Sort of… Well, my activism is in the new issue of Playboy, anyway.
Neat! It may appear on slightly different pages, regionally. Perhaps not at all internationally.
Cliche ‘I read the articles’ jokes aside, I’ve really seen some interesting articles in the pages of that mag. Shit, I even discovered Peter Max’s artwork through Playboy. There seriously is some high-brow stuff in there, for those who never looked.
Personally, I don’t find the so-called ‘bombshell look’ all that appealing. It’s too unrealistic to me. I just see a picture of a woman who needs more time in front of a mirror than is reasonable, and how that enormous amount of time was wasted trying to achieve a look that others want for her. I’m sure there are plenty of exceptions, but all I’m saying is that for me – the only thing about Playboy that I find redeemable is the word-content. Then again, I’ve not read it in several years.
My wife’s going to pick up a copy tomorrow for posterity. This and the NY Times front page story from last year are the only two things I’ve purchased like a total dork bragging about shit. I gloated around at work today saying “I’m in this month’s Playboy!” to my friends. They laughed like a bastard.
Loading tweets...
12 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Isaac
July 19, 2012 at 7:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What are the chances of getting some Playboy support for the Camp Pendleton Rock Beyond Belief event? Ought to boost attendance!
Brenda Germain
July 19, 2012 at 7:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You’ll love the next issue, Richard Dawkins!
skeptifem
July 19, 2012 at 7:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
hugh hefner hates women. I won’t be buying that magazine, ever.
Enkidum
July 19, 2012 at 8:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Brenda -- yeah, but he’s the centerfold, so it’s maybe not that great.
Ibis3, member of the Oppressed Sisterhood fanclub
July 19, 2012 at 8:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ha! My mind kind of glossed over your comment and filled in “Quest” after the word “Camp” given all the fundraising efforts lately in these parts. It took a few moments of “huh, a porn mag promo of a kids’ camp? Well, you wouldn’t see *that* suggested by anyone on a religious blog” before I figured out that’s not what you were saying. Thanks for the inadvertent chuckle. Carry on.
wtfbits
July 19, 2012 at 9:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So you’re happy to associate with a misogynistic magazine that dehumanizes and objectifies women? I wonder what the FTB/Skepchick feminists think of that.
Justin Griffith
July 20, 2012 at 5:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I believe I addressed those concerns quite directly… I never said ‘happy’, I said ‘neat’. Playboy is an institution. The only thing that made me happy was chuckling about saying “I’m in playboy!!!” to a few guys at work.
kevinalexander
July 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Huh? How do you figure that?
tigzy
July 20, 2012 at 4:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
[JG Edit: Please dude, no escalation here. I delete this shit from both sides.]
Chip Matthews
July 20, 2012 at 5:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I started to throw up a little when I read that headline.. LOL.
Larry
July 20, 2012 at 6:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You can’t please everybody, Justin. I’m glad you got in there because it gives you and by extension, other non-believers, some more exposure (pun intended). Perhaps the guys who buy Playboy will grow up a little when they look more closely at the naked truth of atheism,
kevinalexander
July 20, 2012 at 9:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Evidence please. I am personally insulted by the suggestion that I am sexually attracted to objects, by the accusation that I am enamoured of non humans.
This is a skeptics forum. You need to provide some evidence for your assertions. It’s not enough to spout some puritan nonsense that you learned in women’s studies.