var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Papercutninja
May 12, 2009 1:06 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Honestly, they need to get some fresh writers in there and change that damn staticky paper. I understand that most of their customer base is old baby boomers, but they really need to modernize a little bit. Also? The standard 3 pictorials per issue thing is just not enough. Even bumping it up to 4 would be great. I dont want to read another interview with Woody Allen.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
mzs
May 12, 2009 8:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Papercutninja: Who was that fellow that died maybe 6 years ago now? He had a very nice article in every issue. When he disappeared and no one took his place I let my subscription lapse. It is now such that I only borrow the December issue to read all the great fiction from my father.

The adviser is still around.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
May 12, 2009 8:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mzs:

Playboy publishes fiction? Regular fiction or sexy stuff?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mzs
May 12, 2009 10:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum: Yes lots of great short stories, not smut.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Skankingmike
May 12, 2009 1:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You mean people don't want to look at airbrushed to hell models in a magazines any more?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
May 12, 2009 5:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: Massive layoffs. Imagine these unemployment porn model has-beens trying to collect benefits and get help finding a new job through their local government office.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mariospants
May 12, 2009 1:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: Yeah, Playboy is like the American car industry: full of airbrushed fluff nobody would really like to live with in real life. You'll occasionally get the odd girl with her real skin color, breasts and bits/Caddilac CTS, Corvette VR1, Chevy Malibu but for the most part, the best place to read a Playboy magazine is also the best place to find your typical American car: at a rental car dealer.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
SanDiegoDude
May 12, 2009 1:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"I vote for Playboy to drop the skin pics, which make the magazine too racy to read in public and yet too tame to arouse anyone who's ever logged onto the Internet, and focus on its journalism and fiction.\"

Oddly enough, I completely agree. Playboy has always had excellent writing (honestly ladies, a lot of men are telling the truth when they say they read it for the articles...) and just like the quote above says, the pictures are tame by today's internet porn comparison.

Drop the nudity (change from \"naked\" to \"Scantily clad\" ala Maxim) and push in a new direction, away from the \"sleazy guy coffee table reading\" and \"teenager under-mattress entertainment\" which honestly, just isn't working anymore since both the sleazy guys and the teenagers have porn on their computers now!

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
ceriphim
May 12, 2009 6:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SanDiegoDude: Maxim is for teenagers and early twentysomethings who can't bring themselves to buy Playboy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Claytons
May 12, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SanDiegoDude: I wonder how much of their subscription base subscribes for the writing. I'm betting it's a small portion, and taking away the nudie pics would likely prove such.

Plus, there are any number of magazines (well, a few) full of good writing and journalism with strong editorial voices who'd likely publish good pieces made homeless by the shuttering of Playboy. I think switching the format so dramatically would only accelerate the decline o Playboy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
INTPLibrarian
May 12, 2009 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SanDiegoDude: As a lady who has had a subscription since 1994, I want to chime in and agree that the writing is top notch.

I prefer the photos in Playboy to most of what's online, too, but it's certainly not why I subscribe to it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Parapraxis
May 12, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@INTPLibrarian: you comment and your username reigns supreme.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
May 12, 2009 3:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SanDiegoDude: Agreed. It would be a shame to lose such a strong magazine when it comes to journalism and writing, and it's clear they can't compete with the Internet when it comes to naked ladies. Shifting their focus to their longstanding tradition of good writing would maybe help differentiate them.

Then again, they'll always be Playboy, which is always going to sound like my grandfather's nudie mag no matter how good the writing is.

...hmmm, maybe it's Hefner holding them back. Gotta get rid of the old guy if you want 20somethings to relate? You know what you need to do, Girls Next Door. America is counting on you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zandar
May 12, 2009 2:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SanDiegoDude:

I know I've always only ready Playboy for the articles...

In all seriousness, though, I agree, except that magazine already exists: It's called Esquire.

Playboy was already on a death spiral in the eighties. The writing got worse and worse (rather, the good writing became increasingly sporadic), and the models got more and more plastic. I'm just sure this is somehow Reagan's fault. Curse you to hell, Reagan!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheTriStatesBestSide_GitEmSteveDave
May 12, 2009 1:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SanDiegoDude: You do know that Maxim has had to shutter some of it's magazines, right? Stuff wasn't good enough, and was absorbed into Maxim. On the plus side, my subscription is good till 2012 on maxim now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Applekid
May 12, 2009 1:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheTriStatesBestSide_GitEmSteveDave: The racier, nude-ier version of Maxim in Europe seems to be doing just fine.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
diasdiem
May 12, 2009 2:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Applekid: Why even bother with Playboy if you've got Maxim or any of the other magazines of that type. Especially since I imagine any of them probably cost less than a subscription to Playboy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jaynor
May 12, 2009 2:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@diasdiem: One year of hef's mag is like $20... much cheaper than almost any other magazine subscription I've seen.


Maxim is written by chimpanzees and failed brain transplantees... it's barely readable.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
theblackdog
May 12, 2009 1:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheTriStatesBestSide_GitEmSteveDave: That reminds me, I just got an offer to extend my subscription, so I would run into 2011

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LegoMan322
May 12, 2009 1:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was wondering when something like this would come along. I would not even buy Playboy due to the fact that the internet has much hotter women, not all bleached blonds, and obviously you can see a hell of a lot more.

