Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Image

Playboy Launches Safe For Work Website 98

Posted by samzenpus from the porn-now-without-nudity dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Playboy Launches Safe For Work Website More

Playboy Launches Safe For Work Website

Comments Filter:

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

    by al0ha ( 1262684 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @01:36PM (#32981184) Journal
    Er, what is the point? Oh that's right - everyone *reads* Playboy for the humor and interesting articles... (rolls eyes)

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by JustinRLynn ( 831164 )
      Playboy has been doing this sort of thing for a while (this from 1994) [amazon.com]. T

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

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @01:48PM (#32981382)

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by eln ( 21727 )
      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: (Score:2)

        by cgenman ( 325138 )

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

        • 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: (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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 t

    • Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Scutter ( 18425 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @01:54PM (#32981502) Journal

      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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by commodore64_love ( 1445365 )

        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: (Score:2)

          by Scutter ( 18425 )

          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.

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

            I second that emotion. Or third.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by AliasMarlowe ( 1042386 )

          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".

      • 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 o

        • 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

      • 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? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by The Archon V2.0 ( 782634 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @01:58PM (#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.

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

    • Re:Playboy w/o nudity? (Score:4, Funny)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @03:25PM (#32982712) Journal

      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: (Score:2)

      by jon3k ( 691256 )
      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.
    • 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."

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

    • 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.

    • 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.

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

  • Icon (Score:4, Insightful)

    by michaelmalak ( 91262 ) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @01:36PM (#32981204) Homepage
    Just this story icon makes this Slashdot story NSFW

  • yeah (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    yeah this is the Playboy SFW site: about:blank

  • Not safe enough for my work (Score:5, Informative)

    by xaosflux ( 917784 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @01:40PM (#32981264) Homepage

    "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.

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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kenja ( 541830 )
      Not to mention that explaining to the HR department that "its a safe for work playboy!" wont work too good.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Obsi ( 912791 )

        Giving up mod ability for this thread to comment.

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tattood ( 855883 )

        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: (Score:2)

          by geekoid ( 135745 )

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

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

  • I'm disgusted (Score:3, Funny)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @01:43PM (#32981308)

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

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

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • "I just read it for the articles" (Score:3, Funny)

    by AmigaHeretic ( 991368 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @01:44PM (#32981326) Journal
    Uh huh. So I guess they will have about 2 visitors a month to this site?

  • Finally (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    My childhood dream of looking at naked women with their clothes on is fulfilled.
  • The internets. Now with clothed women!

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

    by Fulminata ( 999320 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @01:57PM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by lawnboy5-O ( 772026 )
      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.

  • Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @02:07PM (#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.

  • 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 p

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

    (slaps face to wake up to post comment)

  • I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 )

    who wants to see that?

    The meme: useless without pic is most appropriate here.

  • Three people? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thousandinone ( 918319 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @02:28PM (#32981942) Journal
    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?
  • 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?

  • If this is safe for work... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GuruBuckaroo ( 833982 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @02:50PM (#32982254) Homepage
    I want to work at the company that would allow this as "Safe for work". Good grief.
    • I concur! I checked this out the day it was launched and about 50% of the images on that site were severely NSFW.

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

    But now?

    • 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.

  • ...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!" ;-)

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

    by Anonymous Coward

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

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

  • 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

  • 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"...
  • This thread is worthless without pictures.

  • 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 photo

    • No data plan required (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      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: (Score:2)

        by Sloppy ( 14984 )

        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

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          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.

  • 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 p

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )

      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.

  • 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.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • 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: (Score:1)

      by baubo ( 1310237 )
      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.

  • 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 popul

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

  • 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...

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close