DevotedPuppy said:

How boring!

JustErin said:

Yeah, being seen as an intelligent human being and not just an airbrushed blow up doll is a real drag!

DevotedPuppy said:

Oh so, people can't be both?

That sucks.

DevotedPuppy said:

Oh so, people can't be both?

That sucks.

JustErin said:

Sure they can, that's why I used the word "solely" in my initial response. But c'mon, do we really view Heff's bunnies as intelligent* human beings first and foremost? I would argue intelligence isn't the first thing Playboy's target audience thinks of when they look at the centerfold.


*intelligent meaning book smarts

JustErin said:

Sure they can, that's why I used the word "solely" in my initial response. But c'mon, do we really view Heff's bunnies as intelligent* human beings first and foremost? I would argue intelligence isn't the first thing Playboy's target audience thinks of when they look at the centerfold.


*intelligent meaning book smarts

DevotedPuppy said:

Oh come on, what's the difference between being judged by your looks first or your mind?

As long as you can back it up with intelligence, who cares what a first impression is? Particularly when it comes to simply looking at a pic in a mag.

Beautiful doesn't = dumb... and those that think that....well, they don't deserve the time of day. And if they don't deserve the time of day, who cares what they think?

roodboi said:

hanging out in bathrooms????

oaky, here is why I would never pose for playboy!!!


Just took this, yes, in the bathroom

amorbella said:

who needs playboy when you have chicks like that hanging out in bathrooms...

no. i might pose "undraped" (i love that word, it's so 60s) for some other publication if i believed in the magazine and/or if it were a photographer i knew or respected a lot. but playgirl? tackay. anyway, don't you have to pose half-mast for that magazine? that's so creepy and weird.

Playgirl Magazine Probably Folding
The rumors are that Playgirl, that naked-man publication started in the 70s, will fold. We never actually read it, but always kind of liked the idea that it was around. It was ostensibly for girls, but maybe that was the heteronormative title--because come on, the gays have been (barely) keeping that thing afloat for years.

Sadly, this seems to be a moot question for the guys now.

http://gawker.com/5032164...ly-folding

Sadly, this seems to be a moot question for the guys now.

http://gawker.com/5032164...ly-folding

no. i might pose "undraped" (i love that word, it's so 60s) for some other publication if i believed in the magazine and/or if it were a photographer i knew or respected a lot. but playgirl? tackay. anyway, don't you have to pose half-mast for that magazine? that's so creepy and weird.

oaky, here is why I would never pose for playboy!!!


Just took this, yes, in the bathroom

Efan said:

Wow, Playgirl looks gayer than ever now. I used to work for that publishing company many years ago. Playgirl was the one male book among the numerous female skin titles owned by the parent company. Working for a porn publisher--those were good times.

G0d said:

Thank you....

but no amount of airbrushing is going to make these butt cheeks presentable.

JustErin said:

But that's the thing--how does one "judge someone's mind" from a picture in a magazine? One might say, "they look dumb" so then we're back to judging on looks, right?

Playboy centerfolds don't have to back up shit for me--I couldn't care less if they are intelligent or dumber than rocks; however, if *they're* concerned about being perceived as intelligent and hot, Playboy may not be the best choice of magazine -- seeing as how it's not exactly know for its intelligent journalism.

But the original question was would you pose, and for me, even though I am pretty happy with my body (lest anyone think I'm saying 'no' b/c I think I'm fugly-- lol), I would not allow myself to be sexually objectified at that level.

I know beautiful does not equal dumb, but I just don't see Playboy or any number of magazines doing anything to dispel that idea.

At the end of the day I also think it comes down to personal values. "Values" meaning what level of importance people place on physical beauty, intelligence, money, etc. Personally, I am not really into fashion and beauty, all that kind of stuff (although I like to look nice), so I wouldn't pose for a magazine that puts tantamount importance on physical attributes. It's not important for me to be validated for that. I'd rather pose (be interviewed) for ArtForum or something brainy.

Different strokes...


.
[Edited 8/22/08 14:59pm]

They gave you a hard time about that, but it's hard to deny that Playboy is all about objectifying women physically, and has nothing to do with their minds. Of course, I have absolutely no problem with that and regularly objectify nearly every woman I see on the street. And I don't recal reading that you said that no women should do that or the ones who do should be ashamed of themselves.

But you're absolutely right, and I could definitely understand a woman not wanting to allow herself to be objectified on
that level, and by anyone who has $8 (including co-workers, the sleazy neighbor down the street, etc.).

NDRU said:

It's all good. I figured I would get a little slack for my comment. I also know I have a bad habit of over-analyzing everything. G0d probably meant it as an innocuous question; but at the same time I think a lot of people just float by without really considering the underlying implications or messages of seemingly 'harmless' things. And yeah, I'm not saying other people shouldn't do it if they want, that's their choice and I wouldn't judge them for it, but it's not anything I'm interested in.

But to you for objectifing women on the street! I hope you were mostly joking (as implied by the ). Even if you think it's harmless it could be making the women uncomfortable. I remember you posting on my masturbating creepsters thread, too. Ooo, I was so pissed at that guy. I also really cannot stand when guys think it's perfectly fine to make lewd comments or cat-calls to women walking down the street, simply because they are females. Like I said on that thread, does that actually ever work for guys? Do some women actually want to date a guy who yells something like "nice ass" as they walk down the street? I mean if a guy I'm dating tells me that when I'm wearing new jeans or something, it's one thing, but a random (and usually creepy) dude on the subway? Inappropriate.

Anxiety said:

There was a women's erotic magazine in the 70s called Foxy Lady, which was a complete trip. I used to have a collection of them (I lost them in my house fire ) and they featured things like nude men painted all in sliver (ala Bowie) floating in spacescapes. It was hot!!!

JustErin said:

look at my butt and legs
too big for "playboy"
Im not rail thin I have curves

MoniGram said:

You have

If I saw you naked, I'd die