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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
EU Open Source The Media Twitter Politics

Drupal Event Apologizes For Giving Out Copies Of Playboy (drupalcamp.de) 251

An anonymous reader writes: The organization team for a regional Drupal event apologized Thursday for distributing copies of Playboy to attendees. The magazines were distributed in welcome bags, according to a statement from the organizers of DrupalCamp Munich, and "were provided by Burda, a major German publisher, who also provided other technical magazines as part of their sponsorship. These magazines were approved for inclusion by the camp organizers.

"At the time, we thought it would be a good idea, as playboy.de was one of the first major Drupal 8 websites ever released. Upon reflection, this wasn't the best idea, and the magazines have been removed... It was a decision made in poor taste, and we regret it.

The inclusion of the magazine had attracted criticism on Twitter from both male and female developers, with one writing sarcastically, "Dunno about you, but I only read playboy.de for the Drupal code."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Drupal Event Apologizes For Giving Out Copies Of Playboy

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03, 2016 @03:41PM (#53416059)

    That's why they included Playboy.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03, 2016 @03:42PM (#53416063)

    Playboy no longer has pictorial spreads. They are basically a rich man's Maxim.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@@@world3...net> on Saturday December 03, 2016 @05:34PM (#53416493) Homepage Journal

      Right now there is a naked woman on the front page of playboy.de. I think the ending of nude pictures only applies to the US edition.

    • by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Saturday December 03, 2016 @06:05PM (#53416645) Homepage
      Really, people need to chill out. When absolutely everything gets you offended, really your offendedness is meaningless.
      • Your non offensiveness is offensive.

      • Really, people need to chill out. When absolutely everything gets you offended, really your offendedness is meaningless.

        Yeah, sure, but to be fair, I think the "offence" this time was over the inclusion of a rather non-descript magazine, whose main selling point was the vaguely pornographic pictures, to an audience, whose main interest is somewhat removed from idle chit-chat. Playboy's core customers have always been the stupid rich, who think Las Vegas is an exciting holiday destination, that middle-aged men in glittery suits singing Sinatra songs are the height of cool, and who think that smoking cigars is sophisticated. W

  • What's the big deal? (Score:4, Informative)

    by tylersoze ( 789256 ) on Saturday December 03, 2016 @03:46PM (#53416077)

    Playboy stopped having nude women in it like a year ago right?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Playboy stopped having nude women in it like a year ago right?

      It's the principle. I'd feel a bit ripped off if I'd been promised a free copy of playboy and it didn't even have any naked women in it.

    • "The shapely female form has no place in Art!"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bruce Perens ( 3872 )

      Playboy departed the nude photo market due to the vast and unending supply of photos and video of all manner of naked people doing sexual things which one can access via the Internet.

      However, one can make a case that a good deal of the past content of Playboy was about objectifying women and to some extent the publication still is about that.

      It was a dumb decision. Several people just weren't thinking. They're embarrassed now. They learned, and won't do it again.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The German version still seems to have nudity.

        It's just odd that they didn't have realise it would be an issue.

        • by amiga3D ( 567632 )

          Considering casual nudity is common enough in Germany I wonder why you'd think that. It's not the US. I remember when there while serving in the US Air Force in the late 80's seeing topless or nude models in advertisements occasionally.

        • The German version still seems to have nudity.

          You mean we're not actually sure its nudity? 8^0

  • by bjdevil66 ( 583941 ) on Saturday December 03, 2016 @03:48PM (#53416083)
    ...from a PR standpoint. This doesn't exactly help the perception about how misogynistic web development environments are for women. And the last thing a somewhat fading development platform (at least outside of large enterprise) like Drupal needs is for something to fire SJWs up...

    Where was the, "Das ist eine wirklich schlechte Idee?", leadership from the conference organizers in Munich?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I think SJW's need to grow up.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Exactly. At the next event they should put Playgirl inside instead.

        • Isn't the real problem that they put there anything at all?

        • by aevan ( 903814 )
          They should. It'd be amusing to see the reaction to it: would the same umbrage be there, or would it be lauded as a 'progressive act' an 'ironic statement against the objectification women endured for millenia'? Or would it be offensive to asexuals?

          Personally think it was a dumb move to include porn, regardless of it being porn (it's still everyone's first though on seeing Playboy), but am curious were it Playgirl that had been an 'original website' would the furor been the same?
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I need a chrome extension that, whenever it encounters "SJW", replaces it and everything that comes after it with "... never mind, I'm a moron."

        • I need a chrome extension that, whenever it encounters... never mind, I'm a moron."

