It's back. A new Playboy Club will be opening this week in Las Vegas, almost twenty years after the last one closed.
The original clubs, staffed by bustiered Bunnies and spurred by the sexual revolution, spanned the globe in their heyday in the 1960s and '70s, from Chicago and New York to Manila, London, Tokyo and the Bahamas. At their height, 22 clubs were in operation, employing more than 25,000 Bunnies and boasting more than a million "keyholders," or members....The new club, on the top three floors of the Palms hotel-casino, pays homage to the past while introducing its swinging bachelor lifestyle to a new generation. Lounge seating is back, as are the famous Bunny outfits, complete with ears, bow tie and cufflinks, designed by Roberto Cavalli.
But don't fret, gals. Apparently this isn't a step backwards for women--we're moving forward.
"If you look at the magazine even in the early days, there were features on decorating your apartment, cooking, buying nice clothes, buying wine," said James Beggan, associate professor of sociology at the University of Louisville. "I think that they've always been ahead of their time in advocating what later becomes known as the 'metrosexual identity.' "Society has caught up with Playboy's view," he said.
Oh, well good. Because for a minute there I thought it was just good old-fashioned sexism revamped as retro-chic.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Playboy club to open this week.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/4066
"Oh, well good. Because for a minute there I thought it was just good old-fashioned sexism revamped as retro-chic."
Nice.
Playboy's always fuel for conversation sexism and objectification of women. What I think is really interesting about this article, though, is that it doesn't address any feminist issues at all, save stating that the decline of earlier clubs came as feminism was on the rise.
And while I'm not exactly thrilled that the Playboy empire is striking out in this vein again, judging from the article, it sounds a little like a last-ditch effort (well, maybe not LAST ditch, but you get me) by a fading company.
That's interesting, at least...
cd, sadly, I suspect that's largely because of the prevelance of cheap or free porn on teh intarnets, rather than the level progress on the equality front that we *ought* to be seeing.
I think The Law Fairy is right, and that raises a whole other set of questions about whether internets porn is, on average, more "hard-core" and degrading to women than nude photos, and therefore if this isn't actually a step backward (or worse).
Well, I don't think that Playboy is at all a center for female rights or anything, but the article was referring to the fact that the magazine has always had articles for men about proper grooming and clothing selection. The point of the quote was that society today values the metrosexual identity, so it has finally caught up with what Playboy has been saying all along. It didn't say anything about women.
I read about this @ MSNBC & I was really disappointed (though not surprised) that there was no mention at all of how women were treated in the Playboy clubs of the past, or any mention of feminism. Of course, this is the same media that says that feminism's dead every couple of years.
If you hadn’t noticed, society has passed by the playboy mystique years ago. There are now “gentlemen’s� clubs galore. These clubs don’t cater to even a veneer of respectability put exploit women in the most revealing and degrading manner possible.
If one of the goals of feminism was to keep women from being viewed as perpetually sex objects: then from any cursory perusal of popular culture it has failed miserably.
I think its interesting to note that the reason a story like this gains interest is NOT because it demonstrates the objectification and exploitation of the female form. (Any simple web search will reveal that in larger numbers and more graphic detail) Rather, I believe this post reveals a certain infatuation modern feminism has with the 1950’s ethos. In my view feminism is forced to contrast their philosophical approach with a pre sexual revolution America. (Note all the 1950’s iconic imagery present on this Blog)
The reason for this is that if one compares the supposed goals and objects of feminism to 2006, a different and more damning analysis becomes evident.
"Magazine circulation is around 3 million, down from its peak of 7.2 million in 1972"
It's interesting that Playboy's fifty year history peaked concurrent with the women's liberation movement.
I love that men learning to properly groom themselves counts as "progressive"...
I love that after thousands of years of patriarchy, continued objectification of women after a mere few decades of feminist activism demonstrates feminism's "failure."
