‘Playboy’ will get you naked — whether you like it or not
I highly suggest reading this piece from The Sexist, which details the pressure and coercion that went on at Olivia Munn’s Playboy photo shoot. Munn, an actress/model who most recently was in the news for her gig as a correspondent on The Daily Show, was asked to be on the cover of Playboy. She said no, because they wanted her to be nude. They said she could do it non-nude, so then she said yes.
Then she showed up to set and was berated and pressured into going nude the entire time, despite the legal contract between herself and Playboy that outlined what poses she would do, what she would wear, and how much she would show:
When Munn insisted that this was a “non-nude shoot,” the stylist told her that in Playboy, “you show everything!” Munn says she felt “woozy” explaining her contract and “tried to understand what the hell was happening.” The stylist then told her that the photographer “says all nude today for Playboy. It’s Playboy!”
This immediately reminded me of Kim Kardashian’s Playboy shoot, which was documented on Keeping Up With the Kardashians. She agreed to the Playboy photo shoot with the condition that it not be nude and was also pressured to show more skin than she was comfortable showing.
“I’m sorry I did Playboy. I was uncomfortable,” Kim told Harper’s Bazaar. At the urging of both the Playboy crew and her mother, she revealed more than she wanted and later regretted doing it completely. Do some people not see the big difference between side boob and full on topless, or is it that when you agree to be in Playboy there’s a silent understanding that you’ll give up any and all rights to make decisions about your body?
Playboy uses both its power as a brand and its stereotype as a magazine with nude pictures to get women to go nude regardless of their preference. The crew makes these women feel dumb for even suggesting not taking their clothes off — you came to a Playboy set, how cute that you thought you wouldn’t be naked!
And these aren’t unknown women who are trying to catch their big break — these are women with established careers. These are women who had already been introduced to Hollywood and had publicists on their side — yet they still both were shaken and hurt by the intense coercion that happened on set. Neither buckled and went fully nude, but Playboy was obviously banking that, despite the contracts that were signed, they could convince the women to go nude once they arrived on set.
It shows both that A) Playboy is even sleezier than people give it credit for, as it disregards the wishes of the women being photographed and tries to pressure them to go further than they want to, a la Girls Gone Wild; and B) no women are immune from this, as women with their own entourage and publicists and people to back them (unlike an unknown who can more easily be tricked and confused by the powerful company) are eyed as prey, likely because getting them nude means more magazine sales.
I’m sure Playboy will say that posing nude is a very uncomfortable thing to do in the first place, so the encouragement is necessary so the women move past their fears, insecurities, or nerves. Except, when you sign a contract and acknowledge the photo shoot will be non-nude, that “encouragement” shouldn’t happen. Either these men think they know what’s best for these women — obviously they can’t think for themselves, I mean who wouldn’t want to be naked in Playboy?! These ladies are just being coy — or they are on power trips, convinced they can get the nude picture and unwilling to stop at any cost.
What a business model — agree to whatever the woman is comfortable with, then bombard her with pressure, anger, and mocking in hopes she will crumble and you can exploit her emotional distress.


Salon.com
Comments
You could see that in her "Daily Show" appearance, where she seemed submissive and ill-used. I'm on the fence about whether she's going to work as a "senior Asian correspondent," but I'm pretty sure she has no chance if male writers (and photogs) push her around. Rated.
As one who has long enjoyed Playboy, and would even if there were no interviews or articles, I see nothing wrong with what happened.
Now if she went to U.S. News and then wound up partially naked, THAT would be a story!
This is proof that they slipped her a date rape drug! Maybe Gloria Allred can prosecute.
As a photographer who does nudes, there is no excuse for Playboy pressuring a woman into doing nudes when she signed a no-bude contract. At the same time, however, it's pretty clear that Playboy is a magazine that publishes nude pictures, and the notion that nudity is "normal" for one of their photoshoots should be accepted.
Should Playboy have honoured their contract? Yes, and the fact is, they did ... none of the published shots violated Munn's terms, though the coercion to go farther should never have happened. Should Munn have gone into the shoot expecting that nude is normal in the Playboy world. Yes, she should have, and as a result, she shouldn't be surprised when a Playboy photographer expects her to get nude.
