For the record, Playboy is considered a very well-respected literary magazine. The "I just read the articles" bit actually isn't as ridiculous as it sounds - it's a well-written magazine. For example, in Nat'l Forensics League debate tournaments, it's often utilized (by convention) as a 'primary source' for commentary, especially political - not on the same level as, but alongside, the Economist and etc.

Now - as far as Maxim goes, don't feel insulted for me - as a relatively intelligent man, I can appreciate it for what it is - escapism, pure and simple. It's appeal is on a level purely associated with primal urges - sex, beer, friends, etc. Guys need these things - these are what make us who we are, and while that might not make sense to everyone, it's the way it is.

Now come on you guys.....everyone (yes even women believe it or not) has the baser appetites in life. But there is more to all of us than that. That is the problem I have with Maxim.....I guess it is just the maturity level. I'm sorry but most of the men I know, while they love wine, women and song just as much as anyone else, do not operate at the level and language of that magazine. That's why I think Playboy is so infinitely superior---it appeals to the hedonistic side and pays tribute to man's (and sometimes women's) basic instincts but also exhibits some intelligence and sophistication. MAYBE (just maybe) my opinion is skewed due to my advancing age and the advancing age of the guys I hang out with-----I must admit, that Maxim is definitely representative of the inner workings of most of the guys I knew then!!!! I guess my bigger point would be that a lot of women I know who forbid their men to bring "girlie" mags into the house heartily support Maxim because there is no nudity. And to those women I say "DUMB!!!!!" First of all, who cares if he looks at pictures? What's the real harm? Do you think he's going to dump you and go off in search of Miss November? Please. Wouldn't you rather your man check out the girls of the SEC and then pick up some really cool jokes than read a lengthy treatise on How To Train Your Girl To Fetch Your Beer, Polish Your Bishop (ahem) & Clean House Like Your Mom And Then Cheat On Her Without Retribution....? WHICH brings me to a related topic.....ladies, what is your view on "porn" in general? Do you care if your man reads it? If so, why?

I think part of the beauty of Maxim is that it doesn't take itself seriously, and that it knows what it is. Honestly, you need an escape from serious thought, and Maxim provides it. It's beer, girls, cars, sports, and that's about it - and it's a good thing to just keep things on that level sometimes.

I have no problem with my guy looking at porn. It's curiousity...it's a stimulant....and hey! if he gets turned on, it works out for me in the end. :D

The only problem I see with porn is the type that is violent towards women. It's a psychological fact that the more men (or women for that matter) see violent sex, they more they think that coersion (sp?) is an ok way to get sex. We dont' need more people administering the date rape drug, using alcohol to get women into bed, etc....

Seriously though, I am envious of men and the magazine aimed at them. Maxim and Playboy are fun, (sometimes) intelligent, hedonistic reads. I mean, "Sex, beer, friends, sports, gadgets..." that's good stuff! When I read magazines aimed at women, I mostly see pictures of women and pretty much get told that I'm not perfect enough, not thin enough, don't flirt well, need to use X brand of makeup, etc.... Sometimes women just want to read about "stuff" too ya know!

My 2 cents.....

James,

This concept may be hard to grasp for some guys, but most girls don't really think very highly of other girls taking off their clothes for a mens' magazine. I'm sure there are some women who don't have a problem with it, but, for the most part, showing everything you've got in public is viewed as more than a little distasteful in society's eyes.

Sororities hold their members to certain standards; high morals is one of those standards. When a woman joins Delta Zeta, she is told what is expected of her by the organization up front. One of those expectations is that she will represent her sorority in a favorable way. If a girl doesn't want to comply with DZ's "world view", as you put it, then she doesn't have to join. No one is pressuring her to wear our badge.

If a sister decides to pose nude, no one is stopping her. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that DZ is going to view her decision poorly and take steps to remove her from the organization. We don't want someone to see a centerfold and associate DZ with a Playboy Bunny.

It's not a question of being "uptight" or "prudish" or any other derogatory term -- it's simply not the type of magazine to which the sorority desires to be linked. It's not the reputation we're looking for, and I think most reasonable people understand and accept that. To me, it's an admirable position to take and I respect my sorority for trying to uphold our founders' high ideals in this way. :)

As for "furthering the girls' modeling careers"... Quite frankly, that isn't Delta Zeta's job. We aren't a talent scouting service or a PR agency, and it isn't up to us to find a girl a modeling gig just so that she won't pose nude for Playboy. :rolleyes:

There's one big point here that needs to be addressed: there are many ways for a woman to get her modeling career going if she is dedicated and talented. Getting naked for Playboy is not a girl's only option.

