Playboy brings nudity back to magazine - Page 2

**diamelsx** · February 15th, 2017, 01:45 AM

It is like that year you were "serious" with a vegetarian girlfriend and you do the nut loaf instead of the turkey at Thanksgiving. Next year, new girl...

**Rogerbh** · February 15th, 2017, 03:36 AM

They have lost a lot of subscribers and I wonder how much longer they can stay in business.

Gordon3 · February 15th, 2017, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam West

Translation: We're losing a lot of money. Big time.

True, but I think they found that, to stay alive and be minimally viable as a non-nude magazine, they were going to have to shell out for Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition-caliber models (i.e. very expensive, as in recent issues), not "Girls Next Door" (read cheap), and not just once a year, but 6-10 times a year. The numbers stopped adding up quickly.

**steamjon** · February 15th, 2017, 11:47 PM

It was only a matter of time before they went back to nudity.

What use is Playboy without nude women?

wepland · February 16th, 2017, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steamjon

It was only a matter of time before they went back to nudity.

What use is Playboy without nude women?

i guess they would like to be more a society magazine but things never rally change and men buy playbiy for girls, not economic analysis

**John C. Holmes** · February 18th, 2017, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by movieman88

"I'll be the first to admit that the way in which the magazine portrayed nudity was dated"
Yes because sexual attraction is caveman behavior to be shamed.
This mindset is so fucking alien and sick to me.
What fucking gender roles are shifting to were we should no longer consider sexualized beauty a valid form of entertainment.
Women can be world leaders & CEOS and we can enjoy seeing women naked just for the sake of sex appeal AT THE SAME TIME!

Any woman who has a problem with beautiful women in a sexualized manner lose their right to go gaga for Magic Mike, end of discussion.

**Adam West** · March 27th, 2017, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon3

True, but I think they found that, to stay alive and be minimally viable as a non-nude magazine, they were going to have to shell out for Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition-caliber models (i.e. very expensive, as in recent issues), not "Girls Next Door" (read cheap), and not just once a year, but 6-10 times a year. The numbers stopped adding up quickly.

I don't disagree with you.

Lurk_D · March 27th, 2017, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John C. Holmes

Any woman who has a problem with beautiful women in a sexualized manner lose their right to go gaga for Magic Mike, end of discussion.

As is said so often in other forums:

This.

February 15th, 2017, 01:45 AM	#11
diamelsx Vintage Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Around the way Posts: 2,680 Thanks: 28,302 Thanked 29,499 Times in 2,673 Posts	It is like that year you were "serious" with a vegetarian girlfriend and you do the nut loaf instead of the turkey at Thanksgiving. Next year, new girl... __________________ No one has more fairweather friends than the truth...

February 15th, 2017, 03:36 AM	#12
Rogerbh Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Land of the free within reasonable limitations Posts: 10,917 Thanks: 50,545 Thanked 91,261 Times in 10,764 Posts	They have lost a lot of subscribers and I wonder how much longer they can stay in business.

February 15th, 2017, 11:47 PM	#14
steamjon Vintage Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,109 Thanks: 6,188 Thanked 22,399 Times in 1,260 Posts	It was only a matter of time before they went back to nudity. What use is Playboy without nude women?