Wednesday, 15 February 2017
Playboy magazine has brought back nudity. It seems to have done this because it acknowledges that nudity has never really gone away. In truth the reason that Playboy and The Sun and Nuts and other similar publications have lately eschewed nudity or semi nudity is not because we have gone off seeing luscious lovelies it is because there is a surfeit of them available whenever we wish.
Radhika Sanghani, token joyless harridan of The Telegraph, opined yesterday that sex no longer sells. This is nonsense. Sex will always sell. It is just that in a market awash with sex and flesh supply has overwhelmed demand and made it a commodity too cheap to measure. Magazines predicated on selling sex and sex alone cannot survive. The internet has done to sex what it has done to so many industries. It has overwhelmed it.
So this new/old departure of Playboy will not work. This will not mean that sex no longer sells it just means that a magazine has to offer more than just nudity. A pop star will undoubtedly attract attention initially by being sexy and bearing flesh. But the song and the singing must also pass muster. Ultimately the song and the singing are what really matters as the brilliant Sia has illustrated. She just lets the singing do the talking so to speak and never shows any part of herself.
This blog went for a period a couple of years ago of running a daily topless woman in protest against the censors trying to have such depictions banned. I stopped after a while having made my point. You can have too much of a good thing. Playboy may be about to find that out afresh.