6 ms·

Can you imagine the courage of a young Hugh Hefner? What if there was a new kind of gentleman's lifestyle magazine? With best in class reporting, editorials, in

Can you imagine the courage of a young Hugh Hefner? What if there was a new kind of gentleman's lifestyle magazine? With best in class reporting, editorials, interviews, fashion and accessory coverage. And two to three pictorials of totally nude babes. But even those would be of the highest quality, with concern to the art, and the presentation. It wasn't ever smut, it was always ever art, with the level of care and attention to detail at every level of the magazine. Even today, it's outrageous to suggest I'm going to start a new venture featuring nude pictorials, because you're immediately thrown in to the Internet porn category. Your pictorials can't be shared on Facebook. You're immediately banned from entire countries for syndication because of nipples. But Hugh had a vision, and he stuck to his guns with his idea. Playboy and the Bunny logo are inseparable parts of popular culture and American history, now. Hopefully, forever. God bless you, Hugh Hefner, for what you did for art, expression, and freedom of speech. May you rest in peace.

oh_sigh 9y ago
Why does art need to be so obsessed with boobs? I can see them being present, but why focus on them so much if it's about art, fashion, and other non-boob things?
- katastic 9y ago
  I love this age of neo-puritianism. We've gone from "if if feels good, do it" to "everything is sexist and you should feel bad because even if you don't consciously doing it, you're still a subconscious sinner. Now pay your penance, heathen." And then people wonder why millennials are waiting longer to date, lose their virginity, and get married.
  - ant6n 9y ago
    > And then people wonder why millennials are waiting longer to date, lose their virginity, and get married. it's the housing market
  - tomjakubowski 9y ago
    Where did you get the idea that GP thinks the depiction of breasts in art is sexist?
- chirau 9y ago
  Umm, maybe because people love them?
- bittermang 9y ago
  Because the human form is the most beautiful thing you're ever going to see.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - omarchowdhury 9y ago
    Meditate on the sun.
- dmichulke 9y ago
  You're genetically predisposed to like it.
  - e59d134d 9y ago
    Not everyone, about half of human population would prefer male chest to female chest.
    - bcook 9y ago
      Preference seems unrelated to respect. As a ~straight male I prefer female breasts but I can still respect a chiseled male chest.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - King-Aaron 9y ago
      No, generally speaking everyone is, else you starve as an infant.
      - e59d134d 9y ago
        Maybe this is late night and I need to get some sleep, but you seemed to solve a big mystery for me. Almost all of my girlfriends either freely admire another woman's breast/body or showed a great deal of jealousy. I felt they were a bit bisexual but this makes a lot more sense.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    Sure, but I'm talking about an obsession with boobs, not just with liking them.
- city41 9y ago
  Please don't downvote this comment simply because you disagree. It's on topic, not a troll, and is asking a legitimate question.
- sordidasset 9y ago
  Figure artist here. After many years of pursuing traditional representational study, I've more or less concluded that it's fertility worship. From the woman of Willendorf to Courbet's Origin to Heff's magazine, there's a running theme here; one more fundamental than sex-for-pleasure.
- alexanderh 9y ago
  Because boobs literally help create human life, and are a direct sign of health and fertility? There's plenty of other important stuff in life too (vaginas anyone? Penises too!... and coding and design and other hobbies of course) but you have to admit, creatinng human life kindna tops the cake here. Nothing to be ashamed of, the naked human body. And just because someone specifically admires that 1 aspect of a person, does not mean they magically don't realize a whole human person is more than a set of boobs... it so insulting how people assume 'objectification' so quickly, as if just because someone admires nude women, suddenly their ability to realize people are more than just that goes out the window like it never existed. Well guess what buddy? You think that girl over there is smart, very intelligent, and you admire that? You deplorable objectifier!!! What is she, just some kind of Computational Machine to you? Disgusting... Objectifying her intelligence. Or is that somehow supposed to be different from sex/nudity? Sorry for the rant :P More boobs plz!
danso 9y ago
I know the long-running joke of reading Playboy for the articles is based in truth: it really did have some great journalism. Is there a good history on how this editorial decision came about? And whether it had a noticeable impact on subscriber demographics/data, compared to Playboy's less-literary competitors?
- KGIII 9y ago
  And the great science fiction... Playboy had some great science fiction over the years. You young people may not realize this, but there was a time when we had to work for our porn. Porn wasn't always available. Hardcore porn was as rare as hen's teeth. Hell, in some places, it was illegal! Yeah, you'd have to travel to the big city of you wanted hard core porn. Want to see an erect penis or a shaved vagina? You needed to go to a physical store, bring ID, and wade through a bunch of rubber prosthetics, whips, masks, blow-up dolls, and then you'd get to the magazine shelf. Eventually, there were videos. They were in the back and actually showed intercourse, in all the blown-up hairy details. Even stranger, they had plots! Not good plots, and they never did eat the pizza or fix the cable. It took years of fast forwarding before they just started skipping those parts. You can thank Playboy and Hustler for this. Hustler pushed the limit even more than Playboy. They even dared to show an interracial couple. That got Larry shot and paralyzed, by the way. Yeah, we had to work for our porn. It was like the forbidden fruit, too. If you had a Playboy, you had companions. Those got passed around more than a football, and probably had more germs per square inch. If there is one cultural difference I can cite between the generations, it's immediacy of access to pornographic material. For us, it was a quest. It was a coming of age. It was a subject we'd discuss for hours. I'm pretty sure it was not mentally healthy to have such an idolization about it, but it's a little late for that now.
  - didibus 9y ago
    Never ever thought of reading about Larry Flynt, but just did, interesting person. He did get shot and was paralyzed, never charged the shooter, and even spoke against his death penalty. A big supporter of the first amendment, claims the media coverage in Hustler is more accurate then modern media, and this awesome quote of him: > Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper. Not the kind of wikipedia entry I was expecting at all.
didibus 9y ago
Yes, but, you took it a bit too far.
colechristensen 9y ago
This is a bit overkill. If you look with rose colored glasses at what it did in the 50's, spot on. As time went on and the revolution it helped push along progressed, Playboy stayed where it was and became progressively ... grubby. In relation to society and culture around it. Plenty the brand had to offer was quite far from high art and you only have to look at Hefner's relations with women himself to realize there is something quite wrong with the whole thing. A dirty old man is dead. A long time ago he helped make some progress away from destructive societal and legal ideas, but he wasn't a saint and the things he created are now nothing to bring pride to anyone. There are plenty of publications today (not to mention advertising in public) which don't bat an eye at publishing nudity. Much more across the Atlantic. Things might even progress one day to publishing nudity with disinterest as though nothing hidden was being revealed.
- nielsbot 9y ago
  > Things might even progress one day to publishing nudity with disinterest as though nothing hidden was being revealed. Philosophically, doesn't that require society to give up clothing?
  - colechristensen 9y ago
    No, there's plenty of utility to clothing besides making being naked special.
    - paulddraper 9y ago
      Don't see why you were downvoted. It's 56F outside.
    - nielsbot 9y ago
      Sure.. I wonder if one is a consequence of the other however.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        Sure - it's hard to make nudity special if there's no alternative state. But I doubt it was the only factor.
Jaruzel 9y ago
> And two to three pictorials of totally nude babes. Actually, the first few issues only contained photo-shoots of topless women - full frontal nudity came later. (I have the 'Playboy 40 Years' book[1], which charts the evolution of the magazine. I got it the for articles [cough]) -- [1] https://www.amazon.com/Playboy-Book-Forty-Years/dp/1881649032 https://www.amazon.com/Playboy-Book-Forty-Years/dp/188164903...
djrobstep 9y ago
This was so cringy to read. Playboy is a lad mag for men who enjoy the delusion that their taste in porn is edgier and more sophisticated than the average blue collar masturbator. It's the $20 dollar burger joint for people who think they're better than McDonalds. Hefner gentrified porn, and cashed in in the process. But there are millions of gross and horny old men out there with too much money. Hugh Hefner was just another one, remarkable only for how tacky and vulgar his aesthetic was.