EG
“continued objectification of women after a mere few decades of feminist activism�
I’m not referring to a “continued� objectification, but rather an marked and blatant increase in both the amount and degree of the objectification since 1960’s.
Law Fairy has a point, if you make a timeline since playboy then the accessibility of internet porn has probably done a lot to curb readers who no longer have to cover with, "I read it for the articles" which was a bad joke in the first place but now all pretense can be thrown out. I figure this is Hef trying to make some extra money before he dies especially now in this girls gone wild day and age where the argument of objectification seems almost moot when you have women doing these things by "choice". Any feminist who tries to discuss this will be seen as a throwback and "no fun".
Ah, well, that's always been the argument used against feminist analyses of sexism--we're no fun, we have no senses of humor, we should just loosen up...
Well, at least the franchise produced Debbie Harry.
"Ah, well, that's always been the argument used against feminist analyses of sexism--we're no fun, we have no senses of humor, we should just loosen up..."
Thats always been an argument used against Christian & tradtionalist analyses of sexism also!
I think one huge problem for the feminist movement is its de facto alignment with democrats. I think feminists have become a bit too partisan and this has caused our movement to suffer, as we can see here. Feminists have been unwilling to speak out vocally against objectification like this because it doesn't comport with the political liberals' point of view. But this approach is a fallacy; just because we line up with the left on most things does not mean we have any obligation whatsoever to toe the party line. It really breaks my heart that amazing women like Catherine MacKinnon are viewed as "relics" by a lot of today's young feminists. The notion that there's something inherently vile about *happening* to agree with the religious right on one issue does us more harm tham good. This isn't philosophy class, this is real life; if there are other people who will help us achieve our goals, who cares if they're batshit crazy on every other issue?
Well..., it's a conundrum.
How to enjoy a little titallating salaciousness but not broach over to the "dark side" of abuse?
Sam, even when I was in grade school I remember that there were feminists speaking out against casual objectification of women -- not just the stuff that involved nude images of women for outright sexual consumption, but the routine use of female bodies as sex objects in advertising and media. We so seldom hear that anymore.
I find it interesting that Playboy has largely lost out to Maxim and the other "laddie" mags (on the one hand, and harder porn on the other). They present the same woman-hating objectification as Playboy, but cover nipples and genitals. The change in marketing has, of course, been driven not by feminists but by the religious right. Few feminists would argue that Playboy (with its classist dynamic and a view of women as expensive status possessions, like sports cars) is any better than Maxim (with its more overt contempt for women as objects for mass consumption, it may be worse) just because it covers some pieces of the body surface. But to the male, conservative religious leaders who control the shock-troops of the patriarchy's cultural committee, putting an almost literal fig-leaf on the objectification of women makes it okay. What they want is for women to be objects, but with a certain public reticence about sexuality that keeps people from really analyzing it and maybe having their own dangerous thoughts about it.
Given what we know about the private conduct of some social conservatives, I think it is clear that they are fine also with hardcore porn that uses women as objects -- they just want that kept under the table. Does Jimmy Swaggert really want prostitution and porn to be off limits? Of course not. If it was, where would he get it?
Once upon a time, the major cultural critics of ojectifying images of women were feminists. That lasted about fifteen years. Around the time of the Meese Commission, religious conservatives took over the role of criticizing sexual images of women; but their goal is not really to eliminate objectification. For the last twenty years, they have controlled the narrative; and see what happens. Vivid Video, GGW and Playboy clubs. This is neither the result that porn-abolitionist feminists wanted, nor the result that porn-tolerant feminists wanted. This is the result that patriarchal men wanted.
"if there are other people who will help us achieve our goals, who cares if they're batshit crazy on every other issue?"
I can only speak for myself, TLF, but I'm not convinced that my goals are the same as the religious right's when it comes to pornography. I'm not a fan of porn, and I do think that it perpetuates harmful sexism. But I'm not opposed to sex, and I don't think sexuality in and of itself is sinful or immoral, which seems to me to be the religious right's position, and so I'm not convinced that any legislation enacted with their aid, input, or leverage is going to be anything but harmful to us.
