Site Meter Reflections on Playboy

July 8, 2008

Point of style: to italicize or not to italicize Playboy

I take logic, rhetoric, grammar, spelling, punctuation, and typography seriously as a writer, the way serious musicians make so much of the complexities of tonal harmony. There is no such thing as proofreading too slowly when I write this blog—or even a one-sentence email to a friend. It’s pride of craftsmanship, and I can’t help myself. Whether I italicize the word Playboy or not in any given instance here, I always think it through carefully on a few levels.

Generally, I restrict italics to the flagship paper magazine that is released month by month (not newsstand specials or online exclusives). Most other uses, whether official or unofficial, are denied italics (Playboy Enterprises, The Playboy Blog, the Playboy Mansion, Reflections on Playboy). A heartthrob known from newsstand specials (i.e. “Special Editions”) or the Internet but not the monthly magazine is a Playboy model rather than a Playboy model. The general term for both kinds of models goes without italics.

However, I’ve recently broken my own rule for the sake of a joke. I wrote “Playboy online and Playboy ondeadtree” to avoid distraction in the parallelism. You gotta do what you gotta do.

Also, it’s never appropriate to capitalize the b in the middle of Playboy. Hugh Hefner didn’t invent the term when he invented the magazine, so it doesn’t have the etymology to justify spelling it like YouTube, for instance, which is literally a brand new word.

Don’t forget my point about the b, or I’ll find you where you sleep and magic-marker the word DORK on your face. Shame is a powerful weapon.

Labels:


Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 11:47 AM

July 4, 2008

What sort of founder of America would have read Playboy if it had existed then?

Benjamin Franklin, to name at least one. In 1745, he wrote this letter:
To my dear Friend:

I know of no Medicine fit to diminish the violent Natural Inclinations you mention; and if I did, I think I should not communicate it to you. Marriage is the proper remedy. It is the most natural state of Man, and therefore the State in which you are most likely to find solid Happiness. Your Reasons against entering into it at Present appear to me not well founded. The circumstantial Advantages you have in View by postponing it, are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the Thing itself, the being married and settled. It is the Man and Woman united that makes the compleat human being. Separate, she wants his Force of Body and Strength of Reason; he, her softness, Sensibility, and acute Discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the World. A single Man has not nearly the Value he would have in the State of Union. He is an incomplete Animal. He resembles the odd Half of a Pair of scissars. If you get a prudent, healthy Wife, your Industry in your Profession, with her good Economy, will be a Fortune sufficient.

But if you will not take this Counsel and persist in thinking a Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice, that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones. You call this a Paradox and demand my Reasons. They are these:

1. Because they have more Knowledge of the World, and their Minds are better stor’d with Observations, their Conversation is more improving, and more lastingly agreeable.

2. Because when Women cease to be handsome they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Men, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a thousand Services small & great, and are the most tender and useful of Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a Thing to be found as an old Woman who is not a good Woman.

3. Because there is no Hazard of Children, which irregularly produc’d may be attended with much Inconvenience.

4. Because through more Experience they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be rather inclined to excuse an old Woman, who would kindly take Care of a young Man, form his Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health & fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.

5. Because in every Animal that walks upright the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part. The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: so that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the girdle, it is impossible of two Women to tell an old one from a young one. And as in the Dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of Corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior; every Knack being, by Practice, capable of Improvement.

6. Because the Sin is less. The debauching a Virgin may be her Ruin, and make her for Life unhappy.

7. Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflection; none of which can attend the making an old Woman happy.

8th and lastly. They are so grateful!!!

Thus much for my Paradox. But still I advise you to marry directly; being sincerely


Your Affectionate Friend,
Benjamin Franklin
I like to think that Franklin’s buddy found himself the colonial equivalent of Shirley Jones as the unforgettable silver fox in Grandma’s Boy (photo credit: MTV.com).

Labels: , , , ,


Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 8:43 AM

July 3, 2008

Reason.tv: Playboy alum Marty Klein on America’s war on sex

Sex therapist Marty Klein has written articles for Playboy at least as far back as the late Eighties. His summation of his new book in this Reason.tv video makes it sound like something worth reading, doesn’t it?

