[alexanderh]

I know it's cliche but they really did have decent articles, and model profiles, I agree that they certainly went beyond simply presenting women for womens sake compared to most. I wonder, what would a magazine look like that still celebrated the naked female physical form but would pass this "wholesome" standard many seem to judge the Playboy magazine of failing to meet. Are naked bodies inherently 'wrong' to be admired? Looking at older issues from the heyday, and they are pretty damn classy. Sometimes I dont think mainstream Western culture will ever escape it's puritanical sex negative roots. Jealousy, envy, lust and insecurities seem so mixed up in the presentation of naked bodies, many will consciously or subconsciously find it inherently distasteful for as far as I can see. I personally think it's unfortunate that all of this baggage has to be so uniformly applied creating an impossible standard. Some times naked beautiful woman are just naked and beautiful, and there isn't anything objectifying to admire this particular trait than there is admiring intelligence. If I exclusively admire a woman's intelligence, am I objectifying her as a computational machine in lue of a sex machine or something? Idk

[acjohnson55]

It would probably look more like ESPN The Body. Or Annie Leibovitz's photos. There's a lot of nude art that's not exploitative in the same way. I'm not a prude, I'm just saying let's not airbrush what Playboy is.