[heavy]

Playboy magazine must be hurting?

Or have they always run Groupons?

   

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(01-05-2017 11:51 AM)heavy Wrote:  

Playboy magazine must be hurting?

Or have they always run Groupons?

I already see the "titillating photo sessions":



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016...hijab.html

12$ groupon is still too expensive for that. Women and SJWs obviously are not buying, they are just campaigning to ruin it like video Games.

[EDantes]

Don't particularly care myself, sometimes a woman can look better with the right clothing than fully nude anyway.

Overall society, especially the modern degenerate media has gone way too far in the smut direction and I think this can have negative impacts on masculinity, by giving a guy more incentive to sit in his basement and masturbate all day than being a man and interacting with real life women.

The SJWs of course don't understand things like this in depth though, they just try to politicize deeper cultural issues to fit their agenda.

[heavy]

(01-05-2017 02:59 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

Don't particularly care myself, sometimes a woman can look better with the right clothing than fully nude anyway.

Overall society, especially the modern degenerate media has gone way too far in the smut direction and I think this can have negative impacts on masculinity, by giving a guy more incentive to sit in his basement and masturbate all day than being a man and interacting with real life women.

The SJWs of course don't understand things like this in depth though, they just try to politicize deeper cultural issues to fit their agenda.

Well yeah I agree (I think most of us would), but you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube.

It's a bit like a two bit whore trying to pull off the princess...it's just sad.

To your point, I don't want girls texting me vag pics. I know, call me crazy. I'd rather them send me a titillating shot of their nipple covered breasts, with just enough exposed to see the dark of the areola.

[ivansirko]

https://nypost.com/2017/02/13/playboy-is...men-again/

Apparently just the letters are not good for business. They are bringing them back.

Quote:

No-nudes were apparently not good news at Playboy magazine.

The 63-year-old legendary men’s magazine is bringing back nude models in its upcoming issue — one year after banning naked photos in an effort to boost circulation and attract more mainstream advertisers.

That effort obviously has failed.

The move comes four months after Cooper Hefner, the son of founder Hugh Hefner and an outspoken critic of the move to ban nude models, was installed as chief creative officer last October.

Issues published under the no-nudes policy featured both scantily clad models and could-be naked women with strategic parts of their body covered up.

But that will all change with the March/April issue now hitting newsstands. The issue trumpets the change with a cover headline: “Naked is normal.”

“I’ll be the first to admit the way in which the magazine portrayed nudity was dated, but removing it entirely was a mistake,” Cooper Hefner tweeted Monday. “Nudity was never the problem, because nudity isn’t a problem. Today, we’re taking our identity back and rediscovering who we are.”

The new issue displays breasts and butts, but not full frontal nudity that had typified the earlier incarnation before the switch with the March issue a full year earlier. While the “no nudes” permitted greater ability to display the magazine on newsstands, the rise in newsstand sales apparently did not offset the plunge in subscription sales.

The new issue introduces model Elizabeth Elam as Miss March 2017 in a photo spread shot by photographer Gavin Bond.

The staff that had overseen the transition to no nudes is turning over once again.

Hugh Garvey, who took over as editorial director from Jason Buhrmeister only five months ago, resigned late last month.

Garvey had been the deputy editor. Creative director Mac Lewis also resigned around that time and was replaced by his assistant creative director, Chris Deacon.

Rizvi Traverse, the investment company that took over majority control in 2011, had been scrambling recently to sell the company or attract new investors, sources said — efforts that so far have been fruitless.

Ben Kohn, managing director of Rizvi Traverse and acting CEO of Playboy Enterprises, had as recently as late October said that the company had no plans to reverse its no nudity policy. Kohn feared a switch back to publishing nude model would dampen opportunities for licensing and merchandising deals, insiders said.

On Monday, he declined to comment on the switch by the magazine back to nude models.

[Swell]

I have to say fuck you Playboy and fuck you Cooper hefner.

I was following Cooper hefner on twitter and I can't believe his shit.

Look at the Headlines, Playboy is still not a magazine for men.

   

Would NOT bang

[LeoneVolpe]

Oh, now they've decided to reinstate nude pics? Talk about being a day late and a dollar short...

Playboy sucks.

Its modern content will no doubt more closely resemble what could be found on HuffPo or Jezebel than the quality writing we've come to expect from places like Return of Kings. So, no more "reading it just for the articles."

