Post: #26

Quote:Girls Hef loved to bang and often did - better than the average scowling SJW woman... Getting an invite to the Playboy Mansion for one of their epic parties is still on my Bucket List.

Up until recently a lot of the parties at the Playboy Mansion (including the Halloween party) were open to the public. Anyone that coughed up $1,000 for a ticket could go. Karma International is the group that used to manage all the Playboy events, but I don't think they do anymore.

I went to the Halloween party a couple years ago. I had just gotten a bonus at work, and a bunch of my buddies in San Diego had just gotten back from deployment, so I said fuck it. I've blown money on dumber shit.

ETA: Pics

Post: #27

(10-13-2015 01:17 PM)J. Spice Wrote:  

Quote:Girls Hef loved to bang and often did - better than the average scowling SJW woman... Getting an invite to the Playboy Mansion for one of their epic parties is still on my Bucket List.

Up until recently a lot of the parties at the Playboy Mansion (including the Halloween party) were open to the public. Anyone that coughed up $1,000 for a ticket could go. Karma International is the group that used to manage all the Playboy events, but I don't think they do anymore.

I went to the Halloween party a couple years ago. I had just gotten a bonus at work, and a bunch of my buddies in San Diego had just gotten back from deployment, so I said fuck it. I've blown money on dumber shit.

Did you bang...?

Post: #28

(10-13-2015 01:18 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 01:17 PM)J. Spice Wrote:  

Quote:Girls Hef loved to bang and often did - better than the average scowling SJW woman... Getting an invite to the Playboy Mansion for one of their epic parties is still on my Bucket List.

Up until recently a lot of the parties at the Playboy Mansion (including the Halloween party) were open to the public. Anyone that coughed up $1,000 for a ticket could go. Karma International is the group that used to manage all the Playboy events, but I don't think they do anymore.

I went to the Halloween party a couple years ago. I had just gotten a bonus at work, and a bunch of my buddies in San Diego had just gotten back from deployment, so I said fuck it. I've blown money on dumber shit.

Did you bang...?

Ha nope. I showed up 6 beers deep and it was open bar. I'm pretty sure I didn't leave on my own power. Besides, I was still beta as fuck and scared of anything with tits and a vagina.

Post: #29

(10-13-2015 11:43 AM)Deepdiver Wrote:  Hmmmm - Opens up a serious business opp serving the market for truly masculine men - thinking a chain of Cigar Martini clubs and one big manse with well stock humidors and bars featuring excellent Martinis, Scotch, Single malts, bourbons, Ports, Cognac and high end Rums to sip with a great cigar - lit by fine women properly taught to lit their men's fire and get it smoking hot!

Yes there is a sensual and proper way for a woman to light your fire!

Oh and you can rent rooms at the clubs to enjoy the company of the member women - daughters of Alpha men - and no sex workers P4P women allowed.

Funny, I was at a cigar lounge just the other day discussing this idea with the owner. The lounge was a dive... not classy at all, although they had a good cigar selection, and there was a beer store attached next door to the lounge.

I would love to do something like this.. maybe we should make another thread about it, and see where it goes.

For now.. Happy Birthday Sailor, and Semper Fidelis.

Post: #30

(10-13-2015 02:58 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 02:50 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  You ought to start a thread on this subject matter.

He already has: /thread-50531.html

Well predicted and spoken, Bosch!

That was a more recent thread collecting my accelerating observations.

It goes much further back, with my initial suspicions of a Cult Of Sensibility, which now I'd subsume into a wider 'Neo-Victorian' Framework. I generally observe, formulate theories and gradually refine them, but I think my initial thought here holds true, and everything else I've noticed (sexual repression, dismissive-avoidance, a transition out of hook up culture, male and female incels, deliberate moral retardation of university women) comes out of this:

/thread-38167...#pid780336

Quote:After 125 years of 'progress', all it takes is the same combination of factors to exist in society: social class stratification; a privileged female upbringing; sexual discomfort and repression; a dominant religion * ; and a belief in one's own superior morality, and the end result is the same as then. We're simply seeing the return of The Cult of Sensibility.

* the religion would be both Progressive Utopianism and Militant Atheism, both of which have transitioned into full-blown Religious Cults.

Here's my suspicion of the Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment style of Millennial Girls, (with bonus unfortunate-prediction of Dylann Roof, Vester Lee Flanagan and Christopher Harper-Mercer).

/thread-36406...#pid735368

My suspicions refining further that the Sensible's love of high emotion coupled with technology could make them disinterested in relationships with a man:

/thread-45247...#pid963608

I can't find the thread, but there's a later discussion about the decay of nightclub game and my suspicion girl's going out to nightclubs in groups not to meet men or to hook up but to take selfies, to strengthen their Social Media Narcissistic Constructs. I linked to a News.Com story about an Aussie woman mentioning going out with no interest in having sex - too creepy and awkward for her - then further predicted this attitude, not slootdom will be the coming wave.