I never really even read Playboy. Pretty surprised Hugh never did anything major with the internet.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Claytons
May 12, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: That's like saying that because youve seen someone get shot, boxing is peaceful.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 12, 2009 6:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Claytons: I'm so tired of people making terrible, inappropriate analogies. Its NOTHING like boxing being peaceful compared to someone getting shot. It IS however, similar to boxing being peaceful compared to MMA. Or someone getting shot with an arrow being peaceful compared to being shot with a gun. You lose your basis for comparison when you take two completely random events and try to tie them together.

\"Oh, its peaceful like a car wreck compared to the polar ice caps melting.\" No. Learn how to use analogies, or don't use them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Claytons
May 12, 2009 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Also, while you might be tired of people not forming their analogies to your own personal definition, most of the rest of the world is sick of lazy slippery slope, a la your original argument for Playboy's \"class\".

Yes, so because bestiality and other niche porn exists, something that does not contain those elements must be classy. Really? Reaaallly? Can you not see how unsound this logic is? Even without analogies, it should be obvious how shorthanded the thoughts behind your argument are.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 13, 2009 12:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Claytons: Sorry my man, no matter how much you say it, over and over, your *bad* analogy will never become a good one. Nowhere did I say that what you wrote, however ignorantly worded, was NOT an analogy. Maybe we need to teach you a little bit about reading comprehension too...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Claytons
May 13, 2009 1:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: also, dude. re-read my comment. just like before where you were the one guilty of misunderstanding analogy, you've become a hypocrite again. I simply illustrated that my analogy was successful (analogies are either successful or not; it's pass/fail). Rather than skirt the issue so much and pick on elements of arguments peripheral to the discussion at hand, maybe you should consider reading for comprehension before you presume what is not present.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 13, 2009 4:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Claytons: Oh, oh! I was sitting here fuming at you for calling me bad names, and thought of MORE stuff to say that I forgot to say the first time!!

(that was a joke, just fyi.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Claytons
May 13, 2009 5:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: requisite second post [it's because you're so grating]:

\"I'm right, you're wrong! Whatever you said, I'll say that to you!!\"

no. probably everyone that meets you realizes any argument with you in unwinnable. You're clearly content to just argue regardless of whether you're right, well after you've abandoned the subject, simply because you can't handle the idea that someone with an opinion other than yours is right. Seriously, cognitive dissonance. It's going to catch up to you sooner or later and it's going to suck.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 13, 2009 4:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Claytons: (Allow me to paraphrase your unnecessary, constant double-posting into one short addendum.) \"I'm right, you're wrong! Whatever you said, I'll say that to you!!\"

And allow me to rebut; I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you throw at me bounces and sticks to you!

I think I've finally gotten the hang of your logic. Eagerly awaiting your well thought out reply.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Claytons
May 13, 2009 5:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Please forgive me my double posting owe unhappy one, but it seems you're of the Limbaugh ilk, one so horrified of cognitive dissonance, you refuse to admit reality instead choosing to circle around arguments nit-picking semantics, tossing red-herrings while oiling slippery slopes, attacking the style of things others say and not the content and generally being a smug, hypocritical curmudgeon.

I'm sure this pays off well for you away from your computer. Keep it up, my good man.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
anduin
May 13, 2009 2:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Claytons:
wow you just ripped em apart

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Claytons
May 13, 2009 1:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Meh, you're still defining what a \"good\" analogy is on totally arbitrary grounds, based on what is clearly a misunderstanding of the meaning of the very concept. That much is clear. So go on; you can support your fallacious reasoning all you want, and I can use effective analogies to show how short-handed your logic is and the point gets across just fine, whether or not you're satisfied with my analogies.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Claytons
May 12, 2009 7:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Radi0logy, I believe it is, in fact, your rather limited understanding of analogy that is the basis of your erred logic, so please allow me to educate you:

Shooting and boxing both contain acts of violence, of dramatically different degrees, just as bestiality porn/transsexual fisting and nudie-mag's contain sexual content of drastically different degrees. The shared elements, or per the Oxford English Dictionary, \"resemblance of things with regard to some circumstances or effects\", (violence and sex respectively) makes the comparison of one to the other analogous, and therefore my analogy, successful.

\"Oh, its peaceful like a car wreck compared to the polar ice caps melting.\"

Are you on talk radio, by chance?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 12, 2009 1:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LegoMan322: \"and obviously you can see a hell of a lot more\"

You know, some people don't need to see all the way to a woman's uterus to become aroused

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
May 12, 2009 4:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: That's put a disturbing spin on my gyno exams.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LegoMan322
May 12, 2009 1:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Neither do I, but bleach blondes and fake body parts are not too arousing for me. I like a bit more natural and with maybe different hair and unphotoshoped is fine for me.

If you can get off on just blondes who \"love horses\" then I am not as boring as you are.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Megan Squier
May 12, 2009 2:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LegoMan322: Very enlightening on the standards of attractiveness men use today. I'm not a radical feminist but I hate seeing teenage girls running around with orange fake-bake tans, overly bleached/dyed hair and tons of makeup on thinking that its attractive to guys. Girls, its not attractive; ask any straight, non-DB male if you don't believe me. It says to me that they're not respecting themselves when they do that.

I've heard Pam Anderson and Anna Nicole Smith referred to as S-L-%-TS by several of my husband's buddies (non religious fundamentalists) so I'm not surprised that old Hef is going down hill; physically and financially.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LegoMan322
May 12, 2009 3:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GMFish: I am so going there instead of playboy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mariospants
May 12, 2009 1:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Since I was a kid, I found Playboy pictorials completely unappealing. Penthouse was always my gig. Playboy models are typically fake-tanned, bleached bouffantes with hyper-long fingernails, Tammy Faye-Baker-levels of makeup and attitude that just screams high maintenance. It's been a long time since the majorty of men sided with the tastes of Hugh Hefner and it's time he learned to let them go.


I'd much rather see the busty shy girl who serves me coffee in the morning naked than Pamela Anderson any day of the week.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 12, 2009 2:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mariospants: \"I'd much rather see the busty shy girl who serves me coffee in the morning naked than Pamela Anderson any day of the week.\"

The problem is, an even average guy can GET that busty shy girl naked and in the sack. It's the Playboy girls that are out of his league, not the overweight chick with a big zit on her nose.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Claytons
May 12, 2009 5:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: \"The problem is, an even average guy can GET that busty shy girl naked and in the sack. It's the Playboy girls that are out of his league, not the overweight chick with a big zit on her nose.\"

Right. And the way I do enter her league is by spiking my hair like a teenager, wearing skin tight armani exchange or other screen-printed shirts, bathing in cologne and having millions of unearned dollars. Seriously.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LegoMan322
May 12, 2009 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I am not understanding this \"standard\" or pillar that you are holding playboy up to? After watching the show (Girls next door), do you actually hold them to a high standard?

The only one I could deal with is Kendra...purely sexual reasons but that is it. Tape over the mouth if you know what I mean.

Anyway...I been on the internet for about 15 years or so, and I could not careless about playboy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 12, 2009 4:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LegoMan322: The only standard I am holding it up to is women that are the most unattainable for a normal man, while having the standards to keep it from becoming pure smut. The Internet has allowed men to see everything to the point it leaves nothing to the imagination. A little class goes a long way, not having a woman's anus pulled so wide that you can see what she had for dinner.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LegoMan322
May 12, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Class...yes...But I still do not think Playboy has that much class.

And not every porn pulls the anus open so you can see what she had for dinner.....just the really really good one do that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 12, 2009 4:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LegoMan322: Ive seen two women both put both of their arms in a transsexuals anus up to their elbows.

Ive seen a man have relations with a chicken.

Ive seen women vomit while performing oral sex, and continue.

Ive seen a woman allow a horse to... have its way with her.

So yeah. Playboy is pretty classy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
anduin
May 13, 2009 2:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy:
wow Ive seen a LOT of porn but never anything like that before and you're chastizing US ? haha, playboy sucks. Whats left to the imagination ? Where are the stretch marks, where is the hair on the arms or neck, where are the blemishes, bumps...there are none. Imagination based on playboy is more of a science fiction ride rather than anything I could imagine a woman to be.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LegoMan322
May 12, 2009 5:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I have seen that shit too. But that does not mean that I like it. Most of the times I see it when friends say...\"Look at this...what the hell are they doing?\" with this scared look on their face.

But also it funny to watch how weird people can be when they do that shit. If the woman likes a horse...let her have the horse. Just all this kind of stuff is up there, you do not have to look at it. Find something you do like and call it a day.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
May 12, 2009 2:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: But the thing is, PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING Playboy. Men don't care if they can't get those women. Probably because those women don't even really exist.


There is a reason armature porn does so well on the internet.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LegoMan322
May 12, 2009 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nakedscience: Amature porn does well because....it not fake...well to an extent. Either way, 2 people are actually having sex. Playboy is a bunch of pics with the same girls..who like the same things...who have sex with the same guy...it's boring.

I would much rather deal with shitty lighting, shitty place and setting, bad acting (although no acting is much better) than this...\" Ohh i live at the Mansion, Hugh is so great to me, I don't care that he has 16 other girl friends and is 80 years old\".

Playboy had it's day...They missed the internet, they never did any kind of porn, its way past Hugh's bedtime...Nighty night.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cristiana
May 12, 2009 3:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nakedscience:
armature porn sounds interesting, what about some amateur armature porn!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
May 12, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cristiana: You know Playboy has thousands of pictures in its archive as well as videos and such. If they don't already, they should offer all this content for a low cost through their site. No need to let all that material go to waste.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
INTPLibrarian
May 12, 2009 4:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: They do. I don't know how much a subscription is for their online stuff, but it does exist.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 12, 2009 2:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nakedscience: Cause its free, not cause men want to see stretch marks and hooknoses.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LegoMan322
May 12, 2009 3:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Not exactly....all porn on internet is not free....and just because its free that does not mean all the girls are ugly. There are some really hot ones out there and all their stuff is free.

I have not paid for much porn over the 15 years I have been on the internet...and what I have paid...maybe is the equivalent of 5 Playboy Mags or so. Not much at all is my point.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
May 12, 2009 3:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: There is plenty of free porn ont he internet that is not amateur porn. (Trust.) Chubby porn does really well, too.


