|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Was my hormone-filled youth a lie tanks to Playboy? |
| 1-4 of 4 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 01-02-18 10:49pm - 2545 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User  Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Was my hormone-filled youth a lie tanks to Playboy? As much as I loathe the "pay extra to download" model that some sites use, I got a holiday deal that included one free month at Playboy Plus. It has been a few years since I was a member there, so I thought it would be fun. There are many comments about how the site has changed, but this isn't really about that. It's about the realization that nearly all of the Playboy world is fake and probably has been since the beginning. I'm not just talking about bolt-on boobs and airbrushed tats, but the way the models and the images are manipulated. What is perhaps more troubling is that when I was young, Playboy was sort of the gold standard in terms of hot, mostly naked babes and I think I subconsciously used that as a standard of beauty for most of my life and perhaps I still do. But if Playboy did then what they appear to be doing now, my childhood standard of beauty was about as realistic as a barbie doll. Examples: Playboy has multiple sets of at least 5 very popular European models that frequent Met Art and Femjoy as well as several other solo and softcore sites. Mila Azul, Niemiera, Lorena and Candice B are familiar Met Art names/faces that are on Playboy Plus. But these girls are almost totally unrecognizable in the Playboy sets. In most cases, the folks at Playboy decided to trowel on so much make-up and eye shadow that it looks like the girls may have been beaten. Candice B, named Alice on PB, looks like a girl might look the morning after passing out at a crazy party. She even looks crazy in some shots. I mean wide-eyed, strange grin, bat shit crazy! ....and then there is the airbrushing/photo shopping. Some sites routinely shop some things in some images, but some of the images on PBP actually look like they are CGI. Faces, boobs, thighs, you name it, enhanced beyond recognition like they were lifted right off of the Deviantart web site. Shadows are weird. Vaginas are...well...often not natural looking at all and occasionally not even there! And when you compare the Playboy shots to the Met Art sets of the same models, the Playboy sets sometimes make these girls look kind of monstrous. We all know that Playboy is not the powerhouse that it once was, but I always thought that the women were, although a little curvier in general, very beautiful. But now I have to wonder....can Playboy take ANY model and make her look good? My guess is yes. Unfortunately, as I realized looking at these popular European models, the process also changes the basic way they look. Decades ago, I knew a few girls in college that posed for Playboy and although their images were nice, even hot, I didn't think it did them justice. They just looked different. So I guess my first pubescent lust, Marilyn Cole, miss January, 1972, was probably a lie. Damn. Those early magazine images are probably why I still enjoy looking at images from soft core sites like Met Art and Femjoy today. Funny how that works. Do you think porn had/has any impact on your definition of beauty? Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-03-18 12:16am - 2545 days | #2 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I wrote a review on Playboy Plus on 2013-10-03. I gave the site a score of 68. The quality of the photos and videos at the site, at the time I wrote the review, was poor. Especially compared to better sites like MetArt, MPL Studios, Femjoy, etc. Not only was the Playboy Plus site structure poor, which made browsing/searching the site extremely time-consuming, but the quality of the photos and videos was basically crap: Most of the photos and videos were not worth keeping. You could find better quality, and more complete, Playboy photos from newsgroups. Yes, Playboy in the 1960s and beyond did use air brushing, and other techniques to present their models more attractively. But that's a far difference from stating: "But now I have to wonder....can Playboy take ANY model and make her look good? My guess is yes." My guess is no. You can't take any model, and just using air brushing, or photo shop, or other techniques, make her look good. In spite of the rabid (in my opinion) MetArt fanbase which basically gushes over every model that appears at the MetArt site, a surprising number of the models lately are not that attractive. The models can be average-looking, or even plain. I think you are over-reacting to a poor site, Playboy Plus, and thinking, because it's so disappointing in their photos and videos, that all their models from the past were complete fakes. They weren't. There were a large number of genuinely attractive girls. Who were presented in an attractive way, to highlight their beauty. I went to several Glamourcon conventions 10 years ago or so, where former Playboy playmates appeared. And many of them were attractive-looking women. That even you would not kick out of your bed, if you were lucky enough to get one. Bonnie Large. Deanna Baker Stacy Fuson etc. Just my opinion, of course. Edited on Jan 03, 2018, 12:28am | |
|
||
| 01-03-18 01:08am - 2545 days | #3 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
skippy, not even photoshopping will make this model Playmate of the Year for 2018: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/1...32_1500303815349.jpg However, if you read further, the model is a male. | |
|
||
| 01-04-18 10:11pm - 2543 days | #4 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Lk2fireone, Hi. Thanks for the response. First off, the whole rant was about whether or not my personal definition of beauty was skewed by the altered images in early Playboy magazines. I think it may have been. I too have met other past Playboy models and some have been quite beautiful in real life. But I'll never know how retouched those images from my wonder years really were. I also agree that the Playboy Plus site is pretty marginal by today's standards. Their models are, for the most part, large breasted girls that are the Playboy standard. What surprised me was how altered the girls are in PB. Emily Bloom, for example, is a sweet looking girl with a killer body on other sites. In several PB sets, she is totally unrecognizable. And in a few shots her legs are open and there is pretty much nothing there! Wuuuuut?!!  As for unattractive models, I look at it this way. These days, there are only a few countries where "nude model" is an acceptable profession and/or industry. Although there are still many beautiful models from these countries, many come with issues...like bad teeth for example. And these girls generally only last in the industry for 2-4 years. But the money is good and the industry needs models, so there will be a LOT of girls that are of marginal quality and only do a few shoots. It's all good. Now I'm off to look at 10,000 more images in Playboy plus in the hopes of finding 5-10 more that I actually want to keep. Skippy | |
|
||
| 1-4 of 4 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
