Coffee With A Happy Ending (Explicit)

Coffee With A Happy Ending (Explicit)

August 24, 2016

charles i. letbetter - coffee with a happy ending

Once you wake up and smell the coffee, it’s hard to go back to sleep. —Fran Drescher

charles i. letbetter - coffee with a happy ending -explicit

Having oral sex with your coffee might sound wonderful at first, but there could be some serious problems

This was one of those rare mornings where I couldn’t really find a topic that inspired me in any way. Yes, there is plenty of important news, but it was either on topics of which I have little knowledge or wholly political which I’m just not in the mood to engage. Then, I came across a snippet that led me to an article in Maxim, which led me to an article in Playboy, which led me to a news story in The Mirror. They’re all talking about a coffee shop in Geneva, Switzerland that hasn’t even opened yet. The coffee shop is called Facegirl and if you want to go there, expect long lines (at least at first) and high prices.

A cup of coffee at Facegirl will set you back about $55.55 (based on this morning’s exchange rate). I know, that seems rather high. However, the reason for that high price is not because of the coffee but because of the “extra” service that comes with it: oral sex. At first glance, the sex addicted and adventurous among us might think that this is a great idea. I can imagine some are already checking the price of airline tickets to Geneva. If there are two things people love it is oral sex and coffee. Bringing the two together sounds like the ultimate experience.

Well, maybe. By the time I finished all the associated articles, I was beginning to have some questions. Big ones.

Contents May Be Hot

From the very outset, spillage has to be a significant concern and I see no mention in any of the articles how this danger might be offset. No one likes lukewarm coffee, so that’s not really an option. At the same time, we’ve seen numerous lawsuits against places whose hot coffee spilled on a customer. Serving coffee at just the right temperature is a delicate thing. One has to be careful in the consumption of hot beverages.

Now, mix that hot beverage with a sexual activity whose sole purpose is to create pleasure. One does not sit daintily in a chair while being brought to the point of orgasm. If such activity does not cause one to roll their eyes back and lose control of some faculties, someone’s not doing a good job. The potential for danger here is considerable. One might dump hot coffee in their own lap. Ouch. One might spill coffee on their temporary partner. Still not good. With the potential for scalding so extreme, lawsuits alone might close the cafe within weeks of its opening.

I suppose there might be some solutions here. Lids on the cups are a must. Secure cup holders are probably a good idea, too. No one wants to risk bumping a table and sending a cup of hot liquid tumbling the wrong direction. Plenty of space between seats is necessary to prevent one from accidently causing harm to a neighboring customer as well. Even with all those precautions, though, the danger for serious burns still exists. I don’t see any way to totally guard against spilling.

Just A Bit Sexist

While the term “oral sex” is preferred, other descriptions of the services offered at Facegirl make it rather clear that men are the target audience. Granted, there’s nothing saying that women can’t get the same oral service. However, all the service providers, at least those mentioned in the articles, are women. If one is lesbian or bisexual then there’s not as much of a problem. Straight women, unfortunately, seem to be out of luck.

Granted, male service providers might yet be added. The opening date for Facegirl has been kept as to a nebulous “end of the year” timeframe. That gives Facegirl’s owners (which are all male) time to consider how best to service a female clientele that might actually become a dominant part of their business. Women are certainly more unsatisfied by the lack of oral attention provided by their male partners. Women also, generally, are able to enjoy oral sex much more than men. Give them a place that provides quality service with a quality cappuccino and they won’t think twice about dropping $55.

A Little Privacy, Please

Interior design is a big deal in coffee shops. The wrong design can keep customers hanging out and re-ordering drinks, or can send them hurrying out the door. Companies such as Starbucks and Caribou Coffee have spent millions of dollars studying and refining their interior design. I’ve looked over all the articles and find no mention of just how Facegirl is going to approach that issue, and yes, it really does matter.

Coffee shops are generally open spaces. A sense of community is critical to building a strong customer base. Yet, not too many of us are exhibitionists. Walking into a coffee shop to the sight of half-dozen overweight old men getting blowjobs is probably not welcoming to a large number of people. Something tells me an open floor plan isn’t going to work well.

Privacy might be the make-or-break point here. Being able to serve a high volume of people is going to be critical to profitability. How does one maximize the space while still affording the guests both comfort and privacy? Setting people in dark booths with sticky floors is less than appealing. If the setting isn’t pleasing and maintenance of the facility top-notch, this could quickly dissolve into a seedy dive that no one wants to visit.

My, What An Interesting Growth You Have There

Three words: sexually transmitted diseases. Prostitution is legal in Switzerland. Service providers have to be registered and part of that oversight involves regular testing. The likelihood of transferring a disease from provider to guest is relatively small. However, I can’t imagine that Facegirl is going to test its guests. I suppose they could do a quick pinprick that would check for the most common diseases. But any serious testing would take hours.

The disease factor is the one issue that the coffee shop is going to find the most difficult to control. In addition to STDs, other communicable diseases are likely to be easily transferred in such an environment. Think Ebola. Facegirl is going to draw a lot of international tourists and with international tourism, no matter what the business, comes the risk of spreading communicable disease. This is how plagues get started. The service being provided, no matter how careful they are, still involves bodily fluids. Bodily fluids are one of the primary ways in which communicable diseases spread.

Walk in for a cup of coffee and walk out with a smile that might kill you.

Sharing Isn’t Always Caring

We’re all for sexual openness, having multiple partners, group sex, and all the fun that goes along with varied sexual activities. We’re also in favor of sharing coffee with intimate friends. We don’t really go for a lot of restrictions around here. However, we are very careful in vetting with whom we choose to play.

The more I think about it, an open coffee shop, where one cannot control the clientele, seems like a very dangerous place to set up any manner of sexual activity. The risks and dangers are high compared to the few minutes of pleasure one might receive. There are a lot of questions for which I’m not finding answers.

I still like the basic premise, though. Maybe we’ll give the whole coffee and blowjob thing a try … if we can keep the cats and the kids from interfering. Yeah, it’s not likely to happen.

Advertising / Fashion

Sexy Isn’t What It Used To Be

April 4, 2016

A great figure or physique is nice, but it’s self-confidence that makes someone really sexy. —Vivica A. Fox

charles i. letbetter - sexy isn't what it used to be

What we consider sexy today is vastly different from what it was a year ago

I haven’t shot a full nude in over a year. Partial nude, yes. Topless, yes. Implied, yes. But our attitude toward nudity and what makes something sexy has changed dramatically, and that change has happened rather fast.

Now, from the outset, let me clarify that being sexy doesn’t require being naked and nude photography can be many things and sexy not come close to making the list. Nudity and sexiness are mutually exclusive for most conversations. Yet, where the two do intersect, or have in the past, the lines have moved. What would have been popular previously no longer is and some images that were recently tolerable no longer are.

One of the first articles to cross my path this morning comes from Mallory Schlossberg at Business Insider on the evolution of sexiness. The article relies heavily upon the opinion of Ruth Bernstein, chief strategy officer at Yard. All the usual suspects are referenced, specifically Playboy and Abercrombie & Fitch where changes have been most pronounced and public. Without question, there is a strong shift as to how we look at what’s sexy. I won’t argue that point at all.

Yet, while some retailers and magazines see toning down the blatant sexuality is a good move, still others are moving exactly the opposite direction. I look at images for Porter magazine’s summer edition, Flair Italy, the Marfa Journal SS2016, the April edition of Marie Claire Italy, among others and the level of nude and other sexy imagery is higher than ever. There’s even an editorial in the Spring/Summer edition of Gentlewoman titled “Crotch” and it is exactly what the name implies.

What’s changing isn’t so much the absence or presence of nudity, but rather how that nudity represents more than just being sexy. There is a greater emphasis on artistry, on the uniqueness of the photography and how it is processed. There is a tilt toward the bizarre, such as an editorial done with the model holding a very large, limp fish. There’s also an emphasis on empowerment. One magazine gave two models and camera and a boat to themselves for the weekend. No photographer, no crew. The result was perhaps surprising, with a lot more nudity as the models felt free to not bother getting dressed the entire weekend, but also empowering because they were in charge of what pictures were taken when.

Not everyone is making the shift successfully. Schlossberg’s article references how sales have dropped at American Apparel since they changed their ad campaign to something considerably less provocative. Similarly, Abercrombie & Fitch is second-guessing whether they might have let the pendulum swing a little too far.

Meanwhile, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition adds MMA fighter Ronda Rousey and plus size model Ashley Graham to their covers and get more attention than ever because they defined sexy as something other than the traditional size two.

Every generation redefines what sexy is for them, and the past few generations have largely copied off what came before. What’s happening now is that millennials, and the upcoming Gen Z folks what a more three-dimensional image of what’s sexy. They’re not satisfied with a flat image of a naked body or two. Instead, they want that image to have something to say other than, “Hey, I’m naked.” Nudity is a strong communicator, as we’ve seen with celebrity nude selfies the past few weeks, but what they’re communicating with that nudity is a message of empowerment and independence.

Sexy is finding its voice, and that’s challenging for anyone who grew up thinking that one could either be smart of be sexy, but not both. Sexy is a protest. Sexy is casting an informed vote for president. Sexy is intelligent, has a hold on its future, and gets naked whenever and where ever and with whomever it wants, on its own terms, and doesn’t care whether anyone else approves or not.

