The publication of nude photographs of Jackie Kennedy in a 1973 edition of the New York sex magazine Screw is well known. His obituary in The New York Times has Screw's founder, Al Goldstein, reporting that the issue sold over 500,000 copies.
That issue, #206, is certainly interesting, particularly for its role in our understanding of revenge pornography, sexual or bodily privacy, and the responsibility of the media. But the way Screw advertised its release is just as interesting. In the magazine's previous issue, #205, published on 5 February 1973, the primary reference to the magazine obtaining nude photographs of Kennedy is a small banner in its back matter. It comes after pages and pages of panels advertising various sex services: erotic massages, nude modeling gigs, powered male masturbation toys, swinger parties, bondage experiences, a "sexual fantasy rap group," the "first fuck rock album," and porn—lots of porn: porn theaters, porn by mail, old-school stag porn, literary and photographic porn, "color catalog" porn with detailed instructions on sex, venues to film porn and stage exhibitions, and much more.
By situating the promise of a "jackie naked" in Screw's next issue alongside an eclectic range of goods and services designed to superadd to one's sexual pleasure, her body becomes an open site for sexual consumption. Her status as a former First Lady is simultaneously degenerated and rebuilt—she is diminished into the familiarized and personal "Jackie," open to being sexually discovered, but her allure comes precisely from her inaccessible sexual position.
This is a much more visible site of advertisement than the other mention of the nude photographs in issue #205. That other mention comes at the end of the issue's table of contents and sits among a sea of other unbelievable items:
exclusive next week!!!
Historic photos of Jackie Kennedy Onassis stark staring naked, no shit! plus Linda Lovelace does it with a dog, a great big German Shepherd! Xaviera Hollander and Monique von Cleef meet Al Goldstein, and a great big dose of enemas!!!
What might explain this strange advertisement practice? It's not sufficient to claim that Goldstein's magazine was preoccupied with pornography in its reporting; certainly that was its focus, but it also had, at times, a scholarly or a traditional journalistic bent. Leo Skir, for instance, has a relatively normal article in issue #205—one that could have been published in gay with only minimal change, if any at all. But the release of Jackie Kennedy's nude photographs does not follow that practice, one that Goldstein cultivated to elevate the standing of his magazine. Why not?