Playboy at 50 Years

[Jackie]

Hi All,

Me and my Guy were watching on A&E a 50 year anniversary special for Playboy magazine. Much to our surprise when they showed Marilyn Monroe as the firts centerfold they showed her breasts and nipple's. Most all nude still's were not pixelated. Even at the party we saw some nipple glimpses. There were some totally nude women in the pool which they pixelated. They did allow painted nipples ( Girls with Body Paint ) with no pixelation.
I especially liked Playmte "Stacy Fusion" who said that she went to a NUDE beach in France and decided that it was pretty natural that is why she posed. She said that european's are fine with nudity and it is no big deal. Pretty good show and great that they showed some nudity.

Love ,
Jackie

[Jackie]

Hi All,

Me and my Guy were watching on A&E a 50 year anniversary special for Playboy magazine. Much to our surprise when they showed Marilyn Monroe as the firts centerfold they showed her breasts and nipple's. Most all nude still's were not pixelated. Even at the party we saw some nipple glimpses. There were some totally nude women in the pool which they pixelated. They did allow painted nipples ( Girls with Body Paint ) with no pixelation.
I especially liked Playmte "Stacy Fusion" who said that she went to a NUDE beach in France and decided that it was pretty natural that is why she posed. She said that european's are fine with nudity and it is no big deal. Pretty good show and great that they showed some nudity.

Love ,
Jackie

[NuTex]

Jackie thanks for posting this. I heard about the 50th anniversary listening to NPR last week when they replayed an interview with Hefner.

To me this raises a question. While naturism as a movement was around long before the magazine what, if any, effect did Playboy magazine have on the movement? Good, bad or none at all.

I'm haven't decided my opinion on this. Sometimes I think it was ill in that maybe (stress maybe) it encourages the view that nudism always equal sex. But then sometimes I think it was neutral because erotic art does has its place. But I also think I could make an argument that since Playboy was part of the "sexual revolution" that possibly some may have become open to alternative lifestyles, which in many ways naturism is.

Opinions anyone?
NuTex

[NudeAl]

I'm sure it has had an effect though what it has been is hard to say. I can see both sides on this one. On the one hand it has made the exposure of the nude female body more acceptable. But on the other hand it has conditioned most of the population to beleive that you must have a perfect body to be able to show it others.

I'll say one thing for them though they remain a class act. By that I mean they don't go into some of the more explict behavior that others have. So as far as mens magazines go they are the most respectable.

[Trailscout]

Playboy used to feature images that merely celebrated feminine beauty; they were nude but not an erotic come-on. Somewhere along the way, they parted ways with what many nudists will accept.

I don't even disagree with the general premises of the Playboy Philosophy. Before you raise your eyebrows, there is nothing inherently wrong in the core of their "live life to the fullest" attitude. You can read it for yourself on the magazine's Web site. I will not post a link because it has some images that are not appropriate for a family naturist Web site such as INA.

But the fly in the ointment for me is that this otherwise harmless philosophy about the joy of life went on to advocate sex outside the bounds of marriage. This advocasy of immoral sex exists in some of the editorials and cartoons and in the nude portraits when they began putting some of the women in sexual poses.

Even if Playboy were to return to publishing only non-sexual images of beautiful women, it seems to me that a man who is truly living the good life would not have much time for looking at photographs, but would be out enjoying himself and meeting beautiful women in the real world.
I enjoy seeing an occasional photograph of a beautiful woman, but cannot justify a subscription for that reason alone.

There is a lot of good artwork in the photography, but Hefner seems to be sending us mixed signals. At times he seems to be saying that nude young female beauties are innately of erotic interest and at other times he praises their beauty from a purely artistic standpoint.

Playboy is also guilty of presenting us with a monolithic image of feminine beauty. Hefner is entitled to his preferences in a mate, but when his magazine sets the global standard of beauty, it ignores the sheer physical diversity of the human family. That is a great and grievous omission.

[missouriboy]

I think I'd call Playboy neutral in its impact on family nudism. It has always projected itself as a "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" phenomonen that caters mainly to males only, and depicts women as objects to be exploited by them.

OTOH, it did bring respectability to the nude body in mainstream America by distancing itself from out-and-out pornography, as embodied by several of its imitator rags of today.

Playboy philosophy and social nudism philosophy only agree in one tiny area, and are thus two vastly different things, each having its own unique place in the overall picture of society.

