Posted on 10/05/2021 6:59:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
In many ways, the story of Playboy Magazine is the story of the sexual revolution, from its first cover featuring Marilyn Monroe in 1953 to its current cover featuring a gay man dressed as a Playboy bunny. It is the story of moral degeneration, from lewdness to perversion. I wonder how all the hot-blooded, heterosexual male Playboy readers will fancy this bold new cover?
In my 2017 book Saving a Sick America, I noted that on October 12 and 13, 2015, the internet lit up with headlines: “'Playboy' to stop publishing nude photos” (USA Today); “No more naked women in print Playboy” (Business Insider); “Playboy magazine abandons nudity” (Telegraph, UK); “Playboy magazine to stop publishing pictures of naked women” (The Guardian).
After 62 years of featuring nudes, Playboy was no longer going to display pictures of naked women in its magazine. But from the standpoint of moral values, this was actually bad news, not good news.
As one supporter of nude photos explained, “. . . we live in a world where all the world's porn is like three mouse clicks away, and most of it is totally free. In a world like that, Playboy is redundant at best and embarrassing at worst.” And remember: it was a supporter of nude pictures who wrote this.
Playboy was not abandoning nude pictorials because society had become more moral. It was abandoning these pictorials because society had become so immoral that Playboy’s relatively mild pornography was no longer a draw. Pornography of the most sordid kind was freely available everywhere, so who needed pictures of nude women in Playboy? Porn was now ubiquitous.
Playboy had helped swing the door wide open, and what followed was a flood of ever-degenerating filth, often at the primary expense of women.
Accordingly, Max Benwell’s article on the UK’s Independent site in was titled, “Why you should be worried about Playboy dropping naked women from its pages,” with the subtitle reading, “This isn't a clear moral victory, but yet another reminder of the huge power wielded by mainstream pornography.”
Benwell noted that when Playboy dropped nudes from its website in August, 2015, that “caused its traffic to quadruple.” People were now drawn to the articles and not distracted by the relatively benign pictures.
He continued, “The magazine becoming never-nude is heartening for anyone who cares about the media’s constant objectification of women. But no-one should pretend that this is a moral victory. Playboy, acting as any business would, dropped the nudes because there’s no demand for them any more. The free market argument that supported their continued existence turned on them. But this isn’t because we’re all reading feminist zines on Tumblr now; there’s no demand for them because too many people are watching free online porn instead.”
But it didn’t take long for Playboy to reverse its decision and return to its central nude features.
As reported by the BBC in February 2017, “Playboy magazine has announced it is bringing back nudity, reversing a decision made last year.
“The move was announced by Playboy's new chief creative officer Cooper Hefner, who said the decision to remove nudity entirely ‘was a mistake’.
“‘Today we're taking our identity back and reclaiming who we are,’ he tweeted.
“The US magazine also promoted its March-April edition with a picture of its playmate of the month with the hashtag #NakedIsNormal.”
It looks like Playboy without nudity was like a beach without water or like a sports stadium without teams to play. So much for the overall quality of their publication. And so much for readers subscribing primarily because of the amazing articles.
Still, in many ways, Playboy was behind the times (at least, as reported by others in terms of the sexual content; this is something I do not check on). It was not lewd enough. Not racy enough. Not pushing the boundaries enough. And, at the least, not current.
Now, 68 years after the magazine’s first issue, headlines are announcing, “Bretman Rock Makes History as First Out Gay Male to Cover Playboy: It's 'a Huge Deal'.”
As People reported, “Social media star Bretman Rock is no stranger to breaking barriers.
“The 23-year-old influencer nabbed the cover of Playboy's digital magazine, making him the first openly gay man to don the complete bunny suit for the cover.”
There you have it. A 23-year-old gay man, dressed in a women’s bunny suit and posing sensually, is featured on the front cover. (Please don’t tell me he’s featured in the centerfold too.)
To be clear, “While Playboy says Rock isn't the first man to appear on the magazine cover, he is the first who openly identifies as part of the LGBTQ community and the first male to don the full suit. Bad Bunny has previously been featured on the cover, while Ezra Miller appeared in bunny ears for his feature with the magazine.”