Sexy is changing, for the better I think. Get on board the new sexy train now, because last ye ar’s definition just doesn’t work anymore.

pop culture / PotD

Mansion For Sale: Relics Included

January 10, 2016

Why so large a cost, having so short a lease, does thou upon your fading mansion spend? —William Shakespeare

We can supply nudes for your viewing pleasure, but we can’t replace the mansion

Playboy Enterprises CEO Scott Flanders has apparently dedicated himself to ridding the company of everything that represents founder Hugh Hefner. Last fall, the company announced they were going to stop printing nudes in their flagship magazine. Now, they have put the iconic Playboy Mansion up for sale with one catch: You have to keep Hef.

Actually, the arrangement isn’t really all that unusual for such an estate. Hef has lived in the mansion forever, or at least it feels that way. So, the contract stipulates that Playboy’s founder be allowed to continue living in the facility until his death. My, that’s mighty nice of Mr. Flanders, isn’t it? If I were Hef, I’d have someone start testing my food for poison, ASAP. Flanders can’t seem to get rid of everything that represents the magazine’s founder fast enough, and given the current course of action, one has to think that might include the once flamboyant Hugh M. Hefner himself.

Ostensibly, Flanders is looking to streamline the company in desperate search of the profits it had when Hef was at the helm. That would seem to be a normal and practical business move. What Flanders apparently fails to realize is that with the magazine, the mansion, and the clubs, Hef created the ultimate male fantasy and it was the pursuit of that fantasy that fueled the company’s success.

Let’s be fair, Hef wasn’t necessarily the best business person in the world himself. He had to shutter the famous clubs during the 1970s when they began hemorrhaging cash. Hef didn’t understand that even exclusive private clubs have to adapt to changes in society and in failing to do so he had no choice but to kill part of the dream himself. Playboy’s had to make a lot of other difficult decisions as well, including whether to get into video (which it did early with great success) and how to handle its online presence (not so good a move). When Hef took the company private, though, it was clear the company’s better days were behind it.

Now, Flanders, the company’s first CEO outside the Hefner family, seems to be jettisoning every part of the Playboy dream possible in an attempt to scale it down to mediocrity. He has long said that he wants to focus on licensing, which would include the Playboy name as well as the rabbit head logo. Does he not realize, though, that as he destroys the brand’s reputation he reduces the licensing value as well? Mr. Flanders doesn’t seem to think that’s the case, but personally I don’t see any other logical outcome.

The question remaining is what will Flanders kill off next? Of all the company’s holdings, there are several likely targets. I think they’ll keep Playboy Golf as well as the casinos, since those are mild, boring, and manage to make a profit. Most everything else, though, from the publishing division to Playboy TV, the Spike cable network, Playboy Online, and Playboy Radio could all theoretically be sold off, with Flanders still bringing income by continuing to license the established brand to new owners. Such a move would remove costly assets while continuing a revenue stream that would likely continue for the foreseeable future.

I think what bothers me is the complete lack of loyalty Scott Flanders exhibits to everything that is physically a part of the Playboy empire. Where he sees only a brand to be licensed and manipulated, the rest of us see the icons of becoming a man; the things that helped us know what to do, where to go, how to behave, as we made the transition for adolescence to adulthood. Playboy kept us classy, teaching us to dress well, treat women like royalty, how to put on a condom, and, oh yeah, those are what breasts look like. Flanders seems willing to throw every last bit of that away, and when he gets rid of the mansion he will, effectively, be getting rid of Hef as well.

Flanders is asking for $200 million dollars for the estate, but given the liabilities and the fact that Hef may live another 20 years, as well as the location, he’ll be doing well if he gets a third of that price. Still, if I were lying in Hef’s place right now, I’d sure be careful about who was preparing my food. Scott Flanders doesn’t seem to be much of a friend.

Watch your back, Hef.

Art / Photography / PotD

Losing The Girl Next Door

October 24, 2015

charles i. letbetter - not the girl next door

After Horst (2009)

Everybody always says that I’m the girl next door, which makes me think that y’all must have a lot of weird next-door neighbours.—Kelly Clarkson

When Hugh Hefner started Playboy® magazine in 1953, part of his concept was to represent the “girl next door;” someone whose sensuality was a bit understated, who had a good-girl reputation but secretly couldn’t wait to get out of her sweater. At the same time, though, there has always been a bit of glamor, with popular starlets and celebrities frequently gracing the pages over the years. The blend worked. The celebrities might not be approachable, but perhaps, just maybe, the girl in the gatefold would be. With each issue came the possibility that maybe, just maybe, that spindly-legged girl who was your neighbor might be worth a second look or more.