I agree with you Missouriboy. I do believe most people know the difference between Playboy and skinnnydipping.

They are two different issues and don't really affect one another.

Trailscout, you may feel they are immoral for not being against sex outside of marriage but I think that many people don't find it immoral. Morality isn't set in stone. What one finds moral and immoral varies quite a bit from one individual to another and I think it is unfair to expect everyone else to live by standards you have personally set.

As for Playboy once portraying their nudes as non-sexual I really don't remember that ever happening. Could you provide examples of this? Although they have never beem hardcore I feel that they have always presented women as sexual beings.

[Trailscout]

Cyndiann,

I think we can agree with MOboy that Playboy is a different phenomenon than social nudism.

But nudists are often asked for their reaction to Playboy since we spend a lot of time in the nude and Playboy has always had nude portraits within their pages.

Somewhere in the 1960's I think it was, Playboy began photographing women in sexual nude poses. You are correct that the magazine has always had editorial positions, cartoons and captions beneath pictures that have occasionally advocated extramarital or premarital sex. But to counter some of the critics of Playboy, they often publish pictures that are simply nude and the sexual connotation is only an assumption that a lustful reader would make. A nudist would not find all the pictures erotic, not even in current issues of the magazine.

Speaking from the perspective of a Christian nudist, I do not condemn the nonsexual nude photographs. They are very well done. I do not condemn the text when it speaks of sex in a positive affirming light, as long as it is within the context of matrimony. The Playboy philosophy is not objectionable in most respects to Christian nudists.

I am not advocating banning the magazine, I am simply urging Christian nudists to join me in refusing to subscribe to a magazine that makes public presentation of sexual imagery. We believe that sex with our spouses should be celebrated, but in private.

There is a terrible problem with sexual addiction and for someone with that mindset, a magazine that features nude women in "come and get it" poses would only add fuel to the fire. For me and a lot of guys, I can look at the magazine for 5 minutes, say "Wow, the girls look great", but then I get bored and go on to something else that interests me. I find much more excitement from an ongoing multi-faceted relationship with the real world women I meet than a 2-dimensional image of someone I have never met. Playboy is not a "dangerous" magazine, it is simply incompatible with the Christian way of living, probably also incompatible with family-type social nudism. An added issue is the conspicuous materialism promoted there. The Playboy philosophy promotes unbridled capitalism, even what I regard as material excess. Christians are sometimes accused of being anticapitalist. Many denominations teach their members to be socially responsible, to protect the earth's natural environments, to exercise compassion, and to help the poor and work for social justice. I think Hugh Hefner has softened his social Darwinism somewhat since the early 60's, but I still don't hear him advocating the egalitarian community spirit I find in nudist circles. Well, that seems to prove that Hugh Hefner is not a nudist, but he is probably more understanding of our cause than some.

So when I am speaking to teenage boys at my church or boys in my own family, I would certainly let them know that I do not support Playboy's attitude and would suggest that there are better choices for them if they simply would like to see feminine beauty.

Nudists have the options of the naturist magazines and INA's gallery for seeing people in their natural state. Better yet, I would prefer that young men cultivate real relationships with women and ideally that relationship would include non-sexual nude recreation.

[NuTex]

Trailscout wrote,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Playboy used to feature images that merely celebrated feminine beauty; they were nude but not an erotic come-on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cyndiann wrote,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As for Playboy once portraying their nudes as non-sexual I really don't remember that ever happening. Could you provide examples of this? Although they have never beem hardcore I feel that they have always presented women as sexual beings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In the NPR interview Hefner said that the magazine was originally to be called "Stag Party". The connotations I think are obvious. And, if memory serves, he said that he thought it was OK that the women were viewed as sex objects since he thought everyone wanted to be looked upon as that.
NuTex

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Cyndiann,
There have been plenty of photos in playboy of nude women that weren't any worse than what you will find in the photo section here. I've seen photos of playmates standing in the water next to a conoe(SP?) not touching themselves in any way inappropriate, casting a net into the water as if fishing, kicking back in a water fall, nude sunbathing, the list goes on.

Lately they are getting more " Hustleresque" in their
photos which is sad because if I want to see that kind of stuff, there are a million more mags for that.

The best bet is that they are coming out with a 50th anniversary photo album, where you can see alot of photos from years past. You can judge for yourself.

[stevenf64]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:

Trailscout, you may feel they are immoral for not being against sex outside of marriage but I think that many people don't find it immoral. Morality isn't set in stone. What one finds moral and immoral varies quite a bit from one individual to another and I think it is unfair to expect everyone else to live by standards you have personally set.

As for Playboy once portraying their nudes as non-sexual I really don't remember that ever happening. Could you provide examples of this? Although they have never beem hardcore I feel that they have always presented women as sexual beings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>BOY Cyndiann just when I thought you might have learned here you go again picking on poor Trailscout....He is entitled to his morality AND he never said that he thinks everyone has to live up to his standards, WHY OH WHY do you insist on attacking people, You sound like such a mad person... HEY and while were at it why does he need to provide examples what do you want magizine numbers, page numbers, pic. location.... I didn't know you were a big follower of playboy but in my younger years I had been known to glance and I do remmember no sexual poses so hey I guess hes right BUT AFTER ALL THAT IS JUST MY OPINION
Steve /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PS. keep up the good post Trail buddy /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Cyndiann,

I think we can agree with MOboy that Playboy is a different phenomenon than social nudism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes we can agree on that. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

But nudists are often asked for their reaction to Playboy since we spend a lot of time in the nude and Playboy has always had nude portraits within their pages.

Somewhere in the 1960's I think it was, Playboy began photographing women in sexual nude poses. You are correct that the magazine has always had editorial positions, cartoons and captions beneath pictures that have occasionally advocated extramarital or premarital sex. But to counter some of the critics of Playboy, they often publish pictures that are simply nude and the sexual connotation is only an assumption that a lustful reader would make. A nudist would not find all the pictures erotic, not even in current issues of the magazine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A nudist would not but your average guy would find any nude pic erotic. I think the great majority of people fall into the non-nudist category so even though technically the pics aren't anything more than nudity they are erotic because they are in Playboy and meant to looked at in a sexual way. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Speaking from the perspective of a Christian nudist, I do not condemn the nonsexual nude photographs. They are very well done. I do not condemn the text when it speaks of sex in a positive affirming light, as long as it is within the context of matrimony. The Playboy philosophy is not objectionable in most respects to Christian nudists.

I am not advocating banning the magazine, I am simply urging Christian nudists to join me in refusing to subscribe to a magazine that makes public presentation of sexual imagery. We believe that sex with our spouses should be celebrated, but in private. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't have a problem with allowing you your beliefs if they don't encroach on other's rights. It was my observation that you thought that a majority of people would find them objectionable and my point was that I think it is not a majority. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

There is a terrible problem with sexual addiction and for someone with that mindset, a magazine that features nude women in "come and get it" poses would only add fuel to the fire. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is no different than people with drug or alcohol or food addictions. I feel that the general population should not have to pay for the problems of a few. Help those with addictions but don't stop the rest of us from enjoying sexual nudity or alcohol or anything else. If we were to try and eliminate everything that somebody has a problem with there would be almost nothing left. I've heard about the christian "stumble" theory and I just don't agree with it. I will not be responsible for another's problems. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


For me and a lot of guys, I can look at the magazine for 5 minutes, say "Wow, the girls look great", but then I get bored and go on to something else that interests me. I find much more excitement from an ongoing multi-faceted relationship with the real world women I meet than a 2-dimensional image of someone I have never met. Playboy is not a "dangerous" magazine, it is simply incompatible with the Christian way of living, probably also incompatible with family-type social nudism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't see it as incompatable with nudism at all. I know a few nudists who are models for sexually oriented websites. This goes way past looking at soft porn... they ARE soft porn and sometimes more than that. People are multifaceted and can be many things at one time. They don't stop being nudists just because they are in front of a webcam. This is not any different than having any other interests outside of nudism. Would you say a golfer is not a nudist because it isn't nudism? <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

An added issue is the conspicuous materialism promoted there. The Playboy philosophy promotes unbridled capitalism, even what I regard as material excess. Christians are sometimes accused of being anticapitalist. Many denominations teach their members to be socially responsible, to protect the earth's natural environments, to exercise compassion, and to help the poor and work for social justice. I think Hugh Hefner has softened his social Darwinism somewhat since the early 60's, but I still don't hear him advocating the egalitarian community spirit I find in nudist circles. Well, that seems to prove that Hugh Hefner is not a nudist, but he is probably more understanding of our cause than some. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually I think christian religion has a reputation as being materialistic, with so many of it's public leaders ending up imprisoned for using the money collected for social welfare for themselves, buying huge estates and driving ultra luxury cars. Here in my area a church sends people out collecting change at shopping centers. The homeless people that were supposed to be helped were living in substandard conditions with no heat, no water while the minister and his family were living very well indeed. There is another fellow that just got out of prison after spending 5 years for walking off with a few million of his followers' money. Then there are the nationally known ones like Jim Bakker. The christian religion has a bad track record on environmental issues as well. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