          Replaced that for you!

          • I need a chrome extension that, whenever it encounters... never mind, I'm a moron."

            Replaced that for you!

            We'll have moron that later.

      • by dbIII ( 701233 )
        It's the "religious" nutters who need to grow up while those you are calling "SJW's" probably go to burlesque shows.
        I put "religious" in quotes since there are a lot of people who go around telling everyone how holy they are but if Jesus turned up they would call him a Commie and bang in the nails. The actual religious people who actually go around helping people probably couldn't care one way or another about issues of Playboy.
      • SJWs aren't the only ones who think it's monumentally stupid and borderline offensive to distribute Playboys at a professional conference.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03, 2016 @03:54PM (#53416101)

      What exactly is misogynistic in Playboy? You do know that women chose to act and chose to be in Playboy? And here I am, thinking we are living in a progressive society where women have full responsibility and control over their bodies. We are not in Saudi Arabia, are we?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        We are not in Saudi Arabia, are we?

        Some of us are. I've no idea where you are.

      • by Bing Tsher E ( 943915 ) on Saturday December 03, 2016 @04:19PM (#53416209) Journal

        The Feminist message is that women need to be protected.

        • funny, women in porn and who do erotic photo shoots often say they feel empowered by doing so. Their body, their choice to display it and all that

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            This is true of course, but that's not the objection mainstream feminism has to Playboy.

            The main objection is that it evaluates women on their looks, rather than their accomplishments or talents. It tries to be serious about it, which is just weird. Imagine if Time decided to throw in some nudes of Elon Musk, along side his interview... Airbrushed of course. Or if male actors did it to prove they were still hot enough to get roles at 30.

            It's not puritanical, it's an issue with treating women differently and

            • This is true of course, but that's not the objection mainstream feminism has to Playboy.

              The main objection is that it evaluates women on their looks, rather than their accomplishments or talents. It tries to be serious about it, which is just weird. Imagine if Time decided to throw in some nudes of Elon Musk, along side his interview... Airbrushed of course.

              I could not care less. If Elon wants to expose his ding dong in Hong Kong, he can have at it. Keep away fmor Kids, and let women who want nothing to do with it alone, and its a big Meh.

              Or if male actors did it to prove they were still hot enough to get roles at 30.

              It's not puritanical, it's an issue with treating women differently and to a lesser extent using their bodies to sell magazines which perpetuates the idea that the female body is a commodity.

              If I might, I'll give a try at an explanation. There are animals in the world where one of the genders is relatively plain, and the other is well adorned. In some of the birds, the female chooses her mate by their displays. The birds of paradise are a good example some of them are strikingly beautiful. And the all time king

              • eh, plenty of gay men will say women look like pile of ugly bloated marshmallows and that the lumpy bumpy male figure is where it's at. And plenty of straight women will say ditto even if your mom liked the female porn.

                The particular type of feminist who whines about judging women on appearance seem to miss many woman love to show off what they have and want to have great appearance. In general, most women want to look fabulous, they spend a ton of money to do so. Face masks, lotions, hair care/trimming/

              • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                If Elon wants to expose his ding dong in Hong Kong, he can have at it.

                That's completely missing the point. The issue is that it has become almost mandatory for women in some professions, and they can't avoid being judged by their bodies in others. We see it with politicians a lot, with the media often commenting more on their looks than on their policies.

                Men are all lumpy and bumpy and seriously prone to protruding bellies, and the females are the beauties, with pretty nice symmetry, and normally much better looking faces.

                I'm guessing you are not gay then.

                Anyway, as I say, it's not some puritanical thing about nudity, it's the way that women's bodies are exploited or distract from their other qualities that feminists object to.

                • If Elon wants to expose his ding dong in Hong Kong, he can have at it.

                  That's completely missing the point. The issue is that it has become almost mandatory for women in some professions, and they can't avoid being judged by their bodies in others.

                  Sure, models and sexworkers. My wife, in the construction business world, always caught a lot of judgement ion the way she looks. Almost entirely from women, interestingly enough. But we aren't allowed to include women in this issue, the answer must be some problem that men are responsible for. So I'm not certain how that problem can be fixed.

                  Even at my work, an attractive and intelligent and competent woman was brutalized - by other women. This never occurred to me until I looked at my female coworker a

                  • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                    If course we can include women as part of the problem. That's why feminists trend to talk about it in terms of patriarchy. It includes women and acknowledges that they are often part of the problem, just like many women objected to suffrage and pretty much everything else.

                    Feminist porn is fine because the participants are genuinely willing (not pressured into it) and because the sex is respectful.

