For decades Hugh Heffener has been making millions of dollars from his worldwide magazine. It is marketed has tasteful pornography. Elegant pictures of beautiful women. Women around the world of all professions partake in these pictures. But should it still be considered pornography as we live in 2001? Or should it be classed in the same bracket with magazines such as Maxim or Stuff?

Back when this magazine first came out. Absolutely, and even up until the early nineties I would have considered Playboy to be a form of pornographic art. But that is a day that as long passed. The only real difference now is Playboy leaves less to the imagination as compared to its competitors. Both magazines have very lovely women in them and both conduct interviews with high profile actors and politicians. So all things considered there is not a big difference.

If you want true pornography? Larry Flynt is the man to see. The whole magazine is porno. Pornographic pictures, stories, and even porn movie reviews. Granted Playboy is a good magazine. But the women are almost too perfect. I may be stepping out of line a bit by saying this but playboy bunnies are too fake. It seems like there is more silicon and proof of plastic surgery then there is flesh. Myself personally, I can't understand the attraction, nor do I hold any for them.

So the bottom line is if you want real women minus the plastic bullshit, or if you want real porn. Playboy is not the magazine for you. In my very humble opinion, when it comes right down to it, Playboy is just an expensive form of pornographic fraud.

---Hudson