I think Zoomers are trying to erase gender. At least it feels like that in the media.
The only ding dong I want to see is my own. Strangely Subraman wants to see it too, and nicespice wants to see Rick Dugans, but that’s another topic. San Jose Gay and CJ Kent want to see everyone’s.
This is nothing new for Playboy. I gave up my longtime subscription a couple of years ago. They've hit such hard times that you can't even get a physical copy any longer. Only digital.
I haven’t found Playboy pertinent in a long time. The publication had moved into woke and other gender erasing photos - and that’s fine - it’s just not for me.
Maybe I will become one of those guys who honestly says - I only read the articles!
The online content on Playboy TV and Playboy Plus is actually pretty good.
The wokest "magazine" is pathetic, kind of like the inclusive Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue nowadays.
Playboy is desperate for relevance and revenue. The internet, and availability of porn therein, has gutted their core audience. Swinging far left with trannies and cross-dressers show a complete lack of mission and focus. I bought a one-year subscription for myself when I had my first apartment, but it seems like their heyday was in the mid-to-late 90s.
i enjoyed reading playboy a lot during the period from 1985-95. mail subscription so never a need to check it out at the newstand. just wait for it to arrive.
the routine was always rip up the wrapper, check out the celebrity 20 questions, the jokes in the back of the centerfold section, and the last page to see what would be on the next issue. lastly check out the centerfold section to see if the girl of the month was jackoff worthy.
then once i checked out other mags like leg show, tail ends and swank i stopped subscribing to playboy.
now with all that is on the internet there is no need to even buy a physical copy anymore.
question: someone here said that there was over 3000 positive comments about the cover. is it possible that if there were a lot of negative comments there is a way to remove them?
I think playboy always wanted to be mainstream. That's why it was always so tame. But then you had playboy mansion parties where the girls were all hookers. I knew girls so proud to be invited there when they were just being paid to fuck rich men.
A neighbor is moving out and he offered me a box of Playboy issues. Otherwise he was going to put then in the trash.
So I took them. Gone through a few. Running from about 25 years to 15 years old.
It is a dumb magazine.
Photo spreads way to tepid.
I remember old Penthouse and Hustler much better. And I liked best this one they had, Black Tail, seeming to be real dancers from Black Strip Clubs.
[view link]
In Playboy the article and ads are stupid.
Most of all though, I think it is based on the premise that women are stupid. It is in the cartoons.
They have this little party girl drawing which is repeated many times in an issue. That is harmless. It is the larger cartoons with captions. They present women is total idiots.
And it makes men look stupid that we would read such stuff.
Soon this entire box will be in the trash.
SJG
Frampton
[view link]
The heyday of magazines like Playboy was like air dancing for stripping. Less risky for sex workers. No physical contact with PLs, less emotionally draining, less risk of intrusive bad memories.
Some one gave me an old copy of Swank's Mature Nymphos. About 2000, about the same age as the Playboys I mentioned.
About like this age:
[view link]
The mature nymphos are much more appealing than Playboy.
They are older sure, but they also just come across as more real, and as more slutty.
They are more like the dancers in our local strip clubs.
Playboy is too subdued in how the women are presented.
If you want it, Mature Nymphos makes for much better one handed reading material.
SJG
I had a subscription from 15-25 and haven't seen One in almost 40 years. I see it's popular among the mentally ill virtue signalers. Gender neutral. Cool we can dress the same; call each other comrade and be 1950s commies.
I find it fascinating (and sickening) that such a tiny fraction (probably 1/10 of 1%) of the population gets such outsized recognition and influence over everyone else. In my whole life I never met a single person who wants to look at trannies, or who gives one fuck about their lifestyle, affliction, or whatever you want to call it.
But now we've got trannies in Playboy, Victoria's Secret, Sports Illustrated... everywhere you look. TV commercials, women's sports, the MILITARY for fuck's sake. And everyone is expected to bend over backwards for these creepy bastards, forced to treat them as if there is something normal about it.
I've always maintained that people should be free to do whatever they want, until the point that it intrudes upon other people's freedom. Having to "pretend" that this massive redefinition of what society considers good, and decent, and normal, and attractive, is a major intrusion.
It's one thing to respect someone else's choices, for example teaching your kids not to poke fun at weirdos. It's entirely something else when you can't escape the constant bombardment of something that almost everyone finds repulsive. To me it's like someone with ass cancer walking around with a colostomy bag hanging on the outside of his clothes, and a sign that says "This is a bag of my shit," and then expecting to be welcomed at a public swimming pool.
If the progressive left is going to push equality of transgenderism, at least be honest about.
NBC has been accused of airbrushing photos of the NCAA swimmer to make him look “more feminine”
Playboy was a reaction to the Puritanism of the 1950s
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
Eric Hoffer,
"I had a subscription from 15-25 and haven't seen One in almost 40 years. I see it's popular among the mentally ill virtue signalers."
^No wonder skibum hates us young people so much. He calls himself mentally ill when he was 15 to 25. Classic case of projection. Sad... so sad...
36 comments