Another Playboy landmark, indeed – this time, with a deeper foray into perversion.
There’s an old saying that sin will also take you further than you intended to go. It will keep you longer than you intended to stay. And it will cost you more than you intended to pay.
The same can be said of the sexual revolution. May the Lord have mercy on its millions of victims, many of whom ended up in places they never expected to go. (How many people celebrate being addicted to porn, to give one example out of many?) May Bretman Rock have a life-changing encounter with the Lord Himself.
And may we learn to celebrate a healthy sexuality, within the bonds of marriage, one man and woman together for life, as intended by God. Our Maker really knows best.
Keep in mind that Playboy headquarters in Chicago was not very far away from the corporate headquarters of Sears, Roebuck AND Montgomery Ward. Another 20th century icon going the way of the others.
They still print Playboy?
Right? I honestly didn’t think that porno rag was still around.
They should just change the name to Play Boy.
More fitting.
Sexual perversion is sexual perversion. “Straight porn” or “light porn” is still demonic and damages the souls of anyone involved.
Just a natural progress of what started with its first issue. When you start becoming accepting of perversion, the stone only continues to roll down the hill faster and faster. Acceptance of things like cohabitation came prior to the increased acceptance of same-sex marriage, etc. Once you start watering things down, the don’t stop.
A little off-topic, but something occurred to me the other day ...
The sexual revolution was largely driven by The Pill. Oral contraceptives for women allowed a lot of behavior that had previously been held in check. Today we sometimes hear about oral contraceptives that men might take, in order to make them temporarily infertile.
But let’s step beyond fertility.
For how many people is sex a distraction? If teens were to focus on school or sports instead of chasing each other, would the world be better? If single people all took a pill that removed sexual desire, and then, after getting married to a suitable partner, if they stopped taking that pill, and discovered a wonderful, magical world within the confines of a committed marriage, wouldn’t that be nice?
We have birth control — so people can have more sex.
We have viagra — so people can have more sex.
Why doesn’t science ever try to make something so that people could have less sex? So that society could be less sex-obsessed? I think it’s because the global economy is largely driven by sexual unhappiness. Making desire go away, would affect a lot of bank accounts.
That may be part of it, but I think wokeness also played a part. The left does not think it is normal for a heterosexual male to ogle beautiful women. Sports Illustrated has started featuring fat women and trannies in their swimsuit issue. We're not supposed to ogle women, but we are supposed to look at a magazine cover featuring a naked and pregnant Serena Williams and call it "beautiful".
It is not moral to look at pictures of naked women, but it is normal for young heterosexual males to want to do so. The left is at war with everything that was normal. Now a gay dude dressed as a Playboy bunny is supposed to be normal, and only some sort of homophobic hater would disagree with that.
Lewd to a prude maybe
Just call it Gayboy and hail the magazine’s new wokeness. Make it the go to mag for the LGBTQ… crowd. Who would buy that crap anyway other than them? I say eff all dirty sinning, way too overrated.
A few years back (probably when Hugh Hefner died) I saw an interview with a “Bunny” who had recently spent some time at Hefner’s Mansion
She said it interior was worn-out, was in need of repair, had frayed carpets - and smelled like urine.
I remember it because its a very fitting metaphor for what Playboy represents and what the entire movement did to America.
Playboy is still in publication? I am very surprised.
At least they dressed him as a bunny for Halloween.
We got kicked out of the Garden. That was when marriage started, because we didn’t have Nob’s complete attention and forbearance anymore. “You sinned, now you’re gonna be miserable! Get married and it won’t be quite so bad, but it’ll still be bad! Now get out of my sight!” Before that, there was no marriage or need for marriage. Life was stress-free. Reproduction was not painful or costly.
Live and learn!
They are just doing this to some press coverage buzz and attention because the “magazine” has tanked financially. It’s a desperation move.
Only in braille...
The people behind Playboy were always perverts. They downplay to get others to go along.
And Boeing. Boeing is there too and dying a slow death spiral.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.