Playboy made me do it

quote:

---

that's what parents are for. they have to teach their children the difference between fantasy and reality. tell me schraf, when you were 9 did you think every movie you saw was a documentary of real life?

---

You are gravely underestimating the power of culture.

quote:

---

yes.

---

quote:

---

no. those are PICTURES on the pages. depictions. not the real women.

---

We aren't talking about your College Art History/Philosophy education.We are talking about kids growing up in a culture.

quote:

---

Would that make any sense? And if you are going to say there is a difference between the photo spreads in Playboy and James Bond films, I'd like to know what that difference is. As far as I have always known, those photospreads are obviously erotic entertainment, not infomercials.

---

A Playmate doesn't use a pseudonym. That's her real name, her real measurements, her supposed real turn ons and turn offs. According to the website, they are supposed to be "real women", and husbands and boyfriends are encouraged to send in photos of their wives and girlfriends. They do not advertise that the photos are not realistic depictions at all and in fact encourage everyday people to want to be in the magazine.James Bond is a wholly fictional character, fighting unrealistic villians using unrealistic weapons and performing unrealistic acrobatics. It's silly and comical because it's so stylized and formula-based. There are credits related to special effects at the ends of the movies and it is commonly known that stunt men and women perform many of the more dangerous actions and not the actor. The studio does not encourage wives and girlfriends to send in video tapes of their boyfriends and husbands scaling walls and jumping off cliffs so they can be the next James Bond.The line is more blurred with Playboy.

quote:

---

Playmates marry rockstars and actors as status symbols. Believe it or not it cuts both ways.

---

Thank you for conceding that to be a Playmate confers status upon a woman as beautiful and desireable.

quote:

---

In any case, in the grotto or in marriage those same girls cannot look like or be like the 2d altered photographic images.

---

How was I supposed to know that as a kid? How are most adults supposed to know that?

quote:

---

You almost hit it on the head when you said they get acting and modelling careers, as that is exactly what they did as a playmate: acted and modelled. I generally expect the people who marry playmates understand they are marrying a girl who played a playmate, or is a model who was a playmate, and not that they married the playmate centerfold image.

---

I'm not talking about the actual people who get married to Playmates.I am talking about the rest of the culture who sees that a Playmate has her options for relationships become much wider, and her options for living the high life become much greater, because she Posed in Playboy.(it doesn't matter if this is true for most Playmates or not; it's what is commonly shown as a benefit of posing) [qs]Real women certainly did pose for the photos. However photos are not real women. More importantly the photos in playboy are not even real photos of women. And most importantly the photos in Playboy are of a specific and narrow range of idealized imagery that will sell to the most amount of people and so a depiction of fantasy that appeals to the broadest masses, and as such does not suggest what is appealing (or not) in reality nor in general.[/quote]Right. The images in Playboy are blendsof reality and fantasy.How much is real and how much is fake? Playboy isn't telling. Playboy doesn't even want anyone to realize that the photos are altered. And that's why Playboy is part of the problem. They don't credit their special effects department for creating illusions. The fantasy is that these are real women.The idea that the images and the messages in any culture are determined solely by the recipients and not by the senders is simply naive.

