- Yesterday's Girls... Today!

A user just asked me if he could contribute a scanned copy of Playboy from the 1960's. I had to reluctantly turn him down.

Playboy is still being published and they often print content from their past, although I don't think I've seen anything older than, say 10-15 years when they DO dig into their archives.

It's more than that, though. There are several reasons why I don't want Playboy content on the site, and I guess now is as good a time as any to explain myself.

First, and I may get some arguments about this, but I find Playboy's stuff boring. It's TOO slick. Too airbrushed. Too much a product. The heels can't be too high; the model's face can't be too made up. The image is the girl next door, not the topless dancer at the club. Hefner had his reasons for doing this, and I can understand those reasons. But I also know that I'd prefer a Selbee magazine over a copy of Playboy any day. Give me a girl with beehive hair and a pound of makeup on her face over Wanda Johnson's daughter.

This is, however, more than personal preference. In the world of law, there's a saying about Walt Disney: You don't screw with the mouse. Disney was one of the first people to scrupulously guard his copyrights, almost to the point of paranoia. If another company's character even remotely looked like a Disney character, Uncle Walt's lawyers were all over it. Well, think of Hugh Hefner as the Walt Disney of men's magazines. Playboy defends its material with as much vigor as a rabid rabbit. So in this case, don't screw with the rabbit.

I guess those are my reasons, so please bear them in mind when being kind enough to contribute.