JSouthworth wrote:
The rest is ads and filler articles that only someone with a lot of time to kill would actually bother to read although the review of Charles Lindbergh's book, Autobiography of Values did briefly get my attention as did an article by Senator George McGovern, arguing against building more nuclear weapons. There are also articles about fashion, places to stay on Mexico's West coast, overall it's what you'd expect. Playboy was already seen as conservative by the mid 1970s.

CONGRATULATIONS!!

You just broke the land speed record for contradicting oneself in the space of a single sentence, slaughtering the previous record-holder Donald J Trump:

"articles that only someone with a lot of time to kill would actually bother to read"

" although the review of Charles Lindbergh's book, Autobiography of Values did briefly get my attention as did an article by Senator George McGovern, arguing against building more nuclear weapons."

FYI, both of those serious articles would be of interest, even TODAY as it was then, by your own admission. .

"Playboy was already seen as conservative by the mid 1970s."

Maybe in your mind. But in reality "Support for the civil rights, gay rights and antiwar movements, the liberalization of drug laws, and liberal feminism all found their way into the Playboy worldview." Hardly "conservative".

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-pla … ns-rights/

AND ALSO FYI, Playboy faded because of competition from more hardcore publications, and a very late migration to the internet, all of which made the Playboy glamour style look quaint.

Recent revelations have also shown the Playboy operation was in fact a mask for truly horrific treatment of women, making the depredations of Harvey Weinstein pale in comparison.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/hug … 31259.html

JSouthworth wrote:
It's worth remembering that the Playboy organisation comprised not only the magazine but also a chain of hotels and clubs worldwide. There was a club in London.

Standards in the 1960s were different from now but would you want to wear a silly costume with rabbit ears and tail every day?

Great response, Now prove you are not an AI chatbot.

JSouthworth wrote:
What is glamor photography? At the functional level it involves people posing for photographs in the nude. This is in itself "neither exploitative or harmful.

"...neither exploitative or harmful..."  nor correct. Glamor photography does not by definition involve nudity at all, but do keep revealing your particular misconceptions. Very enlightening.

Focuspuller wrote:
"...neither exploitative or harmful..."  nor correct. Glamor photography does not by definition involve nudity at all, but do keep revealing your particular misconceptions. Very enlightening.

We're discussing Playboy magazine and yes, this does feature photos of naked women.

Glamor photography is by definition sexualized to some degree, theoretically there is difference between this and "art nude" photography. Theoretically.

JSouthworth wrote:
What is glamor photography?

It continues to be borderline hilarious that the deeper you go into a thread, the less relevant you are to the original topic. Any objective review of this thread will show that you contributed nothing that was remotely on point or valuable. What it reveals to me, and probably others, is that you have no grounded experience with this topic yet to clap back at people who have actually been published in this particular slice of the industry. I'm not saying that unpublished photographers shouldn't have a voice in discussions like these. What I am saying is that you were given the opportunity to contribute and failed at that task, spectacularly.

JSouthworth wrote:
To answer the question, what is the modern equivalent of Playboy, you have to be able to define Playboy quite precisely.

No, actually YOU don't. Frankly the OP asked about more than just one single magazine. It think it is clear that most people around here have better knowledge about that subject that you do.  You clearly don't have a fucking clue about how to answer the actual question. You keep proving it over and over. Is this a fetish with you? Demonstrating your utter lack of knowledge and patent lack of experience.

JSouthworth wrote:
To answer the question, what is the modern equivalent of Playboy, you have to be able to define Playboy quite precisely. Obviously the main thing about it is the photography, so you have to try to define that style of photography.

The Focal Encyclopedia defines glamor photography as being intended to create an impression of "refined sex appeal".

So "refined sex appeal" to you means nudity. No "refined sex appeal" in a sultry portrait? George Hurrell would be so disappointed to hear that.

What nonsense.

greysquireel wrote:
When I was younger, people wanted to pose for Playboy, Maxim, FHM, Penthouse, King and Hustler. What is the modern day equivalent of these magazines. There were also car focused magazines like Low Rider that feature some semi nude models. An aspiring rapper I knew was trying to start a magazine that mixed glamour models, cars and rap music reviews but it folded when the building it was located in burned down. Post Covid I wonder what the top fap fuel magazines are.