So when I am speaking to teenage boys at my church or boys in my own family, I would certainly let them know that I do not support Playboy's attitude and would suggest that there are better choices for them if they simply would like to see feminine beauty. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It has been said that the largest market for porn is from those who are deep into religion. They want what is forbidden to them. I think they are looking for more than "feminine beauty". /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Religion tends to extinguish an open minded curiosity about sexuality and to see various forms of sex outside the basics as perverted and something to stay far away from. This creates guilt when genuine desires and fetishes are realized, and has actually resulted in an increase in suicides in some situations.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Nudists have the options of the naturist magazines and INA's gallery for seeing people in their natural state. Better yet, I would prefer that young men cultivate real relationships with women and ideally that relationship would include non-sexual nude recreation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you might want to put yourself up as an example of real relationships with women. I don't know the reasons behind your still being single but I would imagine that you know by now that hooking up with "Mrs Right" just isn't what it is cracked up to be. Relationships a side, I don't think porn is used as a substitute for relationships because I know a lot of people who are in relationships and still appreciate looking at porn, sometimes even as a couple.

As for nudists using nudist websites for viewing people in their natural state, I do think that nudist sites present a much more realistic view of what is out there. However, it is on no way a substitute for porn, which I feel has a legitimate purpose.

Hugh and others in the porn industry (Larry Flynn especially) have made it possible for us to freely share our nude pictures by defending nudity in the legal system. It is right now the strip clubs that are fighting the religious right and local governments over legal definitions of nudity. Nudists don't seem to have the momentum to do this, mainly because most nudists don't see reasons for joining our political groups, even if just financially, so we don't have the power that the sex industry has to keep the RRR from taking away our freedoms.

[Artie]

Well, I used to subscribe to Playboy for a while while I was in college. I discontinued my subscription because I think the magazine went down the tubes. However, I did buy a coffee table book several years ago called The Playboy Book. Inside it showed pictures of all of the "Playmates" from 1953-1996. Many of the early pictures were non or not-so-erotic. I even remember seeing pictures of modern dance interpretations performed in the nude. Many of it was tasteful. However, as the magazine "progressed" the model became more eroticised, airbrushed, and full of plastic parts. Some of the pictures looked less like photos and more like airbrush paintings. The models really lost a sense of natural beauty. Furthermore, Playboy has always put the image of beauty as decided by one man. The popularity of his magazine ahs added to the horrific (sp?) ammount of body shame felt by millions of women in this country and the world. This is the main reason why I can't stand the magazine. I considered buying the 50th year issue, but I think my money would be better spent on something else (like maybe saving for an INA membership).
Just my $0.02 worth.

Artie

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Artie:
...The popularity of his magazine ahs added to the horrific (sp?) ammount of body shame felt by millions of women in this country and the world. This is the main reason why I can't stand the magazine... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>EXCELLENT observation! So much so that it tends to make me want to change my opinion from 'neutral' to 'somewhat detrimental' in its perceived impact on family nudism.

Thanks for a GREAT POST!

[FLslimguy]

Yes Artie... I couldn't agree more. maybe it's the "art" thing but Hugh's collection of nude beauty does not mean it's mine. Maybe its the lack of diversity, but nudity aside, I find his models to be boring. You could buy a playboy 5, 10, 20 years ago and get the same type. Do women think they ALL have to look like that? Do MEN think women should all look like that.... and consequently buy their wife/girlfriend a boob job? His magazine is nowhere near a magazine representing universal nude beauty...just his perception of it. In the process, his publications harm nudism and naturism. But they generously support the plastic surgery, makeup, fashion industry...

[tarsus]

i am not going pro or con here just some comments.
i first started reading-yes reading playboy around 1960. i am an only child,and was allowed a great deal of freedom.a neighor gave them to me after hanging the centerfold in his barn.
it was here that i first saw a nude woman and soon came to understand,women were human.don't know how to say it.as the years went on playboy changed and i lost interest.i know it sounds strange;but these mags. helped me become more then i might have been,i came to see a woman not as a sex object; but someone with hopes and dreams
just like me,while my teenage friends saw something differant. i have under gone many changes in my life,to knowing what true modesty is
to understanding myself.this was an early lesson.

