I must write in response to a comment made by DJB on my last post about thoughts on why more people don’t get choose to get paid to be naked.

Sure, many women wouldn’t want to be looked at “that way” but I believe it’s more about the person doing the looking than the person doing the posing, as to how the image is viewed. Besides, there is a huge difference between being paid to pose nude for Playboy and to pose naked for Penthouse or Hustler.

I must be honest and say that, even as a straight young woman, I’ve grown to love Playboy for the pictures. (I’ve never read a Playboy article in my life!) My interest started when I found a late 1970s Playboy compilation book with shots of all centerfolds over 25 years. To see how the views of beauty have changed so significantly over time is amazing. Playboy is such a study of what society finds most attractive during the specific time period the magazine comes out. Any of you who have some old Playboy issues laying around, pull them out and take a look at the difference over time. It’s truly amazing and almost mind-boggling how societal views of beauty change so significantly.

Most Playboy shots are done in a completely tasteful manner, especially versus other magazines that are out there, and I recently purchased the Playboy Celebrity book because I am fascinated with the way they make well built, voluptuous girl-next-doors look like absolute supermodels. To me, despite the gobs of makeup done in traditional Playboy style as of late, the celebration of the natural form and women at their most beautiful (and NOT stick-figure) is outstanding to see. Of course, yes, women’s beauty can be celebrated clothed as well, but there’s something to be said about the aesthetic beauty of the female form.

Just my two cents. I’d pose for Playboy — but more 70s style Playboy shots with the big hair and natural lighting — if I were built for it!

Stumble It!