0

pursuant to paragraph (iv), subsection 37-f, the cable guy takes off his pants


 

Warning! This post – which features excerpts from Playboy’s quarterly filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission – contains some risqué language and terminology related to straight and homosexual sex (though no outright profanity). So please stop reading if you don’t want to hear about bums and stuff.

Now that I’ve guaranteed my biggest readership ever, let’s begin.


To those who believe nothing about sex could ever be boring in any way not involving an Osmond, I present to you an excerpt from a letter from Playboy to Melinda C. Witmer, Executive Vice President and Chief Programming Officer, Time Warner Cable – in which the terms for two new Playboy video-on-demand (VOD) services are discussed:

“…Too Hot for TV VOD Package Service. Subject to the terms of this Section 4(f), Playboy will make available a VOD Package Service entitled ‘Too Hot for TV’ consisting of fourteen (14) hours of Programs… The Programs in the Too Hot for TV VOD Package Service shall be professionally-produced adult full-length programs selected by Playboy, edited to comply with the TVMA rating, and shall focus on real people in unusual or novel sexually oriented situations with the level of depicted explicitness being the same as (or less explicit than) programming shown on premium channels such as HBO, Showtime and Cinemax. The depiction of sex in these episodes may be real or simulated…”

Quick question: in the age of the Internet, which dutifully caters to every twisted fetish ever devised by man, beast or Led Zeppelin groupie, what could possibly qualify as a “novel” sexually oriented situation? Sex while pole-vaulting over a tank of sharks and the sharks are dressed as the Village People and also the sharks are doing it? Would that qualify as novel? Because – ahem – I just happen to have a screenplay here with me if you want to take a – no, of course, you’re a busy man, Mr. Spielberg. I’ll just finish making your Orange Julius.

Continuing on…

“(ii) Gay Targeted VOD Package Service. Subject to the terms of this Section 4(f), Playboy will make available a VOD Package Service consisting of twenty (20) hours of Programs… The Programs in the Gay Targeted VOD Package Service shall be professionally produced adult programs selected by Playboy, targeted to the male gay community, edited to a standard no more explicit than the Partially Edited Standards. Each Program in the Gay targeted VOD Package Service: (v) shall depict homosexual situations and nudity among consenting adults; (w) may depict erect genitalia, male on male fellatio and simulated or implied sexual intercourse; (x) shall not depict actual anal penetration, licking or anal sexual play of any kind; (y) shall not depict male ejaculation, sexual violence or excessive nonsexual violence, incest, sadism, sadomasochism, forced bondage in scenes containing sexual activity or forced bondage carrying sexual innuendo or sexual connotations, illegal or irresponsible drug usage, minors or scenes with adults being depicted as minors; and (z) shall not include racist or sexist language.”

So just to be clear: the porn star can go down on a stranger in a parked car but no more than two Advil every four hours, okay?

Two quick questions:

1. How often do you think the expression “anal sexual play” comes up in SEC filings? You know, other than in Enron’s description of its investor relations policy. (Thank you, thank you very much. I’m here all week. Enjoy Boz Scaggs.)

2. Playboy? Going gay? This is going to lead to some very awkward moments for Hugh Hefner in the grotto. [Looks down] “Oh my God – you’re not Miss Feburary! Or even a lady!


 

Sign in to comment.