                    I don't like sex negative feminism either.

            • plenty of male actors and rock stars pose for glamour shots and show off their bodies in movies and photo shoots and concerts.

              plenty of women actresses and porn actresses and models want to be evaluated based on their looks. they want to show off what they have and to be considered beautiful. they want to be a sex symbol / sex object ( and plenty of men in entertainment want exactly that too)

              it is puritanical for certain types of feminists to try to complain about this.

              Note I say certain types because t

        • I thought the feminist message was that women are capable of thinking (and dealing with stuff) for themselves? Or was that a suffragist message?
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          No, the feminist position is that people shouldn't be violent to each other, and that quite a lot of porn is violent. Not in the beating sense, but ejaculating into someone's face (male or female) is kinda hard to frame as an act of respect... I mean, maybe for some people it is, but that's not generally why they do it in porn.

          Beyond that objection, there is actually such a thing as feminist porn. Why wouldn't there be? Feminists enjoy sex as much as anyone.

          • ejaculating into someone's face (male or female) is kinda hard to frame as an act of respect... I mean, maybe for some people it is, but that's not generally why they do it in porn.

            Agreed, it doesn't seem like an act of respect on the giver's part.

            But I think it's an act of supplication, on the recipient's part. Which I suppose can be arousing in a sexual context between consensual partners.

        • by skam240 ( 789197 )

          Is this the new alt-right thing? You can't call anything sexists because then you're saying women have to be protected which means you're undermining them?

          I ask because I've seen this "thought" pop up a lot lately whenever some one suggests something is sexist.

          Just a heads up, calling something or someone sexist doesn't equal, "women need to be protected". Thinking women shouldn't have to deal with sexism is not at all the same as thinking they can't handle themselves when confronted with it.

          • by Cederic ( 9623 )

            The problem comes when e.g. nude photographs are considered sexist, as it allegedly exploits women who thus have to be protected from, e.g. earning an income by posing for photographs.

            I'm sure some gender studies professor can tell me six different ways in which this isn't undermining those women but if they had actual intelligence they'd be a professor in something academic, so I'll mostly ignore them anyway.

            • by skam240 ( 789197 )

              I'd call them more inappropriate in a business context which is probably why they were pulled.

          • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

            No, it's not a alt-right thing. Rather it's a general humanist thing, because many people are old enough to remember sexlib, or their parents were in it(though with us getting older -- it's sometimes the posters grandparents). The right? Right now it's in the humanist camp on this, women are women and have the right to do what they want. What many have a problem with are the radical feminists(3rd wave), sjws/snowflakes/etc screaming that women have to be protected because they're women. And the belief

    • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Saturday December 03, 2016 @05:21PM (#53416449)

      Are you you some kind of anti-LGBT freak or victorian prude? Lots of women enjoy female nudity.

      They should have included a copy of Playgirl magazine also, then it would have been even more equanimous. Taking out the magazine was the wrong thing to do.

      • They should have included a copy of Playgirl magazine also

        I REALLY want something like this to happen one day. I wonder what the comments on that slashdot article would be like...

  • ...if it succeeds in keeping Social Justice Warriors away.

    If it works there, then we can expand the process to science fiction conventions [battleswarmblog.com]...

    • wouldn't work now, when I was a kid we'd joke about people who only read Playboy for the articles, but now it only has the articles. Because erotic photography featuring the disgusting ugly protoplasm that is the nude female body is eviiiiiil !!!!!!

      nice websites with the photos from the 1950s to now are out there, free. Your search engine of choice is your friend.

      • Erotic photography is also unprofitable. You can't compete with the internet, which has a lot more such photos and a near-zero distribution cost. Playboy today is a shadow of what it was. 800,000 issues in 2015, down from a peak of 7,100,000. Much of their income comes from just licensing out their logo.

    • by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Saturday December 03, 2016 @04:32PM (#53416273)

      You don't understand. This doesn't keep them away. It draws them in. Those who are always looking for something to be outraged over must seek out new sources for their outrage.

  • From TFS:

    "were provided by Burda, a major German publisher, who also provided other technical magazines as part of their sponsorship.

  • "German publisher, who also provided other technical magazines"

    There do seem to be some in the slashdot crowd for whom Playboy content would be considered technical information. Read and learn young code warrior! The world is a better place for men and for women when you grasp these principles.

  • They could at least go the traditional route and hire scantily clad booth babes to piss people off. Women with huge breasts need jobs too, you know.

"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- Looney Tunes, Ali Baba Bunny (1957, Chuck Jones)

Working...