"Keep Your Clothes on Til You're 40"

Cindy Margolis, 41, is not only the "most downloaded woman on the Internet," but known for managing to keep at least a bikini (or something) covering her privy parts.  As a pin-up girl she has been popular for nearly 20 years and through it all, she has prided herself on being "PG-rated."  Mothers have thanked her for "having a clean site," and thousands of young girls write to her for advice.  She has literally millions of people who regularly visit her site. 

Well, as you may have heard, recently Cindy changed her mind and decided to pose nude for Playboy. Now that she's past 40, she believes that her posing nude serves some kind of public good. (Specifically, that of reassuring women that they can still look good in their 40s.) Cindy has also indicated that a portion of the proceeds from each issue will go to her favorite charity.

It's an organization that helps infertile couples, and it certainly sounds like a noble cause.  The question, as ever, is do the ends justify the means?

The interesting thing about Cindy's remarks is that they are bound to offend both sexual liberals and conservatives. For "keep your clothes on til you're 40" implies that there's something inherently wrong with taking it all off for the general public.

On the other hand, if indeed Cindy "has always prided myself in keeping my clothes on," then you have to wonder: what has changed now?

Here is her rationale:

I've had the number-one downloaded (celebrity) Web site, and for years I've been known as the "Queen of the Internet" in the "Guinness Book of World Records," America Online, Yahoo!, (all while) keeping my clothes on, and I've been very proud of that. Every couple years when Mr. Hefner would call, I would very graciously decline, because my mom would kill me, and I thought it was more mysterious keeping my clothes on. But, this year, when I got the call from Mr. Hefner, it was my 40th birthday. So I thought, "Wow -- at 40, they still want me?" And I thought it's almost an inspiration -- like a "you go, girl" moment. I feel empowered that you can be married and have three children and still be sexy and confident and look great... I'm ready to show the world that you can have it all at 40 -- be fabulous, 40, and pose for Playboy.  I made my career off posing in swimsuits and doing all the swimsuit issues and posters, but I will tell you that that little bit of material on an itsy bitsy bikini -- taking that off was very nerve-racking the first time. ... But I felt proud of myself.

Well, I have to say that a few things confused me about this story.

First, isn't it obvious that Cynthia Margolis looks fabulous  without her having to step out of that itsy bitsy bikini? I mean, really.  It's not as if everyone is racking their brains trying to figure out, does Cindy Margolis look fabulous, or does she not look fabulous?  No one is saying, "Gosh, if only she would take off that brown paper bag she wears over her entire face and body, then we could finally know if she is 350 pounds, or something a little less zaftig!" Not to imply, of course, that being 350 pounds and being fabulous are mutually exclusive.

But this cannot be about looking fabulous per se. (To say nothing of actually being fabulous--distinct from merely looking fabulous.)  Even if your goal is simply to advertise that you look fabulous, there are ways to do this without showing the whole world the State of Virginia, if you catch my drift.

So what is this really about? 

In terms of what she will tell her children,  Margolis has this to say:

when I'm asked what my girls will think when they grow up, I'll tell them that they have to keep their clothes on till they're 40. But when they're 40, they can make their own decisions.

Since Cindy has millions of fans, I think her advice bears examination, and I'm not sure that it entirely holds up.  For the reality is that children can make their own decisions well before 40, and if you as a mother teach them that stripping is a way to resolve insecurity about the body, they may trod down that path well before that.

Obviously not everyone who poses for Playboy is insecure but I have to say, I don't like this brow-beating by Hefner, nor how it seems to have worn Cindy down over time.

What do you think--did the pressure just become too much for her? Or am I missing something in not getting the special merit of posing for Playboy?

Comments

[miss kelly]

Oh, very pathetic! One scarcely knows where to begin. So irrational and ludicrous. Margolis, sorry, you can't have it both ways. Good thing she has only daughters, not sons. Sad commentary on the current culture, that an older, educated, accomplished woman feels that showing off her boobs is some sort of empowerment. Does adolescence never end anymore? Are there no higher goals than narcissim and being sexually provocative?

While the widespread fertility problem is sad (as I well know), the main reason why our society has this problem is that women are delaying having kids for too long. Biotech can't replace Mother Nature; women ought to have their kids early in life. Waiting until your mid-30's or 40's to have babies is going to be a problem for most women, even with IVF (which works less than 40% of the time). The eggs get old, Girls, that's how it is.

[wendy]

Mary I hadn't thought about it until you brought it up, but maybe the infertility issue here is no accident. If you're viewing yourself as a sexual plaything for men in your 20s and 30s--and I don't mean Margolis personally but more generally--then one is perhaps less likely to put energy into finding a soul mate and having those kids on an earlier timetable.

Honestly if Margolis had come out and said, "look, Hefner is pressuring me but I'm going to stand firm to my beliefs--please contribute to my charity if you agree with my stance," I'm sure she would have raised even more money. People would have really admired that. I'm curious what other people think but to me the charity doesn't justify anything. I see it, rather, as a manifestation of her feeling conflicted, and trying to resolve her cognitive dissonance in her own mind.

[Liz Neville]

My first thought was: Who the hmmm is Cindy Margolis? My second was, "Lady, you're full of it." So it's to raise money for infertile couples? Well, that's nice. She could think of no more creative way to accomplish that? I doubt it. Reminds me of those fundraisers who stand out in busy intersections and approach your car to beg for money. They may be helping a worthy cause, but I find it pathetic that they think begging from a captive audience is a worthy way to do it.

[LORa]

I think that women delay childbearing much more because of educational/professional career reasons than because of their views and choices regarding sexual activity. If anything, being a sexual plaything puts one much more at risk of bearing children early in life. Women who are focused on their career are the ones willing to take the necessary precautions to delay childbearing regardless of their sexual behavior.

As for the Playboy stint, I chalk it up to a midlife crisis. I don't think it has anything to do with cognitive dissonance, she just wanted to do it. Sure, she had to justify it in some way to the media, but really, no charity can convince you to do something that you would not have wanted to do otherwise. Certainly not a wise choice.

[Dean]

Wendy,

I just finished reading David Brooks' book "On Paradise Drive."

One interesting point he made is that in our contemporary world, the only moral obligation is to personal advancement. Notions of unbending Truth that might limit the possibility of such advancement are discarded.

Margolis' behavior in this matter is proof of Brooks' point.

Your dissection of her twisted logic while, I think, correct is nevertheless ultimately useless for most people in our culture because so few of them want to live a life of ethical consistency.

Margolis is like so many around us. She does what she does for no more reason than because she wants to and to deny one's impulses is to fail to be true to the self, and failing to be true to the self is the only moral failure our culture can recognize. It's not about reason.

Also, I have to wonder, what difference does it make in her case if poses nude or not. She's spent years showing off her body for the gaze of millions. Undeniably, part of her goal in doing that has been to stimulate others sexually, to make herself an object for their lusts and thereby to reap the rewards of the world: money, fame and power.

Once she committed to the goal of exciting others in this way, once her heart was committed to profiting from the unrestrained desire of an audience, I don't see how shedding a few more inches of fabric makes that much difference.

It sounds to me like it wasn't as much the pressure from Hefner as it was her insecurity over her value as a 40 year old woman. By posing for Playboy, she feels that she is showing the world that you can "have it all at 40." The tragedy here is her misguided sense of what it means to have it all.

[Mary O'Hayes]

Yeah, the more I thought about it, the more I agree, Hef offered her a ton of money and she went for it. I had no idea who she was either, and I hadn't seen her website before leaving my comment this morning. Now that I have seen her website, she clearly has always marketed herself as a sexpot. Nothing new here, just slightly less coverage. The price was right for her this time.

[Sunnyday]

I agree that her decision to pose nude is largely propelled by midlife crisis, which probably accounts for a need to feel validated by others. A lot of women seem to "need" to feel sexy around that age (after hitting 40), and for this woman, baring all could be the way to get that validation.

First time I've heard of her, though. Btw, has the photo shoot actually taken place? Has the issue hit the stands already? I do hope she still changes her mind about the posing -- for her sake primarily.

[Loralei Sturkie]

Maybe the difference is that her parent's opinion no longer matters to her (didn't she say that her "mom would kill me"?) Is Mom dead, or incapacitated? So, guess that means that dear Cindy was only being modest because of family pressure, not out of a sense of personal dignity. Too bad. Wonder about the opinion of her daughters, and if that matters to her.