Over the years, that combination allowed some of those girls next door to become celebrities in their own right. Anna Nichole Smith, Pam Anderson, Holly Madison, Barbie Benton, Carmen Electra, and Jenny McCarthy come immediately to mind, but there have been several others. As the stigma of being nude faded with the sexual revolution, more girls dreamed of being on of Hef’s girls next door. Then, in 1981, the J. Geils Band captured the hopes and fears of every young man in America:

Does she walk? Does she talk?
Does she come complete?
My homeroom homeroom angel
Always pulled me from my seat

She was pure like snowflakes
No one could ever stain
The memory of my angel
Could never cause me pain

Years go by I’m lookin’ through a girly magazine
And there’s my homeroom angel on the pages in-between

The song Centerfold jumped to the top of the charts not because of its musical qualities but because it so accurately captured how we felt about the girl next door. There was no one who, if they were totally honest, didn’t at least once think about opening the pages of Playboy and finding their high school crush on the pages, whether that objective was realistic or not. The ever-elusive girl next door was the heart and soul of Playboy, the thing that made the magazine stand out more than anything else. We loved every one of those girls and wouldn’t have minded one bit had one moved in next door.[/one_half]

So, what happens to the girl next door if Playboy drops nudes? Does the gatefold go completely away? Probably. What about the centerfold questionnaire, you know, that part where the model says she likes long walks on the beach, quiet nights in front of the fireplace, and other likely fictional things that fueled are fantasies? Those are likely gone as well. If Cory Jones’ work at maxim.com is any indication, and there’s no reason it wouldn’t be, what we’re more likely to see are overly-airbrushed swimsuit models who look about as realistic as a Picasso. The entire concept of the girl next door is likely gone.

I dropped over to playboy.com this morning, just to see what Jones has constructed there. He removed nudes from the website, making it safe for work, back in 2014 and their numbers jumped. Why? Did men actually prefer a website with no nudity? Not likely. The reality there is that without nudity on its pages the URL was allowed past corporate filters that previously blocked it. More people were accessing the pages because most people still do the majority of their online browsing from work (though, that is changing rapidly as more people use their smart phones). So, what’s at the top of playboy.com this morning? An article on Indian-spiced cocktails. Below that, an article on overcoats, then one about Transformer toys, then pieces on viral videos, boxing, and remembering loved ones. If you want to even see a female, you’re going to have to scroll. So much for the girl next door. There’s hardly even a girl on the front page at all!

I found it hilarious that, when clicking “girls” on the playboy.com menu, the piece at the top of the page is a video of Miranda Kerr jumping around. Clothed. Yawn. Want to see Miranda Kerr naked? You’ll have to pick up a fashion magazine. W magazine, August 2015, is the latest of a long line of fashion nudes Ms. Kerr has done. You can find the editorial online here. But not in Playboy.

By dropping nudes, Playboy is abandoning the girl next door, one of the most basic underpinnings of the magazine. One has to seriously ask what Playboy has left to offer that one can’t find thousands of other places both on the Internet and in print. Cocktails? Seriously? The whole fucking Bartender’s Guide is available. Fashion? Please, every title imaginable sits in front of Playboy on the shelves, and is probably cheaper. What Playboy has always had was the girl next door, naked. Without that, there’s just no reason to pick up a copy of the magazine ever again.

Art / Photography / PotD

A Heart For Sex

October 23, 2015

Curved (2011)

Sex is the driving force on the planet. We should embrace it, not see it as the enemy.—Hugh Hefner

“Ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex.”

I have always chuckled a little bit at that line from an ad for a major erectile dysfunction medication. I’ve also heard apocryphal stories about Hef keeping a bowl of the little blue pills by his bed. I rather doubt that story is completely true, but the man is now 89. I think we can give him a bit of a break on the subject. I still find it humorous that an amorous individual might need to check with their physician, calling the poor guy in the middle of dinner, with, “Hey Doc, the wife didn’t burn the roast tonight. Ya’ think it’s safe for me to hump her?”

Realistically, though, sex can take a lot of heart, especially when it’s more than a physical act but rather a primary driver of one’s business. Publishing a magazine where sex is the primary motivator is far from being a romp in the park, despite the fact that Hef managed to make it look that way. Playboy® was never about page after page of increasingly raunchy photos, but about a lifestyle in which sex wasn’t something hidden or repressed as it seemed to be in other publications. Hef once said:

I have very strong theories about magazine publishing. And I think that it is the most personal form of journalism. And I think that a magazine is an old friend.

Hugh Hefner, when he started the magazine in 1953, had a heart for sex that wasn’t all that different from some of his contemporaries in the research fields, such as Masters and Johnson or Alfred Kinsey. The post-war period of the late 1940s and 50s took the cover off sex and sexuality that led to the sexual revolution of the 60s. There was a desire to understand and appreciate and experience sex in ways that extended far beyond the physical act. For all the criticism he received, the content mix Hef brought to his magazine perfectly reflected a heart for sex that fueled a revolution.

