Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Playboy Launches Safe For Work Website

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the porn-now-without-nudity dept.

The Internet 98

If you're one of the three people in the world who actually reads Playboy for the articles, today is your lucky day. Every young boy's favorite magazine to find in their uncle's closet has launched a "safe for work" website. From the article: "TheSmokingJacket.com will contain none of the nudity that makes Playboy.com NSFW — not suitable for work. Instead, it'll rely on humor to reach Playboy's target audience, men 25 to 34 years old, when they are most likely to be in front of a computer screen."

cancel ×

98 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well... (0, Offtopic)

JustinRLynn (831164) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981170)

I only read slashdot for the +5 comments. Geeking out and squeeing as copyleft and open source take over is in no way my motivation.

Re:Well... (1)

KingPin27 (1290730) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982508)

"The internet is for porn"

Playboy w/o nudity? (4, Funny)

al0ha (1262684) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981184)

Er, what is the point? Oh that's right - everyone *reads* Playboy for the humor and interesting articles... (rolls eyes)

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (2, Informative)

JustinRLynn (831164) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981302)

Playboy has been doing this sort of thing for a while (this from 1994) [amazon.com] . T

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32981382)

I read Playboy for the LACK of articles (of clothing).

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (2, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981438)

I always thought Playboy's target audience was housewives who want to look progressive by buying it for their husbands, and their 12-14 year old sons who steal it from the mailbox every month. I don't know where this "24-34 year old men" nonsense is coming from.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982162)

I thought their market was people who didn't have access to the internet.

$60 per month extra for Internet away from home (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32984150)

I thought their market was people who didn't have access to the internet.

Given that Internet access on a laptop away from home or public Wi-Fi hotspots still costs 60 USD per month in the United States (Playboy's home country), the market for print is bigger than you might first think.

Re:$60 per month extra for Internet away from home (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987864)

I try not to look at porn when I'm away from home, so I guess I don't have that problem.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32986112)

I'm a 23 year old male who subscribes to playboy. For the articles. No, Seriously.

I have plenty of devices in my house capable of playing online porn (few computers, laptop, iphone, xbox, nintendo ds...), so I'm completely desensitized to the softcore pictures of playboy. Some of them are decent to look at, but nothing happens in the pants department.

On the other hand, they have some decent interviews and some AMAZING stories. Some of the comics are pretty funny too.

More importantly, it gives me something to look at while taking a shit, and in the end what more can a guy ask for?

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (4, Informative)

Scutter (18425) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981502)

Er, what is the point? Oh that's right - everyone *reads* Playboy for the humor and interesting articles... (rolls eyes)

Playboy used to be a great venue for articles from many famous and influential authors (including a quite a bit of original sci-fi), plus interviews, humor, reviews, etc. It was a true "men's magazine". It really wasn't just for teh bewbies (although that was completely awesome, of course). Since the advent of internet porn, they've been struggling to compete and the quality of their editorial submissions has declined dramatically. Nowadays, saying "I only read it for the articles" is just dumb and meaningless.

If they put their back-catalog of articles on that new website, I'd sign up in a New York second.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (2, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981634)

I can't comment on this article because I want to run for the Legislature someday.

No really I have no idea what Playboy is. But if you're looking for some good articles, subscribe to Asimov's Science Fiction. That's what I switched too after..... well.... just after.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

Scutter (18425) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981652)

I can't comment on this article because I want to run for the Legislature someday.

No really I have no idea what Playboy is. But if you're looking for some good articles, subscribe to Asimov's Science Fiction. That's what I switched too after..... well.... just after.

I can also recommend Asimov's Science Fiction. It's a terrific magazine.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982744)

I can also recommend Asimov's Science Fiction. It's a terrific magazine.

I second that emotion. Or third.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (2, Interesting)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#32983064)

No really I have no idea what Playboy is. But if you're looking for some good articles, subscribe to Asimov's Science Fiction.

FYI, Asimov had several stories published in Playboy - "Fire zone emerald", "The All-consuming", "Pizza man", "Sparring partner", and a few others.

Playboy also rejected the Asimov story "Stay, Oh fleeting moment" (which apparently remained unpublished), and Asimov wrote a satire on Playboy called "What is this thing called love".

