For the people who claim they just read Playboy for the articles, they can now expect a magazine with even more journalism.

The New York Times reported last week that Playboy would no longer be publishing images of nude women.

Due to the fact that Internet pornography has made sexualized nudity passé, the only way a magazine built on centerfolds could evolve is in a more tasteful, intimate direction. Still, this shift should not be misconstrued as a feminist achievement.

The hitch lies in Playboy’s objectives: at its core, the brand’s focus is still the objectification of women. Since its inception, the publication has mainly catered to men and reinforced the male gaze.

The most visible example of Playboy’s sexism is in the way it treats men’s and women’s bodies differently.

Since its founding in 1953, only 10 men have been featured on the magazine’s cover. Of these male covers stars — among them Jerry Seinfeld, Donald Trump, Bruno Mars, Gene Simmons and Seth Rogen — all appeared fully clothed against scantily clad women.

Like the magazine’s models, referred to as “Playmates,” the female celebrities featured in Playboy appear in lingerie, swimsuits or nothing at all. This difference in representation puts an unfair emphasis on the bodies of the women and the cultural significance of the men.

If the company wanted to make meaningful, feminist change, it would strive to showcase both men and women sexually in its photoshoots.

The move to ban nudes is ultimately a marketing ploy in efforts to combat declining readership. According to the Alliance for Audited Media, Playboy’s 5.6 million print subscriptions have fallen to 800,000 in 40 years. By trading explicit images for just-short-of-X-rated ones, Playboy becomes more accessible to younger audiences, erotica connoisseurs and risk-averse business investors.

Last year, Playboy removed public access to its racy web content — pornography became solely available to paying members. In its quest to be more “safe-for-work,” Playboy’s magazine is taking the next step in rebranding. In this new era, Playboy 2.0 will be provocative and sensual without being too coarse.

Now, Playboy’s nudity has the potential to be more artistic, but the problem is that its nudity has never been about art.

Chief Executive Scott Flanders said that Hugh Hefner, Playboy’s founder and reigning editor in chief of 62 years, always strived to celebrate the female figure, but if Playboy has ever celebrated female sexuality, it has done so in an underhanded manner through the objectification of women.

A way that Playboy can solve this problem is by employing more women in the magazine’s creative and administrative fields. Currently, Playboy’s executive staff is comprised mostly of men, according to its website. The only women on the board are Rachel Sagan, the executive vice president of business affairs and general counsel, and Kendice Briggs, the senior vice president of human resources.

Not only should women be involved with the company’s finances and employees, but they should also be a part of the brand’s creative process as well. In Playboy’s case, maintaining gender diversity at the executive level is important for a company that’s entire revenue is based on the existence of women.

There are many perspectives on whether or not porn and sexualized nudity empowers or harms women. But everyone can agree that Playboy can balance genuine appreciation for women and the magazine’s sexual allure if it makes a stronger effort to get more women behind the scenes.

Caroline Colvin is a sophomore magazine journalism major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at ccolvin@syr.edu and followed on Twitter at @fkacaro.

Published on October 22, 2015 at 12:51 am