Playboy doesn't do well because it's the same bland woman over and over and over again. Men like variety.


I am a woman who knows her porn.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
May 12, 2009 4:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nakedscience: Problem with that theory is that Playboy hasn't changed that radically and it used to do well. And sure, people bought it for the articles (who else could get Jimmy Carter to admit having lust in his heart?), but it was also successfully arousing to a lot of men. The blandness probably helped to some extent, as it was wank fodder for those who wanted to consider themselves thinkers as well, followers of the \"Playboy lifestyle,\" rather than just horny d00dz.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Claytons
May 12, 2009 5:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: If you look at the older playboys, the pictorials have actually changed a lot. Playboy used to feature full-figured, naturally-busted women for the most part, and even if they were almost all white, they didn't fit such a strict mold as those today.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GMFish
May 12, 2009 2:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: \"not the overweight chick with a big zit on her nose.\"

What a great idea for a website: OverweightChicksWithZits.com!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 12, 2009 2:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GMFish: \"What a great idea for a website: OverweightChicksWithZits.com!\"

Rule 34...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TheTriStatesBestSide_GitEmSteveDave
May 12, 2009 1:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

and enacted massive layoffs

Ahhh, that explains why Heff laid off his three nurses. I knew there was a reason why \"the Girls Next Door\" reminded me of \"Disorderlies\"

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 12, 2009 1:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheTriStatesBestSide_GitEmSteveDave: Classic movie. I love the scene at the end where Winslow lets the other guy shoot him in the ass. Great stuff

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheTriStatesBestSide_GitEmSteveDave
May 12, 2009 1:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Now I must Wikipedia \"The Fat Boys\" to see what became of them.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Lincolnsbeard33
May 12, 2009 1:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't know about doing drastic changes like dropping the nude pics, after all a lot of this probably has to do with the recession. But they definitely need to do more then 3 pictorials per mag.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
GrandizerGo
May 12, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Lincolnsbeard33: I use to get the magazine for the pictorials of famous people, like movie stars.
Even though they didn't show \"the goods\" you got butt shots and boobs all the time.
The articles was what kept me.

For \"the goods\" there was always Penthouse, which also had good articles although not always of Playboy level, they frequently had close competitions.
And if I was feeling particularly \"nasty\" there was Hustler, we won't talk about the articles.
But one thing Hustler had that I loved was more ethnicity and the Home town beaver section, real people, not the airbrushed masses that the more vanilla mags had.
I did dabble in some others as well, (Oui, Ebony, Swank and others) but really those three were the main ones.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
May 12, 2009 7:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GrandizerGo: \"And if I was feeling particularly \"nasty\" there was Hustler, we won't talk about the articles.\"


Enough jokes for Rev. Jerry Fawell to sue about...


I liked Flynt's home town pics too though you could usually kind of tell the strippers from the housewives...


I dug when BBW stuff started to hit for much the same reason - listen to Sir Mixalot's Baby Got Back if you need me to explain. The more fringe mags like Legshow and and its sister Juggs and similar mags kind of catered to that market too. Those also hit the market for real ladies as I don't think they ever had any extra money for airbrushing...

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jpdanzig
May 12, 2009 1:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hmm... Playboy's declining fortunes may be due in part to their recent conservative editorial slant, out of step with the rest of the country.


Their fall could also be due to their reliance on the plastic surgery industry. Really, there is so much silicone in their models, I am surprised that the makeup people in Hollywood have enough of the stuff left to supply the crash & burn films of summer.


Then there is also the creepy crypt-keeper at Playboy's helm, continuing to cavort with girls a quarter of his age. Cosmo had the smarts to show Helen Gurley Brown the door when she started looking like Nancy Reagan, and it's way past time for Playboy to tell founder Hugh that he's through...

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
HiPwr
May 12, 2009 6:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jpdanzig: Please provide some examples of the \"recent conservative editorial slant.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
evilhapposai
May 12, 2009 11:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HiPwr: aka not kissing Obama's ass like the rest of media today.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
backbroken
May 12, 2009 1:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wait one second. You are telling me that I can get free porn on this here internet? FREE porn??? I've got to see it to believe it. Hold let me open another browser and...


Holy shnikees!! The internets are nothing but porn! Who knew?


Goodbye Consumerist!! No more wasting my time on this NON-PORN website. Now if only there was a place on the internet where I could satisfy my love of the larger ladies. Oh, to dream the impossible dream.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
May 12, 2009 4:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@backbroken: Peel another layer of the internets and you'll discover startingly novel pairings of saucy vixens with farm animals, pack beasts and squirrels.
OH NOES - not the squirrels!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
May 12, 2009 7:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: @backbroken:


If you can find it it is a funny listen too.


Band: Da Vinci's Notebook
Title :Internet Porn


Back in the not-too-distant past
When I would need a quick repast
Or a temporary break from my agenda
Off to the bedroom I would head
Pull out the Playboy from 'neath the bed
And sneak a peek at all the portraits of pudenda


My alternatives were slim
If I tried to find another source for sin
I'd have to hang out with the losers in the back room of my local video store
But last month I finally made the call
I got a brand new cable modem installed
And it opened up the floodgates on a whole new universe of Internet porn


(Internet porn) Roman orgy scenes
(Internet porn) dominatrix queens
(Internet porn) girl on girl on girl on girl on girl on guy on sheep
(Internet porn) gross anatomy
(Internet porn) Pam and Tommy Lee
(Internet porn) when you're given so much to choose from, who has time to sleep?