...And as much as I hate to use the "current year" argument, a guy can find naked photos of women anywhere in 2017. Why the hell would anyone waste money on a shit rag like Playboy anymore?

[MikeS]

I still see naked Playboy covers on the store shelves here in Bulgaria. And checking out some of the other countries on this site of covers - http://www.pbcovers.com/pbcovers.php?c=bg&y=2016 - I can see that sanity is still intact in some other countries too. Although it looks like even porn capitals like Hungary and Czech Republic have gone no nudity with Playboy.

[Scoundrel]

(02-13-2017 06:51 PM)Swell Wrote:  

Playboy is still not a magazine for men.

Playboy isn't a magazine for much of anyone, and hasn't been for a long time.

2016 circulation was 673,473 — down from 7.16 million at its peak in 1972.

Articles like the one quoted above, with their references to "deputy editors" and "editorial directors," are adorably quaint. If you didn't know better, you'd think they're reporting on something important.

EDIT: For context, here are some magazines with higher circulations than Playboy (as of June 2016):

AARP The Magazine — 23,144,225
AARP Bulletin — 22,700,945
Good Housekeeping — 4,315,026
Family Circle — 4,056,156
People — 3,418,555
Southern Living — 2,828,450
ESPN The Magazine — 2,138,762
FamilyFun — 2,124,620
American Baby — 2,016,510
Cooking Light — 1,793,587
Every Day with Rachael Ray — 1,735,930
Golf Magazine — 1,417,816

You get the idea. Playboy doesn't even make the top 100.

[Captainstabbin]

Model with a dead expression followed by articles praising hardcore SJWs like Van Jones, feminist campaigns like Free the Nipple and post wall broads like Scarlett Johansson? You've got to be kidding me.

Seriously, is it so difficult for these whores to smile?

[Paracelsus]

(02-13-2017 08:15 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

Model with a dead expression followed by articles praising hardcore SJWs like Van Jones, feminist campaigns like Free the Nipple and post wall broads like Scarlett Johansson? You've got to be kidding me.

Seriously, is it so difficult for these whores to smile?

Blame the magazine for that, not the girl. There's plenty of porn out there where girls are still asked to squeeze facial muscles into a smile, even if they're not terribly enthusiastic about it at the best of times. A model has precisely zero control of how she looks in a photograph. Linda Evangelista didn't get out of bed for less than $10,000 per day, but for that money she also didn't get any control over which pictures made it into the magazine.

I decided to google the entire idea behind having a face like a corpse, leaving aside the good insights already in this thread. Here's what I came up with as it pertained to fashion models, which is probably Patient Zero for the trend...

http://theconversation.com/why-fashion-m...mile-53658

Quote:

Detractors of fashion often complain about the convention of the non-smiling model and the industry’s love of a surly pout has even been lambasted in films such as Zoolander. Catwalks have long been a smile-free zone – well, you can smile at the end when the designer pops up to present you with a bunch of flowers, but during the show, the smile is a no-no. In fashion editorials, too, smiles are like steak and chips on a model’s plate: very rare.

The other thing that has always troubled me about this is how tiresomely predictable it is. Being predictable is great if you are a bus or an excellent cup of coffee – but surely the essence of fashion is to push aesthetic boundaries, to welcome change for change’s sake. So why do they pull the same miserable faces at every single show, every single season, every single year. Stupid, isn’t it?

Or maybe it isn’t. The still expression of the fashion model is actually saying a lot of things. There’s an interesting heritage to it, too. It comes from the look of aristocratic disdain we see in centuries of royal portraiture which informed the 19th-century cartes de visite – society calling cards complete with what we might now term a “profile picture”.



Fashion photography – think Horst P.Horst in the early to mid-20th century – has also long used the haughty look to suggest the status that the right clothes could bring to the wearer in a more socially mobile society. Essentially, this look says: “I am better than you”, because it refuses to offer the open, smiling face of welcome that we conventionally use to engage someone we wish to interact with. It also conveys the self-control, stiff upper lip and nonchalance of the European upper classes – “civilised” qualities which the “jolly old working classes” in those days supposedly found hard to convey.


