|WikiProject Pornography||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Playboy bunnies had a wide variety of colours for their costumes. Do these colours mean anything (rank, area of work, etc)? Should the article cover this? --Zoe.R 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Answer: Bunnies can choose the prefered colour of thier choice. Originally, there were 12 colours and 12 sizes. Foriegn-born Bunnies that worked the Plush or VIP rooms wore elegant blue with silver trim. Jet Bunnies wore slick black. A wide variety of styles were added much later. The most popular colours were red, blue and green. For more information, i suggest you to read, The Bunny Years, the suprising insde story of the Playboy clubs: The women who worked as Bunnies and where they are now. By Kathryn Leigh Scott. (she was a Playboy Bunny herself, this book is probably the most accurate you can come across to. It's very enjoyable to read.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
If there are no sources for the contention that Barbara Walters was a Playboy Bunny, then I think that claim should be rejected out of hand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Barbara Walters donned the bunny costume for a segment she filmed for NBC's Today show. She went through bunny boot camp and spent some time on the floor of the Club. Video of the story can be found on Today's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Shawn Southwick & Kimba Wood
Added Shawn Southwick to the "famous Bunny" list. Shawn Southwick, now Shawn King, is the present wife of the well known CNN talk host, Larry King. Secondly, I pointed out that Kimba Wood was only a Playboy Bunny trainee.
Joe Gatt 12:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleting apparently bogus references
Under Bunnies who became Playmates, there are two entries for Katie Keyser and Kate Fahy. These show up as uncreated pages. As far as I can determine, all playmates have at least a stub page, so any page that's unreferenced is apparently bogus. I reviewed the page edit logs, and both entries were created by one-time contributors (one by "Bunny101" and the other by an IP address), many months ago, so I'm concluding that some people had fun listing themselves or their friends in this entry. GreatScott 04:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Gloria Steinem went undercover as a playboy bunny in order to investigate the conditions that the bunnies worked under. What where her findings? Wouldn't her findings and any rebuttal or whatever be relavant to this article?
- The Article she wrote was called “I Was a Playboy Bunny,” and published in 1963. I can't seem to find anything in depth and directly related to the article she wrote however. But it's out there. Tonerman (talk) 19:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The 1963 article was reprinted in her 1983 book "Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions". However, anyone who has watched "Mad Men" knows that working conditions in 1963 are a far cry from 1983 or 2013. Also, despite the advent of "Reality TV, I hope that most people would realize than showing up unenthused for a few weeks (of mostly training) at a job is hardly the same experience as people who actually work at a job, as described by dozens of Bunnies in Kathryn Leigh Scott's "The Bunny Years" (a book which has a time frame that that ends before my experience as a Bunny).
On the topic of bogus references, I'd like to question the inclusion of this sentence: Clive James wrote of the "callous fatuity of the selection process" and observed that, "to make it as a Bunny, a girl need[ed] more than just looks. She need[ed] idiocy, too."
I'm a former bunny, who has helped with reunion organizing (and spoken to Bunnies from many clubs and eras) and I have read a number of books about the Playboy Corporation and through this I am familiar with many of the names of important people in the corporation's history but I had no idea who this quoted person might be. I followed the links to Clive James' Wikipedia page and learned that he was a TV critic and the only connection to Playboy that was apparent, was that he once critiqued a documentary on Hugh Hefner. I was wondering why exactly this would make him a quotable source on hiring practices for Bunnies? If a critic watched "The Right Stuff" he might have an opinion on hiring and training of U.S.Astronauts, but I doubt that he would be cited as an expert about the subject. Wikipedia wants to be a credible source, and I don't beleive that such a tenuous link as "I once watched a TV show tangentially related to it"Italic text is really the kind of academically rigororous sourcing that will make Wikipedia's critics take it more seriously.
Here are some of the credible books I have read on the topic, not to advertise amazon but I'm not familiar with wikipedia and I am having trouble getting other links tp work here.
you already have the best website information linked in the article, explayboybunnies.com - I think most readers can agree that people who worked for the clubs probably know a bit more about hiring than some random TV critic.
This patent number, 0762884, in both the official record and mirrors points to that of a milk can.... Thats not the outfit, can any clarification on this number be added? Whats the source? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Its the trademark number, not the patent number, its the image of the bunnies not the design of thier suit (though I am sure thats probably patented somewhere), perhaps we should clairify? Chase-san (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Present day club
There are still clubs operating in London and Mexico as of 3/2014. Rumors of other locations under consideration persist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaid7919 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Lack of sources in the introduction?
The introduction (before the subsections) seems to be based on very subjective opinions, especially the last few sentences. Could these be backed up with sources or, if possible, a section be made concerning Gloria Steinem's expose of the Playboy Bunnies' treatment to balance the introduction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The passage "dating was strictly forbidden" is not consistent with the next passage, which says that it was partly alowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The inconsistencies are due to the fact that the dating policy changed over the years. I feel confident in stating without citing sources that any company that has been operating since the 1950s has had changes in HR policies. In fact, a very early change was made in direct response to Gloria Steinem's complaint aobut having to go to a doctor's exam for a waitress job; the criticism was acknowledged as legitimate and the exams were immediately done away with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaid7919 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I saw a picture in Playboy Magazine of a woman and a man wearing new, updated Bunny costumes. IIRC his outfit was smooth black pants with tail, a white fronted vest, collar, cuffs and ears. Were there ever any male Bunnies in the clubs or did that idea go nowhere? Bizzybody (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
In the 1980s there was an unsuccessful introduction of male servers in the NYC and LA clubs,
Bunny Photograph Regarding the photograph of three Bunnies taken in 2011 at the Mansion. These are not real Bunnies. These are models dressed in Bunny costumes. If you want a photo of authentic Bunnies it would be best to use a photo of the original Bunnies working in one of the original clubs. My source is that I am a Former Bunny who worked in the Baltimore Club in 1964-1965. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I also wish that one of the many photos of women who actually worked as bunnies was used rather than a pic of Playmates dressed in a bunny costume. Bunnies have enough misunderstandings with people who cannot differentiate between Playmates and Bunnies, and there are literally thousands of other more accurate photos available for use.