I agree 100% with DZRose93!

You can do whatever you wish, but you cannot do whatever you wish and be a member in good standing.

Each organization gives you the tools to make better decisions, it's what you do with that information that counts! I wouldn't support someone in posing...definitly not a Greek and definitly not a KD!

Yeah. Maxim is fun, but its kind of juvenille. I only get it when I really like the cover. The only magazine I find completly repulsive is Stuff. It tries to be funny by being insulting but it just comes off like they're jerks.

ok, i dont see why a female posing in a mens magazine would get them kicked out of their org. To me, and this is just my opinion, it would be stupid. Its her decision. As long as she is holding up the ideals and being a member in good standing...who cares? We have to remember that most of our orgs. ideals go wayyy back to the mid 1800's and early 1900's, in a time where it where if women showed an ankle it was considered bad. Things have changed, and truthfully even though they might not admitt it, i think a majority of woman if asked to WOULD pose for playboy. Many of the pics I have seen have been very tasteful and who knows what she would do with all the money. I dont think it says your easy? If you think that someone is easy cuz they pose in a mag, arent you being a lil judgemental? And by this couldnt we also say that anyone who poses for a PETA billboard nude with just animals wrapped around her is easy (can already hear the Britney Spears comments....FORGET ABOUT HER, and think of all the others who have posed for PETA). I just dont think her org should judge her based on this. If shes been a good memeber she probably always will be no matter what she will do or has done.

I think that the difference b/w the PETA ads and playboy-type pictures are the way in which the women were photographed and what then the picture is used for.

You cannot deny Playboy is sexually suggestive and the PETA ad is not. Pornography is a totally different subject. Ads use sex to sell and playboyish pictures sell sex.

You can do whatever you want, but since you pledged membership to your organization, you should respect that vow and try not to embarass/disrespect the organization that has done so much for you.

so basically you want all of your members to be puppets and followers.

That is the same thing. Playboy uses pictures (sex) to sell a magazine, just like PETA uses it to sell animals rights.

I laugh when guys talk about the literary value of Playboy, Maxim, etc. Are they serious!!!! Playboy is published by a guy who brags he has slept with over a thousand women and routinely takes 4 and 5 to bed with him at the same time. Hefner should be the STD poster boy.

As far as porn goes, if a guy is single then I guess its his choice. But if I were married I would rather he save his "energy" for us.

On the other hand, there is too much date rape, etc. on campuses not to wonder whether porn plays some part by fueling male fantasies and portraying women as sex objects.

No Shultzz, I would hope that we all can strive to be honorable, beautiful, and highest.

If I wanted to be mediocre or join a group that didn't care if its members were of a caliber above the rest I wouldn't have become a KD.

ok, i see your point...

but tell me this.... how someone is direspecting them by doing that? If you can point out to me anywhere in the bylaws or a purpose where it says you can do that and its disrespectful, then fine, but i dont think they say that. I think its the THOUGHT by some that its wrong. Why isnt she stilll the high quality that she was before?

Im not gonna lie and say that playboy doesnt sell sex, it does. And to a point PETA is selling sex to say... hey, wearing fur isnt sexy. I mean you have to admitt that they could have found other ways where a woman or man was fully clothed to do that. But instead they used celebrities to show theyre sexy bpdies off. Have you seen them ask Camren Mayhiem to do one? Nope. And for for that matter Mademosielle, Cosmo, Vogue and etc. sell sex just like playboy does. Ive seen male bodies in Glamour posed just like some pics of women in Playboy.

You should have respect for your org., but your org. should have respect for you also. Why should they even become involved in business that they dont have to be in or belong in. No one is saying to her, het you have to tell us your an XYZ so we can put it in bold print. And do you really think ppl and the greek system as a whole is going to look down on an entire org., b/c some chick decided to pose in playboy? If it does, Im not sure I want to be part of it and itd be a sad day for the system.

Ok, So how is posing for Playboy and losing one's membership any different than a collegian getting an acting job which requires partial or full nudity. They film this movie on their summer break. Its released in the fall. They return to school. Everyone sees them naked in the film.

But... they have now also acheived a degree of main stream celebrity...

So...

Is nudity in "mainstream" celebrity ie: movies, television, theatre (ie" the blue room) MORE acceptable to a GLO than nudity in more "devient" forms such as Playboy, et al?

And really, how do they differ? They don't.

Playboy requires nudity.
So did the member's acting job.

Both are art.

Both are going to be "rated" R.

How is it different? Is it differnet? Why should some members be held to one standard while others are held to different ones simply because its better publicity?