I was unaware that this was a story that MLK told to Playboy (wasn't he a Reverend? Why is he interviewing with Playboy?) but even so it reeks of emotional manipulation.
Remember Playboy in the 60s was extremely softcore. Breasts and butts only, no pubic regions. Some could argue it was not much different than other forms of nude art like sculptures or paintings. This was the same time period that PG movies could even have light nudity in them provided it was in an appropriate context like topless natives etc. Playboy also had a large readership of very important individuals which gave it influence, so I believe there were a large number of famous interviews and some actual journalism done.
I was unaware that this was a story that MLK told to Playboy (wasn't he a Reverend? Why is he interviewing with Playboy?) but even so it reeks of emotional manipulation.
Remember Playboy in the 60s was extremely softcore. Breasts and butts only, no pubic regions. Some could argue it was not much different than other forms of nude art like sculptures or paintings. This was the same time period that PG movies could even have light nudity in them provided it was in an appropriate context like topless natives etc. Playboy also had a large readership of very important individuals which gave it influence, so I believe there were a large number of famous interviews and some actual journalism done.
It is an interesting dichotomy none the less.
I didn't know that, that's pretty interesting.
I feel nostalgia for a world I never got to know...