Labels: , ,


Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 9:39 PM

June 27, 2008

The return of the Employee of the Month

Tulsa strip club co-owner Lottie Selsor, June 2008 Employee of the Month

U.S. Army contractor Dana Marie, July 2008 Employee of the Month

Last year, I complained about contradictory or redundant “Coeds of the Month” for the magazine versus the Cyber Club. With gratitude, I notice that Playboy online and Playboy ondeadtree (the word is apparently Jonah Goldberg’s coinage) are now coordinated properly in celebration of the Employee of the Month. Yay!

Labels: ,


Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 10:22 AM

June 23, 2008

George Carlin, 1937-2008

Well, shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits! George Carlin was one of the great transgressors of American comedy along with the likes of Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, and Sarah Silverman. I’ll miss him.

Labels: ,


Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 7:16 AM

June 21, 2008

Aren’t giantess YouTubes hot?

Charlie Brown of the overrated comic strip Peanuts is a pussy, not an antihero. Every time Lucy Van Pelt moves the football out of the way before he can kick it, I want to say to her what Palpatine says to nine-year-old Anakin at the end of The Phantom Menace: “We will watch your career with great interest.” In the spirit of admiration, not resentment, of female strength, let’s watch some giantess videos.

YouTuber Jesper611 admits he didn’t make this video, but we can all thank him for uploading “Annah Grows”:


Dude, Where’s My Car? ends with Miss October 1999–turned–2000 Playmate of the Year Jodi Ann Paterson as a giantess. Unfortunately, the music video of this scene to “I Feel the Earth Move” by Carole King has disappeared from YouTube, so I’ll make do with the scene straight from the movie (thanks, Megagrey):

Labels: , , , ,


Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 9:45 AM

June 20, 2008

Phony libertarian Bill Maher hates religion

ANNE FRANK HOUSE, Amsterdam: When you stand in front of it—a nondescript house on a busy street—you really feel how true the phrase “banality of evil” is. One of the most common arguments in defense of religion is that Hitler wasn’t religious and neither were Stalin and Mao, and they were bad, so religion must be good [emphasis added]. But like religion itself, this argument relies on one’s not thinking too deeply.
—Bill Maher, “Religion 101,” Playboy, July 2008

It’s a goddamn shame, no pun intended. Up until that paragraph and the ones that follow it, the article is funny and insightful. Maher misrepresents the sophisticated libertarian argument for the dignity of religious freedom. Religion per se is not good or bad but neutral in terms of good libertarian civics.

In other words, Thomas Paine had the cause-and-effect relationship between religion and behavior exactly wrong when he said, “Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.” Men who were cruel to begin with pick cruel Gods to worship. In a sobering irony for Playboy’s legacy, the scapegoating of religion for cruelty looks like the scapegoating of pornography for rape.

You stink, Bill Maher!

Labels: , ,


Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 7:40 AM

June 17, 2008

An open letter to Dr. Drew’s teenage daughters

Playboy: It’s a scary world out there. What’s it like with your triplets being 15? That’s the age when all the sex, drinking and drugs kick in, right?

[Dr. Drew] Pinsky: I’m less freaked out about the sex than about drugs and alcohol.... I don’t think kids ever tell you if they’re using drugs and alcohol, but I put it on record that if there’s even a hint of something, I will bring the whole thing down. I’ll have their asses hauled in by the police.

Playboy: So you’re not one of those parents who say “You can drink as long as it’s under my roof”?

Pinsky: To me that’s the worst kind of parenting. Drink here but not there? Please! It becomes “You can drink everywhere,” because that’s how the adolescent brain works. Kids need very clear boundaries. My thing is, if you do something illegal, you’re going to jail and I’m not bailing you out. And they know I’ve got perfect radar, too....

Playboy: What’s your history of drug use?

Pinsky: Mine personally? Because my kids may read this, I’m going to follow the advice I give to parents, which is that talking to your kids about what you did or did not do as an adolescent is the equivalent of issuing them a license to pick up where you left off. I guarantee you. I’ve been through this thousands of times. When parents tell their kids, “Well, I experimented with pot when I was 15, but that was all,” the kids will think, Of course I’m going to experiment with pot. They did it; why shouldn’t I? It would be hypocritical.

Playboy: So what do you say to kids?

Pinsky: You say “We don’t talk about it.”

Playboy: Come on! Tell kids that and they immediately think it means you did it!

Pinsky: When the child hears that, it has an entirely different impact on his behavior than my saying “Let me tell you about my experience.” If you did or didn’t do drugs, it’s not up for discussion. Don’t lie to your kids—never do that—but you aren’t obliged to tell them everything.
Playboy Interview, July 2008

Hello, ladies! I don’t care what the state of California says about you as “minors.” If you let me, I would gladly buy you beer and cigarettes. I’m not kidding. Having been politically abused by your sanctimonious father, you’re entitled to self-medication.

The kernel of truth in parental anxieties about teenage sex and drug use is that postpubescent adults (i.e. 15-year-olds) need intergenerational dialogue to behave wisely and safely. Don’t take it personally when your dad spoils any hope for dialogue by condescending in his attitude towards your “adolescent brains.” No discovery in cognitive neuroscience will ever “prove,” for instance, that teens should abstain from alcohol. This is for the same reason that science can never “prove” the correct highway speed limit: the relevant political question always boils down to management of conflicting value judgments.

I don’t doubt your father’s honest wish to keep people safe with the value judgments he imposes on the supposedly diseased brains of teenagers, alcoholics, abuse survivors, and so on. The trouble is that he is a civil-liberties moron. If he had to actually think about that stuff, his brain would herniate. OK, fine, there are some bad brains.

So how about it, ladies?

Labels: , , , ,


Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 11:20 AM

June 15, 2008

Thanks for, um, the Y chromosome, Dad

16 Things You May Want to Know if You Win a Date with Cindy Margolis
by Josh Robertson
....
12. Even in nudity she remains family-friendly. “The first time I posed for Playboy I did a signing in Times Square,” she recalls. “Families came to it together—fathers, sons, moms. I hear from fathers, guys who’ve collected Playboy their whole life, who tell me, ‘This is the only time my son and I agree on anything.’ It’s heartwarming and weird. My nudity brought them together. It’s like the only thing they can talk about is my boobs.”
Playboy, July 2008

If the Fathers’ Day sentiment of the post title appears ungrateful and stingy, it’s because Dad was a reverse puritan (and “Crafter Artisan” ISTP) without the decency to allow me any sexual shyness. In case anyone wonders, the apple didn’t fall far from the tree with the Playboy thing. But erections can be damn scary for little boys, and a father who leaves his Playboys on the living room coffee table doesn’t necessarily earn his son’s trust to talk about them.

Besides, his tendency to say “boobs” in mixed company told me that he wasn’t a chun tzu on the finer points of sexual etiquette. In my considered opinion, he lost the Mandate of Heaven by doing it. Except in bed, where lovers demonstrate mutual trust with dirty talk, that word is a sisterly prerogative among women.

I’m afraid the best I can do to get into the spirit of Fathers’ Day is a friendly warning to fathers of boys.

An earlier post about Cindy Margolis:
Playgirls of the Western world

Labels: , , , , ,


Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 8:43 PM

June 13, 2008

Mailing my Netflixes for good luck

Last night, I attended the third annual benefit party at the Playboy Mansion for the Marijuana Policy Project. A detailed account of the experience will take a few days. The words need time to brew.

After years of brutally mistreating it, I was finally kicked out of my apartment this week. In response to the crisis of having to move just when the party was scheduled, I’ve done my best to force a redefinition of my relationship to my mother—and, by implication, perhaps to the whole society I live in.

I publish this post from a rented computer on Hollywood Boulevard. Tomorrow morning, I’ll be logistically naked at Mom’s northern California doorstep. By my choices, I will have forced her to make a choice. If I’ve permanently alienated her, I could be on the street or in jail. But no matter what happens, I believe that in my helplessness lies a kind of victory. My vote of no confidence in the North American way of enculturation, with its stupidly authoritarian schools and inappropriate medicalization of controversial attitudes, will be harder to ignore than ever.

As a symbolic gesture of hope, I’ve mailed all six of my Netflix DVDs today, with the next six items in my queue headed for my mother’s house soon. It’s a sign of the chaos of my life that I didn’t watch three of the six. More embarrassingly, I got only halfway through the DVD of the old TV series Playboy’s Penthouse (nothing to do with Penthouse magazine, which didn’t exist then).

If you’re reading this, whoever you are, I love you and hope I can honor you by learning to live as happily as possible. May God bless us both.

Labels: ,


Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 5:13 PM