oh_sigh 9y ago

Why does art need to be so obsessed with boobs? I can see them being present, but why focus on them so much if it's about art, fashion, and other non-boob things?

katastic 9y ago
I love this age of neo-puritianism. We've gone from "if if feels good, do it" to "everything is sexist and you should feel bad because even if you don't consciously doing it, you're still a subconscious sinner. Now pay your penance, heathen." And then people wonder why millennials are waiting longer to date, lose their virginity, and get married.
- ant6n 9y ago
  > And then people wonder why millennials are waiting longer to date, lose their virginity, and get married. it's the housing market
- tomjakubowski 9y ago
  Where did you get the idea that GP thinks the depiction of breasts in art is sexist?
chirau 9y ago
Umm, maybe because people love them?
bittermang 9y ago
Because the human form is the most beautiful thing you're ever going to see.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- omarchowdhury 9y ago
  Meditate on the sun.
dmichulke 9y ago
You're genetically predisposed to like it.
- e59d134d 9y ago
  Not everyone, about half of human population would prefer male chest to female chest.
  - bcook 9y ago
    Preference seems unrelated to respect. As a ~straight male I prefer female breasts but I can still respect a chiseled male chest.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - King-Aaron 9y ago
    No, generally speaking everyone is, else you starve as an infant.
    - e59d134d 9y ago
      Maybe this is late night and I need to get some sleep, but you seemed to solve a big mystery for me. Almost all of my girlfriends either freely admire another woman's breast/body or showed a great deal of jealousy. I felt they were a bit bisexual but this makes a lot more sense.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Sure, but I'm talking about an obsession with boobs, not just with liking them.
city41 9y ago
Please don't downvote this comment simply because you disagree. It's on topic, not a troll, and is asking a legitimate question.
sordidasset 9y ago
Figure artist here. After many years of pursuing traditional representational study, I've more or less concluded that it's fertility worship. From the woman of Willendorf to Courbet's Origin to Heff's magazine, there's a running theme here; one more fundamental than sex-for-pleasure.
alexanderh 9y ago
Because boobs literally help create human life, and are a direct sign of health and fertility? There's plenty of other important stuff in life too (vaginas anyone? Penises too!... and coding and design and other hobbies of course) but you have to admit, creatinng human life kindna tops the cake here. Nothing to be ashamed of, the naked human body. And just because someone specifically admires that 1 aspect of a person, does not mean they magically don't realize a whole human person is more than a set of boobs... it so insulting how people assume 'objectification' so quickly, as if just because someone admires nude women, suddenly their ability to realize people are more than just that goes out the window like it never existed. Well guess what buddy? You think that girl over there is smart, very intelligent, and you admire that? You deplorable objectifier!!! What is she, just some kind of Computational Machine to you? Disgusting... Objectifying her intelligence. Or is that somehow supposed to be different from sex/nudity? Sorry for the rant :P More boobs plz!