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

tungstencoil (1016227) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982510)

You are so correct. Where are my mod points? Their articles are actually really, really good. They're varied, too - not always the same thing. Most actually had some depth to them (unlike most mens' magazines, like Details or Maxim, that give you a paragraph and two pages of pictures). Obviously, Playboy had dual-appeal - which is part of what made it sophisticated. The whole joke - "I read it for the articles" - came about BECAUSE of the quality of articles. That joke didn't start around Penthouse or Hustler for a reason.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

SpinningCone (1278698) | more than 4 years ago | (#32983152)

actually these days the articles are the only reason to even subscribe.

I received a few playboys last year and flipped through them. the pornographic element of Playboy is so tame/weak compared to what i have access to online (for free) that it seemed pointless. even from an artistic standard the offerings of the web are vastly superior in content quantity quality, availability and price

i can't imagine anyone actually buying Playboy these days strictly for its pornographic content

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32983526)

Yep, it used to feature more than just porn. Back in 1988 they featured an exclusive interview with Yassir Arafat, right at the dawn of the first intifada when everyone else thought he was a terrorist. But those days are gone and I don't belive any publication will be able to mesh pron, politics and technology-related topics ever again.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (3, Interesting)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981570)

Er, what is the point? Oh that's right - everyone *reads* Playboy for the humor and interesting articles... (rolls eyes)

Is there really any other reason to read it? I'm not being facetious: Playboy has neither the monopoly on nor is the best source of pictures of naked women.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (5, Funny)

blue_teeth (83171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32983074)

I read Playboy for the same reason I read National Geographic. To see the sights I'm never going to visit --- Anonymous

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32982070)

As much as this is a common joke, I was just reading Donald E. Westlake's novel collection, from which 4 novels were published in Playboy in different years.

Makes me wonder if I should start subscribing for the chance of finding such literary gems.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982534)

"Playboy... every young boy's favorite magazine to find in their uncle's closet"

As opposed to Playwithboys, every young boy's least favourite magazine to find in their uncle's closet.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982650)

Everybody who reads Playboy does so for the articles. But how many read it?

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (3, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982712)

Er, what is the point?

Playboy was the place I first read Nabokov, Cheever and many great modern authors too numerous to mention. Playboy was always about great articles. The titties were just icing on the cake.

Between Playboy and Evergreen Press, I got a great education in modern literature. On the downside, I was sixteen before I knew women had pubic hair and that not all nipples point toward heaven. And it came as quite a shock, let me tell you. I still have not completely recovered.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

wood_dude (1548377) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988622)

Yeah, that last thing you expect is to come face to face with a beard down there !

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

jon3k (691256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32983370)

No we all buy a magazine off of a rack at a store from some creepy attendant to see some chicks tits when I could literally watch a video of 20 guys jacking off onto half a dozen coeds for free without leaving my desk.

yeah makes perfect sense.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

myocardialinfarction (1606123) | more than 4 years ago | (#32983668)

The only good joke I know about Playboy (aside from the disgusting Joe Rogan routine which you should never, ever look up on youtube) is "I can't believe people say they read Playboy for the articles." "Why else would they? The pornography content is woefully inadequate."

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32983754)

Read the site, it's all soft porn, no nipples.. that's still definitely not safe for work, get your ass fired for looking at the good stuff instead :)

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 4 years ago | (#32984516)

I read playboy for the articles. Maybe I'll use this "safe for work" version for my porn?

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

RafaelAngel (249818) | more than 4 years ago | (#32985024)

Yeah, also, how exactly am I gonna explain an article entitled "How to Get Laid at Work"? I'm sure the higher-ups, female in this organization, are gonna love that.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

Ernesto Alvarez (750678) | more than 4 years ago | (#32985506)

No only that, it doesn't even have the in-depth articles.

From TFA:

The site, named after one of Playboy founder Hugh Hefner's favorite pieces of clothing (silkpajamas.com was taken), won't include the long interviews or in-depth articles found in Playboy.

It's like playboy without the content.

Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (1)

CaptDeuce (84529) | more than 4 years ago | (#33013978)

Hey! Where's the link to the "safe" Playboy site?

First SFW post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32981200)

The stinger [goatkcd.com]

Icon (3, Insightful)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981204)

Just this story icon makes this Slashdot story NSFW

yeah (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32981242)

yeah this is the Playboy SFW site: about:blank

Not safe enough for my work (5, Informative)

xaosflux (917784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981264)

"This site contains content from the following categories: Adult/Mature Content;Entertainment; and has been automatically blocked". It is distinguised from playboy.com (category:Pornography), but unless they can get the "Mature" label dropped this will remain just beyond reach.

Re:Not safe enough for my work (1)

lawnboy5-O (772026) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981724)

(jk) :P but that's what you get for working at a daycare center... (/jk)

Re:Not safe enough for my work (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981734)

Not to mention that explaining to the HR department that "its a safe for work playboy!" wont work too good.

Re:Not safe enough for my work (1)

Obsi (912791) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981922)

Giving up mod ability for this thread to comment.

e621 will be whitelisted before a so-called 'SFW playboy' is.

Re:Not safe enough for my work (2, Insightful)

tattood (855883) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982642)

Not to mention that explaining to the HR department that "its a safe for work playboy!" wont work too good.

HR's answer: You should be working at work, not reading Playboy articles.

Re:Not safe enough for my work (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#32990164)

And now you know why I keep a personal log of what everyone important at work visits while surfing.

Re:Not safe enough for my work (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#32984424)

Next time your boss acts immature, you can point out the irony that they block "mature" content and that it must have rubbed off.

Honest boss (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#32986636)

There's nothing adult or mature going on here at work. I swear.

I'm disgusted (2, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981308)

I work at the SEC, and this does nothing for me.

Tell that to the web filters... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32981318)

Looks like the site content categorizing service my office's proxy uses has it marked as 'adult', I imagine that will be the case for many others as well.

Safe for Work ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32981324)

Yes, with titles like: "How to get laid at work" I'd view it as totally safe for work........

Assuming you work in a brothel.

Re:Safe for Work ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32981364)

It's safe for work at Playboy.

Re:Safe for Work ? (2, Interesting)

bberens (965711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982538)

I can't imagine it's any less safe for work than Cosmo or the litany of other websites for women's magazines you see at the grocery checkout counter. Of course, it's more HR/socially acceptable to objectify men than women.

Re:Safe for Work ? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#32984478)

Fox News Anchors being the exception.

"I just read it for the articles" (2, Funny)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981326)

Uh huh. So I guess they will have about 2 visitors a month to this site?

Re:"I just read it for the articles" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33000946)

Uh huh. So I guess they will have about 2 visitors a month to this site?

Nonsense.

This will be great for the guys who just want to relax after a long day with a smoke-free cigar and a non-alcoholic whisky.

Finally (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32981376)

My childhood dream of looking at naked women with their clothes on is fulfilled.

rule 34 (1)

sv_libertarian (1317837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981474)

The internets. Now with clothed women!

From an article on the new site... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32981532)

As a rule, IT guys are a lonely, vindictive lot with a lot of time on their hands, as “network is down” is just code for “we’re reading your e-mails.” Electronic communication is the greatest thing to happen to office romance, but make sure the slow slog from innocuous queries to steamy declarations of raw want is conducted on secure servers, like Gmail or Facebook.

I lol'd and then I cried :(

Re:From an article on the new site... (1, Interesting)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982136)

...conducted on secure servers, like Gmail or Facebook.

So they know as much about technology as they do about what makes women attractive. (The Playboy answer: tattoos, a shaved gash, breast implants and lots and lots of Photoshopping)

Re:From an article on the new site... (2, Funny)

Flea of Pain (1577213) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982298)

So they know as much about technology as they do about what makes women attractive. (The Playboy answer: tattoos, a shaved gash, breast implants and lots and lots of Photoshopping)

Ya...I love a woman with lots of practice photoshopping too. Graphic artists rock my world!

Re:From an article on the new site... (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982594)

Photoshopping isn't erotic at all. Emacs, on the other hand...

Re:From an article on the new site... (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982968)

Troll?? Really? Wow.

"Men 25 to 34 years old," really? (4, Insightful)

Fulminata (999320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981548)

The last time I read playboy was about five years ago when I picked up a super cheap subscription for a year. The first issue I received had stories on Elvis. The next one featured Marilyn Monroe. Apparently Playboy doesn't realize that the baby boomers are no longer in their twenties and thirties.

Jokes about "reading the articles" aside, Playboy was once a great source for relevant articles, both fiction and non-fiction, but that ceased to be the case a couple of decades ago.

Re:"Men 25 to 34 years old," really? (2, Insightful)

lawnboy5-O (772026) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981712)

Indeed - and I believe with a little more digging you will find the writing is for a lower reading level than what it once was. It used to be well edited and written with decent prose - a decade or two ago.

Re:MAXIM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32982384)

Ironic and self-amusing that upstart Maxim has better articles and pics I enjoy more. ( I like my mind to do the final mile).

PS. "whorls" was my captcha

Unfortunately... (4, Insightful)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981716)

There used to be some interesting interviews and the like in Playboy magazing, in addition to the skin.

The problem is these articles on thesmokingjacket.com are written for morons. "Get Kinky in Your Backwards Robe" about having sex in a Snuggie. "Larger than Life" - does some chick with 38KKK fake boobs have the world's biggest fake boobs? "Can he survive without hairspray" about Jimmy Johnson's hairdo. "How to get laid at work". That sort of speaks for itself.

I mean, I was thinking a bit like Esquire, but this looks like CollegeHumor.com without the humor, mixed with one of those magazines your wife or girlfriend secretly likes to read in the checkout line but is too embarrassed to buy.

What about words/topics that are NSFW? (1)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981730)

There are a lot of things that are NSFW that don't contain images. Hate speech is NSFW, or at least it has been for my last three employers, as per their internet use policies. Many filters block sites that contain certain words. I haven't checked out the site, nor do I intend to, so I don't know what kind of content it has, but I can guess that it will still be NSFW.

I once ran up against this problem at an employer when I was using a search engine to help me find a solution to a technical problem. One particular hit appeared to have the answer I was looking for, but since it was a forum where someone posted a racial epithet, it was getting blocked. I asked the net admin to look into it, and that was what he found. He emailed the relevant text to me (sans epithet), and that was that.

Re:What about words/topics that are NSFW? (1)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982740)

did you feel liberated when you got your email?

A safe playboy (0)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981776)

Hey there big boy, you wanna look at my articlezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz !!!!

(slaps face to wake up to post comment)

I don't get it (1, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981880)

who wants to see that?

The meme: useless without pic is most appropriate here.

Obvious troll is obvious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32981910)

Tits or GTFO.

Three people? (4, Insightful)

thousandinone (918319) | more than 4 years ago | (#32981942)

Who honestly reads playboy for the PICTURES these days? I dunno about everyone else, but I find the myriad free videos available online to be vastly superior to any still image, much less the glossy airbrushed crap playboy brings to the table.

On the other hand, at least in years past, Playboy has had some phenomenal articles- both serious, semi-serious, and just funny. I know they used to run a jokes page as well which was always good for laughs.

I haven't actually held a playboy for a long time now, but my point is the same- why pay for stills when you can get video free?

Re:Three people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32982354)

This isn't related to the article, or directly to your comment, but it got me thinking. I don't think I'd buy a hard copy Playboy, ever again. I'm subscribed to their online offering (cyber club), and I have to say it's really quite nice - they have video segments, their full-length movies, and they're digitizing (at a good resolution) a lot of their archives.

I agree with you that, for cost comparison, their modern stuff has taken a dive. However, I can still browse through all the centerfolds back to the first issue, and the pictorials back through the decades (ever see the Barbarella photo shoot? They had that online for a limited time.). They even have some articles online from their older issues.

I don't mean to defend playboy, I can't even rate their current physical magazine since I haven't seen one in ten years. This new site is definitely a joke, but they've done some things right with their cyber club stuff.

Why We Run A Site Blocker (1)

Gallomimia (1415613) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982200)

Well Mister Jones, the corporate office wants us to run this outside web filter to increase productivity. If the company's primary slogan starts with "Entertainment" and the company's name is "PlayBoy" Why do you want to look at it while you're at Work, Man?

It's called a break (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32984256)

to increase productivity

People are supposed to visit entertainment sites while on break; that's why it's called a break.

If this is safe for work... (2, Insightful)

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982254)

I want to work at the company that would allow this as "Safe for work". Good grief.

Re:If this is safe for work... (1)

WRX SKy (1118003) | more than 4 years ago | (#32985948)

I concur! I checked this out the day it was launched and about 50% of the images on that site were severely NSFW.

Why does playboy still exist? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982336)

I suppose they broke new ground in the late 1950s, and stayed semi-relevant until the 1980s.

But now?