[Artie]

Thank you for your comments FLslim and MO boy!
I have often wondered how different U.S. society would have viewed women if Hef liked Rubenesque women (like I do) as opposed to these plastic women he depicts in his mag. In the early sixties and late fifties, the women were more curvey and "real" as opposesd to the contemporary models in Playboy. As an artist I love the nude forms on many levels. His magazine reflects only a very thin (no pun intended) percentage of women all of which reflect his "Hitlerian" attitude of beauty. What right does he (or the fashion industry...don't get me started on them) have to brainwash men and boys into adopting his aesthetic on the "ideal woman"?
As for me, I have had a good time cutting up all of my old issues. I'm planning on doing some abstract "photo-collages" with them. Maybe a re-interpretation of Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase.
Well, thanks for the support everyone!

Take care,
Artie

[NuTex]

Artie wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Many of the early pictures were non or not-so-erotic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>While I'm still undecided on the role Playboy has played I think we're looking back with 21st century eyes. At the time Playboy came out in the 50's the photos was very erotic.
NuTex

[Jochanaan]

The few times I've looked at Playboy I have always gotten the impression that it was filled with the suggestion of sex, even when the images were innocuous on the surface. I remember thinking, "They want us to think that everyone's doing it."

I once read a book entitled "Subliminal Seduction," about the hidden messages in advertising. Many of the examples in the book were from Playboy; the book even commented on this, saying that it was not so much that there was more subliminal material in Playboy, but that they were so good at it. This may be why the magazine seemed so full of eroticism, and it's probably why Playboy is not a good example of simple nudity as practiced by nudists/naturists.

[Artie]

Good point NuTex, I hadn't thought of the "eyes" I wasa using to look at those images. I see your point. Jochannan also brings up some great points. I think it is in very bad taste for these types of magazines to only illustrate the "swinger" nudist resorts and clubs, or events like the "Nudes-A-Popin'" festival which takes place here in Indiana. I would love to visit this resort some day but not during this event.

Artie

[David77]

I have always objected to it's name as well as it's philosophy of being a "playboy" with many sexual partners without any particular commitment or relationship. Sex is playful at times with little seriousness, but the way Playboy presents sex, it seems rather baron, too superficial, without commitment or much relationship, nor without realization of the deeper human yearnings for mutual giving and receiving "love" in commitment to one another, as compared to sex only (sexual gymnastics).

[RIVERRAT]

Hey everyone, I recently went to the playboy web site, I was looking for a picture of marilyn Monroe from 1953, I remembered seeing years ago she was poolside with a towel or robe in front of her, all you saw was her back and butt, when my grandaghter was 4 she came from the bath, I took a picture of her that was so similar to that photo, for 5 years I've tried to find that photo of MM, I now have it. In the proccess I did discover that Playboy has gotten a little more sexual than what I had remembered, but some of our own nudist mags are a little more sexual, some things change, I do enjoy the beauty of the naked female, I don't think it's lust I believe it's what GOD intended. The female form is one of GOD's greatest creations, it should be viewed as such. too bad that the ladies don't feel the same way about us. I do think that the female body shoud not be exploited. Well enough of my point of veiw. Later, the RAT

[Trailscout]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RIVERRAT:
...In the proccess I did discover that Playboy has gotten a little more sexual than what I had remembered, but some of our own nudist mags are a little more sexual, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Riverrat, what nudist magazines have gotten more sexual and in what way?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RIVERRAT:
I do enjoy the beauty of the naked female, I don't think it's lust I believe it's what GOD intended. The female form is one of GOD's greatest creations, it should be viewed as such.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you. There is no need to apologize for admiring beauty. Some of my female friends are what many people would call ordinary looking. But when it comes to romance, a woman deserves to have a boyfriend or husband who finds her physically attractive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RIVERRAT:
too bad that the ladies don't feel the same way about us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I must disagree. I just think they are usually more subtle about it. I remember one occasion where I was over at my girlfriend's house and was helping dig a new flower bed for her. It was hot, so I was stripped down to nothing but a pair of shorts and boots and commenced to dig. I looked over my shoulder and saw that she was looking at me up and down and grinning. I asked her what she was up to and she laughed and said that she was just standing there admiring the way my muscles rippled as I went about the task of digging in the ground. I don't think she was lusting after me, she just liked seeing a man's body in motion.

