Showcasing vintage male photography, mostly nude. You must be 18 years of age or older to visit this blog! If you hold a copyright on any material shown on this blog, notify me, and it will be removed immediately.
Followers
Sunday, January 31, 2021
I'm not sure what the "Model of the Month Club" was,
but I would guess it was some sort of Butch promotion to sell pictures.
They did run ads for photo sales in the back of the magazine.
Like book of the month, wine of the month, album of the month, perfume of the month, movie of the month, basically you get a different photo set every month for a year of you pay for the whole thing up front, but it is less than buying twelve photo sets.
Most likely. Mail order catalogs did this all the time, and most physique publications at least pretended to be a modeling agency (but were really pimps) before the 70s, so I doubt the models objected. More potential johns.
While a good many of the models were "working boys," I've never seen any believable evidence that the publishers were pimps. The prosecutors tried and failed to prove it with at least one, Bob Mizer. And believe me, if there had been any credible evidence whatsoever, the courts of those days would have convicted. Having said that, I do agree that the photos could be great promotional material for the hustlers' careers.
I think what anonymous meant was that these magazine "pictorials" were the means by which these hustlers could advertise their goods. The publishers were defacto pimps. The modern porn DVD'S and internet/digital downloads do the same for the modern day hustler.
Like book of the month, wine of the month, album of the month, perfume of the month, movie of the month, basically you get a different photo set every month for a year of you pay for the whole thing up front, but it is less than buying twelve photo sets.
ReplyDeleteMost likely. Mail order catalogs did this all the time, and most physique publications at least pretended to be a modeling agency (but were really pimps) before the 70s, so I doubt the models objected. More potential johns.
While a good many of the models were "working boys," I've never seen any believable evidence that the publishers were pimps. The prosecutors tried and failed to prove it with at least one, Bob Mizer. And believe me, if there had been any credible evidence whatsoever, the courts of those days would have convicted. Having said that, I do agree that the photos could be great promotional material for the hustlers' careers.
DeleteI think what anonymous meant was that these magazine "pictorials" were the means by which these hustlers could advertise their goods. The publishers were defacto pimps. The modern porn DVD'S and internet/digital downloads do the same for the modern day hustler.
DeleteIt pays to advertise!
Delete