Are you kidding me? These are MODELS, some use stage names. You are likely not to know their real names just as much as actors and actresses who you know by their stage names. Perhaps what you mean is they don't have a character name, like Sean Connery plays Bond.The rest I simply cannot believe. Unlike Bond, which is one character, people do try and get into action movie parts like bond... guess what they have to look like? They also do calls for Bond girls, and indeed sometimes Playboy does features on Bond girls.Whether Bond is a fictional character or not, the intent of the BOND MOVIES is to entertain, and so is Playboy. The MODELS go in just like connery and have pictures taken and have them presented to create a fantasy for men to jerk off to.Whether Playboy lists their actual likes and dislikes (I have no idea) is irrelevant, as the point is only to add to the fantasy of availability.Look this is really simple. Isn't Playboy about jerking off, and aren't playmates models posing for images used for people to masturbate to?If you believe anything other than that, and especially that Playboy is some real contact magazine for people to meet in Hef's grotto, then there is a serious deficiency in discerning fantasy from reality. Conceding would have to entail that I disagreed at some other point in time. I recognize that fact and have for some time now. They are obviously chosen as beautiful by staff at Playboy in hopes that it fits with the most common tastes of beauty, and it apparently is successful.That's like winning any other contest or title. What's the big deal?If you mean it confers upon that woman a status of beautiful that all must recognize and believe, and suggests that there are no other ways of measuring beauty (not to mention other titles that can be held on that subject), then I disagree.Playboy is just one among many, and it is not an official stamp people must accept, it is recognized because most have agreed with the choices.Do you think they are generally beautiful or not? All adults should know that if they have any knowledge of cameras and photos and real people. They should be telling kids about this, though it is true a kid may not have learned that yet. Kids often have a problem distinguishing fantasy from reality. That does not excuse anyone above 13 from having that problem, unless they live where there is no such thing as cameras and real people. I'm sorry, but what is wrong with that? Anyone who gets public exposure generally has wider choices in life, that's what fame is all about. Yeah, that's right. That is exactly right. The FANTASY is that these are real women who you are able to have sex with right then and there, or might attain. Playboy is selling that masturbatory FANTASY.Then there is real life. Playboy is filled with fantasy for masturbation, and you have to look for a real woman if you are really going to have real sex with a real woman. It is a mix of feedback loops so I do not deny that cultural "senders" play a part in defining culture, but one is able to move beyond mere "receiver", specifically with relation to determining fantasy from reality.It is naive to blame senders to the degree you do, and more so to blame the message they send. That is attacking a mirror for what you do not like to see. And the only real result will be to throw the baby out with the bathwater.I am still waiting for you to explain what use your criticism is. What does it do but create impotent rage and demonize innocent people for just talking about what they like, if it does not move further to censor free expression?Let's assume just for sake of argument that everything you say about images in society are true, and Playboy is a part of that.My proposal is to work on people's coping skills and learning to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. What is your proposed answer?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

uh huh. sure i am. blame the culture your parents not teaching you fantasy from reality. it takes a village to raise an idiot, so to speak. no, we ARE talking about education. your entire argument is basiclaly one of ignorance. you're blaming a single magazine for society's problems, and for the ways that people misunderstand it because they are ignorant of certain obvious facts.

---

אָרַח

wanna talk about fantasies for a second? holmes mentioned james bond. and with good reason. see, james bond, aside from being a spy, is what they call "a playboy." he's the person that playboy is marketted to. if you've ever read playboy, you'd notice it favors expensive toys, and high class -- and attractive women.the fact of the matter is that not everybody is james bond. most of people who buy an issue of playboy will never be able to afford the toys written about in its pages. playboy is pure grade a masturbatory fantasy for men. we want to be james bond. we want the super cool toys, and the nice suits, and the money and class. we want the bond girls.but at the end of the day, most of us know that that will never happen. it's just a fantasy. it's entirely unrealistic. and so is playboy. ever seen "the people v. larry flynt"? his whole reason for starting hustler was because playboy was so unrealistic. if you wanna attack a skin-rag, go mess with hustler. but the rest of us know how fake playboy is. you're just going for the easy target with the big name. common sense. and if that fails, good parenting. no. of course not. you're not talking about actual people. that's great. wider options, sure. who do they marry, though? do they marry some fat slob who works at a car plant in indiana? or do they marry the attractive rock stars and actors from california? they credit the photographers. but if you want, i'll go borrow a friend's playboy and see if they credit photoshop/airbrush artists too. i bet they do. yes. just like when you go to the movies, you want to believe in the reality of it. but when you walk out of the theatre, you know it was just a movie. the reality of it is the fantasy -- but it's still a fantasy.

---

אָרַח

Your entire post was dead on, and I'm glad to see someone understood why I chose Bond as my example when discussing Playboy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Whether Bond is a fictional character or not, the intent of the BOND MOVIES is to entertain, and so is Playboy. The MODELS go in just like connery and have pictures taken and have them presented to create a fantasy for men to jerk off to.

​

Whether Playboy lists their actual likes and dislikes (I have no idea) is irrelevant, as the point is only to add to the fantasy of availability.

---

No, the point of adding the turn on & offs is to add the illusion of reality.Bond films take pains to make everything in them seem much much larger than life and completely unrealistic.Playboy takes pains to create an illusion of reality. They do not list the girls' turn ons as "expensive cars, wealthy men, and Italian villas". It's usually something like "walking in the rain, a great sense of humor, and sincerity".If you blame someone for falling for something that was designed to make them think it was real, then I really don't think you are capable of understanding my argument.

I'm not sure how what you just said is any different than what I said, which is adding to the fantasy of availability. If it was going to be real then it would say "expensive cars, wealthy men, and italian villas" because indeed that is what they'd likely be interested in... as your own statement about who they marry would suggest.Yes, it is describing a more realistic scenario than a Bond film, but again you are making some very strange distinctions. I was talking about purpose, not format.In the end both of these are the same purpose which is entertainment. As much as Playboy may try and portray the girls as real and available as part of the fantasy, the images themselves are patently ideal fantasy of "beautiful". Blair Witch was designed to make the viewer think everything was real. Indeed many morons fell for it as a real story.What they forgot to do is remember (apparently as the movie started) that they went to see a fictional movie. A person who picks up Playboy and thinks they are about to see something about reality, and not masturbatory fantasy, has made the same moronic mistake. They picked up a jerk off magazine and suddenly think they are looking at what? A documentary?Penthouse letters are also meant to sound real. People pretty much have a handle on the fact that they are fantasy. Are you suggesting people should be expected to fall for that as well?Before opening any sexually explicit magazine, a person should be clear about what it is (or at least the pictorial parts)... fantasy for masturbation.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

as someone who likes walking in the rain, has a great sense of humor, and is really and genuinely sincere -- and gets NO ASS whatsoever, i can vouch for that fact that that shit is completely made up. if that were real, i'd get dates with playmates.added by edit: see, if it were reality, it would probably say "wealthy men, expensive cars, and italian villas." shit, i'd sleep with the guy that had those things.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-02-2005 06:20 PM

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

Look this is really simple. Isn't Playboy about jerking off, and aren't playmates models posing for images used for people to masturbate to?

---

Big Huge Jugs magazine is solely for jerking off to.Playboy is more than that.It's iconic. People wear clothing with the bunny head logo, people want to be invited to the Grotto, people brag that they date Playmates, Playmates can put that they posed in Playboy on their resume as a legitimate and very positive accomplishment when trying to get into TV, movies, or modeling.Why shouldn't little girls want to look like a Playmate? It is clearly what the most people approve of and find attractive.

quote:

---

If you mean it confers upon that woman a status of beautiful that all must recognize and believe, and suggests that there are no other ways of measuring beauty (not to mention other titles that can be held on that subject), then I disagree.

---

It is one of the most recognized and most agreed upon measures of beauty and desireability in our culture.I think it's perfectly natural for people to want to be considered beautiful and desireable, and also to want the most people to find them as so. We are social creatures and we are told (especially females but males more so these days) that we must look a certain way to be accepted.The fact that it is human nature to make snap judgements about others when we meet them belies our generally superficial judgement of people. Appearance and attractiveness matters, especially to men, who are typically the more visual of the genders.And hey, I just saw a commercial last night from the Loreal cosmetics company launching a new men's line of facial mosturizers with sunscreen in them meant to fight off the effects of aging.You know, I think we're only a few decades away from full makeup for men.