It is also, as you suggest, a question of political expediency. I think that overall, the further to the left the country moves, the better things will be for women; if that means I lose the porn battle in order to win a larger war (which is a nice fantasy, because these days it's lose, lose, lose across the board), I'm willing to put up with it.
*happening* to agree with the religious right on one issue
LF, what I'm trying to say is that feminists do not agree with the religious right in any sort of thoroughgoing way; that by speaking out against objectification we're not seeking the same goals as the patriarchal forces of evil. If we make the mistake of ever for a minute thinking that they are our friends, then they will coopt whatever feminists do to their own ends, which are incompattible with ours.
They are for objectification and against sex. Feminists ought always to be against objectification and for sex. If feminists and the religious forces of evil happen to agree that a particular image is bad or that a particular practice ought to be stopped, so be it. But they are never allies. What I'm saying is that if a feminist and a religious conservative are standing at podiums urging passage of a bill, they ought to be doing so at separate podiums, without making any concessions to the others' point of view. When feminists and religious conservatives get lumpoed together, the feminists just end up getting used.
In that spirit, though, I agree with you that feminists have to be more independent about working with Democrats, who are generally not natural allies to feminists either. Support for free speech does not require our silence about the disgraceful, misogynist messages the culture pumps out; and anyone who asks us to pretend we don't see it is not going to help us out.
"They are for objectification and against sex. Feminists ought always to be against objectification and for sex."
That's a great way of putting it, Thomas, but I'm not sure about the "always" part. I mean, all human fantasy life involves objectification - that is part of what makes it a fantasy. I think the issue is how to make sure there is adequate separation between the fantasy (woman or man) and real women and men! Thus, it's not only a Feminist issue, but a Humanist issue. ALL stereotypes become harmful when we try to apply them to a real person.
So the question is, how much does Playboy and it's club contribute to blurring the line? Especially contrasted with how much conservative religious teachings blur that line!
Part of me thinks that because it is a seperate club, where everyone is in costume, and you have to pay for stuff, that it may not really cause much blurring (other than from alcohol ;-) And for the deluded who go thinking "Ah, this is how life *should* be", well, at least some of their money will be going to support women who are working their tails off.
To TLF: While I am all in favor of reaching common ground with disparate groups, I am reminded of the parable of the lady and the snake.
"all human fantasy life involves objectification"
Lots of people say that, but I don't agree. If "Objectification" means "To present or regard as an object: 'Because we have objectified animals, we are able to treat them impersonally'" (to use the AHD definition No. 1), then I don't think that one inherently does that in being sexual or fantasizing about being sexual with another. A person with whom I am sexually intimate is not an object. I can see a person as a person, and interact with a person in a sexual way. In fact, I'm not really interested in any other kind of partnered sex. I can be sexual with a casual partner in even the most fleeting of circumstances and still recognize that what I am doing is engaging with another person in a collaborative project. Like dancing or making music, when one does it with a partner, one's partner has thoughts and feelings and views and moves and limits and agency.
I can make music with a piano, all by myself, and the piano is an object; it has no desire, no creative input. I get out of it what I put in. I can make music with a musician, and we collaborate. We labor together. We each get something out of our collaborator's input, and hopefully the sum is greater than the parts. Likewise, I can have sex with an object -- and frequently do. I have a Wahl Pro Series that has served my wife and I well -- so well that I've had to rewire the cord over the years. It adds nothing original or creative to sex; it just vibrates, and I can put it wherever I want. But any person, in my case, any woman, that I have sex with is still a person with thoughts and feelings and creative input of her own before, during and after sex. Even the women who are only in my head: I have never fantasized about women who are clockwork automatons. Even the women of my fantasies are people. They have thought and feelings and reactions and they make decisions and choices.
If I want sex with an object, the Wahl Pro Series is always there.
