Today, Playboy announced it won’t publish nude photos any more. In a world awash with porn, the soft raunch of the trailblazing mag has been deemed ‘passe’. Oh, the irony.
But the thing is – and in saying this, I shock myself – my first reaction was that I’m kind of sad to see them go. Well, at least some of them.
About a year ago, I was in a second-hand bookshop on the NSW south coast. Up the back was a pile of Playboys, circa 1970s. And it was eye-opening – because these mags showed real women. They had pubic hair. They had boobs that looked like they were made of flesh, not silicon. Sure, they had some pretty dodgy perms too, but you get what I’m saying.
And they were posing in a way that could almost be called modest. No legs akimbo. No arched backs or contorted limbs. Just hooded eyes and come-hither looks and maybe a suggestive finger in the mouth. They seemed so, well, innocent. I actually toyed with buying some for the bathroom for a laugh (and, you know, everyone says the articles are so good), but at $20 a pop they were too rich for me.
Of course, those '70s mags are just a snapshot of Playboy in time. Back then, when teen boys in the western world were so sheltered they'd toss off over a topless female islander in National Geographic, those images must have sent pubescent hormones through the roof. And left their mums with a lot of stiff sheets to wash.
If the world had frozen in that moment, Playboy might still be on a winning formula. But the mag has reaped what it sowed.
Its launch in 1953, with a smiling Marilyn Monroe on the cover, sent soft porn mainstream (because, let's face it, it had been around well before that - those black and white postcards of Victorian-era women in frilled caps and men in puffy shirts prove that).