Add the increased rape culture and false rape accusation hysteria, then couple that with my observations of deliberate moral retardation by Academia to keep graduates in an adolescent mindset, (specifically the 95-120 IQ set who possess a malleable-gullibility about reality):

/thread-49633...pid1085419

And it's easy to see which way the wind is blowing: Victorian Style sexual prudery. Sex is bad. It is something that only bad people do. It will be that black and white to them.

This is why I've spoken before that I believe Evo Psych has had its day as a reliable Player Tactic. Culture is moving on. Evo Psych will work on prole girls - they'll always be sluts - but any girl with a education requiring moderate to little intellectual challenge will be infected with Moral Retardation, including the belief there are no Objective Moral Truths; and will find the emotional hysteria they crave in Progressive Social Justice. These midwitted girls - not as smart as they think they are, but smarter than their audience - control the media.

As such, you'll increasingly-notice Moral Purity Signalling. The recent rise of Women in Hollywood suddenly speaking out about sexism is part of this. This kind of narrative:

"I was asked to a private audition with [Famous Producer] and, so sweet and innocent, my queefs smelling of rosewater, I went along. As I approached his house, the little birds I sing with every morning tried to pull my drawstrings away, and the field mice tried to scamper in front of me to block my path, but I didn't listen. I went inside... and then he tried to sexually-proposition me!"



Meanwhile, I was watching old movies on TV as an eight-year-old knowing that actresses were sleeping with the money men to get the parts. Ashley Judd either apparently knows less about the reality of the business than a film made during the silent era, or she's simply Virtue-Signalling she's Morally Pure, and that transactional sex for fame is bad.

Expect more of this. We need another War.

---

I know, you're thinking "Wait, Slut Walks are a thing!" and "Girls are still sloots around me".

- Slut walks are a holdover of sex-positive third-wave feminism, which is in its dying days, being replaced with sex-negative fourth wave feminism.

I'd venture most of the in Slut Walks aren't actually having any sex. They're not going along to show solidarity with sluts and sex-positivity. I guarantee you their mental framing for attendance is simply: no-one tells me what to do!. As a bonus, they get to indulge in emotional hysteria like a good Sensible, and can generate pictures to attention whore for validation of their moral purity on social media.

- As for Sloots, dumber than 95 or so, smarter than 120, a player is getting laid. That middle ground is Flake / False Rape Accusation land.

Post: #31

(10-13-2015 09:19 AM)Aquiles_Baesta_Parada Wrote:  So people will literally get playboy just for the articles...

Some of them are actually ahead of their times. I remember my father showing me an article around 2003 to 2004 about an article on why you shouldn't go to college. Now that is a question most people are asserting now.

Of course my father thought he was putting me through the rite as passage. Little does he know that I was already watching porn when I was younger.

Post: #32

And the decline in the West continues.......

Post: #33

(10-13-2015 01:17 PM)J. Spice Wrote:  

Quote:Girls Hef loved to bang and often did - better than the average scowling SJW woman... Getting an invite to the Playboy Mansion for one of their epic parties is still on my Bucket List.

Up until recently a lot of the parties at the Playboy Mansion (including the Halloween party) were open to the public. Anyone that coughed up $1,000 for a ticket could go. Karma International is the group that used to manage all the Playboy events, but I don't think they do anymore.

I went to the Halloween party a couple years ago. I had just gotten a bonus at work, and a bunch of my buddies in San Diego had just gotten back from deployment, so I said fuck it. I've blown money on dumber shit.

ETA: Pics

A lot of the girls claimed they were basically Hef's personal whores to be shared with his friends. Did the girls tell any stories?

Post: #34

Something's going on here that they're not being honest about, I think.

Either that, or they just don't see the world the way most men do.

They don't want to show nude women any more, and the argument is? It is: "well, there's so much free porn on the internet that showing nude girls in a magazine is passe."

Sorry, but I don't see the logic here.

Since when, ever, has the undressed female figure been "out of date" or "passe"?

Who thinks this way?

Even if we're drowning in porn, what the hell harm is it to spice up your pages with some nice bodies?

Good female bodies never go out of date. There is a hidden agenda here, I think, going back to what AnonymousBosch has been saying in post after post after post: there is a war going against sex itself, against beauty, against humanity.

They don't want the public to be reminded of what a beautiful woman looks like.

Post: #35

(10-13-2015 06:31 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  ...there is a war going against sex itself, against beauty, against humanity.

They don't want the public to be reminded of what a beautiful woman looks like.

Playboy in the 60's and 70's knew how to show a beautiful woman, and how to use photography and light-airbrushing to sell femininity and life.







^ God, she's so alive.

Now magazines sell the uncanny valley via photoshop, femininity reduced to artificiality and, well, death.







There is no spark of life in these images. There's no story to them. They're not captured moments in the middle of a story. They're artificial and staged to an unnatural degree. The earlier photos know how to stage photos that suggest an ongoing narrative. This is a moment in the story. The girl turns her head, embarrassed, into the hammock. Rubbing suntan lotion on the girl by the pool. Jumping into the water with wetsuit girl. You're masturbating over the fantasy of life experience with a beautiful girl. It's life.

If I was running Playboy, and trying to compete with the internet porn, I'd simply concentrate on delivering fantasies of femininity: shy, demure, coy, smiling girl next door types being girlish, human and alive.

This gets back to QC's Ten Commandments article yesterday: Love passionately.

http://qcurtius.com/2015/10/12/my-own-ten-commandments/

Post: #36

(10-13-2015 02:47 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  WTF are celebs gonna do now to prolong their careers?

*DYING*

Post: #37

Quote:Something's going on here that they're not being honest about, I think.

I agree. I think this is another case of SJW-ism in action. Whoever made this decision is uncomfortable with attractive, naked women, and wants to disassociate himself with them.

It doesn't matter whether it's an SJW feminist woman who just hates the fact that these women are prettier than she is, or a beta male who is uncomfortable with the idea of naked women in general. The stated reason is an excuse. Profits have nothing to do with it. If anything, this will drop their profits further, because what use is the magazine now? You still can't put it out on your coffee table like you can with "Maxim" or "GQ".

Playboy itself was a product of a different era, and it was run by men who really don't exist in the publishing industry any more: culturally sophisticated, intelligent, and sexually active men (Or at least men who wanted to think of themselves that way.) But those guys are gone. Publishing is now the realm of gay men and far-left "You go, girl!" feminists. It's no wonder they'd want to get rid of it.

Post: #38

I don't think that this is due to SJW-ism per se, and honestly, I think it's a good business move.

Playboy was always historically considered a porn magazine, and thus, there was always an aspect of seediness attached to the brand.

Now that the internet is so widespread there is no point of buying a Playboy magazine if you're looking for images of nude women.

It makes sense to remove the aspect of seediness by removing the nude images and re-branding the magazine.

Post: #39

My dad had the magazine back in the day. From the hairy archives to the day it stopped, my detective work in the attic says it was maybe 1977-1992. The neighborhood boys and I would steal new editions from my mailbox starting in 1989, when we figured out what our dicks were for, and checked out the bitches of the month with glorious envy. Smoked a few cigarettes like we knew what we were doing and nonchalantly stepped up, one by one, to talk about how much these girls in the magazine would like to be with guys like us if they'd just walk down our street. We were convinced that we could land a Playboy centerfold, no doubt in our minds. It was truly a great time, an adolescent experience every young boy should go through. I am sorry to see this get washed out with low tide. It was simply a way of life for us kids.

RIP Playboy.

You are in a Playboy thread. NSFW, assumed? In memoriam:

1982 Kym Malin



1980 Victoria Cooke



1989 Karin and Mirjam van Breeschooten



1989 Renee Tenison (First black chick that I ever saw naked. Awesome.)



If you are a young cat, you think differently about this old hoe now, but when she was on the come up, and you happen to have been 10-years old in 1990, you saw this pristine bitch and it lit your world on fire:

1990 Pamela Anderson





1990 Buffy Tyler



1999 Natalia Sokolova



2004 Hiromi Oshima

Post: #40

(10-13-2015 06:50 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  There is no spark of life in these images. There's no story to them. They're not captured moments in the middle of a story. They're artificial and staged to an unnatural degree. The earlier photos know how to stage photos that suggest an ongoing narrative. This is a moment in the story. The girl turns her head, embarrassed, into the hammock. Rubbing suntan lotion on the girl by the pool. Jumping into the water with wetsuit girl. You're masturbating over the fantasy of life experience with a beautiful girl. It's life.

If I was running Playboy, and trying to compete with the internet porn, I'd simply concentrate on delivering fantasies of femininity: shy, demure, coy, smiling girl next door types being girlish, human and alive.

This gets back to QC's Ten Commandments article yesterday: Love passionately.

http://qcurtius.com/2015/10/12/my-own-ten-commandments/

There's something else besides image retouching.

Notice the expressions on the model's faces. Go look up more from the 60s and then on to the 00s.

You'll notice in the 60s, the models mostly smile and look submissively feminine, the 'come take me' look. Then as the years go on, culminating now, you get a hard facial expression, no smile, dominant, as if to say 'look how hot I am, you can't have this'.

Examples:







Versus, newer 'hot' pictures:









This is very obvious to me.

Not only is there this cartoonish photoshopping, the models also pose in 'glamour' and fashion poses, which seem to be more for the benefit of the photographer and the model than for the reader.

A lot can probably be explained by women taking over editing roles on lads mags and probably also fags. Men and women have very different ideas of what a sexy photo of a woman is.

Post: #41

Guys....whatever you do....don't stop posting those older Playboy images.

Post: #42

(10-14-2015 08:18 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  There's something else besides image retouching.

Notice the expressions on the model's faces. Go look up more from the 60s and then on to the 00s.

You'll notice in the 60s, the models mostly smile and look submissively feminine, the 'come take me' look. Then as the years go on, culminating now, you get a hard facial expression, no smile, dominant, as if to say 'look how hot I am, you can't have this'.

This is very obvious to me.

Not only is there this cartoonish photoshopping, the models also pose in 'glamour' and fashion poses, which seem to be more for the benefit of the photographer and the model than for the reader.

A lot can probably be explained by women taking over editing roles on lads mags and probably also fags. Men and women have very different ideas of what a sexy photo of a woman is.

Even when they aren't smiling, the girls still seem more inviting. But that was when male attention was still considered a good thing.

This chick isn't smiling, but she's not giving that hardened, jaded gaze.

Post: #43

They also had much softer jaw lines as well besides not looking so serious. Take a look at that man jaw on Olivia Wilde. What happened with not using natural tits as much?

Post: #44

Interesting Tech Crunch take on why Playboy made this decision...

Basically on today's Internet "Content is King" and the two king makers Google and Apple (not to mention Amazon) are NOT so called "Porn" friendly - answering to diverse Corporate Boards - they mention the Disneyfication of major "New" media:

http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/12/a-new-m...the-nudes/

I can't find the link but one report indicated the online version of Playboy saw circulation increase to some 4 Million+ readers/followers when they dropped the NSFW nudes... tells you how much productive work is getting done in Corporate America... between Fan Duel, Draft Kings and now a Playboy transformed into a lingerie and yoga pants catalog...

Plus I never really identified with being a Playboy as such - i was much more into Bob Guccione's Penthouse - whatever happened to his empire?

Interesting NYT take on the current trends in "Pornography"

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/busine....html?_r=0

These "Arthouse Porn" mags mentioned in NYT have circulations less than the average puppy or kitten video on YouTube... and YouTube being corporate ban hammers "Porn" as soon as it is reported.

Stepping out of the trees to look at the forest I find most Playboy and Penthouse pics about as Pornographic as Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" type paintings.

In my mind Porn is really that cheesy scripted video of even more cheesy beezies getting skewered and made water tight by various walking hardons all worried if they will pass their next HIV test - Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler even rarely ever went there but are still referred to as Porn - Imagine what a 50 Shades of Fan mag would show - would make the OC Cal Porn mills look tame by comparison.

In chaos therein lies opportunity...

Post: #45

(10-14-2015 09:28 AM)kbell Wrote:  They also had much softer jaw lines as well besides not looking so serious. Take a look at that man jaw on Olivia Wilde. What happened with not using natural tits as much?

It's not just your perception; Heartiste has called attention to this phenomenon as far as two years ago:

The Manjaw-ification of American Women: Science!

Post: #46

AB is right - it's a cult of anti-heterosexuality.

But there is something else going on - the pictures now even when sexy don't exude femininity and girlishness that we men love.

There was an outcry recently over this picture being auctioned off:



There were cries to ban it as sexist.

Women are getting colder much faster in reality as well. You literally have to get most very young before their light gets snuffed out by feminism, promiscuity, "being a strong empowered woman" etc.

Post: #47

(10-14-2015 01:08 AM)Gustavus Adolphus Wrote:  1999 Natalia Sokolova



2004 Hiromi Oshima

Those two were amongst my faves, here's some others:

Miriam Gonzalez '01



Anka Romensky '02



Morena Corwin '92



Cristy Thom '91

Post: #48

Karen McDougal, Playmate of the Year 1998 is my all time fave!

Post: #49

And a recent pic...44 years old and survived the wall quite nicely.

Post: #50

Lots of great posts and comments here. I like the comment from Nomadbrah above. It's true. Since these magazines were taken over by gays and feminists, they peddle their "version" of male sexuality. They don't give us what we want, they give us their propaganda.

All the modern photos convey this cold, unfeeling vibe. It's like we're supposed to pedestalize and worship these women, and get nothing in return. The whole vibe of the photos says, "Look how great I am. Don't even think about speaking to me, you worthless sack of shit."

Whereas the photos from the 70s and 60s said just the opposite. There is an allure and warmth that emanates from them. You can just feel it. They are more approachable, more kind, more human.

American women have lost their humanity. You might as well be looking at a photo of a marble statue. Cold, and unfeeling, with zero sexual energy.

These magazines deserve to lose their readership. Hugh Hefner can go take a long walk off a short pier. I hope they all go belly-up.