mjq@decvax.UUCP (Mike Quinn) (08/01/86)
The arguments about Playboy are popping up again, I see.
I find Chris' response interesting. It is true that the women are air-
brushed, and it is true that they do not look the same in "real" photos
or real-life.
Remember, Chris, that the folks that create the magazine are not
targeting the magazine for women readers. I doubt that many women try
to live up to those standards, because they realize the "plastic" nature
of the photos also.
The audience is the key. One remnant of the Hugh Hefner/silk
pajamas/round bed era is the line on the cover: Entertainment for Men.
A suprising number of women subscribe to and enjoy Playboy.
I've always thought that if they wanted to hit a really upscale
audience, they could merge Playgirl and Playboy, call it Playpeople, and
sell loads of advertising for BMWs and chocolate-covered potato chips.
:-)
The cretins that believe Playboy is the "real world" would probably get
upset that there were *male* bodies ("I ain't gonna read no homo
mag'zine :-)) among the pages, and would regress to Hustler (or worse!).
Is it my imagination, or is the air starting to get a little warmer in
here?
Mike