Does Marge Simpson appearing in Playboy liberate or exploit this cherished cartoon mom? Is it a case of Marge "owning" her sexuality, or being reduced to a tarted-up plaything?
Also: do you find Marge hot?
Monday, October 12, 2009
Marge Simpson in Playboy Magazine
Does Marge Simpson appearing in Playboy liberate or exploit this cherished cartoon mom? Is it a case of Marge "owning" her sexuality, or being reduced to a tarted-up plaything?
Also: do you find Marge hot?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's just creepy.
ReplyDeleteBut then I find slash fiction to be creepy.
Also: no, I don't.
I just think its weird.
ReplyDeleteWhat's creepier to me is that there is apparently (according to the cover) going to be a retrospective on Farrah Fawcett. Except here, "retrospective"="a famous woman died of a long-term, painful cancer, so, in an effort to involve ourselves peripherally, here are naked pics of her from ten years ago."
ReplyDeleteThat's good, Playboy, stay classy.
They've shown more of her yellow skin on the show anyway. I don't see the big deal. She's a sexy character and a sexually liberation cartoon character!
ReplyDeleteActually, they've already gone further with their licensed products than on that cover. There's a jumbo cup with a pastiche of Boticelli's "Birth of Venus" with Marge as Venus with one breast bare.
ReplyDeleteRule 34 has made me immune from being shocked by this.
ReplyDeleteOh, Playboy, trying to be new and hip.
ReplyDeleteRather than seeing this as an "edgy" move by the Simpsons creators/Fox, it seems more like Playboy completely giving up their "bad boy" status. They are no longer guilty pleasures hidden under a mattress. Playboy is almost tamer than Maxim and as ubiquitous as TV Guide.
ReplyDeleteHuh. That's kind of... huh. I find this irksome. I guess it's... um. Yeah. It's a little creepy.
ReplyDeleteHave a good day.
G Morrow
Slash Fiction is creepy.
ReplyDeleteActually, Playboy traditionally has been a very classy magazine. It actually has a lot of good journalism in it. The pictures are shot pretty artfully Unlike say Juggs
ReplyDeleteWhat was that magazine Al Bundy used to read all the time? "Big 'Uns?"
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Playboy's mainstream status, I still typically put them away if female company is coming over, but honestly, if I have enough other magazines (scientific americans, consumer reports, rolling stones [there's a magazine that lost it's edge 35 years ago], and/or new yorkers) around, I don't even care. Although my female friends are the type to go into my closet and dig them out anyway.
ReplyDeletebig 'uns is correct I believe.
ReplyDeleteHow is slash fiction creepy 0.o? Genuinely not seeing how.
ReplyDeleteMarge was on the cover of Maxim in April '04. I'm really not convinced that this is any weirder.
ReplyDeleteI'm impressed by the careful ankle shading.
ReplyDeleteWhat?
If Camel using cartoons in its ads was automatically an attempt to sell cigarettes to kids, then Playboy using cartoons on its cover is...?
ReplyDeleteSilly.
ReplyDelete... an attempt to sell their magazine.
ReplyDeleteTobacco never got together, crackled maniacally, and said "Let's sell to KIDS". They said "let's see cigarettes".
They kind of did do that, although I can't vouce for the maniacal laughter:
ReplyDeletehttp://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pqd49d00/pdf
Lots of stuff about aiming cigarette advertising at "young adults," which turns out to equal kids as young as 14 in their estimation.
It's as close to actual photographs of women as anything else in that stupid magazine.
ReplyDeleteJoel,
ReplyDeleteStill. Drew's analogy is false. Comparing cigarette companies trying to find ways to sell to minors is in no way applicable to what Playboy is doing, because Playboy is not trying to sell SEX. Naked bodies? Yes. But is the general IDEA sex? No.
Drew is acting like there is some hidden, malicious purpose here by linking cigarettes to Playboy.
Jack Thompson did it better.
Brian-- point taken but I thought he was just pointing out the kinds of spurious comparisons others might make. But that's for him to know and you and I to infer.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth-- I don't know any self-respecting kids who would be lured to this obsolete magazine by a pop culture character as dated and old hat as Marge Simpson. A cartoon their parents-- and grandparents-- liked when they were in college a billion centuries ago.
You can find Family Guy characters actually screwing online. For free. So whatever the analogy he was making, I can't imagine this cover's appeal to anyone, really.
90's fans?
But you and he can hash that out because all that's really beside the point I was making-- which is cigarette companies have in the past deliberately targeted kids. With documented proof.
Sorry, I would be too busy reading the story by Stephen King.
ReplyDeleteDoes Marge Simpson appearing in Playboy liberate or exploit this cherished cartoon mom?
ReplyDeleteNeither. She's just crossing over to different media. Only the most successful cartoons get to do that kind of thing, y'know. Marge is just following on Betty Boop's and Jessica Rabbit's footsteps.
Is it a case of Marge "owning" her sexuality, or being reduced to a tarted-up plaything?
If I had to choose, I'd go with "owning". Because having a sexuality and being a 'plaything' aren't the same thing.
Also: do you find Marge hot?
HELL no. The Marty Feldman eyes, the pointy nose, the awful dyed/propped up hair... neither of those things attract me.
I am deliberately avoiding this issue of this magazine specifically because I'm terrified... TERRIFIED ...that I'll discover the carpet does, in fact, match the drapes.
ReplyDelete