When I tell you that I’m a devoted fan of Playboy magazine, please don’t leap to any hasty conclusions. Please don’t assume that I’m a male chauvinist pig who believes that women should subordinate themselves, sexually or otherwise, to the will of men. Please don’t think that you can instantly guess my point of view on such issues as sexual harassment or rape. And please don’t condescend to regard me as a simpleton who gullibly absorbs all the “materialist” or “consumerist” messages of popular culture.
If I sound defensive, it’s because I commonly find all the above implications in boilerplate criticism of Playboy among self-described liberals. I consider myself a liberal in the rather old-fashioned sense of one who affirms the dignity of individual choice. As a matter of self-respect, I affirm the dignity of my tastes in entertainment. NASCAR fans might well resent the redneck stereotype; Star Trek fans, the nerd stereotype; opera fans, the stuffy stereotype. For my part, I’m tired of being told that I’m a misogynist or a dupe of Madison Avenue if I truly admire Playboy. The Playboy Philosophy [not work-safe] has its problems, and I intend to acknowledge them. But I also intend to defend Playboy as something beautiful and humane.Labels: ArtEnt, ArtPic, Mil, PJ, UCL
Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 7:14 PM

left this comment at June 17, 2007 10:47 PM
The Playboy Philosophy...345 webpages...wow! Hef sure wrote enough to fill a whole book all those years ago! Thanks for linking to it.
left this comment at July 30, 2007 11:39 PM
At another website I wrote an essay of my own, defending my own interest in Playboy (& in said other site): Porn: the Pros & Cons [probably not work-safe]. In essence, guys like us who can't relate well enough to real-life women to have sex with them, can fall back on Playboy or similar material.

« Home