He continued, “The magazine becoming never-nude is heartening for anyone who cares about the media’s constant objectification of women. Playboy had helped swing the door wide open, and what followed was a flood of ever-degenerating filth, often at the primary expense of women.Īccordingly, Max Benwell’s article on the UK’s Independent site in was titled, “Why you should be worried about Playboy dropping naked women from its pages,” with the subtitle reading, “This isn’t a clear moral victory, but yet another reminder of the huge power wielded by mainstream pornography.”īenwell noted that when Playboy dropped nudes from its website in August, 2015, that “caused its traffic to quadruple.” People were now drawn to the articles and not distracted by the relatively benign pictures. Pornography of the most sordid kind was freely available everywhere, so who needed pictures of nude women in Playboy? Porn was now ubiquitous.
It was abandoning these pictorials because society had become so immoral that Playboy’s relatively mild pornography was no longer a draw. Playboy was not abandoning nude pictorials because society had become more moral. In a world like that, Playboy is redundant at best and embarrassing at worst.” And remember: it was a supporter of nude pictures who wrote this. we live in a world where all the world’s porn is like three mouse clicks away, and most of it is totally free. But from the standpoint of moral values, this was actually bad news, not good news.Īs one supporter of nude photos explained, “. After 62 years of featuring nudes, Playboy was no longer going to display pictures of naked women in its magazine.