Slashdot Mirror


Playboy Is Featuring Naked Women Again -- After Dropping Nudity a Year Ago Due To the Internet (nypost.com)

mi quotes a report from New York Post: The 63-year-old legendary men's magazine is bringing back nude models in its upcoming issue -- one year after banning naked photos in an effort to boost circulation and attract more mainstream advertisers. That effort obviously has failed. One of the main reasons why Playboy dropped nudity in the first place was because the internet filled the demand. Ravi Somaiya reports in the New York Times, "For a generation of American men, reading Playboy was a cultural rite, an illicit thrill consumed by flashlight. Now every teenage boy has an internet-connected phone instead. Pornographic magazines, even those as storied as Playboy, have lost their shock value, their commercial value and their cultural relevance." The issues published under the no-nudes policy, which featured both scantily clad models and could-be naked women with strategic parts of their body covered up, will all change with the March/April issue now hitting newsstands. The issue trumpets the change with a cover headline: "Naked is normal."

10 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Free by quonset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Has anyone here ever actually paid for porn?

    Companies wouldn't still be in business if people didn't.

  2. Glad they made amends by hambone142 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I was young, my uncle left a Playboy Magazine at our house. I saw it and my mother said "go ahead and look at it, the people in them are all the same".

    No, they weren't. Even today, I have never seen a woman that is "the same".

    When a kid/teenager can't get the real thing, good ol' Playboy did the job. It opened the wonder of women and all of their "parts" that I had never seen before. It was good old home entertainment. I wore out some pages on my favorite issues (no, they didn't get stuck together but they came close.... oops, pardon the pun).

    When I read that Playboy eliminated the nudes, I couldn't believe it.

    I'm glad they went back to their roots.

  3. Re:larry flynt for president by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Funny

    better than Obama, where Playmates got hope and a change of clothes

  4. Re:Free by swb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I worked at a 4 location local video store chain in the early 1990s. Our location was one of the two locations that had porn titles.

    We used to run reports near close and there were some nights where we made 80% of our revenue on porn movies. 75% of that gay porn.

    At this store, the actual tapes were shelved behind the counter and an empty box with a hunk of foam inside was on the shelf. You brought the box, we put the tape in a plastic VHS carry case when you rented it.

    The porn room was a separate room in the back of the store, but the whole empty box selection routine worked the same. But the porn boxes were probably 50% larger in area than the regular titles, but people would always walk out of there and grab the FIRST title they could reach (the A section of drama) in some vain attempt to cover the box, which of course it never did. And they would do it when no one else was in the store, too -- like, umm, I have to read the title to give you the actual videotape to take home. No secrets here.

    One night I moved the tiny self-help & how-to section to where drama was supposed to start because I figured nobody rented them anyway, and if the nervous porn hounds were going to just grab random titles they might as well not decimate the As out of the drama section.

    The biggest hoots were when we people whose name you recognized -- or people you knew! -- came in for porn, especially gay porn.

  5. Re:Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The biggest hoots were when we people whose name you recognized -- or people you knew! -- came in for porn, especially gay porn.

    I was only renting those for the articles.

  6. Re:Naked is normal?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do you want to get wooshed? Because this is how you get wooshed.

  7. Re:larry flynt for president by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Next thing you know, they'll try to come out with a Playboy for Married Men.....

    Every month.....same chick....

    ;)

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  8. Re:Free by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes. Not directly for quite a few years, but even in modern times I'll tip girls on cam sites and such. Not huge amounts (probably no more than $20 per month in total), but I try to support the content I like in some way. I also subscribe to a few Twitch streamers and am a Patreon of a handful of Youtubers.

    If you don't, eventually the content goes away.

    That said, while I think they'll certainly sell more issues with nudes, the whole concept of nude vs non-nude isn't Playboy's problem. The problem is that it's a magazine. While people might still be willing to pay for content, they're not willing to pay for content in that particular format anymore.

    To a large degree I the shift the in the market is just making huge companies with a big staff just not profitable. Sure some things like a blockbuster movie is hard to do at home, but what Playboy is selling can be provided by any pretty girl with a camera in her bedroom. She can provide the product with a LOT less overhead than a huge company.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  9. Re: Free by Kiuas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Living wage, no such thing.

    What? A living wage is an easily definable concept: a wage at which people workign full time with said wage can maintain a normal standard of living, that is, afford housing, food, electricity, and so on. :

    People can bitch about Wal-Mart all they want but they have shown to be willing to work with people like my kid. I don't agree with all the crap they pull but I won't fault them for taking care of their employees.

    The plural of anecdote is not evidence. I'm glad your son has gotten employed, but keep in mind that wallmart's abuses towards their workforce are such that they even have their own wiki article'

    In 2008, Walmart agreed to pay at least $352 million to settle lawsuits claiming that it forced employees to work off the clock. "Several lawyers described it as the largest settlement ever for lawsuits over wage violations."[ - - Because Walmart employs part-time and relatively low paid workers, some workers may partially qualify for state welfare programs.[52] This has led critics to claim that Walmart increases the burden on taxpayer-funded services.[53][54] A 2002 survey by the state of Georgia's subsidized healthcare system, PeachCare, found that Walmart was the largest private employer of parents of children enrolled in its program; one quarter of the employees of Georgia Walmarts qualified to enroll their children in the federal subsidized healthcare system Medicaid.[55] A 2004 study at the University of California, Berkeley charges that Walmart's low wages and benefits are insufficient, and although decreasing the burden on the social safety net to some extent, California taxpayers still pay $86 million a year to Walmart employees.

    As this article well puts it:

    Wal-Mart Stores raised its minimum wage to $9 in 2015 and to $10 in 2016, after years of protests by workers. While important steps in the right direction, these increases are not enough. An employee working 34 hours per week (which Wal-Mart considers full time) at $10 per hour still earns less than $18,000 per year and cannot meet her family's basic needs on Wal-Mart's wages alone, even in states with low costs of living, according to a recent study.

    Why does it matter? Wal-Mart is the country's largest private employer, with 1.5 million employees in the United States alone. And it's a hugely profitable one: it generated $482 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2016. The company simply cannot justify its meager pay practices."

    Etc. So they're paying a below livable wage and then making their employees use benefits to try and survive. They're essentially subsidizing a large part of their labor costs with tax-money because what they're paying people is not enough to live on in many areas.

    I totally disagree that this is 'taking care' of their employees. It's blatant abuse, of both the employees themselves as well as tax-payer money that has to be spent on their employees on account of them not paying a livable wage or offering proper health care.

    --
    "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  10. Re:larry flynt for president by sconeu · · Score: 5, Funny

    English doesn't borrow from other languages.
    English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and rummages through their pockets for loose grammar.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.