[Tina]

ultimately useless for most people in our culture because so few of them want to live a life of ethical consistency.

I really like this phrase from Dean. And this is another reason why many women inadvertently ended up waiting to have children later. It’s not always as easy an answer as they don’t understand that eggs get old or that they chose their careers before family. In many, many cases, we simply don’t have very many options to choose from. We want to choose mates well (some of us also don’t have the family guidance with choosing a mate) but they really are few and far between. Especially since ethical and modest people are kind of a rare breed.

As far as Ms. Margolis’ latest publicity stunt, she is just keeping up with the ‘branding’ of America. The goal for attention seekers is to create a brand for themselves and come up with ways to self-market. She’s even using her children to advance her ‘brand’.

[Tina]

Sorry. The quote I referenced was posted by Lora.

[ellen]

Cindys "reinvention" of herself is such a farce.

She seems to think that she is giving herself a much-deserved "promotion," yet is truly "demoting" herself, retreating further down the sinkhole that she has created for herself.

It is interesting to ponder human nature and wonder at the cultural values which do not restrain such immoral behavior. Actually, I should really be saying, "the *personal* values which do not restrain such immoral behavior." Personal values either promote or censor cultural sways, before they ever get overwhelmingly popular.

Looking at Cindys website for the first time, I saw a snippet entitled, "Hot Mom of the Moment!". How many years back would both Ladies and Gentlemen BALK, being offended to the core, if a woman..a mother..was openly referred to as such?

This phrase is a not a compliment to women. It is not exempliary (sp?). I can imagine that Gentlemen of yore would have defended a womans honor, his wifes or not, had he heard her being addressed, to her person, with this disrespect. (Question: What makes private "Guy Talk" of the like any nobler?) Ladies of yore wouldn't have considered it a compliment, something to prize, take to heart, or write of in their journals, as, I fear, women of today may do. How could a Lady feel warm and fuzzy by coarse words given by men looking upon her in such a raw, wholly carnal way?

Who is to be the Lady, the Gentleman, of Today??? I am. You are.

On another note, I'll say that I appreciated a comment in Deans post, above, which reads, "...to deny ones impulses is [seen] to fail to be true to the self, and failing to be true to the self is the only moral failure our culture can recognize."

Unfortunately, all of us can be oh-so-subtlely swayed toward this point of view, slowly and by degrees, by listening to medias endless soundtrack. We have *got* to pull back, in order to see what is going on with ourselves. How off-path have we gotten?

Too, I must add that I am sick of all the commercials and such which push the present cultural ideal of "defying" ones age. I am fine with using cosmetics, creams, and such to improve my appearance and look the best that I can. However, the media has an annoying campaign going, which encourages us to be game to a seemingly scrumptious, secret ploy in which we "fool" others into thinking that the effects of time have, somehow, skipped us over. My, how blessed are we who can pull this off??!!! Of course, there are numerous products to buy, "secret weapons" against Time, to put into our arsenal.

At the same moment, Boomers proclaim, "I can't BELIEVE how turning fourty (fifty, sixty, whatever) has been SO Fantastic, Liberating, Life-Affirming, You-Name-It...!" (I believe them. There are surprises to age and advantages.)

Their glorious "Age of Enlightenment" still finds them eager to procure methods of destroying the evidence. Just a continuation of the "having it all" concept, I suppose. It IS like an identity crisis: their sense of Self is split in two, between the inward and the outward woman.

I am not for stubbornly ragged faces nor am I for every kind of facial peel known to womankind. I think it's very reasonable to want to make an effort toward ones appearance. However, there has to be a balance and certainly not an obsession involved. Some of the things I describe above, I just find ironic.

Ellen

[Emily]

Oh dear. If “having it all in your 40’s” means STILL being expected to maintain the figure of a life-size Barbie, expectations that have heretofore generally petered out after a woman reaches her mid-thirties… I’m afraid I can’t get too excited at the prospect.

I feel sorry for this lady. I’m sorry that her husband hasn’t made her understand that she is beautiful to him, will always be beautiful, and that she has nothing to prove to anyone. Least of all a sad old skeeze like Hugh Hefner.

