In the chapter reading entitled "'I Buy it for the Articles' Playboy Magazine and the Sexualization of Consumerism", Gail Dines talks about how Playboy became so successful. In Dines view, Playboy did a great job of out-competing the competition. Playboy chose to focus on the soft-core side of porn thereby attracting more advertisers. In addition, Playboy was successful at creating a lifestyle for its readers in which higher societal class and wealth were focused on. Playboy chose to show high priced commodities in its shoots and cartoons, often featuring its male cartoons on private yachts, at the golf club, or in a private mansion, all while surrounded by beautiful, big breasted women. This sort of consumerism portrayed by Playboy, with its women being the ultimate commodity, appealed to a wide demographic of male readers. Because of this, Playboy was able to be very successful, and may well be the reason that even today Playboy is the number one men's entertainment magazine. The question is, do we agree with Playboy? Is Playboy's focus on high class consumerism good for readers and the portrayal of women? Should women be viewed as the ultimate commodity? Are we okay, as a culture, with this view of women? What are some of the possible negative or positive consequences of this view? Also, do we like that big-name advertisers like Mercedes are ultimately supporting this view of women by displaying their advertisements in Playboy magazines? Should we care? How do we feel about the impact and messages that Playboy is sending to such a large demographic of male readers?
Discussion Questions/Blog on "I Buy it for The Articles" Playboy Magazine and the Sexualization of Consumerism
TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/195283