Re:Why does playboy still exist? (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982726)

I suppose they broke new ground in the late 1950s, and stayed semi-relevant until the 1980s.

But now?

I feel the same way about the USSR.

Might be safe for YOUR work... (1)

bbbaldie (935205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982356)

...but not mine. If I hit a single site that's not tech-related, I'm asked about it. Fortunately, there's some seriously entertaining stuff out there that Websense categorizes as "Information Technology!" ;-)

Re:Might be safe for YOUR work... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982616)

And you don't get asked about surfing slashdot all day?!?

Interesting way to keep things SFW: (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32982436)

The video's are filtered by geolocation, same as hulu.

Not using an American IP = 'This video is unavailable in your location.'

NSFW according to Barracuda (1)

0ddity (169788) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982612)

Our Barracuda web filters see the site as porn. Whether is its or not doesn't really matter to the management types around here. They see the report and the porn category is flagged. You can guess what happens next

This is tagged as porn? You're joking. Right? (0)

bADlOGIN (133391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32982640)

I know the US is permanently emotionally and intellectually scarred due to the impact of fucking puritans,
but calling Playboy "porn" is way over the edge. If Playboy is "porn", then looking at images of the
Venus de Milo must be considered "viewing amputee fetish porn"...

Worthless (1)

Lesser2Evils (1861406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32983060)

This thread is worthless without pictures.

Good idea, once again (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 4 years ago | (#32983236)

I said this about the Marge Simpson centerfold and I'll say it again: I think Playboy is doing the smart thing, as ridiculous as it may seem to most people.

The usual jokes about "who reads it" aside, who pay$ for it? No seriously, who pays money for pictures of chicks when there's a whole fucking internet out there that you can access for free? If I wanna see some boobies I can have them on my screen in a few seconds and no one is going to make a dime. I just can't believe there's much money in the photography considering how competitive that business is, and how low the barrier to entry is. If Playboy's business model is to keep going on trying to sell photos of beautiful women, they might as close shop, because this former giant is now nobody. Technology laid waste to their old market.

That leaves the non-nude content as essentially all they have. There's still the looming question of whether the "all they have," is good enough to sustain them, but it's their best chance. And if the nudes don't make them money but keep them out of parts of the market, then The Thing To Do is pretty obvious, as weird and non-Playboyish as it seems.

No data plan required (1, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32984272)

there's a whole fucking internet out there that you can access for free?

A print magazine doesn't need a $60 per month data plan.

Re:No data plan required (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 3 years ago | (#32991954)

IMHO (disclaimer: I am not marketing genius ;-) Playboy's target will pay their ISP long before they spring for a printed magazine. Girlie magazines are more luxurious than internet access.

But TFA is about a website anyway. It's premised on the user having network access. If the TheSmokingJacket.com can keep out of filters (both technical filters and prude mental barriers) which block Playboy.com, then creating TheSmokingJacket.com with the same non-nude content is a no-brainer. I don't know if it will be enough to keep them in business, but it's going to increase their profit.

Re:No data plan required (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32992166)

Playboy's target will pay their ISP long before they spring for a printed magazine. Girlie magazines are more luxurious than internet access.

Perhaps my point missed you. Playboy's target will pay for a home (not mobile) ISP before a girlie mag but may pay for a girlie mag before an upgrade from dumbphone service to smartphone service.

Desperate measures ... (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32983678)

What is today more irrelevant than playboy?

Playboy is a magazine for guys that want to masturbate. In the 70's, guys jerked off to pictures of tits, and playboy was very popular. In the 80's, they wanted to masturbate to moving pictures, and not stills, without the VHS-fucking goodness, playboy was less relevant. In the 90's, guys wanted to masturbate to moving, hardcore pictures, playboy became even less relevant. In the last decade, people wanted to masturbate to free videos of midgets dressed in little pokemon suites fucking their mothers with giant dildos shaped like bill clinton's cigar. Playboy still offers pictures of tits printed in dead trees.

They almost when bankrupt in 2007, and now they almost go bankrupt every day. This is just a lame attempt to reinvent themselves.

Re:Desperate measures ... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#32990134)

You really have no clue about Playboy, do you? If someone only wanted to masturbate, they bought Hustler.

For people who like good articles along with naked women, there is Playboy. There is no porn sight on the internet that also offers good articles and interviews.

Clearly, you have no grasp of style.

