I never even considered this as a possibility: +Playboy, the world's most famous "nudie mag", is going to stop publishing nude photos as of March 2016.
Yes, you read that right. It's not an ill-timed April Fool's joke. It's not information that's been gleaned from +The Onion. It's for real, folks.
While I think that this decision will be a net positive over the long-term (especially if Playboy can successfully reinvent itself as a medium for lifestyle and social commentary), I do foresee this having some negative repercussions, as well; mostly for Playboy itself, but also for aspiring nude models.
It's clichΓ© for people to claim they consume Playboy content "for the articles", and while that may be true for some of its consumer base, it should go without saying that the majority of its target is in for skin. Without the primary attraction they've grown accustomed to, where's the draw? What's going to motivate those primarily interested in viewing images of nude women to continue to give the Playboy company their money? Come March 2016, it should be pretty clear that Playboy's going to see a mass exodus of paying customers and a major hit to its bottom line--one from which it might not be able to recover.
But maybe that's a good thing, one could argue. After all, Playboy is considerably responsible for perpetuating an overly misogynistic view of women in Western society. While it could be argued that Playboy provides women with an opportunity to own their bodies and utilize their assets to their advantage, under their own control, I'd argue that the majority of the feminist movement would consider this a notch on its collective belt. Regardless of what empowerment Playboy may provide to the women who participate, the net effect on society's views of women is, without a doubt, a harmful one.
In light of the positive aspects of this move, it would be naive to turn a blind eye to the negatives. What about the so-called "butterfly effect" such a decision could have?
Surely, there are women who have a genuine desire to pose nude for a large audience. Women exist all over the world whom have career goals of being nude models in publications such as Playboy, and their motivations are many. Subjective morality-centered arguments aside, who is anyone to tell these women what they should or should not do with their own bodies? Provided that their actions are consensual and they're not victims of exploitation, and that their viewers are mature enough to experience the products of their actions, what happens between them is their own business and theirs alone.
That being said, absent Playboy as a (relatively) safe option for nude modeling without the expectation of sexual explicity, these women may end up settling for less-than-reputable, fly-by-night operations where they may be exposed to greater personal risk. Some may even feel they have no other option than to reluctantly break into the pornography industry (a decision never to be taken lightly), potentially exposing them to even further risk. Playboy's decision to stop publishing nudes is certainly going to create what essentially amounts to a power vacuum, and it's guaranteed to be filled quickly by all sorts with myriad motivations... celebratory as well as predatory.
So, as a follow-up to this new direction for Playboy, will the company voluntarily refer women to alternative, reputable agencies--vetted by Playboy, itself--in the interest of advancing a tasteful nude modeling career? Or will Playboy distance itself from the nudity-based industry entirely, completely unaffiliated with it in any way? And if that's the case, are we truly ready for the likely impact such a decision will have on the sisters, daughters, and friends of many?
Source: Nudes Are Old News at Playboy - The New York Times
