[JSR] Playboy: Pornography or Progressive Journalism?

Playboy has evolved from simply a magazine to a cultural icon representing sexual liberation and, supposedly, feminist gains. Apart from its notorious nude pictorials, Playboy is also a literary magazine with articles featuring prominent social and political issues.

James Rickman, an Executive Editor at Playboy, came to Oakwood School’s Oakwood Students for Progressive Reform (OSPR) club meeting (restricted to high school students) to discuss his role at Playboy and the unique role of Playboy in society. Two main questions came up during the meetings “Is Playboy pornography or does Playboy objectify women? After the meeting, many were still confused and frankly frustrated by the complexity of the issues and the lack of answers from Rickman.

The first question, is Playboy pornography, was open ended question for some discussions. After a definition of pornography was read - “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in picture or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement” - people’s opinion were split in half. On one side, this seemed to fit the description of Playboy’s photography. Rickman himself guessed that the majority of people buy the magazine for the sexual excitement the pictures incite. However, neither of Rickman nor Playboy do not consider the magazine as a pornography; Playboy’s goal is not to necessarily publish a magazine for the sake of printing explicit pictures.

In fact, when the magazine switched to no nudity in 2015, part of the reason was to change the image of Playboy. They were concerned that the public’s perception of Playboy as pornography hurt the visibility of the magazine. However, under Cooper Hefner’s, chief creative officer of Playboy Enterprises, new leadership, nudity returned, and the magazine returned to its original platform: the sexual revolution. Playboy as a magazine may not be or consider itself pornography, but the roles that the pictorials play for the average consumer is closer to the purpose of porn.

Sexual liberation is the label that Playboy has put on itself, but the entire magazine is still supplanted by sexual objectification. For Rickman, Playboy is in a unique position to educate an audience. The magazine recognizes that it has a very specific demographic of straight, white men. According to Rickman, “Playboy, with access to these young men’s lives, is in a unique position to educate young men because they have to get through the articles before getting through the pictures.” There is much to appreciate about the literary content of the magazine: Historically, it has pushed for progressive politics long before widespread social acceptance of many issues. However, the idea that young men are buying Playboy for its political content and reading the articles is almost laughable. It sounds more like an excuse that a purpose for the nude pictorials.

This leads to the second question which is, “Are Playboy images objectifying?” When this question was asked during the meeting, Rickman took time to ponder this question, noting the fact that he had not thought about this question. It was worrying that an executive editor with power at an especially influential magazine has never really thought about this issue. Ultimately, Rickman responded with, “the magazine does not consider what it does objectification. If it is treating a human being as an object with no brain, no voice, that’s not what Playboy does. There’s a lot of voice in the pictorials. These women are people outside they playmate status, they are more than just their appearance, so it’s hard for me to imagine people not realizing that.”

Many thought that it was a noteworthy response, but few voiced out some problems with that response such as: “I have no doubts that each Bunny has her own life outside of these magazines, but is it ever acknowledged in the magazine?” or “When the Playboy Bunnies are featured in the magazine, is it not because their bodies conform to specific ideals?” Playboy prides itself on being the starter of the sexual revolution, but on closer inspection of the images that Playboy presents, it is a reflection of the male fantasy. The women featured in the pictorials are of a very specific and idealized body type: slim, typically white, picture-perfect. The women are there for the pleasure of men. Yes, there are images of positive sexuality using nude female models, but this is built upon the basic principle that women are allowed this mode of self-expression because it is desired by the male gaze.

Playboy has grown into more than just a literary magazine with pictorials. Its logo is branded on clothing, Playboy Mansion is playing on out TV, and the online internet world has allowed for an exponential growth in both our exposure and access. WIth that comes the fundamental question: can Playboy use its platform to change the narrative of sexuality in the status quo? Although executives such as Rickman hope to play a role in changing the minds of its audience, that goal is almost unattainable without a recognition of the core components of Playboy that the magazine continues to uphold.