Discussing
Why it’s not a victory that Playboy is dropping nude photos

Playboy’s plans to do away with nudity might serve as the final nail in the coffin of Christendom as it relates to sex.

Your last two sentences are IT. An insurrection, yes!!! A renewing of the mind so that we may prove that God's is good and perfect. We should strive for a radical approach to life that not only "artfully and humbly demonstrate ways to honor men, women and the beautiful, God-ordained mystery of sex and love" but reinforces Christ's counterculture life choices, with a healthy fear of God because we love him so.

May we encourage one another on this path.

Great article and excellent perspective. Playboy's move is neither a victory for appropriate sexual expression nor for a more godly appreciation for the beauty of women. This move boils down to sales. Since Playboy no longer offers something "scarce"--nude images of women--circulation has dropped from tens of millions to about 800,000 according to CNN. This change in format will put Playboy on the shelves of big box stores like Walmart and Target, and back in drugstores like Walgreens and CVS, right alongside Maxim and GQ. I imagine they theorize that this should boost sales again significantly. I think there brand is going to bite them in the hide, however.

As the first "mainstream" pornographic magazine, Playboy's emergence opened a floodgate of knock-offs that became increasingly salacious. Over time Playboy began to enjoy growing prestige and became available at news stands and drug stores. It even gained a reputation as "tasteful," even "artistic." Many regarded Playboy as something short of pornography. There were those articles, right? Yet, it has never been able to escape its name and its brand promise: a ticket to a certain lifestyle for men. The name given to the magazine's models, Playmate, stamps "lie" on any other idea than that women were objects to be enjoyed from the magazine's perspective. Putting a bikini or lingerie on the model does not change that. It merely veils the exploitation, just like all those magazines meant for women at the grocery check-out. And, Playboy's brand has been so long associated with nudity--porn magazines are known collectively as "playboys" just as flying discs are all frisbees--that it's very possible this move to improve sales will backfire.

Playboy is a logo company, not a magazine. Whatever is good for their logo is what they are going to do. If they make money on the magazine, that is gravy. But it is not about the magazine it is about the logo. Which means they need it to be in front of more eyes.

13 year old girls won't buy playboy magazines, but they can (and will) buy playboy tshirts.

In Reply to Thom (comment #27538)
----------------------------------------
Where you see profundity, I am left scratching my head.
"Maybe it’s time for an insurrection" -- what does that even mean? The dictionary defines "insurrection" as "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Do you think smashing Heffner's windows makes sense? Marching on Washington to change a law? (Which one?) And how is it now (time for) "the people of God to artfully and humbly demonstrate ways to honor men, women and the beautiful, God-ordained mystery of sex and love." What's been holding them up?

I bet Playboy will take a turn to become something with a Mad Men sensibility -- sure, drink recipes, expensive cars and clothes --and women around. Something like Esquire. And it will mean virtually nothing in the great scheme of things.

Well, I may be using a bit of poetic license by using the term "insurrection," but here's my thinking. During the "Christendom" era "Christians" believed that they were called to actually run the world (or the continent, nation, city, etc) because they were the ones with the power. Might made right. While I would suggest that the way of the cross was never meant to be one of conquest, that's another discussion. Regardless, I do believe that we are currently experiencing a "post-Christendom" reality in America that is not unlike the same phenomenon in Europe and the UK over the previous decades. The Church, as an institution certainly, but also as a cultural force, has lost its authority in the marketplace of ideas and values. "We" - meaning people of faith - are no longer holding the reigns of the culture. In this context I use the term "insurrection" more along the lines of Webster's definition:

"An act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government"

When the people of a country are over-run and removed from power, their only choice is rise up from within - to revolt against the occupying forces. I am in no way meaning that we should resort to physical violence - or politicking. I do think that some revolt may be in order, however. I do believe that our struggle is not with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers, and those are the things I aim to revolt against. But, unlike the "culture war" metaphor (which is problematic on so many levels) I would rather see the people of God offer a beautiful, enriching, and counter-culture vision of the value of women, the beauty of sex and intimacy, and the role our Creator plays in it all. We will draw more people with a winsome vision and articulation of a Kingdom-minded sexuality than with any amount of finger-pointing and shaming.

The saga of Playboy is just one of countless examples of the people of a formerly "Christian" culture eschewing even the most rudimentary understanding of the sanctity of life, the beauty of love, the value of commitment, and the curbing of "The Self" in service of the other. When Christians act, however, as if they are still the arbiters of culture and morality - when we clearly are not - we come off like shrill rules-makers and sticks-in-the-mud. We have focused too much, in my opinion, on what we shout "NO!" to and not nearly enough on what we sing "YES and AMEN" to. And you are absolutely correct - nothing has prevented people from do this up to this point. I just think too many simply find it easier to be against something than to be artfully and convincingly FOR something better. Sometimes moments like these can serve as wake-up calls for artists, poets, painters, filmmakers, teachers, and others to take up the challenge and do something radical.

In Reply to Paula (comment #27542)
----------------------------------------
Hi Paula,
I took the word "insurrection" a bit more abstractly. It could be that I even applied John's use of the word in a way that he did not intend. However, I do believe that this needs to happen within the Church and not against Playboy. I am not interested in battling culture in that way. Unfortunately, the word "insurrection" applies when used in the context I mentioned. It seems like we do indeed need a rebellion within the church like turning over the tables and throwing the opportunistic traders out. Rebellion against institutionalization of Christian form and stop reflecting our culture more than we reflect our commitment to God or one another. To do this it may just take an insurrection.