Pertaining to the original post;  There is no "modern equivalent" to Playboy.  There never will be.  Print media is barely living on life support, and so Playboy is online like most any publication that intends to survive the transition from analog to digital.  www.playboy.com is a very solid well put together website.  If anyone attempts to build an equivalent to Playboy, they would be getting a cease and desist letter so fast it would make your head spin. Playboy, INC owns many trademarks and copyrights including the bunny design.

Another example of how this works is Disney.  Try messing with Disney, INC by using those Micky Mouse ears, or even just using a name that you unknowing did not know that Disney had the trademark on and you will get that letter form there attorney. I know this for a fact because a friend of mine came up with a fashion design and used a name that she had no idea that Disney had already trademarked.  Trying to reinvent the wheel, or in this case, the Playboy magazine is just not smart or original.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
If anyone attempts to build an equivalent to Playboy, they would be getting a cease and desist letter so fast it would make your head spin. Playboy, INC owns many trademarks and copyrights including the bunny design.

What? Why would you ever suggest that an 'equivalent to Playboy' would have to include a bunny? Equivalent does not mean copy. And again, the OP asked about not only Playboy but also Maxim, FHM, Penthouse, King and Hustler (which is still actually around). While true, the print magazine market is currently decimated, the men's interest publication market was effectively crushed into non-existence.

However, if there were a media outlet (print/web/broadcast) that did recapture the focused attention of both a male audience and an aspiring female model pool there is absolutely no requirement they need a bunny. They would need fundamental things like an audience that can be audited and a sales force to generate advertising revenue. Those things are infinitely more important and have absolutely nothing to do with a logo from the past century.

ChatGPT says wrote:
The modern equivalent of magazines such as Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler can be online adult websites and forums that feature similar content. These websites typically offer a wide range of explicit content, including but not limited to photographs and videos of nudity and sexual acts. It is important to note that the availability and legality of such websites can vary by country and region, and it is always advisable to check local laws and regulations before accessing them.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
I dunno, but our most popular item we currently sell at work (online cosmetic and beauty product retailer) is:



Can't really say that about Kavyar.

Funny, I don't see any models photographed on that package. I thought the question was about media, not logos. I'm sure that is a licensed product from a faceless fragrance mega company that buys the rights to multiple brand entities, right? What does it have to do with the OP's question?

Dan Howell wrote:

No, actually YOU don't. Frankly the OP asked about more than just one single magazine. It think it is clear that most people around here have better knowledge about that subject that you do.  You clearly don't have a fucking clue about how to answer the actual question. You keep proving it over and over. Is this a fetish with you? Demonstrating your utter lack of knowledge and patent lack of experience.

And you apparently don't have a fucking clue about what Playboy is, in the historical context we're mainly interested in here. Playboy as a cultural phenomenon rather than just another magazine.

JQuest wrote:
I would tend to think that the current equivalent of magazines such as Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler among others would be internet sites that are publishing similar content. Have you tried using this google thing the kids talk about? You could query it for whatever you’re looking for from those magazines. Such as “hustler style images” or “penthouse style articles” or even “playboy style jokes”. It’s 2023 here folks let’s not get hung up on the printed paper page thing… 🤷🏼‍♂️

The original question was, what is the MODERN equivalent of Playboy. To me that means, what is the modern equivalent in cultural terms, to Playboy in the 50s/60s?

JSouthworth wrote:
The original question was, what is the MODERN equivalent of Playboy. To me that means, what is the modern equivalent in cultural terms, to Playboy in the 50s/60s?

No one asked what the cultural equivalent of 50s/60s playboy was, and you still have contributed nothing to this thread of worth. The question was the modern equivalent of Playboy, Maxim, FHM, Penthouse, Hustler and King. Try to keep up.

JSouthworth wrote:

The original question was, what is the MODERN equivalent of Playboy. To me that means, what is the modern equivalent in cultural terms, to Playboy in the 50s/60s?

