Playboy to scrap nudity in magazine makeover

cbsnews.com/news/playboy-new-approach-no-nudity-in-magazine-makeover/

I saw this story earlier today and thought it was a joke. It will save them a lot on mailing costs when sales drop to only he people who buy Playboy for the articles, roughly eight people.

:rotfl:

This quote from another version of the story was telling":“That battle has been fought and won,” Playboy chief executive Scott Flanders told the Times. “You’re now one click away from every sex act imaginable for free. And so it’s just passé at this juncture.”Essentially an admission that porn has destroyed sexuality. All the champions of all cheap fixes and salacious things sexually “fulfilling” find themselves ironically unfulfilled…

Its a Race to the bottom of the Barrel…
Magazines lead the charge but has now been overtaken by other means

The disgusting thing is that internet pornography can be stopped.
But you and I haven’t done enough to stop it.
Too late for many addicted in our times, but not too late to stop it so the next generation aren’t hurt by it.
Time to start writing to our politicians.
There are a lot of votes for the politician who stops this evil.

You are right, back in the magazines heyday, Im sure no one was worried about another type of media becoming more popular, but then along came the internet…I have to imagine, what the next media will be, that will be even more shocking, Im assuming holograms will be the next big thing in porn, or some kind of realistic, interactive, life size image.

Plus Playboy is tame compared to some of the garbage online, just showing the naked body is not enough anymore, now they must be engaged in the most hard core porn possible for people to become interested??

You do have to wonder what the next boundary they are seeking to cross.People that become desensitized to this kind of stuff usually are not content for long at a certain level, they are always looking for more shocking thing, I kind of think thats why child porn is becoming so prevalent today, regular old hard core porn just doesnt do it for most anymore.

I actually know someone who bought back issues of it for the Steven King short stories. His wife is a Steven King fan (:confused:). Sifted through bins of old mags at flea markets to find the ones with King’s stories. And yes, I believe that person. As for the nudity, since there is stuff on the Internet that makes Playboy look like My Weekly Reader, I guess Hef et al. figure the best way for the mag to survive is to turn it into a male version of Cosmo. Good luck with that.

I was surprised to find that Playboy still publishes a magazine.

[attach]22456[/attach]

Sad to say, I worked on their corporate offices in Beverly Hills, back when I worked construction. I found it ironic that a company that made its fortune exposing and debasing women tried very hard to cover itself in opulence and respectability with fine furnishings and expensive artwork. That was 25 years ago, and they have since left that high rent area for a more affordable space in the Valley. Now they want us to think they’re taking the high road by emphasizing the beauty of scantily clad, instead of naked women, but it is really just a last gasp of a dying enterprise.

They’ve already done all the damage they’re capable of doing. Why pay for a Playboy when men can find images they can masturbate to on the internet for free?

Well, yes Playboy itself is dying off, however, the industry itself is thriving better than ever.

Years ago, showing a naked female body was taboo, kids would sneak around trying to look at pictures, fathers would hide their magazines, and these were just naked female bodies, no porn involved, BUT NOW, thats not enough anymore, now, people have moved on and want to see much worse things, they want to see pictures/ video of the actual sex act in progress, sometimes with multiple people/ objects involved…eventually, even the most hard core porn wont be enough anymore, I can only imagine what people will want to see then…maybe we are already there though, I hear much more child porn news today than ever before, to me, this shows its progressing, while child porn is still taboo right now, remember, Playboys images of naked women were viewed the same way at one time, and eventually they became accepted and even considered tame…its very likely child porn will take the same course…in fact, its happening right before our eyes!

I never can see Darth Vadar the same way again lol :smiley:

Under what circumstances is it OK for a piece of art or entertainment to show a completely naked? When is it not OK?

The human body is meant to be beautiful, they were designed this way, the statue of David for example, if someone suggested covering a portion up or censoring it, or other similar pieces or art that display the human body (male or female), that would be sinful…basically its the enemy convincing people that its somehow nasty or dirty, and needs to be covered up.(a creation of God is nasty or dirty) unfortunately Satan has tricked many people when it comes to this.

However, images of people engaged in sex or posed in certain positions, they are designed for lust, not in anyway the same thing as a piece of art of sculpture, I find it fairly easy to tell the difference.

Is it acceptable to buy it now?

I used to collect it, for the sake of collecting more than the girls, most of them are really not attractive, some of its reports are good but I do not agree with the way of life they promote, and I’m a porn addict, buying overpriced stuff, using girls as “playmates”, mates for playing, that’s just insulting.

I will not buy this month’s issue because Chelsea Handler wrote an article supporting abortion, and Hefner wrote an article attacking religious institutions and I thought they removed nudity to attract a wider audience, so for a magazine that promotes freedom and choice, isn’t our freedom if we chose to believe in Jesus?

Buying it still supports a trashy industry that exploits women and treats them as objects only focusing on their nude bodies. If anything, it can be an occasion of sin to purchase it. I would stop - because you are still giving money to Hugh Hefner.

Time for the magazine to enter the trashbin of publishing history.

I love watching men’s gymnastics, circus performers, or certain kinds of dance precisely because they show the beauty of the human body. There are plenty of routines that deliberately cross over into the realm of the sensuous though, which make me uncomfortable.

There are dozens of landmines now when it comes to raising kids in a sexually healthy way. The line between appreciation and voyeurism is a difficult one to walk. Censorship at one point may have been enough, but nowadays, something must fill the absence.

I look out my window and see the neighborhood teenage girls walking in shorts that probably show more than my underwear. They are beautiful daughters of God, and this is what we are supposed to prepare my son to healthily handle. How does one teach him that women are beautiful, but not to be objectified? Boys look. I heard once of a family who deliberately filled their home with classical art, including some nude bodies (like the David or whatnot), as a kind of guideline for appreciating the beauty of the human body. At one point that may have been drastic, but I’m not so sure anymore. It must be done with a pound of common sense though. I guess I’m inclined to agree that we must make goodness truly appealing.

Someone is truly free when they can appreciate the beauty of the human body without tempting the sexual appetite, I personally think.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.