- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
OT Debate of the Day: Barnes and Noble Repositions Playboy
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:47 am
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:47 am
You are probably aware that Playboy recently announced that they are ceasing publishing nude photos. Because of this, retailers like Barnes and Noble are giving the magazine better retail positioning, as seen here:
This was not by accident. Barnes and Noble confirmed that this was not put there by accident. They explained that Playboy doesn't publish completely nude photos anymore so it's totally cool. They said Playboy is a "more conservative magazine" which now "features outstanding journalism and interviews."
My question is this - it is obviously in a place that children can see it, and although there is no nudity, some parents may feel like a woman with her hand down her panties is not appropriate for you know, a 5 year old. Its an interesting debate, because its really no different than Maxim now, but there is the perception problem, and this particular cover might be more risqué than anything Maxim has.
I'll hang up and listen.
This was not by accident. Barnes and Noble confirmed that this was not put there by accident. They explained that Playboy doesn't publish completely nude photos anymore so it's totally cool. They said Playboy is a "more conservative magazine" which now "features outstanding journalism and interviews."
My question is this - it is obviously in a place that children can see it, and although there is no nudity, some parents may feel like a woman with her hand down her panties is not appropriate for you know, a 5 year old. Its an interesting debate, because its really no different than Maxim now, but there is the perception problem, and this particular cover might be more risqué than anything Maxim has.
I'll hang up and listen.
24
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:47 am to anc
Barnes and Noble sold Playboys when they had nudes?
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:49 am to anc
don't worry about the kids, they already jerked off to your PC at home. Playboy won't even interest them unless its "for the articles".
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:49 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Barnes and Noble sold Playboys when they had nudes?
Actually I think they did.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:50 am to anc
quote:
and although there is no nudity, some parents may feel like a woman with her hand down her panties is not appropriate for you know, a 5 year old
Who cares what those parents think? They are not going to buy it anyways.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:51 am to upgrayedd
They were placed in clear wrap with some graphics to cover nudity on the cover. They were typically all the way at the top of the new stand.
Most smart kids just went to the ART section and picked up a book of french nudes anyway.
Most smart kids just went to the ART section and picked up a book of french nudes anyway.
This post was edited on 6/30/16 at 9:39 am
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:52 am to CaptainBrannigan
quote:
Who cares what those parents think? They are not going to buy it anyways.
But the issue is that when they and their parents are in line to buy their Peter Cottontail and Thomas the Train, this is staring them right in the eye, whether they purchase it or not.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:52 am to anc
Don't people read Playboy for the articles?
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:53 am to anc
Your kid will see much worse than that cover.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:54 am to anc
Have you seen what has been on the cover of ESPN the Magazine before? What Playboy has is fairly tame, not to mention every grocery store having Maxim and other magazines that show similar amounts of skin.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:54 am to anc
Its the human body..people need to get over it.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:54 am to anc
that picture on the cover seems no more revealing than most, if not all, womens opinion and suggestion mags. like Cosmo and such..
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:55 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Barnes and Noble sold Playboys when they had nudes?
Trying to act like you never jerked off in a B&N bathroom with a borrowed Playboy? Nice try.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:55 am to anc
Can I post a picture of a rolling stone cover? Even though it has hand bra? 
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:56 am to anc
I doubt many are gonna buy a nudeless Playboy, anyway.
This post was edited on 6/30/16 at 8:56 am
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:56 am to anc
quote:
But the issue is that when they and their parents are in line to buy their Peter Cottontail and Thomas the Train, this is staring them right in the eye, whether they purchase it or not.
Not the stomach!
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:57 am to anc
Not any worse than SI Swimsuit covers or the titles of articles featured on the covers of Cosmo, IMO.
(Yes, I've had to answer questions about what some of those titles mean while standing in the checkout line.)
(Yes, I've had to answer questions about what some of those titles mean while standing in the checkout line.)
This post was edited on 6/30/16 at 8:59 am
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:57 am to anc
quote:
it is obviously in a place that children can see it, and although there is no nudity, some parents may feel like a woman with her hand down her panties is not appropriate for you know, a 5 year old.
Have you never seen a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit cover? They put those front and center for all to see too.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:59 am to anc
New and improved Playboy is as tame as Maxim or FHM.
Sucks
Sucks
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:59 am to anc
quote:
which now "features outstanding journalism and interviews."
Traditionally Playboy set itself apart by publishing legitimately great writers, often who were too controversial for other publications. Also, they got a lot of big name celebrities to pose. But saying that you read playboy for the articles is actually legit. I don't know how it has held up in recent times because I'm not much of a magazine reader, but still this is nothing new.
quote:
some parents may feel like a woman with her hand down her panties is not appropriate for you know, a 5 year old.
Your precious little snowflake won't be damaged and most likely won't even care or notice. People in this country are entirely too scared of sex or the implication of sex. But that's of course just my opinion.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News