Message Boards
Page: of 3 next >
Thats Bullshit !!!! thank god for twistys !!!
This is outrageous.
My gut reaction:
It's an attempt to drive traffic to the online service and/or it's a publicity stunt...they already plan to "reverse" this decision along with a headline proclaiming, "You spoke! We listened! Because you demanded it!"
It's an attempt to drive traffic to the online service and/or it's a publicity stunt...they already plan to "reverse" this decision along with a headline proclaiming, "You spoke! We listened! Because you demanded it!"
Ehhh I dont think so Rod..... Now that there is no nudity..there will be more models/celebs that will pose in it because they will not have to go nude ..as crazy as it sounds it will prob boost sales for them !!
It's like the loss of my youth
Posted on 2015-10-13 01:44 PM. Last edited by FLscribe on 2015-10-13 01:45 PM. (1 edits total)
It's the smart move for them. They cannot compete against websites that show nudity (and more), but they can corner the market on being the magazine for the well-rounded gentleman who enjoys the finer things in life -- including women. Think of it as Maxim for grown-ups. Magazines that find their niche and cover it from top to bottom are still doing well.
I suspect this will do well. If it doesn't, well, the long-term prospects weren't particularly healthy anyway.
But, yes, there's a certain pang of sadness ... I'm feeling so nostalgic, I might have to go jerk off to Debra Jo Fondren for old times' sake.
I suspect this will do well. If it doesn't, well, the long-term prospects weren't particularly healthy anyway.
But, yes, there's a certain pang of sadness ... I'm feeling so nostalgic, I might have to go jerk off to Debra Jo Fondren for old times' sake.
Open to interesting ideas
Posted on 2015-10-13 01:47 PM. Last edited by Kent on 2015-10-13 02:18 PM. (2 edits total)
Rod said:
My gut reaction:
It's an attempt to drive traffic to the online service and/or it's a publicity stunt...they already plan to "reverse" this decision along with a headline proclaiming, "You spoke! We listened! Because you demanded it!"
My gut reaction:
It's an attempt to drive traffic to the online service and/or it's a publicity stunt...they already plan to "reverse" this decision along with a headline proclaiming, "You spoke! We listened! Because you demanded it!"
Interesting idea! I thought at first that maybe they were just talking about a return to the pre-hairy-pussy, tits-and-ass Playboy of the 60's. The online pics you can see today of the Playboy Playmate centerfolds from those years makes me sorry I missed them. Surely the most awesomely beautiful (and yet still HOT) titty pics ever published.
But NO! This talks about what the guy called "PG-13" Playmates -- presumably fully clothed and just provocatively posed. Maybe not even as a centerfold. That's beyond belief! Hefner would have to be senile to approve this.
I'm also suspicious of the claim about this being focus group tested, and that it will find favor with the 18 to 30 year old demographic at the expense of the 47+ year olds. I certainly don't prefer my fantasy sex partners clothed, and I sure didn't when I was 18.
Posted on 2015-10-13 01:57 PM. Last edited by wadsworth on 2015-10-13 01:58 PM. (1 edits total)
There is already FHM and the like. It seems like a desperate move.
I think the Playmate of the Month was a source for masturbation inspiration long before the internet, and they have been coasting on that for a long time. After seeing amateur porn and looking now at the Playboy pictorials, the photos are so heavily retouched that they are not very arousing - the skin of the models made to look like some sort of plastic, smooth and featureless.
There are and probably are some very good articles, but with no nudity (and for a while now, much better sources of nudity and stimulation elsewhere), why not read the New Yorker? Playboy magazine has been pretty irrelevant for some time now.
I think the Playmate of the Month was a source for masturbation inspiration long before the internet, and they have been coasting on that for a long time. After seeing amateur porn and looking now at the Playboy pictorials, the photos are so heavily retouched that they are not very arousing - the skin of the models made to look like some sort of plastic, smooth and featureless.
There are and probably are some very good articles, but with no nudity (and for a while now, much better sources of nudity and stimulation elsewhere), why not read the New Yorker? Playboy magazine has been pretty irrelevant for some time now.
let's share experiences we have had and jerk off!
sometimes I find nn is more exciting, the shear teasing.
Don't really care. All they have now is a bunch of models no one has ever heard of. I liked it when they had nude actresses and athletes. I cancelled my subscription a while ago.
wadsworth said:
There is already FHM and the like. It seems like a desperate move.
I think the Playmate of the Month was a source for masturbation inspiration long before the internet, and they have been coasting on that for a long time. After seeing amateur porn and looking now at the Playboy pictorials, the photos are so heavily retouched that they are not very arousing - the skin of the models made to look like some sort of plastic, smooth and featureless.
There are and probably are some very good articles, but with no nudity (and for a while now, much better sources of nudity and stimulation elsewhere), why not read the New Yorker? Playboy magazine has been pretty irrelevant for some time now.
There is already FHM and the like. It seems like a desperate move.
I think the Playmate of the Month was a source for masturbation inspiration long before the internet, and they have been coasting on that for a long time. After seeing amateur porn and looking now at the Playboy pictorials, the photos are so heavily retouched that they are not very arousing - the skin of the models made to look like some sort of plastic, smooth and featureless.
There are and probably are some very good articles, but with no nudity (and for a while now, much better sources of nudity and stimulation elsewhere), why not read the New Yorker? Playboy magazine has been pretty irrelevant for some time now.
The short answer is that Playboy has a better "brand" for the type of lifestyle it wants to create - sexually aware, suave, urbane. It's one of the few brands that is synonymous with a way of life. The New Yorker is a good read, but its brand means different things to different people. FHM also is a decent magazine, but it doesn't have nearly the recognition and is still trying to decide what it wants to be. Playboy defined its niche and now is refining it.
You're right ... Playboy has been irrelevant in recent years. To stay alive, it has to leverage its remaining strengths -- as the bible of a certain lifestyle, rather than as a tame stroke book with words between the pictorials.
Open to interesting ideas
Posted on 2015-10-13 03:56 PM. Last edited by Nathaniel on 2015-10-13 03:58 PM. (2 edits total)
Playboy is just not what it used to be anyway. I miss the fantastic tits on the old monthly Playboy Playmates. Electronic images are just not the same as the pictures with the smell of paper and ink. And I miss the old Playboy Clubs. The servers with big bulging cleavage up front and the little white cotton tails behind.
I wonder if Hef still beds a couple of Playmates per night?
I wonder if Hef still beds a couple of Playmates per night?
Nathaniel said:
I wonder if Hef still beds a couple of Playmates per night?
I wonder if Hef still beds a couple of Playmates per night?
Yes, but these days it does literally mean he goes to bed with them, and "sleep" means exactly that. lol
People who live in glass houses should undress in the basement
mrgiles1968 said:
Yes, but these days it does literally mean he goes to bed with them, and "sleep" means exactly that. lol
Yes, but these days it does literally mean he goes to bed with them, and "sleep" means exactly that. lol
And if they want sex, he just hires it done.....lol.
Page: of 3 next >