i, sandwich

by cathyjwilson
Editor’s Pick
JULY 1, 2010 10:25AM

‘Playboy’ will get you naked — whether you like it or not

Rate: 18 Flag

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.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Excellent commentary, Cathy. You really show how a rising star like Olivia Munn, who of late has come off as tough-talking about sex and the female "haters" who diss her, are not always in control of their own message.

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.
Wow, that's one hot piece of ass! Thanks for the tip!
I can't really see how this is any different from any business decision. Businesses will always try to get you to do what they want you to do, contract or not. The fact that it's nudity and the fact that she is a woman is almost completely irrelevant.
Kim Kardashian has an established career? A career as what, exactly? WTF does she actually *do*?
I agree that Playboy is sleazy but anyone who shows up thinking they're going to be photographed wearing their business suit is either very naive or very stupid. That said, Kim Kardashian made a name for herself by letting a video of herself performing oral sex go viral so I really doubt anyone had to pressure her into anything. She is the ultimate non celebrity celebrity
Why is this so important to you? From the tone of your comments, I don't think you look at Playboy for the photos anyway, if you even do at all.

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!
If you pick up a snake don't be surprised when it bites you, it's what snakes do.
"Munn says she felt “woozy” explaining her contract and “tried to understand what the hell was happening.”...
This is proof that they slipped her a date rape drug! Maybe Gloria Allred can prosecute.
Interesting post ... but no one is asking why Munn chose to do the Playboy photoshoot (hmmm, perhaps the extra PR she could get from the Playboy brand?) or why she didn't simply walk out when they suggested nudity (again, did PR have some role here?).

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.
Nice post... way to set "truly" independent and liberated women back a few hundred years. I suppose Monica Lewinsky really thought that was the President's clock. Here's a novel thought. Just say no then sue Playboy for fraud/breach of contract if they refuse to honor the written agreement. Besides, everyone knows the best cure for wooziness is to remove tight clothing.
Wow, nothing new here, just the same strategy used on women by men and others to get what they want over and over for centuries. She should have walked out and sued them for breach of contract. Her publicist should be fired for not supporting her and she should have predictably known better, the worst that might have happened, did, she allowed it.
Interesting -

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...
A common theme in the comments (which are all very insightful, by the way, I have enjoyed reading them) is that we expect this kind of behavior from Playboy. Which makes sense, because it's a sleazy magazine so we expect sleazy things. I don't think we should give Playboy a free pass because of this though -- condoning their manipulative behavior simply because it's the norm seems irresponsible.

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?
there are a lot of different ideas/points circulating around this. 1st kardashian and munn are indeed very hot. yowza. but they seem to misunderstand what business they are in. news bulletin.. modelling is closely aligned with exposing as much as possible of the female body.... now playboy does have a reputation for "tasteful" nudity but its still NUDITY. but, agree that the contract is a contract. some contracts specify the women can choose the final pictures, and very elite models can negotiate that type of contract in some cases.
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.
anyway, munn & kardashian sound like babes in the woods, have both been "in the biz" for years, and its hard to believe they are in their mid20s and not conversant with and savvy about media exploitation. Im sure that many models would have much harsher stories of exploitation to tell. what they need to do is find good managers that make sure it goes the way they want it to. and as kardashian may have found out, a relative [her mom] does not nec make a good mgr....
Boo effing hoo. Olivia Munn and Kim Kardashian are talentless, synthetic celebrities created by highly paid publicists and brain dead media outlets like E!
I watch Olivia all the time on her primary claim to fame the G4 networks "Attack of the Show!" and I watch the Daily show every night, and in general I agree with you that women are under pressure by men to get naked, but Olivia's act on "The Daily Show!" was entirely in keeping with her schtick on "Attack of the Show!" which she rules entirely. And nobody pushes her around! She doesn't let them. She is the feistiest and glibbest of them all and takes no prisoners while merely pretending to be vague.
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.
My problem with this is women who will sign a contract with an organization that specializes in exploiting women, using them as arousal meat and then complaining when they're pressured to join the herd. First off, you know, I know, the cashier at the supermarket knows you walk off the set and sue. ESPECIALLY when you have a contract and an entourage.

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 totally agree with Lynne M. - "but to me the biggest problem is that people automatically think it's an honor to be asked to pose for the cover."
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.
What would have happened if she got up and left?
I wanted to clarify my comment. I wasn't saying Munn should have expected this out of Playboy because they are sleazy. They may or may not be sleazy, but thats not the point here. The point I was making is that Playboy publishes nude pictures ... thats what they do as their primary mission. Even with a negotiated contract that specified no nudity, Munn should still realize that "normal" for a Playboy photoshoot is for the model to get nude.

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.
Yeah, obviously these broads could have walked out if they were THAT upset......but look at how much more publicity they're getting whining about being pressured to show their girl parts.

Anyone who thinks that they aren't getting exactly what they want from this situation is incredibly naive.
"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."
Sounds like half the teen aged and older young men out on a date.
Playboy Magazine is definitely run by slimebags.

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.
i find i have ever more sympathy for women who choose to wear burqas.

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.
Women have fought long and hard to own the right to choose how they live their lives. Choosing to be photographed for Playboy Magazine is the choice to display your body.
[BlackWhiteCupid.com is] widely considered to be the greatest singles club ever by millions of black white singles, about half of which have actually found matches from it.
[BlackWhiteCupid c/0/m is] widely considered to be the greatest singles club ever by millions of black white singles, about half of which have actually found matches from it.
What was stopping her from walking out of the studio, NOTHING!

-R-
There's no comparing Kim Kardashian and Olivia Munn. The former is a skank and the latter is a goddess. Or at least a goddess in the making.
It's Playboy for Chrissake. Don't be so naive.
For all of the people who said, "It's Playboy, she should know better," I have to say that I agree with Cathy. If you've signed a contract specifying what you'll do, you should NEVER be pressured into doing anything else. I don't care if it's Horses and Hounds Magazine or Hustler. It's like saying a rape victim deserves to be raped if she's wearing the wrong things or in a bad part of town.

Weak, weak, weak! Women deserve better.
Interesting blog. I differ with a number of comments. First off, a young person in media looks at a Playboy photo shoot as a good opportunity to promote themselves. Nothing wrong with that. That goes with being in media. Second, the expectation is that Playboy is a business. They are a corporation. If they sign a contract they are expected to honor that contract. Third- the comment that she should have walked off. That would place her in breach of that same contract. Further, it would give Playboy the opportunity to publicly disparage her as a pretentious bitch.

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 always wondered something about playboy and ftuuf. Do they use to Buy Viagra or not?
I have heard that it is used to treat cases of erectile dysfunction