After my girlfriend goes to sleep
Then I get out of bed and down the hall I creep
So I can hunker down and wallow in depravity until 3:00 or 4:00
You'll always find me in that same tableau
Silhouetted by my monitor's warm glow
And absorbing all the bounty from the cornucopia of Internet porn


(Internet porn) barely legal teens
(Internet porn) naughty figurines
(Internet porn) geriatric German grandmas spanking Spanish men
(Internet porn) erotic Asian art
(Internet porn) guys with extra parts
(Internet porn) I don't think I'm ever going to see the sun again


(Internet porn) melon-love.com
(Internet porn) there's my neighbor's mom
(Internet porn) bikers wearing diapers chasing nurses dressed like Smurfs
(Internet porn) Maison l'Esclavage
(Internet porn) un, deux, trois menage
(Internet porn) every kind of smut from every corner of the Earth

Reply
\"user-pic\"
littlebird802619
May 12, 2009 3:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@backbroken: Backbroken, you made my day! soooo nice to hear from someone who (even in jest) aren't looking for a bag of antlers with some silicone balloons attached

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
halcyondays
May 12, 2009 1:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Playboy's business model, like the rest of the dead-tree media, is outdated; who's going to pay for content that can be read for free on the internet?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Lincolnsbeard33
May 12, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@halcyondays: it's not really an outdated business model since they do offer girls that you can't see anywhere else. That is their hook but obviously with the economy the way it is people are not willing to pay for porn. Now I can guarantee when the economy picks up playboy will also see profits begin to rise.

Remember Playboy is not just a magazine they have an online and digital component.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
diasdiem
May 12, 2009 2:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@halcyondays: ..he said, as he took another sip of his bottled water.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
May 12, 2009 4:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@diasdiem: Heh. Okay, so if you're Jerome Kern, tearing yourself away from Show Boat to run the Playboy empire, apparently, how do you take the bottled water model to magazine sales? Sure, you have running porn in your house, but ours is portable? Washed in crystal springs? More refreshing?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
May 12, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: spend more time and resources turning the models into household names? There's got to be some compelling reason to choose the magazine model over the Internet one, and the only value-add I can think of that you can create out of nothing is celebrity. Or diamonds.

There's got to be some middle ground of fame and respectability between, say, Jenna Jameson and Scarlett Johansson. If Playboy could figure out that sweet spot and create model celebrities who only pose for Playboy, maybe they'd have something worth buying again.

...I can't believe I'm so obsessed with trying to solve Playboy's problems today.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
May 12, 2009 6:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: Then I think ol' Hef is, as you suggest, a huge liability. He taints the name with a combination of \"ew\" and \"wayback machine\" that precludes glossy trendiness.

I also think that they tended to draw on presenting women who wouldn't take off their clothes readily, and that that's a smaller group than it used to be (I have this picture in my head of the Playboy staff sneering at Girls Gone Wild stuff while anxiously watching its success). But there are also enough prominent women who are entrepreneurial enough to make an exclusive contract for a good sum of money, if they have it. Dump the stable of no-names and spend the money on a must-read article and stealing the celebs from Allure's nude issue. (I suspect Padma Lakshmi could have sold a hell of a lot of Playboys.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Lincolnsbeard33
May 12, 2009 5:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: they already do that with the Girls Next Door. They just need to expand it to other models.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
aerick79
May 12, 2009 1:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I want to know, about the other Porn Mags?


So, if Playboy is going through a hard time, then Penthouse and Hustler can't be doing good too. This is kinda sad regardless if you don't the Chicks,or what not, This is the GM of Porn Mag.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Aaron Strader
May 12, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aerick79:

Penthouse has been struggling for ages. Especially since their web portal and video divisions have never really taken off.

Playboy still always has had the \"clean cut\" porn image since they don't do graphic pictorials and manage to secure shoots with real actresses.

Penthouse creates it's own celebrities by sending the girls to Howard Stern, which has obviously diminishing returns.

Hustler's probably the only one poised to survive this. They created a successful video division and retail chain, so their brand managed to rise up out of it's own persistent controversy to create something of an \"alt porn\" brand to counter Playboy's image.

To a guy, seeing a girl with a playboy bunny necklace sends one message, but a girl wearing a Hustler tshirt sends a very different message. Hustler's managed to tap into a psychologically juxtaposed \"bad girl\" market for both genders with this image and presence.

And that message plays really well in today's society.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
May 12, 2009 4:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aerick79:\"This is the GM of Porn Mag.\"


LOL, great quote.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Applekid
May 12, 2009 1:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, there goes my scam of saying I'm a talent scout for Playboy to get girls taking off their clothes for me.

