• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Playboy Magazine stop Printing Nude Photos?

Should Playboy Magazine Stop Printing Nude Photos?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 24.0%
  • No

    Votes: 17 68.0%
  • Not Sure

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • Hustler & Penthouse

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Playboy's time has long passed.

There is WAY too much free nudity on the net that is way too readily available (including Playboy playmates both past and present) for anyone with a properly working brain to buy a Playboy magazine for the nudity any longer. Whenever a new magazine comes out, within a few hours the centrefold shots have been scanned and posted all over the web...so why would people pay for either the magazine or an online subscription just/primarily to see a Playboy playmate?

Playboy's only chance is to make a mark in other areas and still have lovely ladies posing...but fully clothed (though scantily clad).

Besides, they will attract better looking women if they do not force them to be naked/topless as many women (including famous ones) simply refuse to pose nude but would pose otherwise.

I am not sure what their new policy is specifically - topless or fully clothed. But if it is the latter, I think they made the right decision.
 
I voted no, only because the fully nude photos are its claim to fame. What on Earth is the reason to do this?

Because if they take the nude photos out then they can sell the magazine on actual magazine racks beside all the others where they are more easily accessible, and to people under 18 etc. They are probably trying to re brand the product in to something more like Maxim magazine, which is probably killing them in sales. It makes sense to. I buy magazines all the time to read articles and such while laying out by the pool or using the bath room, but even though I have read a playboy and actually thought it was very well done, I'm not going to go through the trouble of finding a store that carries x rated magazines and ask the clerk for a copy. If I can just pick it up at the grocery store like all the others, I would consider it.
 
They should, yes. Because their business model has been struggling for years, despite relatively good editorials. A little more class, a little more sophistication, a wider audience, is a good idea.

How does nudity prevent class and sophistication?
 
Wait...Playboy had nudes??? Why wasnt I told? Everyone I knew said they just read the articles. WTH???
 
Playboy's time has long passed.

There is WAY too much free nudity on the net that is way too readily available (including Playboy playmates both past and present) for anyone with a properly working brain to buy a Playboy magazine for the nudity any longer. Whenever a new magazine comes out, within a few hours the centrefold shots have been scanned and posted all over the web...so why would people pay for either the magazine or an online subscription just/primarily to see a Playboy playmate?

Playboy's only chance is to make a mark in other areas and still have lovely ladies posing...but fully clothed (though scantily clad).

Besides, they will attract better looking women if they do not force them to be naked/topless as many women (including famous ones) simply refuse to pose nude but would pose otherwise.

I am not sure what their new policy is specifically - topless or fully clothed. But if it is the latter, I think they made the right decision.

I don't know...you could make the case that they won't get better looking women. The ones they've been getting for decades are an amazingly beautiful bunch. How much better looking do they have to be?

My husband buys it. He has for years. My sons enjoy it - I've found them under their beds. I've looked at some pictures and some of those women take my breath away, and I'm not a man or a hormonal teenager.
 
None of the photos were actually nude anyways, unless you count computer generated crap and fake titties real.

AT any rate I would feel like a pedo looking at those girls anyways.
 
something Robert A. Heinlein once said, "writing isn't necessarily a bad thing, but you should do it in the dark and wash your hands afterwards".
Do you think he was talking about the playboy article writers?
 
Mornin SAM.
yo2.gif
Well I was going with the thought, that feminists aren't into Women being exploited for their Sexism. Or to be made out as sheer sex objects and fantasies.

As to the opinion.....it was taken from a feminist. Do you think these feminists were being demeaning to women's intelligence?

Why Are Feminist Critics Hung Up on Playboy?.....

In a time when free online media poses an existential threat to print magazines and traditional pornography, 60-year-old softcore monthly Playboy is having a weirdly controversial moment. Evaluating the anniversary issue in Time, Peggy Drexler railed against the magazine’s portrayal of Kate Moss as a “man’s fantasy at the ready.” “It is no longer every man’s fantasy to dominate a woman dressed as a furry woodland creature,” she wrote. “It is no longer every woman’s fantasy to oblige.”

Despite her insistence that times have changed, there was something almost retro in her indignation.
There are now websites for couples who both fantasize about dressing up as furry woodland creatures (or adult babies or cartoon characters), not to mention sites where adults can share photos surreptitiously taken of young women’s asses. Playboy, with its almost-40 celebrity cover model, her pubic hair, and a well-meaning feminist panel featuring Erica Jong and Naomi Wolf, seems kind of quaint by comparison.

