Post: #76

Speaking of Barbi Benton and palate cleansers, check out the superb 1981 B (or more like Z) horror slasher with her, Hospital Massacre aka X-ray. It's one of the purest movies of this great American genre, and it will give you the most distilled early '80s L.A. textures you could ever ask for.

Post: #77

You guys probably already heard it, but they've chosen the last nude Playboy centrefold...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/...el-6967674

...and she isn't even an American. Kristy Garett from Georgia. They couldn't find one American chick under the age of 26 who was good-looking enough with no clothes on to put up as the magazine's last nude centrefold.



Manjaw, can't see elbows, 2/10 WNB

Post: #78

Heh.
It's all about the elbows.

Post: #79

Here it is, fellas. Every Playboy centerfold.

http://imgur.com/a/Uxug4

O Discordia, the world grows darker.

Post: #80

Thanks for the centerfold link.

Post: #81

(12-08-2015 03:12 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  You guys probably already heard it, but they've chosen the last nude Playboy centrefold...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/...el-6967674

...and she isn't even an American. Kristy Garett from Georgia. They couldn't find one American chick under the age of 26 who was good-looking enough with no clothes on to put up as the magazine's last nude centrefold.



Manjaw, can't see elbows, 2/10 WNB

lol think by "Georgia" they mean the State of Georgia in the US. Not too many women named "Christy" in the country!

Man she's a smokeshow what a way to go out!

(02-28-2016 05:54 PM)Osiris Wrote:  Here it is, fellas. Every Playboy centerfold.

http://imgur.com/a/Uxug4

That might be the greatest link of all time. +1

Post: #82

In somewhat related news:

Guitar World publisher set to cease employing bikini-clad models in gear guide magazines

The anti-life militia marches on...

Post: #83

(10-14-2015 11:37 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  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.

Superb comment. This is not just true of magazine photos, but also of photos normal girls post of themselves on the internet. Seldom do you see the warm, inviting smile that most men actually find attractive:



Unfortunately, far more common are the inexplicably retarded duck face:



and that lifeless blank stare that's now popular for some reason:



Another adverse development is makeup going from a subtle way to conceal blemishes and enhance femininity, to what basically amounts to a mask:


Human lips do not look like that.

All four of these women are naturally attractive, but is there any question which one you'd rather spend time with? Yet so many tragically misguided girls are brainwashed to have the exact opposite demeanor.

Post: #84

Don't honestly care; don't care about porno much at all; women usually look just as good or better in sexy lingerie than fully nude anyway.

If someone has a hankering to see nudity then they should go after the real thing.

Post: #85

(10-13-2015 09:05 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  I'm with AnonymousBosch in that I think this shows a growing phobia towards sex and nudity among certain sectors of our society.

But I also think that Playboy's use of Photoshop and women with fake breasts and plastic surgery was its downfall. Here is a little-known fact: The magazine's biggest original bump in sales didn't come with movie stars who posed nude, but with photos of an office girl.

Men like to see sexy shots of women we might see everyday -- hence the explosion of "all natural" porn. Who wants to pay to see products of science? There was little that was natural about the women who appeared in the magazine after about 1995.

What Playboy should have after the Internet became popular was emphasize its glossy high-quality photos, which is something you can't get on a screen -- especially not a tiny smart phone screen.

If anyone wants to see how good Playboy could be in its heyday, Google a woman named Janet Lupo, who was a Playmate in 1975. Lupo was 100 percent natural, and I couldn't even imagine how good her photos must have looked on paper. Another good one from back in the '70s is Laura Misch.

It's a long way downhill from Lupo and Misch to whatever Hollywood Frankenstein creations they push on us these days.

Watched a documentary of Hugh Hefner years ago, and one of the guy that worked with him from the start said the main idea of Playboy was to showcase the office woman, the everyday women, the girl taking the subway, the receptionist, the nurse. One of the first girl to appear on Playboy was a real life receptionist that was working for Hefner at the time, many were college students, so, they will use her mayor and build the photos around it, she is studying psychology? take pictures of her in a chaise lounge, she is studying telecommunications? take pictures of her holding a Polaroid.

There was a magic in a way the pictures were taken, not everything look to fake.

(10-13-2015 06:31 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  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. [b]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[/b].

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

Playboy started to lose the male eccentric idea, men watched Playboy and imagined themselves being Hefner, having a mansion, fucking women from around the world, being rich, I think this is in part of what Dalrock says, female imperative, there is not place left in popular culture where men can express themselves.

(10-14-2015 08:18 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 06:50 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  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.

Quote: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.

That is because old school Playboy photos are based on the Pin Up girls, and the idea of pin ups is simple, she must be pretty, very feminine, innocent, she must appear to be doing something not sexual but an accident happens.





You notice the scene is mounted in a way that plays like a comic book? she is doing something normal but ......oooppps now you can see her panties by accident.

If you notice a parallel in the old schools pictures of Playboy, the pictures look like the women were caught out of guard, by surprise by the camera, they look the type of pictures a boyfriend will take of his girlfriend when she is no looking, he just walked in slowly and took the picture, I mean, the first picture you posted of the girl laying down with a book and glasses in hand, with her ass out but still shirt on, that is a very natural thing.

him: "hey baby what are you doing?"
her:"reading a book"
him: "look here"
[take picture by surprice]

Now, what is the parallel of the new age pictures? first, they are famous women, second, they are in complete unreal places, leather jacked and red bikini in the middle of a corn field?

The new age pictures lose the magic because the women are waiting for the pictures to be taken, you know the pictures have a staff of 20 people behind the camera when you see them, while the old ones look like something one single person could do.

Another problem is that by using famous women, they lose the aspect of what a man can get by looking at pictures, the average man is not going to meet Megan Fox, Sara Jean Underwood, or Jennifer Lawrence, while the old pictures look like women you could meet in the street.

The old pictures say:

-"get out, meet women like this in the real world."

The new ones say:

-"this women are way out of you league, you will never be in the same ZIP code."

The old picture tell you, you can have a pretty woman like this, while the new ones tell you, you will never be with women like this.

Quote:you get a hard facial expression, no smile, dominant, as if to say 'look how hot I am, you can't have this'.

The main problem is the people running the business, how can a professional photographer gets the same facial expression in 3 unrelated pictures of the same woman? Jennifer Lawrence looks the same in each picture, the main problem is homosexual men running the media from behind, this is why we have women walking fashion shows that look like preteen boys, because homosexual men want them to look like that, not because heterosexual men really like it.

Post: #86

So I was already about to start a new thread, but luckily I happened to remember this one!
Well, after reading all the great posts here expressing my thoughts almost verbatim there's really not a lot left to say or ask for me. But I think it can't hurt to bump this thread anyway, eye candy galore, so:

I stumbled upon an older interview with Alice Cooper:

Quote:His wife Sheryl, a former ballerina, used to dance on his shows. Though there was a rocky period caused by Alice’s much-publicised alcoholism in 1983, the couple reconciled and have three grown-up children.

But Alice still likes to remind his wife of what he gave up to be with her . . . a relationship with Raquel Welch. ‘It was a time in LA when every rock star had a movie star girlfriend,’ he says. I met Raquel and somehow she got attracted to this raggedy guy.

‘Then I met Sheryl, and I was chemically, physically, mentally in love with her. Sheryl’s this little tugboat and Raquel is this battleship and the battleship could not understand why I’d picked the tugboat.
Real life: Away from the stage Alice, real name Vincent Furnier, carries a whole different persona

‘That made her crazy and the more I ignored her, the crazier she got, so it got to be a comedy.

‘Raquel and I were going out for no more than five or six months and I just couldn’t see her any more. So, of course, any time my wife and I have fights, I bring up leaving Raquel Welch for her and she goes: “It’s the smartest thing you ever did in your life”. And I have to agree with her.’ Sheryl didn’t just save him from Raquel, she saved his life, dragging him to rehab.

Nice red pill anecdote, but of course I wanted to know who this Raquel Welch was and why leaving her was such a herculean feat.
Let me tell you, five minutes of your lifetime spent doing a google image search for her is time well spent:







I agree with the brave GI on the right!
What a woman.
Lookswise, that's at least a 9 to me, and I'm not even into white girls that much.
Here's a gallery of her through the years. Of course she got surgery, but still, compared to most other women, she didn't hit the wall, she gently rubbed herself against it.

By the way, here's the woman Cooper married:



Cute, but nothing special.
Looking back it seems like the absolutely right decision for him though.
If I would ever have to make a similar choice, I can only pray for god to give me the same iron will and rationality Cooper demonstrated back then.

Anyway, the pictures of Welch got me thinking. How come there are no women like her amongst the famous actresses, pop culture icons and models of today anymore?
Almost physically perfect specimens of the female human.
Back then you had Welch, the cast of Russ Meyer's movies, Sophia Loren, Ursula Andress, Anita Ekberg, Jane Fonda, Ann-Margret, and countless others.
Today's actresses pale in comparison, they are kind of hot at best, not absolute bombshells. Is it because the women with a genetic predisposition for divine bodies like that are today covered by a solid layer of fat, their irresistible feminine aura threatened by extinction?

Take for example Kim Kardashian. Besides my suspicion that most of her body is not exactly "natural" anymore, looking at her makes me think "what a whore". Would bang, and that's it.
Her and her ilk could easily be replaced by an advanced android, nobody would notice the difference.

But those legendary sex symbols from the 50s, 60s, 70s often lead to my brain completely shutting down and the only thought that's left is "must...impregnate".
I could look at pictures of them for hours without getting bored. With my hands on the table, I might add.
The last contemporary actress I can think of who fried my brain like that was Monica Bellucci, and that's it.

What happened? Why the lack of hourglass figures, class, femininity, light-heartedness?
I'm sure this type of woman is still around, why are they not icons anymore?
In my opinion, their beauty and popularity was not due to some type of cultural preference that might have changed over time; no, they appealed to a primal, archaic part of the male brain, and I doubt 60 years of evolution fundamentally changed our cave man programming.

I'll end my pointless rant with some pictures of Sophia Loren in her prime:

Post: #87

(05-20-2016 07:37 PM)Belgrano Wrote:  Anyway, the pictures of Welch got me thinking. How come there are no women like her amongst the famous actresses, pop culture icons and models of today anymore?
Almost physically perfect specimens of the female human.
Back then you had Welch, the cast of Russ Meyer's movies, Sophia Loren, Ursula Andress, Anita Ekberg, Jane Fonda, Ann-Margret, and countless others.
Today's actresses pale in comparison, they are kind of hot at best, not absolute bombshells. Is it because the women with a genetic predisposition for divine bodies like that are today covered by a solid layer of fat, their irresistible feminine aura threatened by extinction?

Take for example Kim Kardashian. Besides my suspicion that most of her body is not exactly "natural" anymore, looking at her makes me think "what a whore". Would bang, and that's it.
Her and her ilk could easily be replaced by an advanced android, nobody would notice the difference.

But those legendary sex symbols from the 50s, 60s, 70s often lead to my brain completely shutting down and the only thought that's left is "must...impregnate".
I could look at pictures of them for hours without getting bored. With my hands on the table, I might add.
The last contemporary actress I can think of who fried my brain like that was Monica Bellucci, and that's it.

What happened? Why the lack of hourglass figures, class, femininity, light-heartedness?
I'm sure this type of woman is still around, why are they not icons anymore?
In my opinion, their beauty and popularity was not due to some type of cultural preference that might have changed over time; no, they appealed to a primal, archaic part of the male brain, and I doubt 60 years of evolution fundamentally changed our cave man programming.

Short answers to all these questions:

(1) Bigger tits and bigger hips. Most young actresses these days look like their pelvises would crack in half if they tried to shit a kid out of them.
(2) Homosexuals now determine who walks up a catwalk.
(3) Significant changes in makeup. Older styles seemed capable of radically enhancing such qualities as a woman already had. Newer styles in makeup make all women look plastic like Barbie Dolls. Even when they try to recreate the old looks, it just doesn't seem to work:



Compare that to even a painting from the period:



How is it that a fucking painting exudes more warmth than a group of Gen Y women made up to look like they're from that period?

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #88

(05-20-2016 07:37 PM)Belgrano Wrote:  So I was already about to start a new thread, but luckily I happened to remember this one!
Well, after reading all the great posts here expressing my thoughts almost verbatim there's really not a lot left to say or ask for me. But I think it can't hurt to bump this thread anyway, eye candy galore, so:

I stumbled upon an older interview with Alice Cooper:

Quote:His wife Sheryl, a former ballerina, used to dance on his shows. Though there was a rocky period caused by Alice’s much-publicised alcoholism in 1983, the couple reconciled and have three grown-up children.

But Alice still likes to remind his wife of what he gave up to be with her . . . a relationship with Raquel Welch. ‘It was a time in LA when every rock star had a movie star girlfriend,’ he says. I met Raquel and somehow she got attracted to this raggedy guy.

‘Then I met Sheryl, and I was chemically, physically, mentally in love with her. Sheryl’s this little tugboat and Raquel is this battleship and the battleship could not understand why I’d picked the tugboat.
Real life: Away from the stage Alice, real name Vincent Furnier, carries a whole different persona

‘That made her crazy and the more I ignored her, the crazier she got, so it got to be a comedy.

‘Raquel and I were going out for no more than five or six months and I just couldn’t see her any more. So, of course, any time my wife and I have fights, I bring up leaving Raquel Welch for her and she goes: “It’s the smartest thing you ever did in your life”. And I have to agree with her.’ Sheryl didn’t just save him from Raquel, she saved his life, dragging him to rehab.

Nice red pill anecdote, but of course I wanted to know who this Raquel Welch was and why leaving her was such a herculean feat.
Let me tell you, five minutes of your lifetime spent doing a google image search for her is time well spent:

Looking back it seems like the absolutely right decision for him though.
If I would ever have to make a similar choice, I can only pray for god to give me the same iron will and rationality Cooper demonstrated back then.

Anyway, the pictures of Welch got me thinking. How come there are no women like her amongst the famous actresses, pop culture icons and models of today anymore?
Almost physically perfect specimens of the female human.
Back then you had Welch, the cast of Russ Meyer's movies, Sophia Loren, Ursula Andress, Anita Ekberg, Jane Fonda, Ann-Margret, and countless others.
Today's actresses pale in comparison, they are kind of hot at best, not absolute bombshells. Is it because the women with a genetic predisposition for divine bodies like that are today covered by a solid layer of fat, their irresistible feminine aura threatened by extinction?

You and I have exactly the same taste in women, and it was a relief to read your post because I have often had these same thoughts about these 60s-70s actresses. And felt exactly the same about Monica Bellucci. To your list I would add Claudia Cardinale.

Anyway, the best part about Alice Cooper's story is that while he obviously ended up with a faithful, loving, supportive wife who bore and raised his children and aided his career (at the very least inspiring one of his best songs Only Women Bleed)...

he still got to bang Welch for a few months. That is enough to say you scaled Everest. At that point she had probably become normalized to him anyway.

Post: #89

https://antidem.wordpress.com/2015/11/27...fter-dark/

Quote:But more than anything else, the reaction I have is that this new strategy won’t work. The conventional wisdom is that Playboy has declined because the level of raciness found in its pages has been so thoroughly surpassed by more explicit material that it is no longer relevant. While there’s certainly some truth in that, I don’t believe that’s what’s really at the heart of Playboy’s relevance problem. The reason that becoming a lifestyle magazine won’t save Playboy is the fact that more than anything else, even more than its now-tame degree of raciness, it is the Playboy lifestyle itself that is no longer relevant.

...

No, the problem with Playboy wasn’t that its nudes were too tame; it is that there is no market left for the Playboy lifestyle. Nobody wants porn that you have to put on a necktie for, much less that you have to read some boring book in order to keep up with. Modernity is not about sophistication, but about authenticity, and authenticity is easy (Do you really think that corporations started to construct office buildings in the International or Brutalist styles because they admired the philosophy behind them? Or is it more likely that they took to them merely because they were cheap to construct?). And of course, there is nothing more authentic than the procreative urge; than feeling the need to ejaculate and satisfying it through the quickest and most straightforward means available. Hardcore porn serves those purposes admirably; what is added to that by talking about philosophy or jazz, or by having a chat with Norman Mailer along the way? How inauthentic! How elitist! What a waste of time! Just get to the sex! Hey Mailer: “Go away – ‘batin!”

This is us: a society with no desires beyond materialist comforts and whatever Whiggishly practical means may be necessary to acquire them. Beautiful naked women are no longer enough sugar to make the medicine of Picasso, Nietzsche, or Miles Davis go down. Hef is old, lives in a world that is far in the dusty past, and has the problem exactly wrong. He thinks that he can still sell an aspirational lifestyle – the one that he once aspired to, and eventually managed to build for himself – but it is only possible to sell an aspirational lifestyle in a society that still has real aspirations. We are no longer such a society.

Our aspirations are dead, our intellectual life is dead, our culture is doomed, and the only question left is whether or not Hef will die before the magazine he created does.

I like his take on this

Pretty interesting blog in general

Post: #90

I am jealous of anyone who just got to discover Raquel Welch. How I remember her from my high school days:

Post: #91

Great article QuietDog. Really highlights the malaise of the world we're living in, doesn't it?

Post: #92

Interesting quote from Hugh, given the discussion in this thread.

Quote:Consider the girl we made popular: the Playmate of the Month. She is never sophisticated, a girl you cannot really have. She is a young, healthy, simple girl - the girl next door . . . we are not interested in the mysterious, difficult woman, the femme fatale, who wears elegant underwear, with lace, and she is sad, and somehow mentally filthy. The Playboy girl has no lace, no underwear, she is naked, well-washed with soap and water, and she is happy.

— Hugh Hefner, 1967

Post: #93

(05-22-2016 04:33 PM)Suits Wrote:  Interesting quote from Hugh, given the discussion in this thread.

Quote:Consider the girl we made popular: the Playmate of the Month. She is never sophisticated, a girl you cannot really have. She is a young, healthy, simple girl - the girl next door . . . we are not interested in the mysterious, difficult woman, the femme fatale, who wears elegant underwear, with lace, and she is sad, and somehow mentally filthy. The Playboy girl has no lace, no underwear, she is naked, well-washed with soap and water, and she is happy.

— Hugh Hefner, 1967

Thanks. I needed a signature refresh.

Post: #94

Ohh how the mighty have fallen!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/playboy...li=BBnbfcL


Playboy magazine, once famous for bunnies and soft porn, for the first time is featuring a Muslim woman wearing a hijab, in a spread that is drawing both praise and criticism.

American journalist Noor Tagourib appears in the magazine's October "Renegades" edition, a series that focuses on men and women "who risked it all -- even their lives -- to do what they love."

The 22-year-old journalist who works as a reporter for Newsy, a video news network, is featured wearing a black leather jacket, jeans, sneakers and a hijab, or headscarf, in the publication that describes her as "a badass activist."

Tagouri, who is of Libyan descent and whose goal is to become the first "hijabi" anchor on commercial US television, says that her struggles as a Muslim woman growing up in the United States have helped her move ahead in her career.

"I know what it's like to have the narrative of our community be skewed and exploited in the media," she told Playboy, which did away with nudity earlier this year as it sought to appeal to a wider audience.

"I was like, 'Hey, I know what it's like to be misrepresented in the media. I won't do that to you. I want to tell your story because it's important and deserves justice.'"

Tagouri, who has a social media following of more than 100,000, first gained attention after launching the viral #LetNoorShine campaign in 2012.

Her appearance in the revamped Playboy is being hailed by many as a breakthrough, but others have hit out at the young woman.

"Playboy is synonymous with pornography," read an article in The Muslim Vibe, an online magazine.

"It has been at the forefront of the objectification, sexualisation and commodification of women for decades and just because they've softened their image, it doesn't mean we can begin to engage with the platform and jump on board."

Blogger Nishaat Ismail also questioned in an opinion column the wisdom of Tagouri associating with an institution "based on the objectification of women."

"Are the voices of women -- and in particular Muslim women -- buried so deep under the cries of those who claim to speak on our behalf that our only available response is (to) involve ourselves with Playboy, a magazine that has solely existed for the past 63 years for men to gawp at the bodies of half-naked women?" wrote Nishaat.

"Is this really how we reclaim our own narrative?"

Post: #95

(05-22-2016 04:33 PM)Suits Wrote:  Interesting quote from Hugh, given the discussion in this thread.

Quote:Consider the girl we made popular: the Playmate of the Month. She is never sophisticated, a girl you cannot really have. She is a young, healthy, simple girl - the girl next door . . . we are not interested in the mysterious, difficult woman, the femme fatale, who wears elegant underwear, with lace, and she is sad, and somehow mentally filthy. The Playboy girl has no lace, no underwear, she is naked, well-washed with soap and water, and she is happy.

— Hugh Hefner, 1967

I remember a playmate talking - it might have been an old Howard Stern interview on youtube - about how a playmate USED to be the girl next door. Now, she's the girl you WISHED lived next door.

Without realizing it, she summed up the problem with modernist women. She's gone from being everything men are attracted to, to a basic, entitled bitch who happens to be hot. Hot is the cheap, poor substitute for attractive.

Post: #96

(09-28-2016 10:38 AM)Aquiles_Baesta_Parada Wrote:  

Who's this basic bitch?

Post: #97

(09-28-2016 06:55 PM)Mr. D Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 10:38 AM)Aquiles_Baesta_Parada Wrote:  

Who's this basic bitch?

Tagouri, who is of Libyan descent and whose goal is to become the first "hijabi" anchor on commercial US television, says that her struggles as a Muslim woman growing up in the United States have helped her move ahead in her career.

"I know what it's like to have the narrative of our community be skewed and exploited in the media," she told Playboy, which did away with nudity earlier this year as it sought to appeal to a wider audience.

"I was like, 'Hey, I know what it's like to be misrepresented in the media. I won't do that to you. I want to tell your story because it's important and deserves justice.'"

A reciter of standard-issue victimhood-olympics boilerplate.

Post: #98

Guys, I used my time machine to get pictures of future Playboy playmates:







WARNING NSFW:











Here's an explicit lesbian scene that was deemed too racy to publish:

Post: #99

Quote:she told Playboy, which did away with nudity earlier this year as it sought to appeal to a wider audience abso-fucking-lutely nobody.

Fixed!

Post: #100

I produced a few memes, because I found the contributions here by members excellent: