- NND ---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.AlessandraSmile.com http://www.nambla.de
---------------------------------------------------------------
Playboy, hypocrisy, and the Age of Consent
It is a testament to how bad the Playboy channel is that I canÕt even
give it a proper review. I got it about two weeks ago. I hardly watch it.
Playboy was going broke at the end of the 1970Õs. I still remember
seeing an article in Newsweek titled, ÒTrouble in Bunny Land.Ó Things got
even worse when Hugh Hefner decided to build a casino in Atlantic City.
Instead of waiting for a license from the city, he started building the
casino. When the city turned down his request for a license, he was stuck
with a half-built building and no way to recover his costs. He had a heart
attack (which didnÕt help).
At about the same time Playboy began releasing Playboy videos. I
still remember the mystique attached to those videos. Various
prosecutors attempted (sometimes successfully) to have them removed
from video stores. They sold for $60.00, and I once stood in the snow,
outside a video store, staring through the window at a Playboy video box.
The year was 1983. $60.00 was way out of my price range, especially
since I had never yet owned a VCR, and didnÕt own a T.V. at the time either.
In those days, the idea of being able to get a T.V., VCR, and one Playboy
video seemed a fantasy, an impossible dream.
It was a fantasy for quite a lot of other people too, and fortunately
for Hugh Hefner those customers had more money than I did. Playboy
videos sold by the boatload. Despite HefnerÕs heart-attack, and his
worthless half-built casino, he managed to make a profit. A big profit,
apparently. Those Playboy videos just kept selling and selling, even at
$60.00 apiece, and Hugh Hefner, even if his bodily health was poor, was
doing great financially. The videos saved the Playboy empire.
By 1984, things were improving for me. I was back living with my
parents, and I signed our family up for cable T.V., paying for it myself.
What my parents didnÕt know was that in addition to signing up for
channels like Bravo (an arts channel), I signed up for Playboy too! When
my parents would go out of the house at night, to various church functions,
I would sneak downstairs to our living room and masturbate over the
Playboy channel.
Playboy was a great channel, in those days. I still remember
Electric Blue, a (feigned) sex program. It featured beautiful Playboy
Playmates pretending to have sex, usually in story-like situations
(professor meets student, man meets cheerleader, etc.). And then there
was Lisa Ann Pedrianna, not only in her awesome video but in the
Playmate Rafting Adventure! I actually gave myself groin pain, which
lasted for many years afterward, masturbating over that girl.
In 1988 I began to live the formerly ÒimpossibleÓ dream, actually
owning Playboy videos that I bought at a store (for a much more
reasonable $10.00. Later they went up to $19.99.) I acquired many
Playboy videos, featuring Playmates of the Month or other subjects, such
as Wet and Wild, Ultimate Massage, etc. Probably the best video I ever
owned was the first one I bought, featuring Sherry Arnett, plus the
original Spring Break video. The early videos didnÕt have advertising. Even
in 1988 I donÕt remember the Sherry Arnett video having advertising. But
later videos, perhaps around 1991, began to have advertising, and it
became a real problem. IÕd buy a video, get it home, and start it up. The
first thing IÕd see would be a very sexy ad for some other video, that I
didnÕt own. It would be such a great ad that IÕd rush back to the store and
buy that video. Then that video would start with yet another ad, featuring
yet another video. And when I actually watched the damn things, they
turned out to be boring.
The early Playboy videos, through about 1988, were great. After
that they became dull and repetitive, as if Playboy had run out of ideas.
The boxes the videos were packed in continued to be great to look at,
however. I would go to the store and gawk at the boxes, and even get
suckered into buying more videos. But gradually I learned not to look at
the boxes, since I knew what was inside was a waste. Today, even the
boxes are boring.
Meanwhile, about 1991 I subscribed to the Playboy channel again. (I
had last had it for only a month or two in 1984). It was still a pretty good
channel. I got to watch the Playmate Rafting Adventure again (from
1984), and some other 1984 videos IÕd missed the first time around. But
that was the problem. The old material, which Playboy was phasing out,
was the best thing on the Playboy channel in 1991. I donÕt remember
anything made in 1991 that was any good.
Now I have the Playboy channel again. ItÕs 2001. The best way I can
describe this channel is Òworse than ever.Ó All of the Playmate material
is gone. The channel airs endless videos, rented from Vivid Video, a porn
producer. These videos feature unattractive adult men and women having
sex. Occasionally a somewhat pretty ÒbimboÓ type female will show up in
a video, but the proportion of ÒbimbosÓ to junk females is low: you have
to wade through a lot of worthless ladies to find a moderately attractive
bimbo, whoÕs usually got a tattoo and is old anyway.
Currently Playboy is hyping a program called ÒNaughty Amateur
VideosÓ. The ad looks good. The show is awful. If you think the Vivid
ladies are bad to look at, try these chicks. Unappealing females do boring
things on grainy, poorly-shot film.
Then there is an animated show. ItÕs a pretty cool show. The
scenery is interesting Blade-Runner scenery and the girls in it are highly
attractive. But I didnÕt get Playboy to masturbate over Adobe Illustrated
babes, even babes enhanced with an airbrush. Unless you like jerking off
to Laura TombRaider (or whatever her name is), you can forget this show.
Another piece of trash on the Playboy channel is a game show. Night
Court, I think itÕs called. It apparently stars Julie Strain as the judge.
This show is totally worthless, unless you want to see clothed people
standing around on a vampiric Price is Right set, talking. Occasionally
someone takes off their clothes but everything happens with such glib
candor that thereÕs no thrill in watching this show. NobodyÕs a virgin,
everybodyÕs highly sexually experienced, and I think if you asked them all
to shit on stage they would gladly do it, making (un)humorous comments
the whole time, to clapping from a clothed audience.
Finally there is the travesty called PlayboyÕs Girls Next Door. This
show features only females who are 21 and older. In fact, the guidelines
for submitting a video to this program are as follows: you must be 21 or
older, you may not appear to be under 21 (so a 22-year-old who looks 20
canÕt even enter), you must be dressed in the video as if you are 21-or-
older, and you must conduct yourself in the manner of a person who is 21-
or-older. So the name of the show is in fact a lie. It has nothing to do
with ÒgirlsÓ. ItÕs strictly about women. Worse, we have to sit through all
those submitted videos. I saw one (very) cute female on this program.
Unfortunately she had a giant tattoo on her back. IÕm sure sheÕs been
having sex for at least a decade. Talk about used merchandise. IF she
likes you, youÕll be guy 3,349, and she wonÕt remember you a week after
she fucks you. (But sheÕll always remember her first.)
A show featuring only women 21-or-older is a far cry from the
pigtailed Playmates that Playboy used to feature in the 1960Õs. IÕm old
enough to remember the ambiance of Playboy in that era. Everything was
about youth, and Playboy was totally into the youth attitudes of the
1960Õs. I couldnÕt buy the magazine then, but I certainly lusted over it in
my mind. Today Playboy routinely features women who are 25, or even
27-years-old. It is totally disassociated from the youth culture. Its
concept of ÒThe Girl Next DoorÓ is now a flat lie. Playboy did finally take
up my suggestion of using rock music on the channel, but unfortunately
they show it during the ÒGirl Next DoorÓ videos. (After airing the girlÕs
submitted video, they show a Playboy-produced video of her.) While rock
music would be great as ÒintroÓ music for the channel itself, it is of
questionable benefit during a centerfold-type video. The centerfold is
supposed to be a time when you, the viewer, undergo the illusion of
actually getting to know the girl, on intimate terms, and fuck her.
Unfortunately the rock music destroys the ambiance of this romantic
atmosphere. It turns the girl into an unattainable icon, who is showing
you how (untouchably) great she is. Sure, sheÕs great. But IÕm not paying
to be told I canÕt have her. IÕm paying to believe that I did have her, and
ejaculated in her instead of in my fist.
The real travesty of the ÒGirl Next DoorÓ program is that it is
totally at odds with current law. What is this show, feminist propaganda?
On the Sundance channel you can see the movies Whatever and The Sent-
Down Girl, which feature girls who look and act and are stated to be under
18, having sex. In Tight magazine, you can see lasciviously naked girls
who are 18 but look 12. In books by David Hamilton, available at Barnes
and Noble and other fine bookstores, you can see naked 8 and 10 year old
girls. Is Hugh Hefner now upholding Christian values? In the 1950Õs he
was on the cutting edge of nudity. The postal service refused to send
Playboy through the mail, and he sued them and won. He published essays
in Playboy which helped fuel the sexual revolution. Today his channel has
sold out to Vivid, showing not Playmates but ugly old ladies (and men). He
has all these age requirements for his own programs, which no other
publisher has. He publishes a boring magazine with almost no nudity,
compared to other magazines, and which features women pushing 30. His
newsstand specials are so tiresomely boring that I quit even looking at
them over a year ago.
And, last but not least, I spent last fall following PlayboyÕs stock.
It kept going down. It had been going down for over a year and the whole
time I watched it down it went, more and more.
There is more bondage on HBO than on Playboy. Starting on April 7,
HBO will be showing a regular show about bondage.
There are more Playmates on Cinemax than on Playboy. The other
night I saw a fistful of Playmates on Cinemax, in some movie, and a girl
played around with a man, making him undress and using his tie as a whip.
Then they had sex.
There are more teenage girls on the Sundance channel, and like real
teenage girls who are under 18 in real life, they have sex.
There are more little girls on Disney, from the 1950Õs Mouseketeers,
to 1970Õs Lisa Welchel (later on the Facts of Life), to Brittney Spears (a
90Õs Mouseketeer), to Ashlie Brillault (on the 2001 show Lizzie McGuire).
So what does Playboy stand for? Ugly, boring Vivid Video people?
An animated show that belongs on Saturday morning? A tedious, clothed
game show? ÒNaughtyÓ videos shot by non-camera men featuring women
you wouldnÕt notice if they passed you on the street?
