Friday, March 28, 2008

Tinawag mo pang Playboy...

RP Edition of Playboy out next week, sans frontal nudity.

It misses the point. Lad mags like FHM and Maxim were created to serve as a bridge between traditional men's mags like GQ and more risque ones like Playboy. If the local Playboy will just be an FHM clone, why bother?

Playboy revolutionized publishing by showing another side of whitebread America. If the local edition is afraid of the Catholic Church or of local mores, then they don't embody the spirit in which the mag was made.

And no, nobody buys the bullshit that one reads Playboy "for the articles." "The New Yorker" or "Mc Sweeney's" or "Wired" is smart, Playboy has titties.


Francis Ocoma said...

Now, I myself am a (semi-)obedient peon of the Magisterium (:D), but I just don't understand these "don't make the Church angry"-type policies...especially from people who have absolutely no reason to bother. I mean, here I am, the sexy magazine industry, producing photos of scantily-clad women in suggestive poses along with erotic articles that are often morally dirtier than mere nude photos... if I have the "courage" to print those, then apparently I do not care much about Church teachings; in which case, why the hell hesitate to show nude women?! There is absolutely no logic there, aside from the rather insulting and wrong argument that maybe the Church won't condemn them so much if they didn't go "all-out".

(Yes, yes, I also have a dirty mind. Titties FTW, etc. ;-P)

missingpoints said...

Exactly. Either you make a traditional men's mag with interesting articles or try to compete with the lad mags, either way you don't need to waste money paying for the Playboy franchise.