There’s a lost-innocence-of-our-children panic piece in the G2 section of yesterday’s Guardian. Rachel Bell asks “what’s going on?” that Playboy-branded stationery and other accessories are number one with little schoolgirls in Britain. The right sort of people are quoted telling us what to think, alongside someone from commerce telling us that the people he represents don’t think at all.
You can probably write the text for yourselves. Playboy is axiomatically evil: it contains pictures of naked women, it’s American, and it’s shamelessly consumerist. It’s full of boys’ toys and lust and ambition and other terrible capitalist vices. How could our sweet little girls treat its merchandise as just a bit of fun? You know the sort of thing: mirror-image Daily Mail—just as reactionary and conservative in its conclusions, but with pseudo-Left arguments instead of pseudo-Right ones.
I bet the author has never properly read the magazine. I used to. Don’t get me wrong: I bought it for the naked women rather than the articles, but the often superb writing was a huge bonus—like the cooking would be if you were married to Nigella Lawson. And if I had a young daughter I’d prefer that her attitude to sex was informed by Playboy than by some supposedly liberated women’s magazine like Cosmopolitan, which I also used to read. (Once upon a time I munched through glossy magazines like a paper recycling mill.)
In the editorial pages of Playboy, sex is something grown-ups do responsibly for fun. They set out to maximise their mutual pleasure and minimize the damage they could do to each other, emotional, physical or otherwise. To Cosmo, sex is still something women do to please men, to keep them around, to get things from them. At the height of HIV-fear I remember that, in Cosmo world, safe sex was something Cosmo girls practised until they “got to know him properly”—the subtext was that if he “committed” sufficiently she should “reward” him by letting him do it to her without a condom. (Heterosexual women are most likely to contract HIV from men they are in a committed relationship with.) The current issue of UK Cosmopolitan magazine boasts the front-page headlines “THE TEN THINGS THAT REALLY MAKE A MAN COMMIT” and “YOUR SECRET SEX WEAPON”.
The schoolgirls interviewed in the Guardian talk about the kudos they get from flaunting the Playboy logo. They feel glamorous. The author of the piece is horrified. I’m not. Most women’s magazines seem designed to make women feel inadequate and dull and ugly. Better that women should celebrate the power they have over men rather than worry that they have “cellulite” or the wrong kind of breasts for this season’s look.
On Radio One this morning, the irresistible Sara Cox read out a letter from a married mother who had been diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 30. She wrote about how, at one of the lowest emotional points in her treatment (which included a full mastectomy and reconstruction, plus courses of chemotherapy and radiotherapy), her friend Victoria had taken her to learn pole-dancing. She described it as the most exciting and exhilarating time in her life. She explained how “sexy and sassy” it made her feel. She asked for Coxy to play the Beyoncé track she and Victoria had learned to dance to and dedicated it to her friend. I bet they don’t read The Guardian.
The Guardian piece begins by describing approvingly a protest by 15-year-old schoolgirls outside a branch of WHSmith that sells Playboy stationery. The girls are from a Catholic convent school. As Norm would say, such is the state of progressive politics.
UPDATE: Wouldn’t it have been great to illustrate this post with a photo of them demonstrating and caption it “Catholic Convent Teens Stand Against Playboy”?
“Heterosexual women are most likely to contract HIV from men they are in a committed relationship with.”
May be true, according to whatever statistics you used, but it would tend to suggest, would it not, that the “committed” bit is only one way round?
I don’t think my wife is at much risk of contracting HIV from me…
Good point. What I was trying to get across is that the risk of getting an STI is nothing to do with what you feel and everything to do with what you do—reasoning sadly beyond the Bridget Joneses of this world.
(Besides, statistically speaking, HIV is the least of most people’s worries in the UK. Until recently, however, their fear of it had the benefit of encouraging behaviour that massively reduced the spread of other damaging but far more common diseases.)
These protesting Catholic Convent girls are unlike ANY of the Catholic Convent girls I grew up with. Thankfully.
The women in Playboy are also usually a lot more normal-looking than the models in Cosmo. Other than the Hitler ‘stache, of course.
And, frankly, I think 15-year-olds are better off looking “glamorous” than the opposite trend — looking like sexualized pre-teens.
Great post, Geekerpoot.
Yes – this is an excellent post.
I came to it from Harry of the Place, expecting myself to agree with him and indulge in a minute or two of stentorian moralising.
Actually, your comparison of the two varieties of femaie sexuality offered by Playboy and Cosmo is convincing.
Isn’t the G2 article also vastly overestimating the weight of smut the Playboy brand carries?
Surely, the fact that the bunny is available on schoolgirls’ pencil cases indicates that the Playboy brand has been diluted over the years, and not that we are falling into a pit of moral depravity where 15 year old girls (rather than boys) read porn.
Rather than denoting ‘smut’, or porn, for consumers, it seems as though the Playboy brand has been boiled down into some more inoffensive tones of glamour and decadence.
And every fifteen-year-old doing GCSE revision is entitled illusions of decadence and glamour.
Saw some girl recently with two Playboy Bunnies flanking her name (I think it was Tasha) tattooed in Gothic script across the top of her arse, with low-slung velour tracksuit to show it off. I agree with the general thrust of Damian’s piece here, but I think, when the logo leaves the pencil-cases and gets that close to the arse, it does kind of imply smut, not to mention looseness.
God, but she were ugly, though.
The logo itself is not in the least bit smutty, and it is, I think most would agree, one hell of a logo.
Came by way of Harry’s also, wondered where you would draw the line. Eight year old’s in Hustler T-shirts? Fcuk branded knickers for pre-teens?
Supermarket Asda incurred the wrath of parents last month for targeting girls as young as nine with see-through black lingerie. It later withdrew the range, blaming an ordering error. Of course it was.
I think any iconography on girls’ accessories that makes me feel uncomfortable as an adult male—regardless of the material effects it has on its owners—should be banned. Everything else is okay. Wouldn’t you agree?
No, of course not. It’s what the parents are unwittingly allowing their children to advertise. Cool and funky looking, but porn. You can not separate the brand from the message. It’s no different to lengths tobacco advertisers go to extend their brands into clothing and other areas. They’re not interested in selling clothes, just more cigarettes.
By the same token, Playboy is just reinforcing its brand, as fluffy as it might be, which is all about soft porn.
You’re right: the millions killed by smoking-related cancers and circulatory diseases are as nothing to the global death toll of soft porn. And beyond the mortality statistics there is a shocking level of masturbation-related morbidity. Even at my relatively young age I have been forced to resort to prescription spectacles to watch films at the cinema.
Some very interesting points well made.
Is serving teenager girls the equivalent of microwaved sexual identity ready-meals not going to leave them not only not knowing exactly what they are consuming but lacking in the cooking skills to prepare their own?
Surely we’d all agree that teenagers need to be able to define their own sexuality, over time and, ideally, formed mainly through contact with their peers.
Does a sexual brand not hinder this as branding by its nature is always going to encourage conformity as opposed to diversity?
Because when teenagers define themselves “through contact with their peers” it always encourages “diversity” rather than conformity, doesn’t it? Do you have any recollection at all of life before adulthood, Gulliver?
Gordon wondered:
<snip> where you would draw the line. Eight year old’s in Hustler T-shirts? Fcuk branded knickers for pre-teens?<snip>
Well, where do you draw the line in stopping this deviant behaviour?
Contemptuous looks following by a disapproving clucking of the tongue? Firm notes sent to their parents? Misdemeanour fines? Stonings by Burka-clad Morality Squads?
What’s it going to take to stop these kids from using Playboy Brand Stationery???
Came by way of Harry’s also, wondered where you would draw the line.
An inability to define where the line must be drawn does not mean that this particular thing should be banned. Rather than drawing qualitative lines, why not take it on a case-by-case basis?
The problem of the line. I suggest a line in the sand. This way the coming and goings of the tide, the subsequent washing away of the line, will allow the line to be redrawn on a daily, nay hourly, basis. A moveable line is definitely the way forward.
Well Damian, you certainly managed to provoke Harry into just about every possible clichéd response its possible to find – he run the whole gamut from ‘outraged dad’ to ‘let’s see what the archetypal puritanical feminist thinks of it’ routine.
All very tedious.
The Playboy brand means three things:
1. Beautiful photographed naked women (obvious)
2. A mature and open approach to sexuality, and
3. Some the best writing on a whole range of subject you’ll find anywhere on the news stands.
In the case of both of my own kids (13yr old son & 5 yr old daughter) when they’re old enough I’d rather they both end up reading Playboy than immature self-obsessed crap like Maxim or Cosmo.
“when they’re old enough”
Nice to see that concept get a mention here – at last. It has been lost in this discussion – my main point was about the explotation of kids through marketing and advertising.
Anyway let me throw a radical idea into the mix:
Perhaps *neither* Playboy nor Cosmo need be part of the sexual and social development of young people? Since when did Damian’s ‘Either Or’ position reflect any sort of reality?
Are there not better alternatives we could find? I think we might be able to manage that don’t you? Is the choice for boys looking to understand their sexuality between Hustler and Maxim?
Here is another idea: Perhaps “a mature and open approach to sexuality” need not involve pornography?
Perhaps, dare I say it, pornography doesn’t actually help at all in developing a “a mature and open approach to sexuality” ?
Perhaps pornography, including soft porn such as Playboy, far from being some subversive or empowering challenger of existing backward attitudes to sexuality actually *reflects* those very attitudes?
Perhaps there really is nothing ’empowering’ about a woman getting her tits out for the lads?
And yes I am an ‘angry Dad’ . But your talk of archetypal puritanical feminists could take us into some very interesting territory.
The comparison between Cosmo and Playboy was priceless.
I am in full agreement that it is womens mags that have the most perverted view of sex and sexuality. They also have malnourished chicks that no red blooded male would want to grind bones with.
Whilst Harry’s comment of neither holds some water, there is no doubt in my mind which of the two types of mag are more harmful.
[…] Abdul Hamid, the vice-chairman of the Lancashire Board of Mosques, said that if Miss Mendly took part she would immediately cast herself out of the “circle of Islam”. He said: “It is simply not right for her to take part in this competition as a Muslim, because by entering she forsakes her faith. She has said she won’t wear a bikini, only a swimsuit, but what difference does that make? She will still be exposing her flesh in a beauty contest.” Besides Dilay Topuzoglu and Sonia Hassanien, other non-Muslim finalists with suspiciously foreign-sounding names and swarthy skin include Peace Blessing Oybio and Emily Okelo . Once again the global reach of cheesey 70s retro threatens the purity of virgin ladies in this country, whatever their origins. […]
[…] Abdul Hamid, the vice-chairman of the Lancashire Board of Mosques, said that if Miss Mendly took part she would immediately cast herself out of the “circle of Islam”. He said: “It is simply not right for her to take part in this competition as a Muslim, because by entering she forsakes her faith. She has said she won’t wear a bikini, only a swimsuit, but what difference does that make? She will still be exposing her flesh in a beauty contest.” Besides Dilay Topuzoglu and Sonia Hassanien, other non-Muslim finalists with suspiciously foreign-sounding names and swarthy skin include Peace Blessing Oybio and Emily Okelo . Once again the global reach of cheesey 70s retro threatens the purity of virgin ladies in this country, whatever their origins. […]
I am from the catholic school you talk of and think you have misundersttod the fact that our religion has no effect on our viewpoint. I see nothing wrong with Playboy magazine itself but why should a porn brand be allowed to diversify. O f course a 20 year old man can buy a Playboy magazine but would a 7 year old boy be allowed. This is what we are against The exploitation of children by using them to sellsex. And no, we don’t all sit praying to nuns and I am not against this just because I am scared Jesus will come and hunt me down if I am not seen to be a virginal young girl. But why should Heffner make more money out of sexualising children with Smiths selling the products alongside Winnie the Pooh and Bob the Builder.
[…] It hadn’t even occurred to me that some leftist commentators might consider children’s use of horizontally cross-marketed porn merchandising empowering, but apparently I have yet to develop a full appreciation of the mythos of patriarchy. PooterGeek, writing on the aforementioned Guardian article, sets up a textbook false dichotomy in his defense of porny pencil cases: And if I had a young daughter I’d prefer that her attitude to sex was informed by Playboy than by some supposedly liberated women’s magazine like Cosmopolitan, which I also used to read. […] […]
I recently asked a toy shop manager why they stocked items with the Playboy logo. He said that it is only a rabbit, a cute picture and that children don’t know what it means. It is dirty minded adults that ascribe a meaning to it. It is the customers that are demanding these products so the shop has no choice but to provide it. In my opinion, this explanation was naive, evasive and simply ignorant. No retail outfit depends on one product. However, they profit from variety. As a parent, I find it very sad that we have to raise our beautiful innocent children in an environment where anything goes. All these arguments about “sexual confidence”, etc. all miss the point. Why is a cute cuddly white-nosed rabbit not good enough anymore? Why would children benefit from being “sexually confident”? Why is Playboy’s rabbit logo become so popular? Please, those of you who are concerned about this, find out why Playboy came up with a rabbit as a logo in the first place and then see it on your beautiful young daughter. It is simply not right and I am not a dirty minded adult, simply a parent trying to protect my children from morally devoid profit merchants. Parents and retailers are avoiding responsibility for this by passing the buck. Parents need to stop buying for their daughters and retailers need to take responsibility for what they stock in their shops. It is simply not good enough to say that is just a rabbit. If there is any doubt about it, look in the Argos catalogue in the bedding section for children. Alongside the usual Spiderman, Bratz, Barbie and Batman there is a pink cover with a rabbit and the letters P-L-A-Y-B-O-Y under the image. The logo for a sector of the porn industry has has made its way into our childrens’ bedrooms. Maybe I’m being naive, but it is not right.
[…] Further to my two articles about Playboy last year, here and here, those of you who have the requisite plug-in installed might want to watch this smart and very short film by Laurie Anderson. […]
[…] Fudge also txted me to say how sad she was for shameless sex-blogger Girl With A One-Track Mind that she had been outed by the Sunday Times. Shrewdly, GwaOTM has got herself a sympathetic interview in the Guardian today. There, she and the article’s author, Zoe Williams, have a go at the “new” sexual prudery. This is ironic given that the same section of the same newspaper provoked me to write this about the “mainstreaming” of the Playboy bunny. Here’s a great quote from The Girl herself that’s practically a précis of the last 12-month’s worth of posts in the PooterGeek “Sexual Politics” category: She is really trenchant on the sorry-arsed, calorie-counting era that the Bridget Jones fixation ushered in. “Without attacking the writer, when I flicked through that originally and saw that there was all this obsession with weight, I just didn’t relate to it. I know so many women focus on that, but it just isn’t a priority for me. And I draw a correlation between being sexually uptight and certain eating disorders. Because, literally, they can’t let anything pass their lips. They can’t enjoy anything, I can’t imagine them enjoying sex. I can’t count the number of friends I’ve heard saying,’I’d rather be underneath in bed because then he won’t see how fat my stomach is.’ That’s the last thing you should be thinking about while you’re having sex!” […]
If peaople want to buy playboy then thats there bussiness! there parents are allowing them to uy it, and thats what matters, its up to the parents!
I THINK THE GIRL ABOVE IS RIGHT IF PEOPLE DONT WANT THERE CHILDREN TO GET INVOLVED THEN DONT BUT IF OTHER PARENTS ALLOW THERE CHILDREN THEN THAT WOULDNT XACTLY BE FAIR X