Site Meter Reflections on Playboy: <i>Playboy</i> can no longer tell friend from foe

October 11, 2006

Playboy can no longer tell friend from foe

In the “Forum” sections of the October and November issues, Playboy endeavors to find its distinct place on the American political stage in 2006. “Playboy represents a silent purple majority unswayed by the news media’s reductionist red-state-vs.-blue-state story line.” (October, p. 45) But according to a Hindu proverb, it takes a thorn to remove a thorn: a reductionist story line can only be cured by a new story line. I’m discouraged to see so many pages filled with nothing but boring public-opinion stats. To have a distinct political voice, Playboy would have to spend some paragraphs making sweeping generalizations about human nature and the human condition. All political thought begins with this brazen step—although Playboy’s collegiate audience may have difficulty with it, since the Blank Slate and Noble Savage doctrines predominant in most universities discourage frank dialogue about it.

The problem is not merely academic, either. For lack of its own story to challenge the red-vs.-blue story, Playboy makes the embarrassing, easily avoided mistake of praising its “liberal” detractors:
The don’t-give-a-fuck spirit of blogging is alive and well at Pandagon, where three fierce, funny, pro-sex feminists disguise their almost frightening intellect with thick layers of attitude. Their favorite targets are blowhard moralists. (November, p. 60)
I can at least take pride in having scooped a national magazine’s in-house blog readers. I could have told them that the sort of man who reads Playboy is unworthy of Pandagon’s golden pussies. I, for example, am “not smart enough to really grasp that there is nothing that screams ‘Loser’ like a man who is obsessed with Playboy.” Ouch, snubbed by the prom queen. Presumably, a pro-sex feminist should be OK with every domestic arrangement among consenting adults. But contributor Amanda Marcotte admits to “a vendetta against Hef and his weird, creepy harem thing.” Who are the blowhard moralists here?

For my money, Virginia Postrel’s dichotomy between “stasists” and “dynamists” is the best alternative to the red-blue split. If Playboy adopted the dynamist view, putting special emphasis on its implications for sexuality, the magazine could more easily tell its friends from its enemies.

Update, November 26, 2006, 1:21 p.m.: In an email yesterday, Playboy assistant managing editor Matt DeMazza forwarded a message from one of his colleagues:
yes, we knew pandagon’s politics before we wrote about them. we even got a semi-gracious, somewhat confused acknowledgement from them after the list appeared.

we never even thought about featuring only friendly blogs in the list. what’s the fun in that? we wanted friends and foes so we’d be covering the political spectrum. (some of the right wingers weren’t as gracious as pandagon about being included). besides, how can we ever expect our enemies to give us a fair shake if we don’t give them one?
A fair shake in the form of an honorable mention is one thing. But why should Playboy, of all sources, call Pandagon a pro-sex nemesis of blowhard moralists? That praise is so undeserved, it’s obsequious.

A related earlier post:
File this under “No such thing as bad publicity”

Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 4:45 PM

  • Blogger TerraPraeta left this comment at October 11, 2006 7:06 PM  
    Ah , yes. the old Bucky Fuller line: "You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete."

    However, do you really think that the Universities are that overwhelmed with Blank Slate, etc? Sure, in Psychology Departments... but if you look to see what the Anthro folks are doing, I think you would find more moderation and a lot more... umm, generalizing human standards. They may not call it human nature, but its what their whole field is about -- with data.

    That pandagon article... I am continuously amazed that there are so many sites out there with no purpose beyond dismissal and hostility toward everyone *other.* I cannot imagine spending my time embroiled in such constant negativity. Gives me chills.

    I think I would like the concept of "dynamism" but the link was a little too techno-salvationist for my tastes. Not that there is anything wrong with technology -- I'm a big fan. But tech cannot be the response and ultimate answer to every problem we encounter. Some things simply require other approaches. O' course, maybe that was just the write up?

    tp

    • Post a Comment

    « Home

    Create a Link