(Horst. P. Horst's images of Yasmine Le Bon)

To be emotionally controlled also suggests elevation above earthly concerns, access to higher knowledge and – in the modern world – an ability to be “unshakeable”. This is even more impressive in what theorist Erving Goffman called “fateful situations” – situations in which you or your dignity and composure are at greater than average risk.

This is why we are impressed by steely faced fighter pilots and nonchalant thieves – think Alan Rickman as the deadpan European super-villain Hans Gruber in Die Hard.

If that's been the thinking behind Playboy's selection of photos, my theory is that this psychology is a big reason Playboy's readership was tanking and will continue to tank, quite apart from all porn now being free on the Internet.

Without looking, Latinopan or maybe A.B. earlier in the thread pointed out Hugh Hefner's original idea with Playboy was to capture "the girl next door" in his pictorials. That is, girls who were in the same economic class (or slightly below) as the magazine's readership. Thus he could afford to let the girls smile; she conveyed she was in your league, you had a shot if you wanted to ask her out, and she had no gear on.

Now you've got a magazine that offers girls who give the impression that you will never let you anywhere near them. It gives their nudity all the sexuality of a National Geographic special (and not that sick fucking one with the mentally ill boy on the cover, I might add.) Presumably some moron in editorial once philosophised that the modern man wants the strong, independent, fearless etc.etc. vagina and that these photos exemplify that. Quite the opposite, as Playboy's declining readership demonstrates.

And then there's the secondary effect of the look: herculean self-control, a look you generally only get in men when there's bad shit going down and you have to hold it together for the sake of God, country, family, etc. It's a look you expect out of someone undergoing a painful proctological examination. And the editorial board wonders why their readers (absent the child molesters and sadists) don't get hard for this rubbish.

[spokepoker]

I thought they didn't smile in early photographs because it took a very long time to expose the plates, easier to hold a plain expression than a smile for 5 minutes.
And I also thought runway models don't smile because the designer doesn't want the audience to look at the model, only the dress.
Neither of these are excuses for playboy chicks not smiling.

[rainy]

(02-13-2017 07:20 PM)MikeS Wrote:  

I still see naked Playboy covers on the store shelves here in Bulgaria. And checking out some of the other countries on this site of covers - http://www.pbcovers.com/pbcovers.php?c=bg&y=2016 - I can see that sanity is still intact in some other countries too. Although it looks like even porn capitals like Hungary and Czech Republic have gone no nudity with Playboy.

Ha, funny you mention that. When I'm in Bulgaria I see nude boobs on the covers of magazines everywhere, every time I get a bus ticket, even when walking into Fantastico they have nude magazines at the entrance.

[Easy_C]

(02-13-2017 07:18 PM)LeoneVolpe Wrote:  

Oh, now they've decided to reinstate nude pics? Talk about being a day late and a dollar short...

Playboy sucks.

Its modern content will no doubt more closely resemble what could be found on HuffPo or Jezebel than the quality writing we've come to expect from places like Return of Kings. So, no more "reading it just for the articles."

...And as much as I hate to use the "current year" argument, a guy can find naked photos of women anywhere in 2017. Why the hell would anyone waste money on a shit rag like Playboy anymore?

It's not a current year argument if you're pointing to legitimate differences. The fallacy you are referring to is only when people scoff at how something could possibly be believed in the current year without presenting any evidence as to why it's ridiculous.

[kmhour]

I remember discovering my dad's stash of Playboys when I was of a certain age. The picture spreads were obviously the main attraction but even the written articles were irreverent and clearly written for a male audience. I distinctly remember an interview with Vladimir Zhirinovsky - after a minute of searching it was the March 1995 issue -



Here is an account of the interview from the interviewer. Something tells me such reprehensible behavior would not be seen in the modern incarnation of the magazine...

Quote:

When Playboy interviewer Jennifer Gould sat down with Russian ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, she figured there would be some talk about sex.

What she didn’t expect, the free-lance writer says, was “blatant sexual harassment.” Gould says Zhirinovsky repeatedly urged her and her 20-year-old female translator to have sex with him and his two young male bodyguards. And it’s all on tape.

“We’ll understand one another better if you undress right now,” Zhirinovsky told Gould. “You will lie on these little beds, and these boys will caress you. And I will be listening to you and continue talking myself. … “

Praising group sex, Zhirinovsky said, “It’s the best when it’s with a group. There are four of you here. You have to show me love for four. I love to watch more.” At yet another point, he said: “I can join you later during the process. For me it’s a way to get excited.”