You should have gone back and read the question before telling us what the question was.  The OP starts out by saying, "When I was younger, people wanted to pose for ...."  The OP is 41 now.  That means she was born in 81 or 82.  It would be reasonable if she had been 10, 12, 15, 21 to have any awareness of the magazines she listed and that people want to pose in them.  That would put her familiarity with those pages into the 90s.  So, how do you make a case that the relevance to Playboy is relegated to the 50s or 60s?

If you wanted to speak to the relevance of Playboy within any time frame, the wise thing to do would be to go to a trusted source, written by a sociologist and/or anthropologist, who researched the subject, was peer reviewed, and who was credible.  Like so many other threads, your opinions are welcome, because that is the way it is, but they are mostly irrelevant, poorly informed and certainly not representative of what other people think.  Allowing for what other people think is something you don't permit much room for.

Another problem with your discussion is that you have focused nearly entirely on Playboy.  The young lady that posed the question listed several magazines and some broader genre.  Consequently, you have misstated her question and you have been arrogantly talking about something that has been, at best, tangentially relevant to a small part of the discussion.  To you, perhaps, a discussion of playboy is a cultural thing, but if you discuss what the culture of Playboy was, and not the other magazines, then you missed the question, Therefore, the culture question is not about a specific magazine, but about the culture of the societies where the magazine thrived, as well as where it was banned, and all those things in between.  Rather than asking us to write a complex answer about the culture, do you think it is possible that she was interested to know what magazines could give her the experience to feel and experience what others were searching for when she was a little girl, a teenager, or a young women?

With that is mind, do you have to emphasize the word modern?  She did use the word modern, but she could have used the word current, or the phrase 'in style,' or a number of other ways to express that she wanted wanted to know what is available in the here and now.  Would she have wanted to know what she could have posed for ten years ago?

Your little attempt to be forceful by swearing would have been really cute if you were something like 10 years old, but it just highlighted that you have no concept of what the question really was, and that you are frustrated that you have been beaten down once again.  It also seems that you have no fucking idea who you have been arguing with and that reasoned discussion would have been far more beneficial to all of us than the crap you have been posting.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Most of us grew up with Playboy.  Most of us have read through the magazine at some time or another.  I was given a tour of Atlantic City casino's by a friend that worked for a casino in the mid 80s.  That included the Playboy Casino.

How exciting for you. The Wikipedia article "Playboy Bunny" explains the training given to recruits, which varied depending on whether they were going to work as drinks waitresses or destined for employment in restaurants or in other roles. If the former, they had be able to identify over 140 different brands of liquor and be expert at mixing cocktails, among other things.

JSouthworth wrote:
How exciting for you. The Wikipedia article "Playboy Bunny" explains the training given to recruits, which varied depending on whether they were going to work as drinks waitresses or destined for employment in restaurants or in other roles. If the former, they had be able to identify over 140 different brands of liquor and be expert at mixing cocktails, among other things.

How exciting for you that you can recall that there was once a Playboy Club in London and that you can read wikipedia.

What does the Playboy Bunny and other employment in the restaurants or other undefined roles, have to do with the OP's question?  Did the OP ask about posing for a variety of magazines or being a cocktail waitress? 

Interesting the way you explained the Bunny training.  Two possibilities and other nameless roles.  They had to be experts at 140 brands of liquor, mixing drinks, and other things?  Wow!  Now we know all about what they did, don't we? 

I use to know a guy with an ice cream place.  He had 50 types of milkshakes on the board, but 95% of the people ordered vanilla, chocolate or strawberry.  He kept Red Bull shakes (predates the energy drink) just for me and some other people known as the dutch, even though we aren't dutch. (The only reason I know I am dutch is because my grandmother use to call me a dutchman- I don't speak the dutch language, which is different than the dutch language where the other dutch people live.) Tough job for the girls that worked there in the ice cream stores- all those flavors and no big piece of fur on their asses!  Sneakers instead of high heels!  They must have wondered about the life of the ice cream centerfold too, knowing they end up as no more than a cone server.   

If the OP had asked, I could tell her how to make a Red Bull Shake or a Chocolate Chocolate Covered Cherry shake. Also, the Purple Cow, Brown Cow, the Polled Hereford, the Texas Long Horn, the Fat Jersey Cow and the Brown Swiss Cow (I knew my bovine shakes!) and the Fiesta Fire Ball for the cowhands that followed the herd through the vast grasslands of Pennsylvania and milking all them ol' girls twice a day, but she didn't ask, did she?

