A good friend of mine savors his Playboy and Maxim magazines like women savor chocolate. He and I have had several discussions about why he cherishes these particular men’s magazines. He adamantly insists he likes the informative, well-researched articles — like the top 10 tips on improving your oral sex techniques and alternative ways of obtaining pleasure when your partner isn’t in the mood. Oh, and there’s also pictorials — as if this afterthought implies that the photos are secondary compared to what little text there is.

Who do the publishers think they’re fooling?

Men’s entertainment reading selections have been enhanced and puckered up, shall we say, in the last decade. The pages are swollen with fake breasts and glossy ads featuring sex toys and maybe three pages of text. Sadly, these publications may be influencing men’s attitudes and behavior toward women more than anyone cares to admit. They’re all about pornography. They’re all about subtle exploitation of women.

Should we point a finger at Hugh Hefner, (isn’t he dead yet?) a brilliant businessman? He recognized the undeniable appeal of the naked female form on a glossy magazine page and launched Playboy magazine in the 1950s, creating a billion-dollar industry that caters directly to that innate desire, which ultimately exploits women.

Yes, any heterosexual male is drawn to the beauty of the unclothed female form. Yes, men are visually stimulated. It’s a healthy, natural response, at least when controlled. But what editorial content there is does little to encourage self-control. In fact, it’s the opposite. Men’s magazines tend to stereotype women and set a false, unrealistic standard of beauty. The same argument could be made about women’s magazines, and that’s also exploitation, which is why I refuse to waste my time and money on them.

Also disturbing is one woman’s Web site devoted to positive “reviews” of Playboy issues and requests feedback from other women. She explains the magazine this way: “Typically you will find two pictorials, one featuring the Playmate of the month and another featuring a celebrity, actress or someone along those lines. In the September 1999 issue featuring female wrestler Sable, out of 180 pages, there were only 28 pages of nudity. So what fills the other 102 pages? The above-mentioned articles!”

Yet she does acknowledge that exploitation of women is a reality, but defends Playboy with the whimsical ” … I do not feel Playboy is the root of all evil. Do you consider adult women who receive thousands of dollars to voluntarily pose for tasteful, nude or semi-nude photos to be exploited? I do not. In fact, I applaud them for their guts!” In some cases, there is nothing voluntary about it. And everyone’s idea of “tasteful” is different. Those women who do choose to pose nude have either fallen prey to the trap or should be pitied for a severe lack of judgment.

Women desperate for recognition and media exposure are fooled into believing Playboy is their ticket to stardom. Those who fit the American standard for beauty — Caucasian, fake breasts, fake lips and tiny waist — are paid an exorbitant amount to bare all in exchange for a skanky role on some low budget film, game show or television program like Baywatch. And the program would further exploit them — Pamela Anderson, Carmen Electra, Yasmine Bleeth, all former Playboy playmates, reached “celebrity status,” if you want to call it that, on Baywatch playing bimbo lifeguards with heaving cleavage, pretending to rescue drowning victims from the treacherous sea. Tiffany, the 1980s teen pop idol, now in her 30s, claimed she posed nude in Playboy more than a year ago to revamp her singing and recording career. Anyone heard or seen of her since?

If Playboy is supposed to be a springboard to a serious television or film career, why aren’t any of the above-mentioned women now either appearing in or starring in feature films or on prime time shows on any major network? They’re slaves to the Playboy industry, like countless other Playmates known primarily for their breast and waist size.

Maybe some women choose to pose in Playboy or similar men’s magazines because of the money, attention or both. How is that different from prostitution? It’s selling one’s body for monetary payoff.

I’d rather earn a living in a slightly more dignified way.

In a perfect world, character, values and intellect would determine outward beauty. Neither men nor women would be judged and stereotyped to fit into a marketable package. Sex wouldn’t sell or be misused.

As for my friend and I, we’ve agreed to disagree.