[Kat]

If a woman who is proud and positive about her body at 40 wants to show her skin to the world, that doesn't mean she's having a mid-life crisis. It means that perhaps her experiences have taught her that not being embarassed or self-conscious about your body, especially later in life, is a valuable asset that brings enormous fulfillment and self-confidence. Whether you choose to cover your body fully or not to cover it all, it is our duty as women to be proud of who we are. I find it disgusting that just because she decides to change to her mind and show her beautiful skin, everyone on this board has declared that she is having a mid-life crisis, her husband doesn't love her, or she's selling out for money.

How about just acknowledging the possibility that she wants to do it for herself?

Declaring that the moment any woman takes her clothes off she is depraved, insecure, and just needs to be loved is an insult to all the women who have taken control of their lives and their bodies -- whether they decide to keep their clothes on or not.

Our biggest goal in the fight for preservation of our dignity as women is to get the respect that we deserve. And we owe it to each other to respect one another-- even though we may disagree on how we should embrace our femininity.

[Dean]

Kat,

I specifically said Margolis is doing what she is doing "for herself." She is doing it because she desires to do it and in contemporary culture, desire is self justifying. Any action we take is considered moral, so long as we can say it was what we truly wanted to do.

I don't think this is what you mean though. Can you explain what it would mean for a woman in Margolis' position to pose nude "for herself" especially when the image of her nude body is being manufactured and distributed by a corporation that expects to enrich itself by selling these images. How is that "doing it for herself?"

[Mary O'Hayes]

Kat, it shouldn't be surprising that people who write at the MODESTY ZONE blog value MODESTY. We don't generally don't think highly of Playboy centerfolds, and we do think that people should keep their clothes on in public.

I don't think that any woman who does anything automatically deserves our respect just because she's a woman. I don't agree that as a woman, it's my "duty" to indiscriminately be "proud" of who I am. I'm proud of myself when I do good things, and I'm not proud when I do stupid things.

Posing for Playboy has never been the way for a woman to "preserve her dignity."

[wendy]

I don't know, the only one who used really judgmental words like "disgusting" was Kat here. My post just asked why someone who prided herself on not taking it all off, would suddenly become a centerfold. I still think that's a fair and interesting question.

If you think that people stay clothed because they are "embarassed or self-conscious about [their] bodies," and that taking it all off is a "valuable asset that brings enormous fulfillment and self-confidence," then I'm not surprised that you like the later Cindy better than the old Cindy. But please realize that you are being just as "judgmental" in assuming that that people who don't wish to pose for porn are embarrassed or ashamed of their bodies.

The question is not are we judgmental, but which judgment has the most evidence to support it? Empirically speaking, stripping for the general public does not seem to be a source of lasting confidence.

[Erin Whigham]

The thing that startled and offended me the most in Cindy's comments about her posing, was when she said that because she posed nude she "had it all." So if I don't pose nude, something is missing in my life? Well, that part of my life will have to remain missing.

[Jed]

I think that Cindy Margolis felt that showing the world her fully nude body was a cry for help if anything. I also think the fact that she 'showed everything' and still is proud of it when them parts of the body are private shows if anyhting indecency.

Okay i accept the pictures are stimulating for us men but that doesn't mean that we too feel cool about it. I also think that bringing her charity into it is making it for her morally justifiable to the media.

[Sarah]

Some people will do some crazy stuff to do "The right thing"

[Mike]

I think the example she sets to her children is not at all acceptable. I'm a man and i like women and i like naked women but there is a time and a place.
This will be an ideal issue for Feminists won't it? Ms Margolis won't be their friends after this and i can say after seeing the shoot that if any of her family saw the shoot they will be disgusted. In cases the shoot is sexually gratifying and i'm sure many men will have a few minutes alone with the pictures, but surel;y she cannot look back on the pics and be proud of spreading her legs, her Husband can't be proud either let alone her parents.

[Rich]

I don't buy this Posing for a purpose garbage. Lets face it Cindy margolis posed for playboy because she wanted to show the world her breasts etc. before she got to 50 and is now using her naked body to get money. The charity thing was a good cover, her way of making flashing her nude body credible. the extra cyber club pics are the ones where she is most nude and you think to yourself' great for all us men but what message are you sending out to youngsters?'. Ms Margolis = bad infleunce.