“But to the male, conservative religious leaders who control the shock-troops of the patriarchy's cultural committee, putting an almost literal fig-leaf on the objectification of women makes it okay. What they want is for women to be objects, but with a certain public reticence about sexuality that keeps people from really analyzing it and maybe having their own dangerous thoughts about it.�
Prior to the late 1960’s pornography was highly regulated. Not until the moral relativists on the left came along did it become widespread. Whatever is said about the �shock-troops of the patriarchy's cultural committee� they have proven themselves philosophically capable of restraining gratuitous sexual exploitation of women in fact. While the cultural left cant even agree in theory .
“But I'm not opposed to sex, and I don't think sexuality in and of itself is sinful or immoral, which seems to me to be the religious right's position, and so I'm not convinced that any legislation enacted with their aid, input, or leverage is going to be anything but harmful to us.�
Sexuality in not deemed “in and of itself sinful or immoral� in the Christian tradition. Rather itr is given a appropriate context, that is…inside marriage between a committed couple having its natural ends in childbearing. When it is removed from this natural context and made recreational rather than procreational in nature – we saw the widespread and wholesale objectification of women that was the sexual revolution.
"Even the women of my fantasies are people. They have thought and feelings and reactions and they make decisions and choices." - Thomas
I'm not sure if that is admirable, or delusional.
Thomas, I meant to argue *against* the idea that it's ok to take an objectification, impose it on an actual living creature, and use that as a justification for treating that creature in any manner one chooses.
If you've been married any length of time (we're on 9yrs now), I'm sure you've had the experience of fantasising (sp?) about something - not necessarily sexual - with or about your spouse, that in real life turned out differently. You seem like a sensitive, caring person, so I'm sure that you noticed that the reality was turning out differently from the script, and probably changed what you did. The cause of the mis-match between the fantasy and the reality, is that it is nearly impossible not to impose our subjective wants/wishes/worldview onto others in our fantasy life. And that's ok.
BUT, whenever we start insisting that the real people who share the planet with us act exactly like they do in our internal life, well THAT'S where the trouble is.
That's why I don't think the Playboy club is a problem *per se*. It's the extent that some people think that men and women should relate like that, and how best to minimize treating *anybody* like they are an object that concerns me.
Oh, and Fitz:
The availability of porn has waxed and waned through the years - often directly after periods of repression. You may recall the licentiousness of the edwardian period following the victorian era, or the "Roaring 20s" here at home, as examples.
I think a strong philosophical argument can be made that treating women as only worth their virginity before marriage, and their dutifullness and fruitfullness after marriage, is every bit as exploitative as being a playboy bunny.
dagnymeetsassisi
“The availability of porn has waxed and waned through the years - often directly after periods of repression. You may recall the licentiousness of the edwardian period following the victorian era, or the "Roaring 20s" here at home, as examples.�
No doubt, but why are these periods “repressive� rather than “pro-women� or “pro-human dignity�.
“I think a strong philosophical argument can be made that treating women as only worth their virginity before marriage, and their dutifullness and fruitfullness after marriage, is every bit as exploitative as being a playboy bunny.�
Yes it would be every bit as exploitive, I just cant figure who would hold this straw man as their standard of female worth.
Fitz, from the time when the Church sanctioned the kidnapping, rape, torture and murder of nonconformist women (who were called "witches") to the era we're living in, the Church has never restrained men's sexual abuse of women.
You are an antifeminist, and by definition part of the problem. You have nothing to add to feminist discussion, nor can you reasonably hope to persuade anyone in the readership of this blog. You're a pure troll.
As I stated originally Tom.
"If one of the goals of feminism was to keep women from being viewed as perpetually sex objects: then from any cursory perusal of popular culture it has failed miserably."
If it takes a "troll" to bring up this obvious and unassailable point, than feministing needs more trolls.
*sigh* Fitz, buy a copy of Susan Faludi, Backlash, reprint edition, New York: Anchor, 1992. It has already addressed and demolished the argument you're making.