Why Are Feminist Critics Hung Up on Playboy? -- The Cut
(clipped for length)

I think the bit I bolded pretty much nails it. It's "retro," and an opinion they share with some extreme social conservatives.

There were some number feminists who shared that opinion back in the day -- 60's, 70's. Not so much now.

That makes sense to me, historically. The industry was so much worse for women than it is now. Perhaps they didn't believe there could be a coexistence of sex work and decent humane working standards. In some corners of sex work, we still haven't quite gotten there (especially with the ones that are illegal still).

But it is also a patronizing position to take regarding women's intellects, and feminism has had to grow out of that just as much as mainstream society has. You don't just hit the ground with perfect logical consistency in the early days of a movement -- you have to spend time thinking and talking and learning, and refining your thoughts. Today, the belief that porn is somehow inherently degrading is very rare in feminism.

Are there little hints to some kind of sexist stereotypes in some of Playboy's work? Yeah, I'm sure. But we still have an entire aisle "for girls" in most stores, which revolves around nothing but teaching you that leaving the house without beating your face like Ru Paul means you're ugly. So I don't think aiming this at sex work alone is terribly in touch with reality. We still have sexist stereotypes everywhere, even aimed directly at little girls. So, who's really surprised that adults take those ideas on board?

Also, the mainstream of porn is not the only porn there is. There is a lot of really good "politically minded" porn out there. I know what you're thinking, and no, that's not what it is. :lol: It's still porn. They haven't watered it down or take anything out of it.

A lot of it just revolving around using people with more diverse, less surgically altered bodies, and if the porn has actual sex acts in it, without going to such extreme lengths to fake pleasure in performers who aren't feeling it -- both the man and the woman. And I genuinely find it a lot better quality than mainstream porn. Because there's something really unsexy about watching someone who obviously isn't into anything that's happening. That's why amateur porn is so popular on the mainstream internet sites.

Imagery changes a lot when you just change what's going on around it.

Then, there's the debate about whether our sexual fantasies can be influenced by sexism. My opinion? Well, obviously -- how could they possibly not be?

But that doesn't mean the solution is to tell people they're bad for liking certain things. Most of us have little control over our sexual fantasies, like we little have control over our dreams. Yet society improves. It is possible that sexuality is one form of "play" we use to get it out of their system without manifesting it into our lives, and women have this just as much as men do if not more. To me, it's a really complex subject with no obvious answer.
 
Last edited:
Have the articles genuinely been interesting? I know that they promote having been in the company of former Presidents, cultural icons, and so forth, but so has MTV.

My own intuition is to declare the magazine dead.
 
I don't know...you could make the case that they won't get better looking women. The ones they've been getting for decades are an amazingly beautiful bunch. How much better looking do they have to be?

My husband buys it. He has for years. My sons enjoy it - I've found them under their beds. I've looked at some pictures and some of those women take my breath away, and I'm not a man or a hormonal teenager.

You are a woman, so maybe you disagree. But most of the women I have known that the subject has come up in some way said they would never pose nude for a variety of reasons (vanity, shyness, morality, pride). It wasn't the posing so much (though some of them would not no matter what) as the fact that they would be naked.
Also, how many celebrities would pose for Playboy for the right price if they did not have to be naked? I guarantee you a TON more then would if they had to be naked.
Plus, I think probably all women look better in the right clothes then no clothes at all. And anything they are nervous about (birthmarks, scars, whatever) can be covered up by clothing.

I am convinced that if Playboy removes the nudity AND still pays good money for the model that the average looks of their models will rise significantly (though I realize it is a subjective judgement).
 
Last edited:
The whole point of titillation magazines is the "forbidden" aspect of viewing naked women. Such pics as they print are common vanilla especially if compared to what is only a couple of clicks away on the net. They're dying, like most of the print industry, they have to change or die.

As for looks, the models always looked unnaturally plastic (and over-upholstered)
 
Is it ok if I read Playboy in the nude?
 
Does this mean the Playboy Mansions will now be populated by suave and debonair well dressed intellectuals hosting art shows, think tanks, and the occasional wine, cheese and cigar tasting events?
 
From a social/moral aspect, yes. From a business aspect, no.
 
They didn't use to show so much genitalia.

Models didn't shave down to look like they have 12 yo va-jay-jays back then. Demi Moore is sprawled out and her jungle covers more than any bathing suit bottom... :peace
 
Models didn't shave down to look like they have 12 yo va-jay-jays back then. Demi Moore is sprawled out and her jungle covers more than any bathing suit bottom... :peace

That was before the "pubic war" ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom