Deepgeek, Klaatu, and Lostnbronx look back at the flappers and speakeasies of the 1920's and 30's, and attempt to draw a line from the newly independent women of that era, up through the Playboy Bunnies of the 1950's, all the way to today.
Are things better or worse? Is what we "know" about history really important? And do the Info-Underground boys have any clue what they're even talking about?
One fact I would contribute is that women throughout most of history have been treated as property. Much of what you all said about the status of women before prohibition was reflective of this. I'm old and I can remember when, in the USA, a woman could not get a loan, a mortgage, or a credit card without a male cosigner, if she could get one at all.
And, as we can see from current history, many men still view women as property, indeed, as playthings.
In addition, as a lifelong reader of Playboy (and at the risk of starting something), I must, with some trepidation, question how Playboy pictures can be conflated with pornography, unless the conflator believes that nudity is inherently pornographic, a position I do not share. I would argue that said person, at the least, has never seen a copy of Hustler. nor an image of the Venus de Milo.
Why for that matter, do you think the great masters of painting have painted so many nudes? I guarantee--as Justin Wilson used to say--it wasn't solely because of an abstract appreciation of color and form.
Once more, an excellent discussion.
Leave Comment
Note to Verbose Commenters
If you can't fit everything you want to say in the comment below then you really should record a response show instead.
Note to Spammers
All comments are moderated. All links are checked by humans. We strip out all html. Feel free to record a show about yourself, or your industry, or any other topic we may find interesting. We also check shows for spam :).