If Playboy continues to stumble, it may well be because its current leadership fails to have that heart for sex that Hef has. Current CEO Scott Flanders, who interestingly enough is an Indianapolis native, His academic studies at the University of Colorado were in economics, not journalism, and from there he went on to law school. Prior to coming to Playboy, Flanders took a beleaguered Freedom Communications Company and managed it straight into bankruptcy in 2009, whereupon he left. He sees Playboy Enterprises, which he joined in 2011, as a brand management company, not a publisher.

Playboy’s chief content officer, Cory Jones, who had the unpleasant task of telling Hef the magazine was dropping nudes, is a digital strategist who is successful in generating high hit counts and unique views. While he does have some experience working with men’s titles, such as Maxim.com and mandatory.com, he has no relevant experience in print, which, as titles such as the New York Times and Vogue are discovering, cannot be managed in the same fashion as online publications. Jone’s attention is strictly on the numbers, using whatever form of pandering necessary to get there, as is evidenced at mandatory.com.

The people at the top of Playboy’s org chart simply do not have the heart for sex that Hef had when he founded the magazine and through the years that made it great. Without that emphasis, Playboy is set up to fail. Not everyone was meant to be a magazine publisher. Publishing what was once the nation’s leading men’s magazine reminds me of the Richard Adler and Jerry Ross song from the musical “Damn Yankees:” Ya’ gotta’ have heart, lots and lots and lots of heart.

Unfortunately, the people at the top of Playboy seem to be lacking that heart for sex. Perhaps the magazine could use a little blue pill of its own.

Art / Photography / PotD

Relevant Culture

October 22, 2015

String of Pearls (2010)

It’s much easier to be successful than it is to be relevant. The tricks won’t keep you relevant. Tricks might keep you popular for a while, but in all honesty, I don’t know how U2 will stay relevant. I know we’ve got a future. I know we can fill stadiums. And yet with every record, I think, ‘Is this it? Are we still relevant?’—Bono

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Marilyn Monroe. Jane Mansfield. Elizabeth Taylor. Ursula Andress. Kim Basinger. Linda Evans. Joan Collins. Drew Barrymore. Belinda Carlyle. Bo Derek. Tara Reid. Jamie Pressley. Denise Richads. Dita Van Teese. Tori Wilson. Nancy Sinatra. These are just a few of the celebrities who not only posed nude for Playboy®, but did so at a time that made their presence in the magazine culturally relevant. From the very first issue in 1953, Hef used celebrities as a way of making sure the magazine mattered, that what appeared in the magazine would be conversation fodder for water coolors and bar rooms everywhere.

Having content that was socially relevant took the magazine from something one hid under the bed or in a closet, to one that was regularly discussed at dinner tables. It didn’t matter whether one approved of the content, it was the fact that people were talking about Playboy and its nudes that made the magazine relevant. For a celebrity, being in Playboy was an instant invite to the late-night talk shows, a career booster like no other. In fact, for a set of celebrities such as Pam Anderson, Carmen Electra, and Anna Nicole Smith, their careers would not have existed without their appearance in the magazine; it was just that relevant.

Playboy has long held a very unique and even peculiar place in American society. As hard as the mainstream media tried to demonize the men’s magazine, Hef continually produced content so incredibly relevant that people had to pay attention. The magazine’s interview with Georgia governor Jimmy Carter in 1976 was one of the factors that propelled Carter into the White House. Nancy Sinatra’s spread in 1995 helped rejuvinate a career that had been dormant for two decades but was about to explode again with the Kill Bill movies. Drew Barrymore and other former child stars took to the pages of Playboy to let the industry know they were ready for more adult roles. Granted, the spreads worked out better for some than it did others, but the point is that the nudes, as well as most all the content, were relevant.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Now, ask yourself the last time you rushed to pick up a Playboy because of who was going to be in its pages? When was the last time that anyone actually cared about who was doing a spread in the magazine. While management’s decision to completely abandon nudes happened only a week ago, they’ve quietly been moving away from that format for the past three years with an increasing number of pictorals not going any further than implied nudity and several non-gatefold sets not even getting close to anyone being naked. With the base reason for picking up the magazine dwindling, the rest of the content, such as the interviews and fiction, have been largely ignored. Playboy is no longer as relevant as it once was.

Over the past few years, Playboy has stepped away from the controversy that once surrounded their nude spreads. As the quality of the photorgaphy diminished, so too did their choice of celebrities and models. One of the challenges they now face is that international fashion magazines, such as Vogue Italia, not only have more nudity than does Playboy, but they are more culturally relevant (because of the relationship to fashion) and the level of photography is arguably light years above anything Playboy is producing. Photographers such as Steven Meisel and Nick Knight are shooting the new celebrities, fashion models such as Cara Delevigne, Joan Smalls, and Karlie Kloss in nude editorials that render the mediocre nudes in Playboy almost boring.