But to truly understand what I am talking about, we have to define the culture of the ice cream shop and how it has impacted America for decades- so much more than Playboy, because the ice cream shop still exists and without a thorough understanding, you can't comprehend why all those girls leave the farms to fulfill their dreams of wearing their tight fitting jeans and aprons under the big lights of the ice cream shop. (The age old question being were the jeans tight fitting before they got the job or after?)  Of course there is also the more conservative ice cream shop where the Amish girls wear brightly colored dresses without designs or patterns and their adorable little heart shaped prayer bonnets, and the Mennonite girls wear their plaid and print dresses and have the option of wearing their prayer caps which are never heart shaped because then we couldn't tell what religion they are from and even then the heart shaped ones are a regional fashion statement and not the norm through the range of the Amish.  Sometimes the English girls work in the conservative shops too, and you can always tell an English girl because they are everyone other than the Amish and Mennonites, but they mix at the shop because the demand for hot farm girls serving ice cream is out of this world. 

And then you have to get into, not just the many flavors of the offerings, but also the ice cream itself, because, as you know, the milk produced from a Jersey Cow, a Brown Swiss Cow, and the others, is different from the Holstein- the largest and most prolific milk producer. (They are damn big cows!)  If you use the wrong breed's milk products, the ice cream connoisseur will give you a dirty look.  And of course you also know that you don't get any milk from the red bull, which isn't a breed like the Jersey Cow or Brown Swiss, but an angry critter that will gore you and stomp you into the manure pile if you try to milk him and the flavor of the red bull is not the dry and dusty dirt flavor you get in your mouth as he shakes off his heavy coat after he was rolling in the field, but a very common flavor celebrated from the days of colonization and extracted from the roots of trees of just one genus and boiled up in a big copper kettle over a low wood fire in the forests of Pennsylvania.

There is all this incredible history and so many things you must know before a girl interested in posing for the billboard photos advertising the Ice Cream Barn chain stores that are scattered across the country's rural roads, because, God forbid, that girl in that photo better know the difference between the milk of a Jersey Cow and a Holstein!

I mean, it is plain as the nose on your face, you gotta know this stuff before you cans pose for that billboard.  Right?

But not just that, you gotta know your tractors and field equipment including the horse drawn stuff because that is still used on a lot dairies.  You know the horse power of the tractor and the number of horse or mules for the horse drawn stuff because we all know that the horse power ain't the same power as the horse.  Then there is the grain and feed and alfalfa and clover and grass and what makes good hay or horse hay and all this important stuff before anyone can tell the model what other billboard opportunities might be out there.  And the horse people get all mixed up and think the horse hay is for cows and the cow hay is for horses, but giving cow hay to horses is a waste of good hay.  We can talk about all that next time.  I am plum tuckered out now.

JSouthworth wrote:
The Wikipedia article "Playboy Bunny" explains the training given to recruits...

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
... stuck in your off topic loop.

LOL

Adventure Photos wrote:
Playboy was in a class of its own decades ago.. Hustler and other 'semi porn' magazines came along as cheap copies.   Playboy was still artistic for many years. Once print began to die, I think only the coffee table sized quality model books were left to really show good work.  I feel fortunate that I came across David Hamilton during his best years in the early 70's.  Have 3 or 4 of his books and they have been a model for the kind of simplicity and lighting I'd love to create in print some day.  Today, the online mags and stuff out there changes so fast that you could not really have much reference to them. They may disappear in months if they try print mode.  Even webpages and forums go away often.   I'm a hardcover book kind of guy, collector, and won't ever own an e-reader.

Playboy had higher production values then earlier girlie magazines and was designed to appeal to young urban professionals, whereas the earlier magazines were often more downmarket or aimed at people in the armed services, especially during the WW2 period. This is evident if you compare it with Modern Man for example.

JSouthworth wrote:
Playboy had higher production values then earlier girlie magazines and was designed to appeal to young urban professionals, whereas the earlier magazines were often more downmarket or aimed at people in the armed services, especially during the WW2 period. This is evident if you compare it with Modern Man for example.