danso 9y ago

I know the long-running joke of reading Playboy for the articles is based in truth: it really did have some great journalism. Is there a good history on how this editorial decision came about? And whether it had a noticeable impact on subscriber demographics/data, compared to Playboy's less-literary competitors?

KGIII 9y ago
And the great science fiction... Playboy had some great science fiction over the years. You young people may not realize this, but there was a time when we had to work for our porn. Porn wasn't always available. Hardcore porn was as rare as hen's teeth. Hell, in some places, it was illegal! Yeah, you'd have to travel to the big city of you wanted hard core porn. Want to see an erect penis or a shaved vagina? You needed to go to a physical store, bring ID, and wade through a bunch of rubber prosthetics, whips, masks, blow-up dolls, and then you'd get to the magazine shelf. Eventually, there were videos. They were in the back and actually showed intercourse, in all the blown-up hairy details. Even stranger, they had plots! Not good plots, and they never did eat the pizza or fix the cable. It took years of fast forwarding before they just started skipping those parts. You can thank Playboy and Hustler for this. Hustler pushed the limit even more than Playboy. They even dared to show an interracial couple. That got Larry shot and paralyzed, by the way. Yeah, we had to work for our porn. It was like the forbidden fruit, too. If you had a Playboy, you had companions. Those got passed around more than a football, and probably had more germs per square inch. If there is one cultural difference I can cite between the generations, it's immediacy of access to pornographic material. For us, it was a quest. It was a coming of age. It was a subject we'd discuss for hours. I'm pretty sure it was not mentally healthy to have such an idolization about it, but it's a little late for that now.
- didibus 9y ago
  Never ever thought of reading about Larry Flynt, but just did, interesting person. He did get shot and was paralyzed, never charged the shooter, and even spoke against his death penalty. A big supporter of the first amendment, claims the media coverage in Hustler is more accurate then modern media, and this awesome quote of him: > Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper. Not the kind of wikipedia entry I was expecting at all.

didibus 9y ago

Yes, but, you took it a bit too far.

colechristensen 9y ago

This is a bit overkill. If you look with rose colored glasses at what it did in the 50's, spot on. As time went on and the revolution it helped push along progressed, Playboy stayed where it was and became progressively ... grubby. In relation to society and culture around it. Plenty the brand had to offer was quite far from high art and you only have to look at Hefner's relations with women himself to realize there is something quite wrong with the whole thing. A dirty old man is dead. A long time ago he helped make some progress away from destructive societal and legal ideas, but he wasn't a saint and the things he created are now nothing to bring pride to anyone. There are plenty of publications today (not to mention advertising in public) which don't bat an eye at publishing nudity. Much more across the Atlantic. Things might even progress one day to publishing nudity with disinterest as though nothing hidden was being revealed.

nielsbot 9y ago
> Things might even progress one day to publishing nudity with disinterest as though nothing hidden was being revealed. Philosophically, doesn't that require society to give up clothing?
- colechristensen 9y ago
  No, there's plenty of utility to clothing besides making being naked special.
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    Don't see why you were downvoted. It's 56F outside.
  - nielsbot 9y ago
    Sure.. I wonder if one is a consequence of the other however.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Sure - it's hard to make nudity special if there's no alternative state. But I doubt it was the only factor.

Jaruzel 9y ago

> And two to three pictorials of totally nude babes. Actually, the first few issues only contained photo-shoots of topless women - full frontal nudity came later. (I have the 'Playboy 40 Years' book[1], which charts the evolution of the magazine. I got it the for articles [cough]) -- [1] https://www.amazon.com/Playboy-Book-Forty-Years/dp/1881649032 https://www.amazon.com/Playboy-Book-Forty-Years/dp/188164903...

djrobstep 9y ago

This was so cringy to read. Playboy is a lad mag for men who enjoy the delusion that their taste in porn is edgier and more sophisticated than the average blue collar masturbator. It's the $20 dollar burger joint for people who think they're better than McDonalds. Hefner gentrified porn, and cashed in in the process. But there are millions of gross and horny old men out there with too much money. Hugh Hefner was just another one, remarkable only for how tacky and vulgar his aesthetic was.