Comments on: Playboy Magazine Covers

Playboy Magazine Covers

ColdChef — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:52:51 -0800

Every Playboy Cover Find the bunnies! (NSFW if they don't like you looking at Playboy Magazine Covers)

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:54:18 -0800

Also, check out your birth month.

By: o2b

o2b — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:59:19 -0800

I don't remember where I read this, but someone did a study of the monthly playmates, and found that when times were good (US economy-wise) playmates were slightly fuller-figured. In leaner times, they tended towards leaner playmates.

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:02:23 -0800

My birth month is depressingly safe for work. But what a superb post! I've been seeing (and even posting) unofficial Playboy catalogues for some time now - but this is the first that's official and feels right. Thanks, ColdChef - I had no idea you were interested in rabbits.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:03:51 -0800

Bunnies, my friend. Bunnies.

By: fedextruck

fedextruck — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:06:59 -0800

And then there's the argument against: "In launching Playboy, perhaps the smartest thing Hugh Hefner did was in establishing his personality as that of a witty, urbane sophisticate who enjoyed the company of many, many young women. After all, who knows how many fewer copies the magazine might have sold, had he instead depicted himself as a solitary masturbator?" - Tim Carvell, McSweeney's.net Turns out that Hefner actually IS just that.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:07:27 -0800

My birth month is great if you're a leg man.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:10:28 -0800

Hef may be a solitary masturbator, but as the Bible tells us: "Let him with the free hand cast the first stone." (Okay, I stole that from Dennis Miller)

By: i_am_joe's_spleen

i_am_joe's_spleen — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:29:04 -0800

That's a neat link, fedextruck. I doubt the author and I have very much in common at all but it is really thoughtful writing.

By: Slithy_Tove

Slithy_Tove — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:29:10 -0800

Um... some of us have a birth year and month not represented here... *cries* You know, compared to the current Playboy covers on the same page, many of those covers seem so innocent. Innocent. Innocent. As we've discussed before, Playboy was launched in the days when magazine covers were allowed to be whimsical and unpredictable, and didn't have to have a shiny silicone-augmented and Photoshopped supermodel rampant gardant, surrounded by headlines in san serif bold. *cries some more* don't mind me, I'll just sit here by the fire with these old scrapbooks, you kids go and have fun. *blows nose*

By: _sirmissalot_

_sirmissalot_ — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:44:10 -0800

i feel a strange connection to my birth month , almost as if it held some truth for me and my relationships. very odd. my life as a playboy cover.

By: crankydoodle

crankydoodle — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:48:29 -0800

Two things: 1) Remember that Playboy, like most magazines, actually releases their issues ~2 months early, so if you were born in March (like me), the magazine on the shelf at that time may have actually been the May issue. Just an FYI for those of you really nitpicky about these things. 2) From what I've seen most of the covers are perfectly SFW, but the popups that arise from viewing the page itself are definitely not! :)

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:42:19 -0800

"...who knows how many fewer copies the magazine might have sold, had he instead depicted himself as a solitary masturbator?" (with apologies to Neil Diamond) Don't know that I will But until I can find me A girl who'll stay And won't play games behind me I'll be what I am A solitary ~~man~~masturbator Solitary ~~man~~masturbator It kind of breaks the meter, but it's catchy.

By: Keyser Soze

Keyser Soze — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:31:58 -0800

fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap

By: LeLiLo

LeLiLo — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:59:26 -0800

Um... some of us have a birth year and month not represented here... *cries* That was my first thought, too, fellow old-timer. Then I realized that, judging from the covers I remember, I apparently was 16 or 17 before I even saw my first issue of Playboy. I presume that today it is perused by boys in kindergarten (perhaps when they're not studying anything else non-Christian.) many of those covers seem so innocent. Not having seen the magazine for a few years, I was struck by just how ugly and garish, and basically unappealing, the current covers are. In the old days some were even elegant, but now they're just pathetically crude. Most odd, I thought, was how many of the 2001 and 2002 covers have the words NUDE or NAKED in big letters on the cover. Are people really that stupid these days, that they have to be told on the cover that Playboy has pictures of naked women in it?

By: dgaicun

dgaicun — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:01:52 -0800

Good link CC. I scanned through every year. Impressions: I noticed that the issues from the 60's lacked, well, women, but they were stylish and clever. The 70's were by far the best ones. Not only are they clever and experimental, like the 60s covers, but they have the best looking girls of any decade, and they were far more risque than any decade before or after. By the time of my birth year (late Nov.) the magazine starts to slow down, getting progressively more 80's-ish. And the entire 80's decade is SCARY. The trailer hair, the thick, necrophilic make-up, the neon, animal printed, garish design patterns - literally, everything sucks. The 90's are just boring. How many times can you put Pamela Anderson on the cover? (and congrats for finally giving the spot-light to a black girl) 00's are just more of the same. Not stylish, creative or experimental or particularly sexy. indistinguishable from Maxim and all those other frat mags (and congrats on finally putting up an Asian girl). On preview: what lelilo said (he even used the word 'garish'!).

By: dgaicun

dgaicun — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:14:45 -0800

Here's a working version of my above link. Actually not exactly what lelilo said. I don't really find the new ones crude, just obvious. The earlier and mid seventies ones are far cruder. And wouldn't you know it, it makes them better!

By: Frasermoo

Frasermoo — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 03:15:12 -0800

My friend bought me The Playmate Book. I cannot recommend it enough.

By: vito90

vito90 — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 06:55:39 -0800

fedextruck's link above is absolutely well worth reading. It's from a Christian source, but even to somebody like myself who has a crushing obsession with smut, it's a fair piece.

By: mfbridges

mfbridges — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:26:04 -0800

but the popups that arise from viewing the page itself are definitely not! Popups? Those things are still around?

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 08:00:48 -0800

March 1986 is still one of my faves: Sally Field, of all people, in a Bunny outfit. *smiles*

By: Aaorn

Aaorn — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 08:28:51 -0800

Every Playboy centerfold, 1960-1999

By: Scoo

Scoo — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 12:34:11 -0800

Some of the covers look strikingly contemporary. Sad that they can't seem to get their act together graphic design-wise, but time seems to have passed Playboy by a long time ago....

By: Dick Paris

Dick Paris — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 14:16:57 -0800

I read it for the article titles.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:41:49 -0800

Worst. Playboy. Cover. Ever.