I suppose this Federal Beaver Inspector shirt is obsolete as well.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Brad Brown
May 12, 2009 4:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Applekid: You can try my scam of \"Hi, I'm Joe Franics - what's your name?\" It works about 25% of the time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PersonalBest
May 12, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Applekid: My sister was actually approached in a 7-11 by some dude who said that he worked for Playboy and would like to take some photos of her. He had fake business cards made up and everything. Obviously, she scoffed at him, but I'd be interested to know how often this scheme actually works.

No, interested isn't the right word, more like terrified.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
May 12, 2009 4:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Applekid: When women deliberately began to get Bunny tattos and wear Playboy apparel you know it jumped the shark...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MightyDwarf56
May 12, 2009 1:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I used to buy an adult mag about once every three months or so, but now that I have internet again I haven't looked back.

But I am surprised that they haven't made more of leap into the internet. I also wonder if they do a good amount of DVD sales.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
zlionsfan
May 12, 2009 2:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MightyDwarf56: The problem is that they were late on both counts ... what they offer in terms of website and DVD entertainment pales in comparison to what is available elsewhere.

I mean, that's what I heard from this friend of mine.

They've got no shot at establishing a successful business going in that direction, so yeah, they might as well try to nudge Maxim et al from their niche.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kevjohn
May 12, 2009 2:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MightyDwarf56: Their DVDs are GAWD awful! I couldn't figure out who those things are even made for. Certainly not for men.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
savdavid
May 12, 2009 2:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you don't change with the times you get left behind. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Lincolnsbeard33
May 12, 2009 4:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savdavid: well they might not need to. I think this is has more to do with the economy then anything else. I am willing to bet once the economy gets better playboy will see a rise in sales.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
diasdiem
May 12, 2009 2:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Playboy will always be around in some form or another. Where would declining actresses go to pose nude to give their fading careers a jump-start if Playboy went under? Yesterday's hot new starlet isn't going to pose for www.hotcoeds.com. Playboy's the only mag with a veneer of taste that ameliorates the stigma of going full frontal purely as a career move, and there's no online equivalent. At least, none with the name recognition of Playboy.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
GMFish
May 12, 2009 2:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Playboy should dump Playboy.com and start up airbrushedbabes.com.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kevjohn
May 12, 2009 2:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My old man used to buy Playboy when I was a kid. And he was one of the many men who DID just buy it for the articles. It was a great \"lifestyle\" magazine and they used to have some of the best writing and interviews to be found anywhere. But yeah, those two or three dozen pages of nekkid women meant that those mags had to get stashed away (unsuccessfully) from my prying little hands. I don't know if the writing quality has deteriorated over the past couple of decades, but the quality of the models certainly has. Do away with the unappealing, siliconed-up bimbos and people can start leaving Playboy out on their coffee tables.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
GMFish
May 12, 2009 2:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LegoMan322: \"Pretty surprised Hugh never did anything major with the internet.\"

Old media is deathly afraid of the net. To their peril, of course.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
LegoMan322
May 12, 2009 3:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GMFish: I thought he would have been in on that since porn was there. Why he never followed porn I don't get it.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
sockrockinbeats
May 12, 2009 2:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

i wonder how much playboy makes off of those t-shirts, bootie shorts, hats, etc with the little bunny emblem on them.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
pixiegirl1
May 12, 2009 4:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sockrockinbeats: I don't know but I believe that their merchandise is the only reason why the company is still around. If they weren't selling that junk they would have folded a long time ago.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
YouDidWhatNow?
May 12, 2009 2:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So they airbrush the pics. Big deal. They're creating someone's idealized version of what women should look like. Obviously lots of people like that. Other people like Hustler, which AFAIK doesn't airbrush anything, and is racier to boot. I believe, though, that Playboy has always crushed Hustler in sales...


But at any rate, I do have to admit that I wonder how *any* porn product really survives much anymore, granted the vast volumes that can be had for free on the internet anyway. It'd be like, oh I don't know, paying a premium for \"pre-bottled water\" when you can get as much water you want for free from the tap...

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
May 12, 2009 4:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?: Remember the study that found that people in Utah admitted to buying more p0rn on-line than anyone else? Key word was \"buying\".


It is the same as \"Who buys music CD's anymore?\"


As for the products, the dvd guys develop their stuff from the near costless digital items posted online and then sell it for $49- I suspect that respect for copyrights is as loose as some of the people. Many of the \"shoppes\" are taking the JHustler Hollywood slant with apparel and novelties more than viewed content anymore.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
YouDidWhatNow?
May 12, 2009 7:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@econobiker:


Yeah, I get that people *are* buying porn. I just don't understand why. How could anyone need any more than you can get in 3 seconds with a web search for free?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
May 12, 2009 7:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?: Maybe because you can't hide your browser history under the mattress?


Seriously.


How many idiot pc users run without virus/spam ad protection and end up on sites that go to pop up hell? You only can claim it was a mistake once...