You really can’t help yourself can you? WW2? For the sake of all that is good in this world would you just please stop polluting this and every other thread you post in with your WW2 fetish bullshit? You can’t stay on topic, you haven’t offered any kind of insight in to the original question asked, and apparently you have no idea that not a single magazine referenced in the OP even existed in the 1940’s. Not to mention no magazine of any kind existed in the 40’s like those referenced in the OP. While some of your posts are amusing in a sort of what stupid thing did he say this time manner, this one is the best one ever for  you just making shit up and posting it.

JQuest wrote:

You really can’t help yourself can you? WW2? For the sake of all that is good in this world would you just please stop polluting this and every other thread you post in with your WW2 fetish bullshit? You can’t stay on topic, you haven’t offered any kind of insight in to the original question asked, and apparently you have no idea that not a single magazine referenced in the OP even existed in the 1940’s. Not to mention no magazine of any kind existed in the 40’s like those referenced in the OP. While some of your posts are amusing in a sort of what stupid thing did he say this time manner, this one is the best one ever for  you just making shit up and posting it.

Nobody can deny that WW2 had a huge impact on publishing and men's magazines particularly. Also, a lot of people learned photography as part of their military service.

I have a few old zines, there's For Men Only (volume 13 number 8, August 1966), Men (volume 23 number 7, July 1974), Male (volume 20 number 8, August 1970) Stag (volume 26 number 3, March 1975). All these titles pre-date Playboy and they all have a more traditional, tough guy appeal. There are lots of true crime articles, articles about Vietnam, pulp fiction stories, ads for training in car mechanics, air conditioning maintenance, electronics. Levels of female nudity are similar to contemporary Playboy.

JSouthworth wrote:
Nobody can deny that WW2 had a huge impact on publishing and men's magazines particularly. Also, a lot of people learned photography as part of their military service.

I have a few old zines, there's For Men Only (volume 13 number 8, August 1966), Men (volume 23 number 7, July 1974), Male (volume 20 number 8, August 1970) Stag (volume 26 number 3, March 1975). All these titles pre-date Playboy and they all have a more traditional, tough guy appeal. There are lots of true crime articles, articles about Vietnam, pulp fiction stories, ads for training in car mechanics, air conditioning maintenance, electronics. Levels of female nudity are similar to contemporary Playboy.

Pre-date  Playboy??  Nope!  Playboy was first published in 1953.  As far as relevance to this thread, I doubt it since I've never heard of any of the magazines you've mentioned. Playboy is far more iconic and notable as a social phenomena. 

Photography did became more popular after WWII, but the invention and ease of use of the 35mm camera may have been a bigger factor in the increase of the popularity of photography back in those days. 

The subject of the OP is specifically Playboy, not some obscure old magazines of which there are many!  Also the OP asked about Modern equivalents of Playboy so can we try to keep it in a modern time frame?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Pre-date  Playboy??  Nope!  Playboy was first published in 1953.  As far as relevance to this thread, I doubt it since I've never heard of any of the magazines you've mentioned. Playboy is far more iconic and notable as a social phenomena. 

Photography did became more popular after WWII, but the invention and ease of use of the 35mm camera may have been a bigger factor in the increase of the popularity of photography back in those days. 

The subject of the OP is specifically Playboy, not some obscure old magazines of which there are many!  Also the OP asked about Modern equivalents of Playboy so can we try to keep it in a modern time frame?

actually, two of those magazined began prior to Playboy, one around the same time as Playboy, but none (nor any comment by him) are in any way relevant to this discussion.

JSouthworth wrote:
Probably the best way to view Playboy is as a successful exercise in marketing; Hugh Hefner knew how to sell a product to a specific group of people. The photography in Playboy was not markedly different to that in other magazines.

From the selection of "girl-next-door" models, to the glossy, high key glamour photography in highly professionally lit sets and locations, the quality of Playboy's photography was an order of magnitude higher than the girlie mags at the time. In fact "Playboy photography" became a style of its own.

Dan Howell wrote:

actually, two of those magazined began prior to Playboy, one around the same time as Playboy, but none (nor any comment by him) are in any way relevant to this discussion.

