RE: Playboy to stop showing pictures of naked women
October 15, 2015 at 3:52 pm
(This post was last modified: October 15, 2015 at 3:55 pm by Crossless2.0.)
(October 14, 2015 at 11:38 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:(October 13, 2015 at 5:20 am)abaris Wrote: Not sure how they will fare. It's on the same lines as the Hustler or Penthouse suddenly deciding on serious journalism. There's certainly no shortage of lifestyle magazines on the market and I can't imagine Playboy being bought for that. To me, it seems, as if they're swapping a shrinking audience for a non existing one.
You'd be surprised. They've been doing things other than porn from the beginning. Christ, they published short stories by Chuck Palahniuk, Roald Dahl, Arthur C. Clarke, Richard Matheson, Kurt Vonnegut, Stephen King, and P.G. Wodehouse, for crying out loud!
Honestly, they've always tried to have some level of class, and this is really just them going in a direction they've gone before.
Right. The "I really get Playboy for the articles" thing became a punch line a long time ago, but there is an element of truth to it. They have featured some heavyweight writers over the years, and their interviews are justly esteemed.
I'm not going to blow smoke up anyone's ass: of course, I turned immediately to the photo spreads and the centerfold. But after I'd finished ogling the women, I usually found plenty else to justify the cost of the magazine on the relatively rare occasions I purchased it. Penthouse, Hustler, and the rest seldom -- if ever -- demonstrated a similar aspiration to some degree of high-mindedness in the midst of the T&A.