And then there is the road trip mobile DVD market- ie watching XXX in cars- (which is illegal in some states). I only say this since an acquantaince of mine is actually on a paid interestate road clean up crew and he said that they pick up lots of empty p0rn DVD boxes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
May 12, 2009 3:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?: EVERYONE air-brushes (or Photoshops) their pictures anymore...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
temporaryerror
May 12, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My dad has had a subscription to Playboy for as long as I can recall. While the nekked ladies were pretty neat when I was prepubescent, when I got older they really lost their appeal. Plus I found much better things online. I do, however love reading the columns and articles. One of my favorites is the Playboy Advisor.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 12, 2009 3:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Phil's on the right track with the suggestion to drop teh newds. Forget about the maxim style scantily clad teenage garbage too. Maybe 1 or 2 sexy classy spreads per issue. Here's the rub: Include access to an official Playboy porn/nudes website as part of the magazine subscription. Dad gets a magazine he can read on the train AND a decent ad-free site to shake his stick at for one price. Playboy gets to keep its image and its business.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CreativeLinks
May 12, 2009 3:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think Playboy has missed the boat, even if they dropped the nude photos. You just aren't going to be seen in public reading a Playboy for another 10 years.


However, Men's Journal, Men's Health, and Maxim seem to be acceptable and offer the same content.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Blue387
May 12, 2009 3:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wikipedia says \"The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS) has published a Braille edition of Playboy since 1970.\"

Interesting.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
tmed
May 12, 2009 3:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I loved the interviews growing up, the level of journalism in the magazin was better than a lot of people think. The magazine is anachronistic now because of the girls. Maxim and such made it superfluous on the soft core side and Playboy was never hard-core. so it never had a chance at that market.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
quail
May 12, 2009 3:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

MEN'S HEALTH ate into Playboy's pool of mag subscribers big time. When young guys need help and advice on how to get women why turn to the mag that tells you to buy this $$ suit and car when you have a mag that tells you how to get healthy and that gives raw sex advice? MH is also into the internet big time.

As to the Playboy women, they all look alike. It's not a question of being out of someone's league. The question is about being boring.

Playboy is too big a brand to go under completely. I could see someone buying the brand and doing some good with it. Heff and his family have been at the wheel too long.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
The-Lone-Gunman
May 12, 2009 3:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Playboy for years sold the ideal of the 'Playboy Lifestyle' to it's readership via the print magazine. It was something many males aspired to.


Problem is, there's only one man who can actually afford the Playboy Lifestyle, then and now...Hugh Hefner.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
carline711
May 12, 2009 3:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Not surprising that the business is hurting. But isn't there a lot of cross-business they could be conducted to save themselves?

Playboy Bar and Grille - Put those blond models to work. (Management not responsible for mistakes on orders)

Playboy Strip Club - Similar to Bar and Grille but grease isn't only on the food.

Playboy Aerobic videos - Finally, understand the workouts of these 20 somethings. Cheaper than a gym membership and sadly possibly better than their other dvds...

Playboy Perfume - Haven't you always wanted to smell like sex, vanilla and shame? Now here's your chance! Other varieties include additional glitter, and Heff's sweat.

Playboy House Cleaners - Move over Mollymaid! These girls are ready to vacuum, sweep, and dust your house to your satisfaction. Our girls arrive discretely and will perform all work indoors while wearing a french maid's outfit. The girls will perform landscaping duties, however management is not responsible for the grass if it is bald..

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Timbo2702
May 12, 2009 3:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I swear I thought this was an Onion article when I read the headline

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
May 12, 2009 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Playboy does have good writing, but there is that \"girlie-mag\" stigma associated with it that means you probably aren't going to be reading it in public.

Maxim, however, has pics of hot popular babes (although no nudity), and you can read it in public. These softer-core magazines (and web sites) have taken some of the younger crowd with them and away from Playboy.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
incognit000
May 12, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

When I went to college, I snapped up a few Playboys early on in myfreshman year. I liked the idea of being able to see hot chicks andread interesting articles at the same time.

But then I found I could get much more of both, for free, on the internet.

Honestly I kind of want to like Playboy due to their history andreputation, but they don't seem to understand the new economy (like somany other traditional media corporations).

I'd happily sign up with them if buying the print edition got you avirtual edition, and if they went more class less trash. It wouldn'thurt if they got out of the 70s and started including innovative adultcomedy like Cracked.com has.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
May 12, 2009 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So if the mag tanks, where will we find the hidden bunny on the covers anymore?


What, you say, hidden bunny? Yup, like an \"easter egg\".


On every cover of the mag there is the Bunny logo somewhere. Often it is easily found- a keychain the model is holding, stitched into the chair she is sitting on, on a towel covering her, but sometimes it is a pain and hidden well. For many years it was an inside joke and then they started to reveal its location in the next issue's table of contents. In the 1980s,I remember visiting friends working at a 7-11 (when they still carried adult mags) and we would always search for the logo -after reviewing other content. Worst one ever was concealed on the spine of the mag in some design that ran over from the cover. We also found it hidden the model's hair strands and even in the sunglint from a window or mirror...