Men, Male, For Men Only and Stag were pulp girlie magazines with a similar format to Playboy-in most of them there is a nude photo set with pull-out centerfold picture-but totally different in style from Playboy, they reflected the values of the 1930s and 1940s in that there was a strong association sex with violence, perversion, guilt and illegality in the feature articles whereas Playboy consistently associated sex with social advancement and financial success. Hugh Hefner may have figured, rightly or wrongly that if you were a sales executive in New York you wouldn't be all that interested in reading about people doing unmentionable things in Bolivia or Vietnam, or a story about some tough guy secret agent taking on a gang of hooligans in Paris.

In the late 1970s and 1980s, attitudes started to regress so that it has become rare to see an R rated film with sex in which nobody gets murdered. Usually the body count is considerable, Sins of Desire and Bare Witness are a couple of movies that come to mind.

JSouthworth wrote:
Men, Male, For Men Only and Stag were pulp girlie magazines with a similar format to Playboy-in most of them there is a nude photo set with pull-out centerfold picture-but totally different in style from Playboy, they reflected the values of the 1930s and 1940s in that there was a strong association sex with violence, perversion, guilt and illegality in the feature articles whereas Playboy consistently associated sex with social advancement and financial success. Hugh Hefner may have figured, rightly or wrongly that if you were a sales executive in New York you wouldn't be all that interested in reading about people doing unmentionable things in Bolivia or Vietnam, or a story about some tough guy secret agent taking on a gang of hooligans in Paris.

In the late 1970s and 1980s, attitudes started to regress so that it has become rare to see an R rated film with sex in which nobody gets murdered. Usually the body count is considerable, Sins of Desire and Bare Witness are a couple of movies that come to mind.

I can't figure out what this has to do with the OP's question.  Or is this just another JSouthworth endlessly hijacked thread...

JSouthworth wrote:

Men, Male, For Men Only and Stag were pulp girlie magazines with a similar format to Playboy-in most of them there is a nude photo set with pull-out centerfold picture-but totally different in style from Playboy, they reflected the values of the 1930s and 1940s in that there was a strong association sex with violence, perversion, guilt and illegality in the feature articles whereas Playboy consistently associated sex with social advancement and financial success. Hugh Hefner may have figured, rightly or wrongly that if you were a sales executive in New York you wouldn't be all that interested in reading about people doing unmentionable things in Bolivia or Vietnam, or a story about some tough guy secret agent taking on a gang of hooligans in Paris.

In the late 1970s and 1980s, attitudes started to regress so that it has become rare to see an R rated film with sex in which nobody gets murdered. Usually the body count is considerable, Sins of Desire and Bare Witness are a couple of movies that come to mind.

Personally I find the articles in the pulp magazines a lot more interesting than the ones in Playboy, some of the artwork is also very good.

JSouthworth wrote:
Men, Male, For Men Only and Stag were pulp girlie magazines with a similar format to Playboy-in most of them there is a nude photo set with pull-out centerfold picture-but totally different in style from Playboy, they reflected the values of the 1930s and 1940s in that there was a strong association sex with violence, perversion, guilt and illegality in the feature articles whereas Playboy consistently associated sex with social advancement and financial success. Hugh Hefner may have figured, rightly or wrongly that if you were a sales executive in New York you wouldn't be all that interested in reading about people doing unmentionable things in Bolivia or Vietnam, or a story about some tough guy secret agent taking on a gang of hooligans in Paris.

In the late 1970s and 1980s, attitudes started to regress so that it has become rare to see an R rated film with sex in which nobody gets murdered. Usually the body count is considerable, Sins of Desire and Bare Witness are a couple of movies that come to mind.

LightDreams wrote:

I can't figure out what this has to do with the OP's question.

Or is this just another JSouthworth endlessly hijacked thread...

JSouthworth wrote:
Personally I find the articles in the pulp magazines a lot more interesting than the ones in Playboy, some of the artwork is also very good.

We have our answer.  Sadly...

JSouthworth wrote:

Personally I find the articles in the pulp magazines a lot more interesting than the ones in Playboy, some of the artwork is also very good.

T. M. I.