Simpson poses nude for Playboy

[Chris3123]

No, not Jessica Simpson. Not even Ashley Simpson.








Marge Simpson. I kid you not.

Here's the cover: (don't worry mods, no naughty bits shown)

Oh, BTW, from the article:

New CEO Scott Flanders said the idea is to attract readers in their 20s to a magazine where the average reader's age is 35.

Heh.

 

[tharpdevenport]

If this is real, and any guy here buys it and wanks off to it ... you shouldn't be allowed to have a penis.

 

[Michael]

You know, I wish some people weren't allowed to post their nonsense.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

It's not like we haven't seen her naked of course. Oh, wait...

Interestingly... this part of the article makes a bit of a mockery of this here thread title:

Marge isn't going to bare all, though, as the magazine said there will only be "implied nudity" in the three-page pictorial.

"Implied.... or implode?" [Mom, make him stop! - Lisa]

 

[Robert Maxwell]

 

[Kegg]

So, this is the market strategy:

Attract younger customers by showing nearly-naked pictures of a cartoon woman for cash, when those people could just as easily get more graphic porn of the same woman for free on the internet (should they, you know, be so inclined.)

Am I missing something here? Is it the sheer novelty factor that's supposed to spur that impulse buying?

 

[Starbreaker]

You know, I wish some people weren't allowed to post their nonsense.

Did you find this offensive or something?

 

[iguana_tonante]

I think it's funny.

 

[Michael]

Did you find this offensive or something?

Not at all. I actually think it's a rather cute idea. That was just my reaction to the non-sequitur of the preceding poster.

 

[TemporalFlux]

And in the next issue box:

Bare Naked Ladies!

But all you get is this.

 

[SeerSGB]

Rule 34 man, Rule 34

Of course we all know Lois Griffin would go all the way. none of this "implied" nudity BS

If this is real, and any guy here buys it and wanks off to it ... you shouldn't be allowed to have a penis.

You know someone will.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

So, this is the market strategy:

Attract younger customers by showing nearly-naked pictures of a cartoon woman for cash, when those people could just as easily get more graphic porn of the same woman for free on the internet (should they, you know, be so inclined.)

Am I missing something here? Is it the sheer novelty factor that's supposed to spur that impulse buying?

Yeah, the folks are Playboy are failing to understand why their wares don't appeal to the under-30 crowd.

Nobody wants to pay for porn when they can get it free on the Internet!

 

[SeerSGB]

Well there is more to Playboy than that...used to be anyway. Good lord Ray Bardbury and Asimov both have wrote for the magazine-- for an example. Playboy has, for the most part, always been about the "Playboy lifestyle" and people aren't interested in that much anymore.

 

[sidious618]

I was really hoping it'd be Jessica Simpson but since it just had Simpson in the title I had a feeling there was a twist coming.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Of course we all know Lois Griffin would go all the way. none of this "implied" nudity BS

Lois Griffin would be on Brazzers.

 

[mrcoaster]

No, not Jessica Simpson. Not even Ashley Simpson.

Marge Simpson. I kid you not.

Heh - I didn't even need the "Not her, and not her" bit. When I saw your thread title, the first thing I thought was, "Well, it probably isn't Homer since it's Playboy, so that would be Marge."

Sure enough, that was right. I haven't watched The Simpsons in about five years or so, so it isn't like I am constantly thinking Simpsons.

 

[Christopher]

Well there is more to Playboy than that...used to be anyway. Good lord Ray Bardbury and Asimov both have wrote for the magazine-- for an example. Playboy has, for the most part, always been about the "Playboy lifestyle" and people aren't interested in that much anymore.

Yeah. Playboy isn't porn. It's glamour photography of nude or semi-nude subjects. It's just not in the same category as magazines like Penthouse or Hustler.

 

[ToddPence]

When I saw the thread title and the first two lines, my thought was "Please don't tell me it's O.J."

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Well there is more to Playboy than that...used to be anyway. Good lord Ray Bradbury and Asimov both have wrote for the magazine-- for an example. Playboy has, for the most part, always been about the "Playboy lifestyle" and people aren't interested in that much anymore.

Yes. Once upon a time Playboy was known for its journalism, its interview most notably, and its short fiction, and previews of novels in addition to having better than average glamour photos of hot young things. 'Course, I haven't read the damned thing since they interviewed Christian Slater like fifteen years ago.

I still enjoy occasionally digging through an old one and reading an in depth interview with someone who matted greatly at the time, reading a preview of Fleming's "upcoming" Bond novel, or even seeing what sort of look was had by a grand beauty in 1967.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Playboy was once the single greatest short fiction market in America, even over The New Yorker. That was long time ago.

Of course, Penthouse once had great journalism, too--along with photos that were erotic in a way Playboy couldn't touch and artistic in a way Hustler wasn't remotely interested in. Hell, Penthouse spawned Omni, one of the greatest SF magazines that ever existed.