Playboy should pressure anyone into going farther than they want, but at the same time, no one going to a Playboy shoot should expect the photographer to want to take pictures of someone fully clothed. That's simply not what Playboy does. Playboy shouldn't have pressured her ... but Munn should also have walked out of the shoot as soon as she felt Playboy went beyond the "acceptable." Playboy bears responsibility for stepping over their bounds ... Muss deserves responsibility for not putting her foot down, and succumbing to the PR she could get from Playboy instead of letting her common sense dictate that she walk out of the shoot.
As a feminist I support the decisions women make. She's an adult who chose to do something fully knowing the implications. She knew she was working with playboy - she could have just left the shoot. I'd be far more compassionate if this story was about someone who couldn't make an educated decision. She could. She did. She chose.
I'm just surprised that neither her publicist or her mother didn't notice her distress and talk her out of it. That is shocking to me...
Also, there are a lot of other photographers and media outlets which aren't as well known who try to use coercion to get young, unsuspecting girls to bare it all in order to further their careers. Should we blame the young women or the photographers?
but, maybe ppl havent heard this, but playboy is a dissolving empire. in 5-10 years, one wonders if there will be anything left of it. after hefner dies, the empire could very possibly fade away.
I'm just saying that a woman whose comedic stock-in-trade is the wide-eyed put-on might not be the best example of an otherwise generally right-on plaint.
(R)ated for knowing who Olivia Munn is.
But neither of these women did that. They instead used the scenario to point out what ruthless sexist bastards Playboy is and how they were victimized.
The damsel in distress plays well in our tabloid news cycle. Munn is getting lots of mileage out of this. Kardashian just keeps on keeping on. Playboy is probably getting a few extra hits to see what all the fuss is about. So it's a win win in the world of misogyny and women that market themselves.
And my granddaughters lose.
I also don't think it's just easy to wave a hand and say that 'oh, it's a sleazy company, deal with it.' My point is, why deal with it at all? I think there's something in our society that says if you're a celebrity and you're asked to pose for Playboy, it's somehow a status symbol, you've made it? I don't understand it but it's just what I've observed.
I know coercion and pressure doesn't JUST happen at Playboy, but we're all talking about it because it is such a huge American institution.
If you want to undress, do it on your terms and make sure you keep control of it. I wonder, why she didn't walk out. No doubt they would've played it like she "couldn't cut it" but they wouldn't have been able to sell her coercion pictures.
I do think that with a signed contract, Playboy should follow it. I also think that anyone who agrees to a photoshoot for Playboy should go into the shoot knowing that Playboy's primary mission in life is to publish photos of naked women. It should come as no surprise that a Playboy photographer might expect a model to get naked. Munn's option to simply say no and leave is one that seems never to be suggested seriously, but at the end of the day, you should probably expect that a magazine whose primary purpose is publishing nude photos might ask a model to get nude.
My comment about Playboy had nothing to do with sleazy ... it was about the fact that Playboy's reason for existence is to publish nude photos of women.
Anyone who thinks that they aren't getting exactly what they want from this situation is incredibly naive.
Sounds like half the teen aged and older young men out on a date.
I'm not surprised, at all. While I'm not calling for the abolishing of all x rated magazines. I do object to the kind of pressure, ridicule and out and out lousy treatment these women experienced after a contract was signed and they'd already stated what they would and would not do.
That's utterly crappy and unprofessional behavior on the part of Playboy.
it is easy to despise women who make their living by displaying their bodies, it is prostitution of a sort. but america requires everyone to make their own way in life, and devil take the hindmost. so women without skills required by the marketplace must compromise, either to survive or to prosper.
i sympathize with the notion that you can be a little bit of a slut for cash, but not toooo much of a slut. "who sups with the devil must eat with a long spoon" suggests people have been trying to balance income and respect for a long time.
-R-
Weak, weak, weak! Women deserve better.
The story here is not so much that Munn or Kardashian are victims, as that Playboy is not someone with whom you want to do business. Publishing a magazine that includes nude women does not mean you don't abide by agreements. If Playboy doesn't want to publish non-nude photos, then they shouldn't agree to do so in advance.
I have heard that it is used to treat cases of erectile dysfunction