Hi, my name is Alex, and I like Playboy magazine. Though, I only bought the one with Tiffany in it. At 27 years old, I enjoy rekindling 80's nostalgia. Shes pretty hot, and has definately left the mall.
And of course we *all* had "David's brother" in our lives. I dont know of a single person who was introduced to smut without an older (though also a kid) facilitator.
I weep for the next generation of young men. They wont see their first porn in a magazine surrepticiosuly snuck out of a closet or from under the bed, but online. And in their face.
Kind of takes the magic out of porn. In a way.
Call me sentimental.

It does seem an inferior experience. Though perhaps Joseph Schumpeter would say that we're on our way to a highly superior technological porn innovation: "gales of creative destruction," indeed!

I'm 44. If I buy the magazine do I hide it? How long to I keep it? Pick up a 40 oz in a paper bag and take it to the park?

If your standard for buying and reading a magazine was complete agreement with everything the mag printed and stood for you would probably never buy any of them. (I would buy only 'The Intellectual Activist.') You could never endorse 'The New Republic!'

Playboy embodies many classically liberal ideas, although there's a fair dose of modern liberalism as well. It has given us much to be thankful for. Not just the highly anticipated Playmate of the Year, but frequent discussions of ideas. The best example of this is one of the most insightful Ayn Rand interviews ever printed:

http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html

I encourage everyone to read it, particularly those who largely know of Rand only through their disagreements with me! (At this point it's appropriate for me to point out that I am JohnGalt or johngalt, not "the" John Galt.)

Playboy can, no doubt, lay claim to some outstanding journalism over the years. (You mean they have articles in there?)

My difference with the folks at Playboy is a little larger than editorial viewpoint. I think that the magazine is a force for dehumanization, reducing everybody in it to their most atavistic, corporeal components.

The occasional "important" interview with a rising political star (Ventura) or public intellectual (Rand) always seem cheap excuses to add credibility to a mag that asks a starlet "have you ever done it in a public place?" and "do you prefer to give or receive oral sex?" (Hey, we might get some Google hits this week!)

JK, it's a well established fact that 40 ouncers taste better when they are consumed straight from the bag.
Have no shame.... enjoy your malt liquor.

That last comment unmasked you, JK: over-repressed, stuffy prig it is. :)

Human nudity has been a subject of artworks for as long as we've had art (for we've ALWAYS had nude bodies.) Now, there is good art and bad art. For an example of the latter see, for example, Hustler magazine. AAAACK.

Does painting a nude in an art class reduce the artists or the model "to their most atavistic, corporeal components?" No, it gives them an opportunity to celebrate the metaphysical and emotional characteristics in humanity that they value. (Except for the two guys in the Bud Light commercial version of this setting.) If they value the healthy and vital, the aspects that are complementary to man's life and survival on earth, then they may create good art. If they value the slovenly and depraved then their art will unquestionably be bad.

Rand discusses these issues in the link I gave. Do a text search for "poets" and read the next several questions and answers.

"Prig" is an acceptable answer.

So, pornography is nothing other than "bad" art to you? I think the pursuit of the prurient is worse than bad art, it is dehumanizing. And I think that Playboy ir geneally prurient. I am fine with nude art or salacious literature when there is some artistic merit underlying it. Again, if the pictures were not accompanied by juvenile, personal questions about the pictured's sex life, they would make a better case.

I'll read the Rand interview, I just hope there are no pictures of her naked. Really, her ideas were powerful and all but...

Yes, pornography is merely bad art. In the same way that guns are not to blame for murder: Porn doesn't create prurience, perverts do. Although some pornography is created by perverts for perverts, it's still just bad art until individuals pruriently deprave themselves.

Pornography is often criticized for dehumanizing its models, yet so long as they engage in the practice willingly in exchange for something of value to them there is no inhumanity.

The conflicting values you've expressed on this subject are a result of attempting to regulate the natural instincts and behaviors of man by edict or commandment or shame rather than by reason. The former appeals to the fear of the brute while the latter relies upon the intelligence of the individual. When our society ceases treating its members as mindless brutes and regards them as intelligent individuals instead, perhaps they will reciprocate.

I stumbled on this from Google and wanted to say thanks for posting