Is Playboy's decision to stop publishing nude photos good or bad for nudism?

[Mosquito_Bait]

Initially I thought Playboy's decision to stop publishing nude photos was a sign of increased prudishness in the media. Having thought about it for a while longer, I now think Playboy's decision is simply an acknowledgement that Playboy can't compete with the pornographic offerings of the Internet, and that Playboy's decision further separates pornography from nonsexual images of nudity, which is good for nudism. If anything, Playboy is a victim of decreasing prudishness in that so much free pornographic material is now available that the commercial market for pornography has been greatly diminished.

[nudeyooper]

Playboy, like nearly all print media, is suffering from a decline in subscriptions and readership. Their tactic is to halt that decline and if possible increase sales. Beautiful women bring men's eyes whether they are clothed or not, and it sounds like they are going to switch to something like the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. That's SI's biggest seller. Playboy has always been in the business to sell sex, and I don't anticipate that changing. To be honest, I have not see either magazine in many years, but I don't think the change has anything to do with the editors being any more or less prudish. Playboy comes right out and says they can't compete with Internet porn, so smart business suggests they change what they sell.

What puzzles me, and this could be written in a number of sections of the Forum, is that so many women are willing to wear clothing, especially beach wear, that exposes as much skin as possible. Their tops barely cover the front of the breast and the bottoms put a tiny patch of cloth in front and leave the back totally exposed. Yet they may not be willing to just take it off completely and be comfortable with themselves. This can be seen in the movies and cable TV as well as on broadcast TV, but to a lesser extent. Then there are the gowns worn on the red carpet at awards shows that are completely see through except for some design that covers the pubic area. Nudism may grow, but I don't think Playboy and similar magazines will play a role. It may be an individual thing that goes along with nearly all organizations seeing a drop in membership, especially among younger people. A group of friends will congregate in an area where they can be nude without any harassment. The numbers may then grow to the point where law enforcement is made, but the pattern has begun and protests to leave the lawbreakers alone become the first level of organization.

[usuallylurk]

Neither.

Playboy is apparently making a last-ditch effort to get its magazine to survive today's publishing trends.

Ironically - some magazines that are very popular and successful copied the old Playboy model - but without the nude pictures and bawdy jokes.

Their circulation is woefully low, compared to its 60s-70s heyday. Other print magazines have cornered their market.

IMHO Playboy became an "Edsel" - a product that might be good on its surface, but it has no market.

[riptidenj]

Since when was Playboy or any other skin magazine a good advertisement for nudism ?

[usuallylurk]

Since when was Playboy or any other skin magazine a good advertisement for nudism ?

They did have a series of funny nudist cartoons (I think by John Dempsey) - depicting activities at nudist resorts.

[nudeM]

I believe the decline in published magazines had a lot to do with the decision. They can get more through online subscriptions. The decision to do away with nudity could be a way to get around the internet censorship laws, thus creating a more internet "friendly" atmosphere. I remember The Vargas Girls. They were classic.

[garbo]

I don't think Playboy's decision to stop publishing nude photos has anything to do with nudism!

Playboy models are all pretty much young, beautiful, near perfect bodies made even more perfect with artistic air brushing and posed to be suggestive. They are supposed to represent the essence of physical perfection and does not necessarily representative the values of a nudist lifestyle.

Nudist bodies in print and online are generally not posed, not perfect, not air brushed and the images are not designed to be suggestive.

Playboy's decision to eliminate nude photos may be more in line with bringing in more advertisers and strengthen their bottom line. Time will tell if it works?

[usuallylurk]

Garbo, you're probably spot on - as was nudeM. There was an interesting quote in a Boston Globe reader comments column - something about when Hef was faced with competition from crap, he started publishing crap. Now he's got crap.

The Hefner/Playboy empire now probably thrives on sexually-oriented websites and video. I don't know if they still own the cable TV channels that carry their name. On the other hand, the magazine suffered as they attempted to compete with Penthouse, etc. and the other traditional "men's magazines" - without the nude shots - thrived.

One thing that any business entity seems to blunder on - is that they abandon their current niche, and attempt to mimic what others are doing. Playboy magazine fell into this trap. Instead of sailing on with their ship - they tried to be Penthouse II. Coca-Cola tried to go after the Pepsi market by making their product taste more like Pepsi. "New Coke" = fail.

Maybe a little piece of the Mens Health/Esquire/Maxim market will work better than what they've got -- on the other hand, they're now left at the starter's gate on that niche.

[Naturist Zoar]

I recently read the latest issues of GQ and Details and found their use of nudity very natural and appealing. .I've also noticed the female form is found more often nude in the Fitness magazines rather than male nudity, although the magazines state they are Men's Health etc..

[riptidenj]

A combination of the Internet, the decline of the local newstand, perhaps even a growing maturity have made skin magazines seem rather quaint-and unappealing. I stopped "reading" Playboy when I was in the Army-in 1970, the recent issues I have seen, I found the photography unappealing, the jokes and cartoons vulgar and not that funny, and the whole thing had a very smart alecky
and immature feel to it. Instead of being a men's magazine it was more likewhat a bunch of adolescents with no experience of real manhood thought men would be interested in.

[Naturist Mark]

What's the mystery? They themselves said the reason is because there is nothing special about nude photos now that anyone can see all the nudes they want for free on the internet.

Playboy has always considered itself a high-brow literary and lifestyle magazine - like GQ or Esquire. The nudes used to bring eyeballs to their publication, but no longer. I think they plan to survive as an online publication like Salon. They'll produce a print version as long as its economically viable, but they know that is not their future anymore, the internet is, and ironically they will do better on the internet without nudity - in fact they already have - they made Playboy.com a 'Safe For Work" site last year - and their traffic quadrupled. The reason is because of social media. As a nude site their content was restricted from Facebook, Instagram, iTunes and the Apple App Store, and other common platforms.

How's that for irony - the easy accessibility of nudity on the internet makes Playboy's nudes irrelevant, but a lack of nudes makes Playboy more accessible on the internet. Back in the day we claimed we bought Playboy for the articles, today that turns out to be truer than we ever thought.