Playboy, Page 3 & Questioning Modern Objectification of Women

Apparently today every household in the UK is receiving a free copy of The Sun, and I have seen several posts on Twitter this morning from people already taking action to prevent it being put through their letter boxes.

Fair play to you! Imagine if our letter boxes could detect junk mail and shred it before it hit the door mat!

Of course it is an ongoing debate that page 3 in The Sun should be banned. For those that aren’t aware (I am sure these people exist somewhere) page 3 is a photo of a top-naked young woman.

This especially appeals to male readers of The Sun and probably why it is bought in the first place –boobies for 20p, what a bargain! Because while many readers of Playboy magazine claim its purchased for the articles, I can’t imagine the same can honestly be said about The Sun.

The debate about Playboy and Page 3

The argument by women, feminists and the like is that page 3 objectifies women and enough is enough and I somewhat agree being a feminist. However, I also go against everything by having an interest in Playboy.

Two years ago I completed my degree in Media Communications concluding with a written dissertation tackling the perception of Playboy magazine.

I wanted to prove that the magazine isn’t all about naked women and what must be a great surprise to most… it’s not! Analysing a ten-year sample (2001-11) which results in about 4,000 pages of content, the center folds and other naked imagery makes up a feeble 17% (ish). Hardly a porn magazine!

If I could develop my research on Playboy magazine picking up where my dissertation left off, I would want to concentrate on the women that put themselves forward to be a Playmate. Secondly about why they would entangle themselves in Hugh Hefner’s lifestyle.

My findings I believe would also be mostly true of the women that put themselves forward to appear on Page 3, for reasons that its fun, good money and no doubt opportunities have come off the back of it.

Q. Is it objectification if the women have chosen to feature themselves naked?

I appreciate that is a bit of a firework thought for a Thursday morning and I can hear you all gasping, but seriously, the rules have changed now.

I discussed briefly some of my thoughts on modern feminism in my post to The Editor (of Elle) a little while ago but fundamentally, there is no longer one definition of feminism and there is no ‘wave’ anymore to speak of. Modern feminism has no boundaries and it encompasses many things and many different types of women.

There is of course still a totally unfair and unjustified reason as to why men get higher salaries for the same job that their female colleagues are also doing. It is also unbelievably unfair as to why childcare is so ridiculously expensive forcing many aspiring career women to stay at home.

It’s these aspects of society that underpins and forms the backbone of feminism in all its strains. But who also is to say that (some of) the women featuring on Page 3 and in Playboy aren’t feminists, because I think a lot of them are.

For me, page 3 is just silly titillation and I do cringe a bit when I see aspiring Playmates play dumb to be more appealing to male audiences, but you know what, these women are choosing to do this. Until these young women decide to stop putting themselves forward, the newspapers and magazines will continue to feature them until society says otherwise.

Until next time x

Will the Perception of Playboy (Magazine) Ever Change?

Hey Sweeties,

This piece follows my undergraduate research on Playboy magazine (2001-11) whereby I carried out an analytical investigation determining the visual content of Playboy magazine, with a focus on popular misconception to form the foundational base of the project. My results showed that despite Playboy magazine being carried supposedly by the (full page) images of women, particularly of the monthly Centrefold and further pictorial features that they do not contribute, even significantly, to the overall bulk of the magazine content. In a sample consisting of 30 magazines stretching across a ten year period, what actually make up the majority of Playboy magazine unsurprisingly is advertising, articles, and other male lifestyle features such as of gadgets and cars (Way, 2012). My interest and motivation for the project was lead by the impression that public perception of Playboy Magazine is driven by knowledge of imagery involving explicit female nudity.

Perception of Playboy magazine

Moving away from the magazine, this blog would like to consider Playboy from a cultural perspective, considering how Playboy exists within the everyday. 2011 was a big year for Hugh Hefner (Playboy’s editor and founder) whom saw him preparing to marry for the third time (to then 24 year old Crystal Harris) despite saying, after his failed second marriage that he would never marry again.  Unfortunately, the marriage was pulled merely days before (by Harris).

Playboy Club London Mini Pilgrimage

Last month, I went on a mini post-Uni pilgrimage to the Playboy Club in London (I didn’t go in though) seeing as getting to LA wasn’t financially viable at the time. I’m not sure what I was expecting but I was pleased that the place doesn’t scream at you from the street (unless of course angry feminists are protesting outside… they weren’t on this particular day). The building is smaller against its neighbours and cubed in shape, the club is spread out across two floors, I couldn’t see inside although I could vaguely make out that the famous rabbit head was used in decoration (obviously). Anyway, my point here really is that I got to thinking about how Playboy is received in society and my thoughts and media reporting guide me to still believing that it is still a brand tainted with Hefner’s ‘dirty old man’   mediated image which if I am honest, saddens me although I am not blinded by my fascination with the brand, I do know about the dirtier side, but fortunately my head allows me to see past that.

Perception of Playboy magazine

My research on Playboy magazine allowed me to produce work that as stated exists on a foundational basis; I identified what Playboy magazine involves visually. The next step actually is to now ask questions about what it means to pose in Playboy for the women involved. I mentioned Feminists earlier; I wrote the word like those I was referring to was ‘othered’ and in a way I was, those feminists I believe are individuals with outdated knowledge and understanding. They are absolutely entitled to their opinion but I feel their opinion was formulated from Playboy’s early days and therefore are not in consideration of what it is today but more importantly how modern feminism receives it. The argument is still that Playboy magazine objectifies women… but does the argument still stand when the women who choose to pose have done just that… choose! Admittedly, a photograph can still be read as objectification depending on the pose but 21st Century feminism (aka. 3rd wave) is all about ‘Girl Power’ and women’s right to choose and so regardless of whether she looks objectified, the feminist trail of thought actually demands asking the model WHY she is in the magazine and what it means for her as a person and not just as that months Playmate.

I haven’t really got the time or blog space (well I do, I’m just thinking more about how little time people have to read long things these days) to fully go in depth with Playboy magazine and the above further discussion. Really I am just raising a topic for thought for people to consider, and obviously any academics reading this are now informed on where research stands and where it can potentially now go.

I am very interested to hear what people think of Playboy and Playboy magazine so do feel free to comment below.

Until next time x

%d bloggers like this: