Sunday, June 1, 2008

For the WHO?

I came across this article months ago, and I've been raring to blog about it ever since.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUKMAN8576220080327

Playboy to launch in Philippines as eyes mature Dads

MANILA (Reuters Life!) - Playboy magazine is launching in the Philippines next month and will be targeting mature men who like well-written articles and tasteful photographs of semi-nude women.

"Maxim and FHM are called laddy magazines. We can be called a Dad magazine," Beting Laygo Dolor, Playboy Philippines' editor, told Reuters on Thursday.

"We are targeting a more mature market, Filipino men, 30 and above."

"There will be no full frontal nudity."

Mens' magazines with risque photos are already sold in the Philippines, which despite being a largely Catholic country has a macho culture that encourages promiscuity.

Although rural areas are more conservative, Manila and other large cities have a relaxed attitude to sex.

Dolor, who describes himself as a "bad Catholic", said the religion's values had influenced the decision not to go for a raunchier look for the magazine.

"I don't want to be ashamed to show it to my mother," said the father of four. "I have daughters in their twenties. It's something that I want them to also enjoy. I want them to be proud of their Dad."

Founded in 1953, Playboy has some 20 local editions around the world that cater to local taste rather than simply exporting and translating its U.S. content.

***

I have to confess. I have everything AGAINST Playboy. I don't see the point of showing skin. I don't like the idea of people lusting after women. I don't like indecency, period.

This article plays on a "traditional" mode of masculinity: men, no matter how old they are, will want to see some skin. Even when they are married to the women of their dreams, even when they are committed, with a family and a stable job, they will still like to see naked women. This mode denigrates both men and women to animals: men become beasts who lust after nakedness and have no sense or maturity, while women are made and fashioned to feed the greed and lust of men. What kind of outfit is Playboy magazine, then? It is nothing but an excuse for art and literature - a business that thrives and feeds on the basest of all human instinct simply because money shouts louder than morals.

I also resent how Playboy aims to make itself a "Dad" magazine. My father would protect me from perverts, he would be angry at me if he caught me watching sex scenes in a film - I grew up with a conservative household that was happy. I would never wish a girl to grow up with a father who looks through Playboy magazines, or a father who exercises his machismo every chance he gets by staring at other women and spending time at girlie bars. I would like a husband who has the same constancy and conservatism of my father, and who is faithful to me as I will be faithful to him. What is Playboy doing to such wishes?

I may be prudish, but I see all girlie magazines as excuses for lust. Playboy hides behind well-written articles and so-called tasteful photographs - but all it is is a magazine designed to feed sexual appetites. What kind of man would read Playboy? What does Playboy think men are? Are men always the lusting, brainless automatons that follow where their greeds lead? What kind of a father would like to read Playboy? Could he even be trusted to take care of his children? When Playboy says it targets a "mature" market, it means an older market, not necessarily a wiser one.

In purportedly going for "Dads", Playboy cultivates a stereotype of the testosterone-drunk male who cannot withstand temptation and is forever doomed to be a victim of his lust. Are men so weak? I hope not.

No comments: