Post: #26

Seriously guys? There is a reason why we have doggy style.


WB!

Post: #27

Guess I'll just hop on the WNB bus for this one....

Post: #28

Playboy magazine is the product of a very different time. Hef started the magazine in the 1950's. They still think they are fighting the same battles that existed some fifty years ago.

And it's always been a lot more than nude photos of lovely women. Social criticism has always been a part of it.

It looks like she was born and raised in Macedonia. Her profile says she's from Skopje, which is the capital.

Post: #29

More pics. The dude in the bottom pic is her husband. Accent on the "bottom."
   
   

Post: #30

(04-23-2014 12:22 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  More pics.

You owe me a 55 gal drum of eye bleach.

Post: #31

Her article is pretty typical of feminist output. Basically, the formula is whatever standards men have that count against the writer are the product of misogyny/patriarchy. So you so the following pattern:

Fatty writes about men unfairly discriminating on the basis of weight
Uggo writes about men unfairly discriminating on the basis of beauty
Old broad writes about men unfairly discriminating on the basis of age
Slut writes about men unfairly discriminating on the basis of sexual promiscuity

So this slut wants her article to teach men that they need overlook her promiscuous past so that in the end she is more attractive. But even if all men suddenly decided to accept female promiscuity, it would take a miracle to make this 'sex researcher' (which is a great euphemism for slut, by the way) actually attractive.

Post: #32

(04-22-2014 11:27 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  "I read it for the articles." Sure man, and I fuck your mom for the exercise.

Post: #33

(04-22-2014 11:58 PM)xpatplayer Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 11:56 PM)Professor Fox Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 11:54 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

Nope.

That jaw looks like it could slice depleted uranium.

You guys have really high standards. I'd bang anything that moves and doesn't make me want to turn the other way if it propositioned me for sex.

Brutal honesty. Respect.

Post: #34

(04-23-2014 12:19 AM)L M McCoy Wrote:  Seriously guys? There is a reason why we have doggy style.


WB!

When you collect the coveted "East Coast PhD of Poly-amorphous Casual Slutting" flag, make sure you end it with pulling out of her and blasting your load all over this:

Post: #35

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

We're somewhere in the second or third stage.

Post: #36

(04-23-2014 12:52 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

This saying is quickly becoming the forum's wow, just wow.



EDIT: Chick looks like a tranny. WNB.

Post: #37

It's playboy, the most beta porn out there.

Post: #38

I am seriously in awe of that jawline. You could land one of these on it:

Post: #39

(04-23-2014 12:49 AM)Professor Fox Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 12:19 AM)L M McCoy Wrote:  Seriously guys? There is a reason why we have doggy style.


WB!

When you collect the coveted "East Coast PhD of Poly-amorphous Casual Slutting" flag, make sure you end it with pulling out of her and blasting your load all over this:

Imagine smashing her from behind in the dark. It would look like a skin disease or large insect

Post: #40

Looking at all those pics (above) that Mr. Fox put out, it seems like she's the embodiment of Alpha Fux/Beta Bux.

All those younger pics of her from 2005 were taken with Alpha-looking foreign guys. Then she gets tatted up and marries the older, balding nerdy Beta provider.

It looks like he's part of the New York art crowd along with her, and he was probably able to do some social climbing because she has a cache of cool in that crowd (academic credentials, etc.). It seems like he develops apps for a living.

The problem with today's New York art crowd is they try to pass off their deviance as normal and call the normal abnormal, as she did with this Playboy article. Back in the Warhol days, the NYC art folks knew they were deviant and reveled in it. They never moralized about what other should do, which is why that crowd was amusing, and these people are unbearable.

Post: #41

(04-23-2014 01:13 AM)TonySandos Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 12:49 AM)Professor Fox Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 12:19 AM)L M McCoy Wrote:  Seriously guys? There is a reason why we have doggy style.


WB!

When you collect the coveted "East Coast PhD of Poly-amorphous Casual Slutting" flag, make sure you end it with pulling out of her and blasting your load all over this:

Imagine smashing her from behind in the dark. It would look like a skin disease or large insect

Exactly. Tats just tell our primitave part of the brain: something is wrong.

It looks like bubonic plague.

Or it looks like: slut/sex-slave etc.

I'd still hit, but it's almost the same thing as a girl farting in your face while you do doggy, but in slow motion.

Post: #42

Would not bang and Playboy was always a liberal magazine.

Post: #43

She looks like a post-OP tranny. WNB.

Regarding the article, I assume Runson you're going to do an ROK article on it?

Somebody should.

Post: #44

(04-23-2014 12:24 AM)Professor Fox Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 12:22 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  More pics.

You owe me a 55 gal drum of eye bleach.

I really regret opening this thread.

Post: #45

(04-23-2014 01:42 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 12:24 AM)Professor Fox Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 12:22 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  More pics.

You owe me a 55 gal drum of eye bleach.

I really regret opening this thread.

On a related note (HT samsamsam), I'm not sure how this hasn't made it onto the official forum smilies yet:

Post: #46

More free advertisement for RoK. By "old media" quickly becoming irrelevant.

Post: #47

Isn't this just a dupe of the "would you bang?" thread?

I think a lot of guys here would bang that chick over a fattie for sure.

And if you were in a dry spell?

Not saying she's hot, but when I say I won't bang a girl, it means that there is not situation I can think of that the girl would arouse me in any kind of way.

At least she's got the availability/SLUT thing going on.

If you had to choose between a definite bang with this chick vs. trying to get with a much hotter girl with very little chance of banging, what would you choose?

I've definitely fucked worse girls than her.

Not standing up for her, but I can think of worse girls.

She does a have a manjaw and no tits it seems. Very un-photogenic.

Post: #48

Post: #49

And this was published in Playboy? Oh my god, it's worse than I thought...

Oh... and ugh, WNB. Seriously, how could you?

Post: #50

(04-23-2014 01:54 AM)soup Wrote:  Isn't this just a dupe of the "would you bang?" thread?

I think a lot of guys here would bang that chick over a fattie for sure.

And if you were in a dry spell?

Not saying she's hot, but when I say I won't bang a girl, it means that there is not situation I can think of that the girl would arouse me in any kind of way.

At least she's got the availability/SLUT thing going on.

If you had to choose between a definite bang with this chick vs. trying to get with a much hotter girl with very little chance of banging, what would you choose?

I've definitely fucked worse girls than her.

Not standing up for her, but I can think of worse girls.

She does a have a manjaw and no tits it seems. Very un-photogenic.

But you see, knowing that someone actually married her just makes it that more ghastly.

I can't judge a man for his boner, but the idea of marrying that...