Two shots of the model Jill by Harrison Marks, but with one obvious difference! The top image comes from GHM’s publication Nature’s Intention Vol.1 No.2 (1969) and the bottom image from Kamera No.87 (1968). What a difference a year makes, as the Kamera version had to be retouched, where as the top one was published showing Jill in all her glory. I can’t believe censorship laws changed that quickly, so was Nature’s Intention produced for a different market, maybe the less strict foreign market? I know which version I’d prefer to see 🙂
Yes, the law – or the interpretation or application of it – did change incredibly swiftly. One magazine (Penthouse I think) tested the water ,and got away with it, and the floodgates were open, never to close again. <br /><br />"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive…"<br /><br />(Okay, dear old Wordsworth wasn't talking about pubes, but more fool him!)<br /><br />David
Yes Penthouse always seemed to push the boundaries of what was decent back then and as you say the floodgates and legs were well and truly 'open' from then on.
Censorship law didn't really change, but the public perception of what constituted obscenity did. Towards the end of the 60s the more daring magazines – Penthouse, for example – pushed the envelope and showed a few full-frontal nudes complete with public hair. And nothing happened.. The world did not come to an end. One of the last publications to respond and give the reader what they thought
Thanks David and totally in agreement with your view and much prefer our lovely ladies as nature intended. Back then the girls used to shave to aid the retouching for censorship, now it just the thing to do. Personally seeing some of the shaven areas and bits on view now I wished they were hidden.