What? Playboy’s becoming sanitized. Thus read the headline in one of countless newspapers and magazines over Hugh Hefner’s decision to stop featuring nudes in the publication that spurred the nudity trend on Dec. 1, 1953, with a revealing photo of Marilyn Monroe.

Playboy, “the magazine that men read for its intelligent articles (the daring photos of women being purely incidental), has decided to cover up feminine attributes. Hefner’s plan to pitch the pulchritude is probably predicated by the plentitude of provocative poses on our PC. Wrrronngg. (More on that in a few paragraphs).

Yes, Playboy, the magazine that men often hid in their sock drawer, only to be discovered by their adolescent sons, ostensibly so the boys could read the well-written articles, is changing and soon will be rated PG-13.

But first, let me explain that I have had a tangential connection to Hefner’s publication; I once entered the Chicago Playboy Mansion on business. Essentially, a co-worker, a man I considered a great people photographer, was being considered for a job with Playboy — not to photograph the models for the centerfold or adjoining pages, but to develop the color film of the models. My friend, with whom I’d performed newspaper work, indicated he’d more willingly take the job if I were to be his assistant.

I hadn’t realized that prospective Playboy models pose for hundreds of photos. Several people worked in the photo labs processing the pictures. That would have been my friend’s job.

Nothing came of the interview: My friend’s wife didn’t approve of her husband’s job prospect, nor did any of the photographic staff at Playboy give me a second glance. It appeared that the magazine staff wanted my friend to join them, but I had absolutely no credible experience.

My only darkroom experience was with black-and-white film. And back in the ’60s, nobody dreamed of a time when digital photography would take over the photo market and that computer apps could replace the potent chemicals we’d mix (and sometimes inhale) as we developed film.

At the time, a next-door neighbor of mine, in a Chicago suburb, befriended me and even showed me photos Playboy had taken of her a few months earlier. She had taken part in a photo-shoot but didn’t make the final cut. What Sandy Jo showed was a series of black-and-white photos — all very tastefully done — of her in various poses. There was absolutely no nudity in this batch of photos. The dying art of airbrushing photos was alive and well when I met Sandy Jo.

That’s as close as I ever got to dealing with Playboy (except for the occasional purchase of the magazine — because of the fine articles.

Later, enrolled in a class in medieval literature at Highlands, I read the works of Geoffrey Chaucer, whose “Canterbury Tales” are, well, ribald. Several of Chaucer’s Tales are bawdy, usually dealing with adulterous liaisons. Chaucer’s works often had a moral, with the perpetrators of evil deeds receiving their comeuppance.

Our professor, the late John Adams, often mentioned in this column, did a fine job of explaining the middle-English series, but for anything sexually suggestive in the tales, he advised us to read the works “in the privacy of our own home or dorm room.”

A classmate, with whom I often studied, said she’d come across one of the more ribald tales — possibly the Miller’s Tale or the Reeve’s Tale — in a Playboy magazine.

Reading a more modern version of Chaucer’s work, my classmate, Pita, was able to write a coherent paper based on one of the tales, and must have earned one of Adams’ infrequent higher grades. So you see, some people DO read Playboy for its articles.

• • •

At the beginning of this column, I myself questioned the use of “sanitized” to describe what’s due to happen to Playboy. I have never believed any of Playboy’s content needed cleansing. And I believe it’s wrong to equate the porn one sees online with what has adorned the pages of Hefner’s magazine.

Has anyone really ever seen pornography in Playboy? In my rather limited experience with Hef’s mag, I see tasteful, albeit naked, female forms, in which each model appears groomed, not zonked out, wholesome, not trashy.

Now contrast that with some of the totally tasteless fare that might appear on your home computer. It happened to me several years ago. Let me explain:

I must have clicked on a “pop-up” image that immediately led me to a cheap shot of a woman whose facial expression and grotesque endowments were, well, unattractive. She simply tried to show too much. Worse was the appearance of a number of similar views, mostly “selfies,” of unimaginative figures revealing all.

Now is that what some people crave? As an adherent of the “less is more” philosophy, I swear that none of the images was artistic or the least bit imaginative. I asked Ben, my then-25-year-old son, how I could permanently delete these a photos, which for several days had simply “popped up” without my opening them.

“Well, Dad, you must have actively searched for the pictures,” Ben said, arguing that such nude images don’t appear on their own. I disagreed then and still do.

• • •

This column has run the gamut, from Playboy’s plan to become Mid-Victorian, to a stifled job interview with the magazine, to seeing photos of Sandy, to my defense of how unwanted images appeared on my computer screen, to my son’s highly suspicious tone when I asked him if he knew how to purge them.

I haven’t bought a copy of Playboy in years. But I plan to pick up a copy of the next issue, expecting to see a series of well-clothed models showing little more than their eyes.

After all, less is more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *