posing nude while avoiding anything pornographic). Say what you will about the site, but the book made an effort to present the models as unique individuals who had interesting personalities. Playboy interviews tried to do something like that, but it never really seemed to work. At least in my opinion.
And yet... I'm not how I'm not sure I like the thought of Playboy turning PG-13.
One of the great things about Playboy celebrity interviews is that they, quite often, celebrities wind up saying things they probably would never say in any other magazine. Where else would you get John Mayer talk about being sexually addicted to Jessica Simpson? Or Niecy Nash talking about how a key to good marriage is food and blowjobs? Or Collin Farrel talking about how drugs are awesome? Or, on a more serious side, Gary Oldman defending Mel Gibson's antisemitic rant? Or John Wayne giving his honest opinions about African-Americans (see Page 7).
And, more generally... I like that, in Playboy, writers can swear as much as they want and talk about sex without being coy about it. It's a rare thing. And I can't help but worry that, if Playboy pulls back from that, some of the sharpness in its writing will be dulled.
But I suppose we'll see what happens in a few months.
One final thought. Back in the summer of 2014, Loaded - a British "lads' mag" did something similar, getting rid of pictures of naked girls and generally trying to position itself as a more sophisticated cultural magazine. It only lasted a few more issues before it shut down in March 2015.
Now, two weren't quite the same thing. Unlike Playboy, Loaded never tried to be classy or sophisticated or respectful. It quite unabashingly tried to appeal to high school/college guys, and the only thing that kept it from being completely sexist and gross was that one got a sense that it never took itself entirely seriously. Also, it never came close to reaching Playboy's level of brand recognition, let alone sales (at least outside United Kingdom).
I think Playboy has much more likely to actually pull this off successfully.
But it's still something to think about.
There were magazines with nude women before - but they were low-brow and way, way underground. Hugh Hefner wanted Playboy to be classy. Boundary pushing, libertine in sensibility, but classy. It managed to accomplish something no other American magazine ever quite did. It showed nudity and talked about sex without ever delving into outright pornography. I would argue that the "nude and respectful" thing actually worked.
So what is going to happen now that the "nude" part is going away?
There is an old joke about reading Playboy "for the articles." Thing is, as anybody who actually read it would tell you, it actually has legitimately good articles. In-depth investigations. Interesting profiles. Insightful interviews. Great cultural reporting. And it has some great fiction. Heck, the very fact that, in this day in age, a lifestyle magazine publishes fiction on regular basis is something of a miracle.
So, if the nudes are going to go away, you'll still be left with an interesting magazine.
Heck, so long as you are going to remove a significant facet of the magazine, why not remove Playboy Playmates? It's not that I don't get the appeal, but, in this day and age, simply being nude doesn't cut it. At least when there are nude celebrities, there is a certain novelty factor, and the interviews are a bit more interesting.
Or, let me put it another. A couple of years ago, when it was still in its heyday, Suicide Girls released a photo book of its members (for those who don't know, the site specialized in "alternative" women posing nude while avoiding anything pornographic). Say what you will about the site, but the book made an effort to present the models as unique individuals who had interesting personalities. Playboy interviews tried to do something like that, but it never really seemed to work. At least in my opinion.
And yet... I'm not how I'm not sure I like the thought of Playboy turning PG-13.
One of the great things about Playboy celebrity interviews is that they, quite often, celebrities wind up saying things they probably would never say in any other magazine. Where else would you get John Mayer talk about being sexually addicted to Jessica Simpson? Or Niecy Nash talking about how a key to good marriage is food and blowjobs? Or Collin Farrel talking about how drugs are awesome? Or, on a more serious side, Gary Oldman defending Mel Gibson's antisemitic rant? Or John Wayne giving his honest opinions about African-Americans (see Page 7).
And, more generally... I like that, in Playboy, writers can swear as much as they want and talk about sex without being coy about it. It's a rare thing. And I can't help but worry that, if Playboy pulls back from that, some of the sharpness in its writing will be dulled.
But I suppose we'll see what happens in a few months.
One final thought. Back in the summer of 2014, Loaded - a British "lads' mag" did something similar, getting rid of pictures of naked girls and generally trying to position itself as a more sophisticated cultural magazine. It only lasted a few more issues before it shut down in March 2015.
Now, two weren't quite the same thing. Unlike Playboy, Loaded never tried to be classy or sophisticated or respectful. It quite unabashingly tried to appeal to high school/college guys, and the only thing that kept it from being completely sexist and gross was that one got a sense that it never took itself entirely seriously. Also, it never came close to reaching Playboy's level of brand recognition, let alone sales (at least outside United Kingdom).
I think Playboy has much more likely to actually pull this off successfully.
But it's still something to think about.