Playboy could still come back to a position of being dominantly relevant, but it is not likely to do so by dropping nudes. The success of fashion magazines publishing creative nude spreads demonstrates that the right style of nude photography is still amazingly relevant and capable of selling print issues. Change has to happen, but dropping nudes isn’t the answer now and won’t be the answer in the future.[/one_half_last]

Art / Photography / PotD

A Shadow of Former Glory

October 21, 2015

The Smallest Light (2008)

That though the radiance which was once so bright be now forever taken from my sight. Though nothing can bring back the hour of splendor in the grass, glory in the flower. We will grieve not, rather find strength in what remains behind.—William Wordsworth

The November 1972 issue of Playboy® sold over seven million copies. This month, they will be lucky to see 500,000 copies leave store shelves. What made that 1972 issue so popular? Was there a special interview? Were the articles particularly on point? Where the editorial cartoons especially biting? No, it was the gatefold of Lena Söderberg, shot by Dwight Hooker, that made the issue leap off shelves. In fact, it remains one of the most sought after collectors’ editions to this day. For years, a cropped version of that picture of Lena has been used as the ultimate test for dithering in color computer imaging. The gatefold is also a topic of conversation in the 1973 Woody Allen film Sleeper. Ah, the glory days.

Much of the glory, however, is gone and the reasons have nothing to do with the magazine’s iconic nudes. There isn’t a printed periodical in the country that hasn’t been severely challenged by the Internet, for starters, and more than a few great titles have completely folded as a result. Online “magazines”, not unlike online shopping, took traditional publishers completely by surprise and even those who attempted to adapt early often did so in ways that were not sustainable. Only a few titles, such as the New York Times and Condé Nast’s Vogue have recently figured out how to make their print and online presence work symbiotically. For Playboy’s circulation numbers to have fallen dramatically isn’t surprising for that reason alone.

Playboy’s circulation problems didn’t begin with the Internet, though. Numbers had been declining long before online publishing was even a thing. Circulation in the 80s was lower than the 70s, and the 90s numbers were dramatically lower than the 80s. Blaming the Internet for the magazine’s decline ignores the fact that the glory that was once Playboy was long gone before live streaming and pervasive free porn ever became a factor. Playboy was already standing on the edge of a publishing cliff. All the Internet did was push it over.

If the Internet isn’t the cause of Playboy’s troubles, though, what is? Where is the luster and glory that made the name so well known? The list of reasons could be long, but overall they can be summarized into two primary categories: 1. Hugh Hefner left the magazine, and 2. the emphasis changed. One of the most seismic declines in circulation came when Hef turned control of the magazine over to his daughter, Christie. There were already some challenges even before than happened, but, inevitably, Christie’s vision for the magazine wasn’t the same as her father’s and it had been Hef’s view of how life should be lived that had driven the magazine since its inception. Sure, his name has always been on the masthead as editor in chief, but once his voice was no longer dominant, the magazine faltered.

More critically, though, Playboy the company became the primary competitor to Playboy the magazine. Special Editions introduced in the 80s were much heavier on photographs and contained extended set not shown in the magazines. Those who were primarily interested in the pictures picked up titles such as “Girls of the Big Ten” rather than the full magazine. The introduction of videos in the 80s also distracted some magazine buyers. Over the years, Playboy the company has become more dependent upon revenue from licensing than publishing, and that distraction has stolen glory from the magazine.

Playboy dropping nudes from its magazine is a reactive strategy that is likely to only hasten its demise. While Playboy’s management is quick to tout the five-fold increase in unique views the website had when it dropped nudes, expecting print readers to respond the same way is foolish and naive. Playboy dropping nudes is like the New York Times eliminating investigative journalism or Vogue deciding to drop fashion editorials. Gutting their primary source of glory is likely to have the opposite effect and may well find its editorial staff looking for new jobs.

Art / Photography / PotD

Abandoning The Revolution

October 20, 2015

String of Souls (2010)

Sexuality surrounds us like a dangerous aura. The same reverence that is given to the spirit is not given to the flesh. We have had a sexual revolution, but the sexual revolution only has made sex more pervasive. It hasn’t granted the level of reverence and respect that it should have.—Gioconda Belli

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]When Playboy® chief executive Scott Flanders defended the magazine ‘s move toward non-nude images last week, he said, “The battle has been fought and won.” Mr. Flanders, the magazine’s first CEO outside the Hefner family, was referring, of course, to the battle that was the sexual revolution. Without question, a lot has changed in our attitudes towards sex and sexuality since Hef started the magazine in 1953. However, to abandon the very thing that has brought the magazine this far is rather like General George Washington defeating Cornwallis then, instead of becoming President, Washington moves back to Britain. Was all that effort for naught?