About the same time, I worked at a gas/service station with a older guy who never had heard about the bunny until one of the mechanics recovered a couple of years issues from an abandoned car. The old guy about freaked out looking for the logos saying that he had subscribed to the mag for years prior and never knew about it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
richcreamerybutter
May 12, 2009 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Vintage issues of VIVA...those contain some of the hottest pics in the history of print porn.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
SDreamer
May 12, 2009 4:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, as many of said, the nudes aren't the selling point anymore of Playboy, sure they have some fine models, but honestly, you can find the same girls for free on the net, as said in the article, making the articles in Playboy the only thing worth reading. But with other magazines out there that are more accessible to reading, like Men's Health Journal, and Maxim, and others, it just isn't worth to buy a Playboy to have a few nudies here and there between articles.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
James Sumners
May 12, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

:(

It looks like I'm on my last subscription. I almost didn't renew last go around. The interviews have been steadily going down hill, I've never liked the short fiction (not a short stories fan), and I just don't agree with the politics of the \"Forum\" any more. That doesn't leave much left in the magazine. So if the price is going to go up, and the issue count down, then I will no longer be getting the magazine.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 12, 2009 5:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"I vote for Playboy to drop the skin pics, which make the magazine too racy to read in public and yet too tame to arouse anyone who's ever logged onto the Internet, and focus on its journalism and fiction.\"

This. As someone who seriously did read Playboy more for the articles (and especially the interviews), that is frankly a brilliant idea. The handful of copies I actually own weren't for the pictorials but for stuff like the Frank Zappa interview or the Harlan Ellison interview.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
kwsventures
May 12, 2009 5:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Please don't tell Obama that Playboy needs a taxpayer funded welfare bailout. Please.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Daveinva
May 12, 2009 5:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Actually, I would recommend a compromise: drop the nudes from the print mag, but keep them online.


This way, you can increase the circulation of the print mag, but still keep the Playboy cred-- AND tease some traffic to the website (although, granted, you can quickly get every photo for free thanks to internet theft).

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jdjonsson
May 12, 2009 6:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yep, move the nudes to their online operation, and make the mag more like Maxim, but with their traditional journalism, and I think they could bounce back. As soon as it can be sold in more places again, then they can make more money.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
GreatWhiteNorth
May 12, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Another childhood icon lost to the march of technology! So sad...

\"Yes kids, I remember the days before the internet destroyed Playboy... Those were the days before sticky keyboards and mice...\"

(Apologies to all those I have just offended.)

Reply
1 replies
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
aka_bigred
May 12, 2009 8:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Playboy is has lost touch - It's not even about how much cooch the women show, it's about the styling of the shoots. They show the same thing over, and over, and over - big old fake boobies with bleach blond hair and the occasional brunette to \"mix it up\".

They need to update their style to stay relevant. Take Maxim for example. Their pictorials are far \"hotter\" than Playboy's even with all the \"naughty bits\" covered by clothing (though sometimes what they wear barely classifies as fabric.)

It's not about how much you see, but how it's shown. Yes, you can find whatever you like on the net (and most times more then you really want to see), but if Playboy came back into a niche people want, they could still do fine. As someone else said, you can't openly read them for the articles, and the naked women are not interesting enough for me to subscribe. They fail on both counts and therefore will continue to lose subscribers.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Black-Cat
May 12, 2009 8:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great idea...sales are down and you want to increase the price. Hef, you are an idiot. The world has free porn and they are tired of paying for your big time lifestyle. Besides, they airbrush everyone in that magazine.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
gman33
May 12, 2009 9:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Playboy is irrelevant. They are still stuck in the 60's and 70's, at least back then their models were hot.
They need to get back to the natural models they had in the 70's, no fake tits, no more tattoos or shaved bushes, and have natural looking women.

They are not going to do that though.
There is no reason for anyone to buy playboy. They have outlived their usefulness.

Playboy had been screwed since the 90's.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
kyle4
May 12, 2009 11:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've been subscribing for just over a year now and have to agree with Phil's suggestions. I never bought it for the pics, which I just skip over. It surprised me with how good the writing was. All of my friends kept saying \"Oh, that's bullshit\" when I told them until they actually read through one. One issue was 120 pages, only 11 had nude pictures.

The internet has all the porn you can get, I see Playboy as more of a classy nude mag, like Vanity Fair nude. It's just a woman standing there without clothes, airbrushed.

Chuck Palahniuk got his start writing for Playboy, their interviews are still strong and they have some educational material. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
IfThenElvis
May 12, 2009 11:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As a kid in the late '60s our only access to porn was through Peter - one of the original latchkey kids and the only kid in the neighbourhood who's mum worked full time. We'd lie in wait for the mailman and intercept his parent's Playboy - careful not to crease or bend the pages - and at that time in Playboy not even catching a hint of pubic hair.

Playboy magazine was briefly available on CPAir flights in 1972 \"for relaxation\" but apparently there was a backlash: [jetfuelcafe.com]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
redkamel
May 12, 2009 11:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

they need to have better articles and more pictures and make it more nicer, come out less often, and more expensive. Pick up a copy of Surfers Journal and you'll see what they need to do. Those things are collectibles. Also maybe order only?

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
BobbyMike
May 14, 2009 4:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Playboy stopped being relevant to me when I started dating. Real women that I could actually talk to were much more interesting. Having magazines around with naked women in them also tended to scare away some of the interesting ones. And guys, your wife doesn't actually like that you look at other naked women. She may tolerate it, but if you told her that you had decided to stop buying the magazine, she's not going to be sad.

IMHO the articles aren't that great, but I do agree that they would probably do better in the current (and future) market by dropping the shoots. They could move the shoots to the internet as a subscriber extra and develop a print magazine that could be read in public without people smirking at you. Then they could latch onto the lucrative doctors/dentists' waiting room market

Reply
");