Home Contact New York News Photos 1 2 Reviews Sports Web Finds
Your Host
Site Tools
Categories
Archive
Greatest Hits
Photos
Interviews
Search



PaulKatcher.com
All of Web
Tuesday, February 4, 2003

Review: Playboy Magazine
It is with great sadness that I post a fond farewell to a friend that's been with me, like a period, every month since 1996. The final issue of my current Playboy subscription arrived and I *sniffle* *sniffle* have already decided that it's best we no longer see each other. The reason: not enough celebrity ass.

I never got Playboy for the articles. I got it because there were pictures of naked women in it and, most importantly, pictures of naked women that I could not see anywhere else. Now, with a DSL connection and access to approximately 1.5 billion pictures of naked women online, there is no need for Playboy, unless it capitalizes on its ability to lure never-before-seen-nude celebrities to pose.

There was Kim Basinger in February 1983. Madonna in September 1985. Cindy Crawford in April 1993. Elle MacPherson in May 1994. Shannon Elizabeth in August 1999. Hell, I even thought the Dian Parkinson and Downtown Julie Brown shoots were hot. And then came the Jump the Shark moment for which I will never forgive Hugh Hefner: WWF's Chyna, a man with fake breasts and thighs that could choke an ox, who posed not once (November 2000) but twice (January 2002). I have not accepted a single one of Hugh's party invites since.

Playboy and I have been through a lot together. Kleenex, especially. And I've got to hand it, quite literally, to Stephanie Seymour, Paula Barbieri and Donna D'Errico. But the last few months have brought Clint Eastwood's daughter, the naked-everywhere Jordan, the few decent-looking Enron and WorldCom women and "The Sexy Ladies of Latin TV." I didn't even know there was Latin TV.

I'll miss the Playboy Advisor, but not the wine questions. I'll miss the interviews, but only the ones with athletes and comedians. And I'll miss the "Next Month" page, which I would check first, ironically, to see if I could look forward to seeing Charlize Theron (May 1999). Alas, it was usually a promo for the next OK-looking college feminists of the Big 12.

Where the hell is Kelly from Real World New Orleans? Where, pray tell, is Jules Asner? Jennifer Garner? Jennifer Aniston? Is Elizabeth Hurley too much to ask? They should have an entire department working on securing a "tasteful" shoot with Britney Spears. Instead we're supposed to be impressed with another pictorial of Pamela Anderson, like I haven't seen her naked. Or sucking off a rock star ... twice.

So long, Playboy. Thanks for the mammaries.

(By the way, the Charlize Theron issue is going for quite a price on eBay. I've never thrown an issue out. Time to cash in.)

Category: Quickie Reviews | Permalink | Post a Comment (14)


Comments: Review: Playboy Magazine

WTF? No mention of the Dahm triplets? Or a gold-covered Farrah? What about the reliable Jessica Hahn or Darva Conger? Hasn't Hef pulled us all out of sticky situations before? Where's the loyalty?

We need to keep the subscribers' numbers up so Hef can continue to afford to lure in the big fish (Britney, Christina, Shakira, Jeri Ryan). Paul, if you and others stick around for a couple of more years, we can all push for the highest paid modelling gig in history; a nude photo layout of the Olsen Twins. Now, I don't want to get all Pete or PeeWee on anyone, but those teeny-boppers are smokin'!!

Posted by JC at February 4, 2003 9:43 AM

The okay looking feminists of the Big 12?

Seriously.

If New York women looked as fine as those ladies, you wouldn't spend so much time jizzing on your keyboard.

Kansas Rocks!

Posted by gjoe at February 4, 2003 10:19 AM

I am with you, but I just keep on renewing my subscription year after year after year, even though it basically sucks. I don't even want to know how many years' worth of back issues I have in storage.

Playboy needs to get into the 21st Century, they are losing subscribers like those in their 20s and 30s, while continuing to only appeal to older readers (I'd like to know the average age of subscribers, it must be over 40 or more).

And shame on you guys BIG TIME for forgetting Jenny McCarthy!!!

Posted by kevin at February 4, 2003 11:09 AM

Wasn't the Madonna issue the last one that used staples?

Posted by Yummy at February 4, 2003 1:15 PM

you know, it's funny...but i never heard a woman say "i read PlayGirl for the articles." - then again, i don't know that i hear many WOMEN say that they read PlayGirl.....hmmm.

Posted by jen at February 4, 2003 2:11 PM

There's articles in Play Girl? Must be a new feature. ;)

Posted by Yummy at February 4, 2003 2:16 PM

I agree with GJOE, Kansas is a great state, however alas I am going to argue that your adventures are on a different plane than the great plains that I stare at compared to the scenery you get to view around the New York bars.

Posted by nels at February 4, 2003 5:29 PM

I did not forget about Jenny McCarthy. She got less and less attractive the more she opened her mouth on TV.

The ones I missed were Brooke Burke and Kiana Thom. Without acting careers, they had only one outlet to show their stuff, and that was Playboy.

Every downturn to a hot chick's acting or music career should be celebrated with a six-pack of beer. It means the pictorial is only two years away. So, everyone, leave those Britney Spears CDs on the shelves. Don't buy the posters. And reap the rewards in due time.

Posted by Paul Katcher at February 4, 2003 5:42 PM

I recently got a subscription (it was something like a buck an issue) having not seen an issue since I was about 17, and was somewhat disheartened to find that the mag had not changed even one little bit from that time, or from the issues at the bottom of my dad's bottom drawer (oh, Miss Lorraine Michaels, April 1981, where hast thou gone?), or perhaps since the dawn of time. Same layout, articles, fonts, cartoonists, Leroy Neimann doodles, et cetera. You're right, Paul. Am I supposed to get excited about Clint's daughter or the old Buffy or a bunch of random "co-eds" (yes, they still use the term)? Hell, in age when nubile nudity is practically a public utility, they're gonna have to do more to get even my measly 12 bucks.

Posted by Ken Goldstein at February 4, 2003 9:56 PM

Playboy shows nuthin' but plastic women. Haven't seen pubic hair in a decade. Come on! The franchise was built on "the girl next door." The girl next door doesn't use a swedish bikini wax.

Posted by meistergoat at April 5, 2003 2:37 PM

I come from a different side of things...But I do have to say that it (Playboy) has lost sight of what the public really wants to see. I don't think it is showing pink or getting 2 girls together...but I personally think the Cindy Crawford and Elle ...photographed by Herb Ritts...were the most alluring, sexy and "girl next door" layouts. I think show nudity has become so open that you need to do it in a way that guys like you will want to keep looking. And I do think that plastic seems to be a requirement...too bad, I know some beauties that aren't Bleached and Boobed. Oh well, there are always back issues to look at and remember!

Posted by Donna Perry at October 4, 2003 5:19 PM

I agree that playboy only shows women that dont exist. I feel as though that this magazine gives men a false sense of what real women look like. After all, all you see is blondes and they look the same after a while.. Why is that you never see any red-heads getting playmate of the month. I agree that Jenny Mccarthy is beatiful but she not real and neither is Pam Anderson. I am a red head and I feel as though I stick out like a sore thumb because it's not accepted as the same as being a blonde..

Posted by krissy at February 16, 2004 2:09 PM

I am looking for a cartoon: about 1982 or there abouts issue. a picture of a young girl on top of a man, attempting intercouse, and the mother is trying to guide the penis into her daughter. and the daughter says: "please, mother, I would rather do it myself" where would I be able to obtain this page/issue?
thank you for your help, therese.

Posted by therese lulf at April 19, 2004 10:20 PM

So here are Britney's crotch pics:
http://www.britneyexposed.org/Britney_Spears_in_playboy_magazine.html

Posted by meranos at December 29, 2006 1:39 AM
Post a comment
















Fark.com
- [Interesting] Crips and Bloods still keeping it real ... in New Zealand. Wait, what?

- [Amusing] Police searching for teeny tiny gang of horse thieves after 28-inch pony stolen from field (pic)

- [Photoshop] Photoshop these ancient columns

- [Asinine] From the Department of Redundancy Department: Texas issues a report declaring that Texas has too many reports. Bonus: Report is 668 pages long and took 18 months to compile

- [Hero] Woman on crutches rescued from rapist by five bystanders (With scary mugshot goodness)

Yahoo! News: Most Popular
- Doctors: No hamsters or exotic pets for young kids (AP)

- Mortgage forgiven for woman, 90, who shot herself (AP)

- Economy creates surge in homeless Mass. families (AP)

- Tama is the purr-fect antidote to financial gloom: study (AFP)

- European, Asian markets plunge on crisis fears (AP)

Yahoo! News: Sports News
- Phillies power into NLCS with 6-2 win over Brewers (AP)

- Napoli helps Angels beat Red Sox 5-4, avoid sweep (AP)

- White Sox beat Rays, close playoff deficit to 2-1 (AP)

- Single wing helps surprising Dolphins stun Bolts (AP)

- Portis' 145 yards rushing leads 'Skins past Eagles (AP)

Web Friends
News
Sports
New York City
Sex
Internet
Guitar
Powered by Movable Type 3.31.