Kind of makes the Jimmy Carter “lust in my heart” Playboy interview seem tame.

The flamboyant Zhirinovsky stunned the West in 1993 when his far-right party finished first in Russia’s first parliamentary elections.

[HermeticAlly]

I think you nailed it Paracelsus, either the editorial guys at the magazine are totally out of touch with what men like, or (much more sinister) it's part of an intentional effort to reprogram what men find attractive.

If Playboy really wanted to bring men in, they'd rebrand the magazine with a gentle, playful sort of warmth completely lacking the Western sexual-industrial complex. I strongly suspect that the presence of this element is why Japanese erotica is so popular overseas (especially among otakus obsessed with cute anime girls).

There's probably a lot of money to be made when one of these guys figures out that a cute, sweet girl is more appealing than some glaring chick with cheekbones sharp enough to cut an apple in half.

[Captainstabbin]

(02-13-2017 11:30 PM)kmhour Wrote:  

On the cover, Amber Smith. She admitted to being a high-end whore on Dr. Drew's sex rehab show.

[metalfan20]

http://movieweb.com/harry-potter-actress...ett-byrne/

If you are wondering, it's as bad as you think about it. Seems like the magazine is pumping their image of male fantasy full of feminism. Not even nudity can save the magazine now.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Hugh Hefner built a great brand and started destroying it himself in the 1980s as well.

One of his worst decisions was to let his daughter take over from him, but he also missed the reasons why the people liked the magazine and the brand. There were many ventures which went completely awry partly because Hugh Hefner never completely broke free from the Blue Pill conditioning.

His son is trying to go back, but frankly he has the bearings of an awkward Blue Pill Beta who never even came close to his father natural bearing, but Blue Pill Alphas are usually unable to teach their sons how to Alpha up (and I consider Hugh Hefner to be a Blue Pill Alpha):



That is why he could so easily be convinced to marry up C-level actress thinking himself lucky.

[Foolsgo1d]

Quote:

“I’ll be the first to admit the way in which the magazine portrayed nudity was dated, but removing it entirely was a mistake,” Cooper Hefner tweeted Monday. “Nudity was never the problem, because nudity isn’t a problem. Today, we’re taking our identity back and rediscovering who we are.”

This sounds like your typical homosexual narrative pushng liberal. "Looking at naked women is dated and you should move along"

The balls on these assholes sometimes.

One constant 'thing' you can point too in human evolution throughout time is the fact boys and men want to see naked women and fantasise about them.

Pornhub does not do well because its selling stories of empowered women does it?

[Swell]

(02-18-2017 04:22 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  



That is why he could so easily be convinced to marry up C-level actress thinking himself lucky.

She might have an extra chromosome, but awesome body.

This pic should be moved to the butterface thread.

I will look Cooper hefner's fiancée naked, but I will not buy the magazine.

[AnonymousBosch]

Quote:

“I’ll be the first to admit the way in which the magazine portrayed nudity was dated, but removing it entirely was a mistake,” Cooper Hefner tweeted Monday. “Nudity was never the problem, because nudity isn’t a problem. Today, we’re taking our identity back and rediscovering who we are.”

I'd suggest if you removed all pussy and tits then spectacularly-failed to get by on the quality of the articles alone, it's obviously the thrust of the articles that need changing, because the male readership isn't responding to them.

The headlines on the latest issue make me think it's a mag for 'Feminist Allies' and, since they're the creepiest, skeeziest fucks in the world when it comes their interactions with women, the Playboy Brand is embarrassing for unapologetically-heterosexual men to be associated with.

[Delta]

Playboy's latest attempt to stay relevant in the era of Internet porn: become Jezebel 2.0.

Ed Sheeran Has a Toxic Masculinity Problem

They've also rebranded as "entertainment for all" rather than a men's magazine:


RIP.

[CynicalContrarian]

^

[Mr. D]

(06-04-2017 10:45 AM)Delta Wrote:  

Playboy's latest attempt to stay relevant in the era of Internet porn: become Jezebel 2.0.

Ed Sheeran Has a Toxic Masculinity Problem

They've also rebranded as "entertainment for all" rather than a men's magazine:


RIP.

Damn shame. What's left?