Its articles are not for jerking off to, its images are. If you want me to rephrase my question I will:Aren't the images in Playboy about jerking off, and aren't playmate models posing for images used by people to masturbate to?Whether the rest of the magazine has any other content is besides the point. And I think you know that it is a cliched joke for a man to say he reads Playboy for the articles. Little girls shouldn't want to because they can't look like Playmates at their age. There is nothing wrong with them hoping to look like that when they grow up, though they should learn as they grow up that it isn't necessary. This is already an agreed upon point. It is recognized and agreed upon measures of beauty. That is because it is carefully stocked with imagery that would appeal to the greatest number, and not that it has some mind control power to influence the majority on what is beautiful.Playboy does not wag the dog, even if it helps reinforce the dog wagging its tail. Men are less picky than women when it comes to partners. Only if you are talking about ideal fantasy types might men get somewhat pickier. You do understand that western culture used to have, and other cultures as well had and still have, full makeup for men? Men used to wear wigs as a matter of course.I have no problem with the idea that most people would like to be beautiful to the most numbers of people. The idea that one is likely to achieve that is sheer fantasy. It is one of those personal expectations that have to be dealt with early on.The fact that one is not likely to be adored by a majority, or a thin minority, of the masses does not act as a criticism of the masses for not finding one attractive, nor any of their magazines.I am interested in your explaining what useful action your criticism can generate? If we stop debating your position and grant it is real for sake of argument... what next?It appears the only choice is to start censorship to create new standards of beauty that are more egalitarian which will create new classes of ugly people, and demonize people for having preferences that are not this new norm.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Aren't the images in Playboy about jerking off, and aren't playmate models posing for images used by people to masturbate to?

---

Yes

quote:

---

Whether the rest of the magazine has any other content is besides the point.

---

No, it is exactly the point. There is a reason it's "OK" for nearly any woman to pose in Playboy if they will have her and definitely not OK for most women, especially if they want a career in hollywood, to pose in Great Big Jugs magazine.One is a plus, an advantage, and the other is a minus, a disadvantage.

quote:

---

And I think you know that it is a cliched joke for a man to say he reads Playboy for the articles.

---

It sure is. But I don't remember mentioning the articles in Playboy.

quote:

---

Little girls shouldn't want to because they can't look like Playmates at their age. There is nothing wrong with them hoping to look like that when they grow up, though they should learn as they grow up that it isn't necessary.

---

No, they should learn that it isn't possible, and they should learn that long before they grow up.But I would disagree that it isn't necessary. It's a well-known fact that beautiful people, especially women, flat out get treated better by pretty much everybody than less attractive people.

quote:

---

I have no problem with the idea that most people would like to be beautiful to the most numbers of people. The idea that one is likely to achieve that is sheer fantasy. It is one of those personal expectations that have to be dealt with early on.

---

It is not sheer fantasy.There is a multi-billion dollar industry (cosmetics and cosmetic surgery) telling everyone that it is quite possible. There is even a reality show called The Swan based upon taking a "ugly" person and putting them through a great many surgical and other cosmetic procedures to make them beautiful. All of the people have been willing and eager to risk surgical complications purely for superficial, physical reasons.I can also relate a personal story. About 10 years ago I was working at a specialty food shop in a different city. Most of the people who worked there were college-age women, although our assistant manager at the time was a little bit older. Almost to a woman, they were all very conventionally attractive with slender bodies, great skin, etc.One day during a slow time the five of us were standing around and someone asked the question, "If money was no object, what cosmetic surgery would you get done?" Every single one of these very pretty women took the question completely seriously and started talking about liposuction, nose jobs, breast enlargements, etc. I piped up and said that I'd like to get a third eyeball in the back of my head so I could see in front of me and in back of me at the same time.You should have seen the look they all gave me. The fact that I made this subject into a joke was not approved of.Now, did each and every one of those women have poor parents who didn't explain the difference between fantasy and reality? I happen to know at least two of them were well aware of the narrow cultural standard and how damaging it was but they didn't care. They wanted to be skinny like the women on TV and in the movies.And I really can't blame them.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-03-2005 03:54 PM

