Monday, October 22, 2012

People Today

Wow!  How times change!

How so?  Well, check out this "adult" publication from 1951:


OOH!  SHOCKING!  :D

If the magazine looks tiny, that's because it is!  It's pocket-sized.  This lascivious lady is hiding the title, but this is a copy of "People Today", which was published from the Fifties through the Seventies.  The copy I have, from August of 1951, has no advertising whatsoever.  I suppose that no "family" companies would want to be associated with such filth.


I mean, just look at this horrific smut contained in this rag!  How on EARTH are magazines like this allowed to be printed?  Someone should really do something about this - does the Attorney General know that disgusting printed material is being sent through the US MAIL?!  :D


I kid, of course, but I'll bet that there some folks who weren't kidding, 61 years ago.  Why, there are women in bikinis or less in these pages!  Just look at these!  And how many poor, unsuspecting young girls do you suppose these pin-up boys have corrupted? (Answer: zero, if you know what I'm sayin'.  Wink wink!) ;)

I can't even remember anymore where I got this mini-mag.  I just love it for the historical context - who would've known 1951 what would become of "adult" magazines in the future - or on the Internet, for that matter?  This cover wouldn't even warrant a second look anymore!

I sometimes wonder what else there is for us as a society to do for prurient shock value.  I don't really want to know about it, but I'm sure there isn't any 'theme' or fetish that hasn't been unearthed for those who enjoy whatever they want to enjoy.  I'm all for free speech and no censorship, unless it deals with minor children, so whatever floats one's boat is a-okay with me.  But if this is the "smuttiest" publication in my house, I'm okay with that, too.  :D

P.S.  The rest of the magazine has articles like this.  Hilarious!


2 comments:

  1. Don't laugh....I remember these kinds of magazines and articles very well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jo - did they seem salacious back then, or as tame as they do now? :D

      Delete