Marketplace
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
|
|
Fog/Mist ~ River stage: 33.68 Rising Saturday, November 21, 2009 |
|
Does Playboy want kids to be porn addicts?
Posted Thursday, November 20, 2008, at 11:49 AM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
An interesting item came across my inbox the other day having to do with Playboy — the company founded by Hugh Hefner that revolutionized the nudie mag industry.
This email was from a group that connects media with talking heads, geared primarily toward people who produce radio shows. It wasn't the source that got my interest, but the content. This email talked about a current controversy in which the Scottish parliament is taking Playboy Enterprises International to task for marketing products with the company's iconic bunny head to children. Check out this story on the issue from the the UK Sunday Herald. We're talking things like pretty pink notebooks, the kind you might see middle and high school girls carrying, and pencil cases. Apparently a Scottish clergyman even saw this merchandise in a Scottish store next to Disney merch. Disgusting, if it's true. So what's Playboy doing here? Trying to sex up young girls and make them sex objects for young guys? Truth is, high school girls are already sex objects in the minds of high school guys. But maybe these products go for a younger crowd. Does Playboy's marketing of these products harm young people, or is it just a sign of how free we've become about sex in modern society? Are they really targeting young people, or adults? The company says it's concerned about the controversy and wants to address the problem, and the company says it agrees that Playboy merchandise shouldn't be displayed next to kids' stuff — the mistake was made by the stores. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Matt Sanders, former arts and entertainment editor and reporter for the Southeast Missourian, was appointed editor of the paper's online operation in 2008. In his blog Extra Edition, he gives readers an extra dose of news they won't find in our print edition or elsewhere on our Web site, and gives them a glimpse of the operation of the new seMissourian.com.
Hot topics Web page makes issue of race, cover of Cape Girardeau County prosecutor's book(  9 ~ 9:47 AM, Nov 19)
A push to ban smoking in public in Cape Girardeau
Limitations on electronic media at the Gingrich/Dean debate
Some multi-million-dollar Cape Girardeau road projects subject to your vote
Washington school: Southeast continues to change Cape Girardeau landscape
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
I'm having a hard time believing that it was the stores who messed up by putting the merchandise next to children's stuff. That's really a sad and pathetic excuse.
Sounds like it was the store's issue, not the magazines. Even if it was, however, I still don't see the issue here. People have various responses to the morality of Playboy, but the truth is that the little bunny is one of the most widely recognized and selling logos in the world. People may always associate it with "Playboy" but not necessarily as a "porn" logo. I firmly believe it has moved beyond that and has become a pop culture symbol independent of its creator.
Taking them off shelves isn't going to somehow shelter kids from it. The logo is too well-known for that, and the people who claim teens are somehow influenced by them probably failed basic psychology and probably parenting in general. Sure, keep it away from the Disney toys and Barbies if you absolutely have to, but it's really no different than BEBO, Aeropostle, or any other brand name at this point. In fact, if you want to deal with the sexualization of women, you have more to blame from Barbie and BRATZ than Playboy.
Matt, I thought in your libertine world, anything goes and if you don't like it, don't attend the disgusting play or movie, just turn the channel from the disgusting television show or don't buy Playboy's disgusting products. Why are you trying to keep these kids from expressing themselves?
Sexually explicit items, including items with the Playboy logo, should not be marketed to young children. I don't mean high school girls who are beginning to understand their sexuality, I mean young girls who still watch The Backyardigans. They are not emotionally mature enough to understand sexual attention.
Weszor:
Just wanted you to know people are flagging your comment. Apparently they think you're rather inappropriate, though I just think you're being sarcastic.
BTW, anyone see any similarities to Joe Camel in this?
Weszor is exactly right. Turn on most nightly television shows. Take a look at Barbie and her physically impossible dimensions. How about magazines like Cosmo? Every one of these sources contribute to create a bogus image for girls to try to live up to. I don't think this Playboy thing is right, but you people who think Playboy is solely to blame for the sexualization of young girls, you're seriously misguided.
And people are flagging Weszor's comment? I really didn't think it was all that out of line...
Saying that the Playboy bunny logo turns kids into porn addicts makes me wonder if I've been reading the magazine incorrectly all these years... and here I've been wasting my time looking at breasts when the real action was a generic corporate logo.
So many wasted hours... <sigh>
Playboy should be able to use their brand however they deem fitting. If Disney wanted to market a line of Mickey Mouse cigarettes they should have the right to do so... does it make sense, no, but it's their decision to make.
Parents should be the ones helping to guide their kids into not being associated with things they find offensive. Once they are 18, they should hopefully be taking the guidance you gave them and doing something positive.
I know, too logical.. I don't expect a society who buys their kindergarten age daughters thongs to understand this either.