Cheers,
TH
If one of the goals of feminism was to keep women from being viewed as perpetually sex objects: then from any cursory perusal of popular culture it has failed miserably."
From EG's comments:
I love that after thousands of years of patriarchy, continued objectification of women after a mere few decades of feminist activism demonstrates feminism's "failure."
Thought it bore repeating, Fitz. I whole-hearedly agree with EG. I'm not sure your argument really holds much water...
And a rousing ditto to EG, too! Can't believe I missed her comment the first time.
Cheers,
TH
Thanks, Tom and Coati!
"No doubt, but why are these periods “repressive� rather than “pro-women� or “pro-human dignity�."
Fitz, are you actually asking why the Victorian era, the era in which it was claimed that the ideal woman felt no sexual desire, in which women's clitorises were surgically removed to prevent them from masturbating, in which women could be committed to madhouses on their husband's say-so, and no property rights, etc. etc. was repressive? Are you...kidding me?
But, to answer the question you asked, because I see no reason to equate "using shame and socio-economic coercion to stifle various kinds of sexual expression" with being "pro-woman" or "pro-human dignity." By claiming that the church is pro-sex in its "appropriate" context, you're already assuming that the church's definition of "appropriate" is the correct one. I, and many others here, do not agree.
"Yes it would be every bit as exploitive, I just cant figure who would hold this straw man as their standard of female worth."
Sadly, fitz, I could name actual people who do this. Further, many churches and religious organizations, although they pay lip service to valuing male virginity, have a particular obsession with hymens, although they use euphemisms like "virtue" so you aren't quite sure what they're talking about.
Here's an example my mom shared with me the other day, and even though she's conservative and Christian it even struck *her* as a little odd (I think I'm rubbing off on her! ;)) -- she was talking to a friend about the tragic school shooting in Bailey, CO, and her friend said something to the effect of those poor girls being "ruined" because the gunner molested them. My mom thought it was odd that she said the *girls* were ruined, rather than their *lives* being ruined or something similar. And I think there's definitely a vein of thought even in modern society that a women "loses" something when she has sex.
My understanding is there's no medical reason girls *need* a hymen -- personally, I think perforation during infancy makes way more sense than things like male circumcision... maybe if people started doing that it could be a step away from the notion that something's "broken" when a girl has sex.
You know, TLF, going off-topic for a moment, I've never actually been convinced of the existence of the hymen. Not a single woman my age or younger I know has ever had one! Really--high school, college, beyond, I've never met a woman who bled the first time she had sex, or experienced any kind of "breaking" sensation. And I've never hung out with athletes. Even if it had broken prior to sex due to, I don't know, horse-back riding, surely one of my friends would have noticed blood that was not consistent with her menstrual cycle. What do you think is going on? I'm curious.
Fitz, are you actually asking why the Victorian era, the era in which it was claimed that the ideal woman felt no sexual desire, in which women's clitorises were surgically removed to prevent them from masturbating, in which women could be committed to madhouses on their husband's say-so, and no property rights, etc. etc. was repressive? Are you...kidding me?
Go to hell. You said exactly what I wanted to say, only with more concrete examples than I'd have provided.
I love that after thousands of years of patriarchy, continued objectification of women after a mere few decades of feminist activism demonstrates feminism's "failure."
Cultural changes take a tremendous amount of time. Political changes take a few years' or a few decades' continued pressure, and so do economic changes. Barring a major reversal of women's rights or prolonged stagnation, I think the West will become non-patriarchal by around 2050 (well, not completely, but in the same sense it's no longer anti-Semitic). But the cultural residues - the exact views of sex, for instance - will remain for much longer than that.
EG, at the risk of introducing TMI, I know exactly when and how mine broke, so at least some of us have them. I know that for me it didn't hurt, and neither did the first time I had sex -- I don't think it has to, contrary to popular belief. Rather, I think a lot of young women are pressued into sex to make their partners happy but aren't themselves ready for it, which leads to tenseness and therefore pain. But that's for a different discussion... :)
I've read about women who have horrifically thick ones that actually have to be surgically cut because even sex can't break them. Shudder. For those of us who do start out life with them, anyway, I kind of feel like it would be better for us to never have to think about it, KWIM?
You are an antifeminist, and by definition part of the problem. You have nothing to add to feminist discussion, nor can you reasonably hope to persuade anyone in the readership of this blog. You're a pure troll.
*applause*
If it's tacky and sexsist,it's coming back.:(
Fitz, you had a decent chance to play this right, and you botched it. You could know early on the general views of the people you were talking to; I've yet to see a single liberal talk about Catharine MacKinnon positively. So you could try and play this right, by talking in roughly the same language you could expect TLF and probably Thomas to think in: objectification, rape, sexism. If you hadn't snapped with your overtly pro-Victorian comments, you might have been able to pull this off, to have some serious-looking discussion before people realizing you're a Dominionist (which of course implies anti-feminism).
I don't know who here knows about your comments on other blogs; I don't even know if you comment anywhere but on Majikthise and now here. But you could have banked on me recognizing your name and getting pissed off enough to write about how radical feminists are more civil to Dominionists than to liberals. With any luck, you could have then spun it to mean that this entire blog is radical (which it's not).
You really need to learn to speak to people in their own language.
"Sexuality in not deemed “in and of itself sinful or immoral� in the Christian tradition. Rather itr is given a appropriate context, that is…inside marriage between a committed couple having its natural ends in childbearing. When it is removed from this natural context and made recreational rather than procreational in nature – we saw the widespread and wholesale objectification of women that was the sexual revolution."
This is the biggest pile of bullshit I've seen in a long time. So women having sex only for procreation and CERTAINLY NEVER for pleasure is supposed to be empowering??? Your use of the words "appropriate" and "natural" in this context show that you buy this crap...
Like many people said above, Victorian women were soooo independent and free... I'm no historian, but if you've read the tiniest bit of information about the Victorian era, you know that women in those days were a mere commodity, swapped between father and husband.
I know I'm a bit late on this debate, but I wanted to say that I fully agreed with dagnymeetsassisi's take on the idea of "fantasy". No matter how caring a person you are, the individuals who people your daydreams (not just the sexual ones, but also the ones you might have about going on holidays, winning the lottery, whatever) act according to your will PRECISELY because it's a dream and in a dream, everything always goes according to YOUR plan. That's the whole point of a dream.
Which brings me to the issue of magazines such as Playboy or Maxim. I don't think showing naked women for sexual stimulation is necessarily akin to objectification. I'm not against porn per se. I think the problem is the attitude behind it. I've never been an avid reader of either publications, but, like someone hinted above, I'd be inclined to think that Maxim is even more misogynist because it is part of a culture of mass consumption and general commodification of women. Today's pop culture (esp. in hip-hop, but I think it's spreading fast) is extremely demeaning to women, but mostly because girls are taught that looks are all that matter about them and because it seems that the old gender stereotypes are back with a vengeance.
Pfew, sorry if I'm rambling, but there was a lot I wanted to say.
PS: to chime in on the hymen issue, I can testify that I had one (once) and it hurt a bit when it broke because the damn think was quite tough. I've always been a bit jealous of the lucky ones who were born without.
"You know, TLF, going off-topic for a moment, I've never actually been convinced of the existence of the hymen. "
haha i can totally relate to that. i must not have had one, along with other girls i knew. but i know some people must have them.
i used to think the same thing about PMS...that it didnt exist. i never got it, nor anyone i knew and it always just seemed vaguely like something men would make up to keep women from doing things when they got there period (or keep women from doing things anyway, since they would eventually get there period). but some get cranky! (far from all as those advil commercials would want you to beleive)
How to enjoy a little titallating salaciousness but not broach over to the "dark side" of abuse?games