[RIVERRAT]

Trailscout ,thank you for your in put, once again we agree to disagree on some things, I get several nudist publications, when I say more sexual, I guess I mean they have moved up in some ways, as has playboy, I hadn't seen a playboy mag in some years, I was a little suprised at more exploitation of the female form, not that thats a bad thing, there is nothing more beautiful than the female form, maybe what I meant was even nudist publications tend to show the female more than the male, I am totally for the ladies and I enjoy the female form, I still believe the female is GODS greatest creation, so I may have over spoke but playboy and nudist publications use the ladies more than the men, I guess that helps to sell the mags, but you will notice when it comes to places like this or other sites where nudity is prevelent, it's 90% male, I guess I would just like to see more females joining in. nough said, Later the Rat

[RIVERRAT]

Trailscout, I wish I had a girlfriend to lust over me in shorts or not. Later the RAT

[Aaron Adams]

Happy new year everybody. I just wanted to add a some comments. For anyone who is interested I was in Books-A-Million yesterday and saw a book celebrating the 50th anniversary of Playboy Magazine. As to Playboy's effect on nudism I would say that it is part of a larger social trend toward greater acceptance of nudity that seem to have stalled. Cyndiann raised the issue of whether or not nonnudists know a nonsexual picture of a naked person when they see it. As a nonnudist I think that people such as artists who are used to seeing nudity can tell the difference but that people who aren't exposed to nudity might not be able to tell when nudity is nonsexual. I don't know if nudist magazines have become more sexual but I have been to a lot of nudist websites and have noticed that most of the pictures seem to be of women. INAs gallery is good in that it is the most diverse I've seen.

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Hello.
Today is a cold and snowy day in Denver, which (believe it or not ) is a rarity in Denver any more. Since I am pretty much staying in today, I decided to clean and organize my studio.

For years I have been collecting photos out of playboy that showed natural or interesting poses and kept them for references for certain art projects. I was fliping through a folder that has been shelved for years and yanking out the ones I'd probly woudn't use and I found one that rang a bell.

It was a photo of two women swimming nude under water. I liked this photo for it's representation of Mermaids. Then it hit me that I saw the same girls (different shot) posted in our very own photos of freedom.

Now the photos are not sexual but very beautiful and serean (sp?) but does prove my point that the magazine has done nude photography with taste good enough for our site.

I still think the magazine has gotten to far into the realm of porn, but it still beats "hustler".

[a1922stanley]

I myself hate porn. Would however be fun to read the short story that came out in Playboy in 1957 about a scientific experiment gone all wrong with horrific results. It was made into a film the next year and is considered one of the best horror films EVER made, that film being the classic from 1958..."The Fly". Even today it's terrifying!

[Orangexcalibare]

This is an extremely controversial debate. Playboy in my opinion is not nudism or naturism because there is an obvious sexual atmosphere in most of the pictures and articles, jokes etc. Another issue is whether or not it has elevated the publics view on women, especially nude women. Throughout literary history, one of a womans most powerful elements has been her ability to manipulate men through expressing false sexual feelings toward them.

Nevertheless, playboy is as popular as ever. They are able to have both everyday women model for their magazine while somehow getting some of the most famous female celebrities to pose as well. Many women would love to be in Playboy, they feel that it is almost an honor to be photographed for the magazine. My girlfriend as a matter of fact, has gone through the application process and been interviewed for a possible chance to model in the magazine, however she was not chosen as a finalist. She is a naturist/nudist and feels that the opportunity was not related to either lifestyle, yet she really enjoyed the entire process.

What playboy is able to do is glamorize women, through their nudity, sexual themes, and a lot of airbrushing. This in my opinion has not helped aid nudism whatsoever.

[pahjo2]

i believe that playboy is by far the best men's magazine on the market but it doesn't do any thing to help the nudest image. i have how ever read some very good articles in the magazine. one very long article that covered several months, could be to get you to buy the next issue but it would have been a book if it had been in one issue, was about the history of blues music and another on the history of rock and roll. one of the best was an article about a boy born with both male and female cromosines. the transformation was remarkable and if you were not told you would never suspect that she was ever anything but a female. the article was very well written and made me glad that the medical field was able to help with this problem that nature had created. hope this isn't too long. stay nude and stay happy.