Re:Desperate measures ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32996772)

Hustler?

Gag.

Penthouse all the way.

Work?? (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#32983906)

I am not sure where they think people work. But at my workplace we WORK. And "Playboy", nude pictures or not, is not an appropriate work-related site for us, period.

Re:Work?? (1)

Yosho (135835) | more than 4 years ago | (#32984250)

We work at my workplace, too, but every once in a while we take breaks so that we can relax a bit. Surprisingly, productivity over time is much greater when workers aren't constantly stressed. During our breaks we are generally allowed to browse web sites for fun or even to play games.

There are still regulations on what we're not allowed to use the network for, though, and one of those things is pornography. So leisure sites in general are fine, but Playboy is not, which means that the site referenced by the article would, indeed, be work-safe.

Re:Work?? (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 4 years ago | (#32985914)

Surprisingly, productivity over time is much greater when workers aren't constantly stressed. During our breaks we are generally allowed to browse web sites for fun or even to play games.

Hell, at my work, I can stroll to the back of the clubhouse (leasing office with toys), cook up a burger and sit down and watch the big-screen whenever I want.

There's one employee here who never takes breaks or slacks. I get a bunch more done than the on-the-clock-no-relaxing coworker.

Re:Work?? (1)

baubo (1310237) | more than 4 years ago | (#32986266)

but...but they have work-related articles such as "How to Get Laid at Work" -- how can that not be work-appropriate? And the pictures of completely clothed white blonde women with ginormous breasts are very small! Seriously though, I read this article after visiting The Onion, and I'm not convinced that The Onion is not branching out.

mod 0p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32984296)

recr0itment, but [goat.cx]

Yes, ONLY for the articles! (1)

amohat (88362) | more than 4 years ago | (#32984908)

Playboy has better articles and features than it does naked models.

In fact, it makes no sense to get Playboy for the nudity. Sort of a ripoff, especially if you're not into big buxom blonde white women.

The articles are definitely worth reading, as far as magazines go.

Every issue has relevant and insightful political commentary, and one of the very rare publications that directly oppose police corruption and brutality. If nothing else, you ought to support them as a last bastion of sound and reasonable popular American politics...their platform very much aligns with the young progressive internet generation.

Should I go on? The playboy advisor is almost always spot on. They publish celebrity nip-slips, a fave of mine. Every issue has at least one serious non-fiction article, and usually a good fiction, too. Popular sports analysis and predictions...what the fuck do you want from a men's magazine?

Oh the Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32985572)

The following administrative alert was sent by WebMarshal.

A download to 'http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/07/21/1540224/Playboy-Launches-Safe-For-Work-Website?art_pos=7' was blocked for (deleted) on (deleted)

This action was triggered by the rule: Content Analysis Rules\TextCensor Rules\Block Offensive Content.

Additional Information:
File Name: D:\Marshal Data\WebMarshal\ProxyTemp\WM_31075_Playboy-Launches-Safe-For-Work-Website
File Type: HTML
File Size: 124 KB
TextCensor Matches:
TextCensor Script 'Pornographic Content' triggered with total weighting of 15:

Expression '(breasts OR breast) AND NOT (cancer OR anatomy OR physiology)' triggered 1 time, weighting 2

Expression 'adult FOLLOWEDBY (sex OR material OR entertainment OR links)' triggered 1 time, weighting 2

Expression 'boobs AND tits AND nipples' triggered 1 time, weighting 1

Expression 'fucking' triggered 1 time, weighting 2

Expression 'hardcore OR hard core' triggered 1 time, weighting 1

Expression 'nipples' triggered 1 time, weighting 1

Expression 'nudity' triggered 1 time, weighting 1

Expression 'porn' triggered 1 time, weighting 2

Expression 'pornography' triggered 1 time, weighting 2

Expression 'sex OR sexy' triggered 1 time, weighting 1

Smart move. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#32990060)

For those that don't read playboy, I highly suggest you read some of the articles and interviews. They are almost always excellent.

25 to 34? (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#32992526)

I thought it was for 70+! Doh! I suppose they have been aiming for the same age group for the past few decades - can't expect the magazine to grow-up with its original readership...

WORST IDEA EVER.... (1)

twebb72 (903169) | more than 3 years ago | (#32993308)

And I thought the New York Times paywall was a bad idea...
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?