Now we come to the part of my essay dealing with the Age of
Consent. LetÕs re-consider PlayboyÕs 21-and-over requirement in the light
of various age of consent laws:
Spain age 12
Pennsylvania (U.S.) age 14
Hawaii (U.S.) age 14
Canada age 14
Italy age 14
Germany age 14
Ireland age 15
France age 15
Sweden age 15
Denmark age 15
Finland age 16
Britain age 16
Netherlands age 16
If you want to check my figures, read The Economist magazine, July
29, 2000, pg. 49. The ages above are for male/female sex. Britain and
Ireland have higher ages for male/male sex (18 for Britain, and 17 for
Ireland). The info for Hawaii, Pennsylvania, and Canada I got from sources
I canÕt remember. Now obviously the solution for all this is to move to
Spain and date 12-year-olds, but I expect more from a magazine like
Playboy. Instead of running articles condemning so-called ÒpedophilesÓ,
Playboy should be arguing that there is no such thing as a pedophile. It is
a feminist-created classification that has no basis in reality. In fact
males tend to like younger females, and females tend to like older males.
I have an article from a 1977 Playboy (when the magazine still attempted
to be sociologically relevant), saying that men are most interested in
young, reproductively healthy females. And females are interested in men
who have proven themselves to be successful in life, which naturally
means a male who is older than the female. Feminists, of course, want
the female to be successful on her own, so they pass laws that discourage
males from being with younger females, or females being with older
males. But that is just a feminist perspective, and feminism is rooted in
a disavowal of heterosexuality.
ÒWhen Cather seemed a promising candidate for the feminist cause,
critics had to work hard to find the supposed gaps and codes by which she
was thought to be signalling her disavowal of heterosexuality.Ó (The
Economist, February 24, 2001, pg. 88.)
HereÕs another interesting quote: ÒIf, as seems possible, children
are the victims of the liberation of women, how should governments
respond?Ó (The Economist, January 6, 2001, pg. 78.) The article
concludes by saying, ÒWhatever the impact of divorce on children, no
government is likely to deprive women of the freedoms they have won, in
marriage and at work, over the past 50 years.Ó
So we have an ideology that disavows the male/female relationship,
and that harms children (through divorce). It also kills babies, as a result
of Òa womenÕs right to choose.Ó This ideology, feminism, wants women to
succeed on their own. ThereÕs no problem in that, in itself, but this
ideology then goes on to create and enforce iron-clad age-segregation.
Then Playboy picks up the ball, writing articles condemning Òpedophiles,Ó
requiring its models to look and act over 21, and featuring 27-year-old
centerfolds.
Has Playboy gone mad? Is it expecting to sell the magazine to
lesbians? Is it expecting members of NARAL and NOW to subscribe to its
channel? Meanwhile even after 20 years of anti ÒpedophileÓ hatred, the
age of consent is still 12 in Spain, and 14 in various states in the United
States. Playboy should be in the forefront, pushing for more liberation.
The real problem with age of consent laws is that they are very broadly
interpreted, to include even looking at, approaching, talking to, or
ÒfollowingÓ (what a canard that is) people who are defined as ÒminorsÓ.
Meanwhile the ÒprotectedÓ minors, by the time they reach the age of 18,
have in fact had many sexual partners, and have been having sex since
junior high school. (And doing groping and other such things in elementary
school!)
It is time for Playboy to address in its pages the hypocrisy of such
things as age-of-consent laws. It is time for it to take on feminism for
what it is, a man-hating, child harming, unnatural ideology. I have never
had any problem with Òequal pay for equal workÓ, etc. Frankly, I wish all
the feminists in America would become Phd. engineers and astronauts. I
wish theyÕd build a giant spaceship and become the first women on Alpha
Centauri, and stay there! Why should men like Columbus and Neil
Armstrong be the only explorers? Let the feminists explore the
Andromeda galaxy! And they can take along with them male collaborators,
like Hugh Hefner, who support their gonzo beliefs.
30
--------------------------- Dreamgirls! ------------------------
LEGAL photo books and web sites under biased U.S. law:
-- More stories at: http://groups.google.com/ Search by typing:
roller666@earthlink.net Click on ÒPower SearchÓ
Change ÒstandardÓ archive to ÒcompleteÓ archive.
-- Other providers:
IFLC: http://assm.asstr.org and http://asstr.org
AnyaÕs LilÕ Hideaway: http://www.insatiable.net/
Silver: http://www.mr-yellow.com/goodies
The Backdrop Club: http://www.backdrop.com
Usenet Newsgroup: alt.sex.stories.moderated
-- Great art books by David Hamilton and Jock Sturges are at:
http://www.amazon.com http://bn.com (photos of naked little girls)
-- Naked little girls/politics: http://www.AlessandraSmile.com
Man/boy love: http://www.nambla.de Politics: http://www.lp.org
-- Naughty Naked Dreamgirls (Library of Congress ISSN: 1070-1427)
is copyright 2001 by Andrew Roller. Dreamgirls, Naughty Naked
Dreamgirls, and NND are registered trademarks of Andrew Roller.
All rights reserved.
-- Visit me at: http://home.earthlink.net/~roller666/index.html
-- Providers of sex stories which I have not yet visited (Òas isÓ info):
http://library.gaycafe.com/nifty/links.html