yes. it's a STATUS SYMBOL. why shouldn't people wanna be rich and famous? i mean, that is the status playboy is symbolizing, isn't it? it's the american dream: wealth, fame, cool toys, and a mansion full of attractive and scantily-clad women.it's a status thing. and what you don't seem to realize is that most people know they will never be in the top 1%. it's kind of a tautology -- not everyone can be at the top. if they were, it'd be the middle. and the funny thing, as i've pointed out numerous times, playboy is NOT that certain way. and society is not telling people that they have to look a certain way to be accepted and loved by others. hollywood, maybe. but most people know hollywood is full of shit.why don't you? i've also found this not to be true. we like looking at attractive women, yes. but we base our relationships on more important things. and our standards for sex are suprisingly low. because men have never had standards of beauty, or worn makeup. no no, men never had to have a certain image in aristocratic courts. they never wore powdered wigs and white face, and never had to cover their syphillitic boils with "beauty marks" lest they show any sign of imperfection. no, male beauty was never used as a status symbol, or something to be aspired to.

---

אָרַח

no, they probably didn't all have poor parents. but they probably also weren't blaming their image problems on playboy, either.of course, that's also what we call a loaded question. it's not even "would you" but "if you were going to, which one..." of course they all had answer that would make them look better. duh. even the question of "if money were no object, WOULD you get plastic surgery" is a bit of leading question itself.it doesn't indicate poor self image. it's a poor sample group, and a poor testing method. heck, psychologists have been producing false memories for years using similar questions combined with hypnosis.

---

אָרַח

Okay, you've lost me. Whether a magazine acts as a better way to get into Hollywood because it is more famous or because it contains more straightlaced articles around its porn (and so is less scandalous), definitely seems besides the point we are discussing.How does Playboy's better ability to launch careers have anything to do with whether the images are pure fantasy? Well that's plain BS. Why can't they possibly be a model, who looks like those photographed, especially with digital alteration?I agree they should learn to discern fantasy from reality regarding imagery, and expectations regarding what is attractive, but some girls will grow up to be Playboy Playmates... and it doesn't seem something one has to poison. I also don't know what you are talking about here. Check out queens and prime ministers and secretaries of state... all very powerful and respected women who get treated better than most. Most of them have not been attractive.It is true that good looks can set the stage better for a career based on looks, as well as people cutting you some slack in other areas of your life. But good looks do not guarantee you anything.And in any case it is certainly not necessary to look like a playmate in order to be found attractive. Regardless of whether Playboy picks models that are most likely to be found attractive to the most amount of people, they do not have a stranglehold on the definition of beauty. Other people can be found beautiful, including to vast numbers of people. That is why Playboy competitors have succeeded by chucking Playboy's formula.Are competitors as iconic? Not really. But the reason is pretty obvious. Playboy was first and set the industry running as a whole, and competitors who focus on more "real" images also seem more scandalous as they do not try to make their porn highbrow. If it is not sheer fantasy that anyone can end up looking attractive to most of the people in society, then what is your problem? The risks involved? If one wants to impress the masses one usually has to take great risks, surgery or not.In any case, I still believe it is sheer fantasy that most people, regardless of surgery will end up being found attractive to the vast majority of people. Body dissatisfaction occurs to everyone, including the models. Increased techniques for altering the body, and increased knowledge regarding the viability of these techniques means more people may want to engage in them.If they believed it was necessary to do this, or that images in Playboy are the only true standards of beauty and they must look like that, then they all had a problem telling the difference between fantasy and reality. And yes maybe all of their parents didn't raise them properly to make such a distinction. Why should that possibility be shocking in a nation where the majority of people have lost the ability to discern between fantasy in reality.When over 60% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 I am sure that many people could relate stories of standing around talking to groups of people with opinions based on that errant belief. Does that get them off the hook? No.Body manipulation to attain beauty, including wholly unrealistic and "nonnatural" beauty, and even devastatingly harmful beauty, has been with mankind forever and attached to both men and women. It seems a bit odd to be blaming it on tv and Playboy.If you want to change the ideal, why not start putting out alternatives and helping people realize there are many forms of beauty, rather than punking on a viable form of beauty or an idealized form of beauty. Trying to put down others is not attractive at all.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)