There is absolutely no question that Playboy® was a major contributing factor in changing the landscape of American sexuality. The magazine’s participation in that movement wasn’t always welcome, either. Those of us who are old enough remember know feminist stalwart Gloria Steinem went undercover as a Playboy Bunny in an attempt to discredit the magazine. Others have criticized the fact that, while the country was struggling with the matter of civil rights, Playboy diverted the attention of white men by shoving the sexual revolution in their face. In the magazine’s defense, their interviews with both Malcom X and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were exemplary examples of Playboy’s continual contribution to contemporary issues conversation.

Yet, for all the talk, it was always the pictures that stood out. Sure, the articles were important and timely and informative, but without that famous gatefold, would anyone have bothered reading them? Probably not. Looking at the progression of styles and poses in the photography across the years is almost like a visual encyclopedia of America’s changing attitudes toward both sex and beauty. Hair styles, grooming choices, accessories, backgrounds, and changes in body types are all indicative of the effect Playboy has had on the sexual revolution.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]But is the revolution really over?®® Is there nothing else that should be explored through conceptual nude imagery?

Whether one liked the magazine or not, one of the things I’ve always admired about the magazine is that they didn’t back down in the face of criticism. At first, Hef was demonized for the nudity. People screamed, ranted and raved when Jennifer Jackson became the first black Playmate of the Month in 1965. Mouths frothed when Marina Baker, Miss March 1987, talked about being bisexual and even more when Stephanie Adams, June 2006, came out as the magazine’s first lesbian centerfold. Playboy didn’t back down or apologize.

What’s important to our current conversation, though, is without the pictures none of those women’s contributions would have been relevant or recognizable. They all would have just been one of the millions of women battling against a status quo that shut them out. Photography can do a lot about bringing attention to issues and creative, conceptual, nude imagery is critical to that effort because of its ability to direct our attention when other methods fail. Issues of equality, such as #freethenipple, still remain. Imagine a gatefold who’s had a mastectomy; that would be leadership that Playboy is uniquely positioned to provide.

What Mr. Flanders and others at Playboy seem to miss is the fact that “winning” the revolution is only the beginning. We need a magazine that takes us from the revolutionary aspects of photographic nudity to using that imagery to teach respect for sexuality, especially in the face of overwhelming amounts of porn. Who is better positioned to lead that movement toward reverence and respect than the magazine that helped get us to this position? Now is not the time to abandon nudity, Mr. Flanders. The work has just begun.[/one_half_last]

Art / Photography / PotD

Lighting Matters

October 19, 2015

A Little Light Through A Window (2011)

The great photographers of life – like Diane Arbus and Walker Evans and Robert Frank – all must have had some special quality: a personality of nurturing and non-judgment that frees the subjects to reveal their most intimate reality. It really is what makes a great photographer, every bit as much as understanding composition and lighting.—Caleb Deschanel

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]If Playboy® magazine’s chief content officer Cory Jones thinks that nudes have become passé, perhaps one of the reasons might be that the magazine has dropped their emphasis on creatively and seductively lit images. Back when the magazine started in 1953, the gatefolds were pinups in the classic style, with a careful attention to maintaining a sense of illusion. Lighting was critical. The photographs from the first few years, the ones that caught your grandfather’s or great-grandfather’s attention, look to us now almost like a set of realist paintings. They were carefully shot and carefully processed to portray a specific image that implied luxury and refinement. They were classy, not slutty.

During the 1960s and 70s, Helmut Newton came to the magazine and set the world on fire with his black and white images that were naturally lit. While the concept sounds easy, just show up someplace with decent indirect lighting and shoot where there are no shadows, photography for Helmut was never that simple. He would scout locations and check for the perfect time of day when the lighting was going to be precisely the way he wanted. Then, he was picky as hell about things such as reflection and making sure that poses put shadows precisely where he wanted them. There was never anything accidental or surprising about Helmut’s photos; what you saw was exactly what he intended.

Then, starting in 1976, Arny Freytag pretty much took over Playboy’s® gatefold and did so with highly-specialized lighting schemes that sometimes used as many as fifty flash heads to create just exactly the precise amount of light he wanted across every inch of the photograph. Arney didn’t just make sure the lighting for the model was correct, but he cared about the background as well, whether it was a complicated room full of furniture, or something seemingly as simple as a rumpled sheet. Arny would fuss endlessly over the precise placement of lights, taking endless Polaroids® until the lighting was to his critical satisfaction. [/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Such were the years of Playboy® at its heyday. As Arny got older, he didn’t shoot for the magazine as often and the difference was dramatic. Lighting was terribly inconsistent from one photographer to another. Some insisted on blowing out the highlights and the background. Others, especially once the magazine moved to using digital cameras, created images that were as flat as the paper on which they were printed. Shadows showed up in awkward places. Sunlight glared down on models with no filter or any form of diffusing. Editors and photographers alike seemed to rely more on Photoshop® to fix the errors rather shooting good pictures to begin with. With those attitudes, anything would quickly become passé.

When Hugh Hefner started the magazine, there was an inherent emphasis on quality because he wanted a men’s magazine that would stand out with class and not be like the low-class smut being produced at the time. He knew that was the only way to win over the large-scale acceptance of the men’s magazines necessary to make it profitable. There was no room in Hef’s magazine for bad lighting or poor photography. Even non-nude photographs, such as those accompanying the famous interview portion, were by photographers who knew how to light a portrait correctly.

Playboy® faces a tough battle ahead if it plans to go up against men’s giant such as GQ and Esquire with the bad lighting some of their photography has shown the past 20 years or so. There simply is no substitute, now or in the future, for a photograph that is lit properly from the very beginning. If an editor wants to capture readers attention, good lighting is an absolute necessity, even if readers don’t recognize it. Sometimes it’s the details that keep a magazine from being passé.[/one_half_last]

Art / Photography / pop culture / PotD

Anything But Passé

October 18, 2015

An Insufferable Desire (2008)

I believe that history has shape, order, and meaning; that exceptional men, as much as economic forces, produce change; and that passé abstractions like beauty, nobility, and greatness have a shifting but continuing validity.—Camille Paglia

Passé. Nudes are passé. At least, that’s the story according to Playboy® magazine’s recently-appointed chief content officer Cory Jones. The magazine announced that this past week that it is initiating a complete re-design and re-branding, beginning with the March 2016 issue. Jones said, as part of the announcement, “You’re now one click away from every sex act imaginable for free. And so it’s just passé at this juncture.” And with that, every male, and more than a few females, around the world sighed the deepest of sighs. There’s no arguing with the prevalence of nudity and porn on the Internet. And yes, it does make the current content of the magazine passé. Such wasn’t always the case, though, and that it is now is partly Playboy’s own fault.

Before I totally give in to ranting and raving, which I have a whole week to do, let’s be very clear about a few facts surrounding the magazine’s decision. First, what you see on the newsstands today is not Hugh Hefner’s magazine and hasn’t been for quite some time. Hef turned control of the magazine over to his daughter, Christie, in 1988 after he suffered a stroke in 1985. So, if you didn’t turn 18 until sometime after that date, you’ve not seen the magazine as it appeared under Hef’s control. Christie started making changes immediately and continued trying to keep the general content of the magazine moving forward until she stepped down in 2008, but even under her, the quality of the nudes suffered.

The magazine has been totally out of family control since earlier this year, and while Hef ostensibly has “approved” the change, his physical and mental condition has deteriorated to the point that one can legitimately question whether he really has a true concept of what’s taking place. The magazine’s website eliminated nudes over a year ago, which may be more understandable given the online competition, but then, the web version never has been anything more than a shadow of what the magazine was under Hef. One might even go back to Christie’s decision to move into video as the beginning of the decline.

Here’s the rub: poor quality nudes, such as what have appeared in the magazine for the past twenty years, have always been passé. Part of what made Playboy® the magazine it was under Hef’s control was the quality of its nudes. Not just anyone could shoot for the magazine and get their work published. Consider the list of photographers who once shot for the magazine. Arny Freytag, Pompeo Posar, Suze Randall, Mario Casilli, Herb Ritts, and most notably, Helmut Newton. The people who were behind the camera for the magazine during its heyday, who were responsible for its definitive look, were not hacks, but well-respected photographers with significant careers outside the magazine.

What happened? Expediency took the place of quality. Video was new and flashy and those early VHS tapes didn’t have to be good to sell well. Before long, the quality that had built the empire was completely gone. Never mind that attitudes about nudes and sexuality were changing, the photography by the mid-1990s came nowhere near the artistry that had existed before. Photoshop® and post-editing took over, lighting and creative posing and staging, which can be expensive, took a back seat. Models began looking more and more plastic.

So yes, the nudes that have appeared in Playboy® magazine the past 20 years are incredibly passé and changing that is a good thing. However, eliminating nudes completely is the easy way out. By going with a more glamour-oriented photography style, the magazine puts itself more in competition with titles such as GQ and Esquire. There, too, they will struggle if the quality of their photography doesn’t improve, and there’s no indication that it will.

Great nude photography will never be passé. However, mediocre magazines always will, and that’s exactly where Playboy® has landed, a fact that makes us all very sad.

Coffee With A Happy Ending (Explicit)