In light of the fact that Playboy Magazine is no longer going to feature nudes or have a centerfold (Their website is quickly following suit) by March of 2016, let's get a thread going to remember the good times the bunny rabbit gave u/s/.
Dumping whatever I have on hand.
Blame the decline of the print industry, the rise of the Internet and the fact that licensing the Playboy Logo makes more money than the magazine and the website combined.
Falling asleep at my lap-top, so I'm going to call it for now. feel free to contribute anything playboy-related while I'm out (Covers, Centerfolds, full pictorials etc. etc.) /s/
The magazine has been in decline of both relevance and subscribers for a decade or more. I wish them good luck but I bet within a few years the magazine is shuttered and the shareholders are left to squabble over an ever declining royalty base.
I didn't believe this until I saw the NY Times article about it.
Hef must be senile. This is really a stupid move.
Bonus Dianne Chandler #1
The New York Times agree with you Anon:
Now where are b-list celebs supposed to go to do a quick "tasteful nude" layout to boost their career?
If ABC ever decides to bring back Love Boat, where will they find their guest stars?
(oh, and Bonus Diane Chandler #4)
Vice? Instagram? Snapchat?
Irina Voronina one of the best post 2000 centerfold photo.
This is genuinely making me sad. A national tragedy.
I will miss the playmates
Ending my posts. Hope even with this fall of Playboy the good gallery sites will still stay up
Motherfucker's still alive. 89 and not nearly as sharp as he used to be, but still alive.
Actually, it's a money grab to the 18-30 demographic and countries that legally can't sell Playboy in it's current guise (China, basically).
>Playboy executives admit that it has been overtaken by the changes it pioneered. “That battle has been fought and won,” said Scott Flanders, the company’s chief executive. “You’re now one click away from every sex act imaginable for free. And so it’s just passé at this juncture.”
>"The difference between us and Vice,” Mr. Flanders said, “is that we’re going after the guy with a job.”
This is great and ll but the guy with job might still like naked chicks.
This is not great
No, what really happened is they ran out of money to buy a naked photosession from a decent whore and decided to roll instagram the magazine before finally closing. But it's looks 100% disgusting, it's like conservatives won and placed everyone 70 years back.
And what's there to access without nudity?
Their photography is obsolete shit, you can build instagram feed in a week which will be better than what they intend to do and be completely free too.
They can't compete with instagram's blitzkrieg attack.
Yes that's why they should just shut it down, and just make archive available for subscription.
Now the entire archive is in danger because they may deface or delete it in any seconds.
i don't know why so many people are upset. playboy hasn't been relevant for years. there are much better places to get pictures of naked women. nobody buys magazines anymore.
>there are much better places to get pictures of naked women
Like which ones exactly anon? All that exists besides playboy is shitty degenerate porn and sites with underfed ukranian whores. And most of the latter can't even make any videos.
you think femjoy, metart, mplstudios are all underfed ukranian whores?
Yes femjoy, metart and mpl are literally like this - 70% ukrainian, 20% russian, 5% czech and 5% everything else. Also metart began as pedophiliac site in disguise, they used to fake the age of their models to evade persecution. There is horrible air of prostitution and trafficking about metart and other east european sites which make me not want to support them at all, unlike playboy which has some of their former models working as corporate executives.
And anyway, they were using playboy template, feeding of playboy popularity and will degrade into garage instagram tier without real competition.
>playboy never used prostitutes or underage models
cool story bro
They want to remain relevant by being able to post on social media as they can't compete with Internet porn. If the models are no longer nude they can put their pics up on twitter, facebook, etc. It's a sad attempt in trying to keep up with the very culture they helped create. They really just need to release some Tranny nudes. That'll stir the pot.
Def not a fan of the whole pedo thing. That said, you cant really claim that Playboy is above prostitution. How many of the girls in that mag got there because they slept with Hefner? Sorry to break it to you, that is a form of prostitution. Frankly, any time you are paid for sex you are prostituting yourself.
Playboy models don't usually end up in porn and have chance for normal life, while like at least 20% of metart girls shoot in porn and appear on escort sites all the time. Metart is really like a branch of eastern european prostitution ring.
Nope. I live in CZ...works here. Frequently travel to RU, HU, UA, PL for business. Never had an issue accessing MetArt from anywhere when I had a subscription.
I do remember a while back there was a Russian photographer and his wife that were both sent to prison for child pornography charges, but I don't think it had anything to do with MetArt. They were falsifying identification documents and posted a pic set of some 16 year old (that was also posted in here quite reqularly years back) got them busted.
>Nope. I live in CZ...works here.
You can't subscribe for metart in russia at least, perhaps in ukraine too. Existing subscriptions should work perhaps.
>I do remember a while back there was a Russian photographer and his wife that were both sent to prison for child pornography charges, but I don't think it had anything to do with MetArt.
No it has, that photographer claims metart founder set police on him when his own site became somewhat noticeable.
I haven't had a MA sub in about 5 years now so maybe something has changed.
I find it amusing that all these FSU countries are so uptight about things like this. Age of consent for most of these places is 15-16. The industry is cutthroat no doubt - I don't doubt for a second that someone got pissed and rolled on the guy for underaged models.
Maybe playboy should have evolved with the rest of a society that now has hot porn on its phones. Like their whores that they featured playboy banked on its looks but is now a saggy tit crone who didn't invest her money wisely. Now she'll gum you for a fiver.
When first I found Playboy i was linked to the website by a news story of a high school cheerleading coach who was fired for posing in her birthday suit. There were so many naked women. I was fourteen. This, is that cheerleading coach
This. One hung out with me for a while and she was hot but dumb. Gave me a fake name until one day I noticed her Facebook she used had a picture from the day she got playmate of the month. Bitch freaked the hell out, started crying, and deactivated her phone.
Too bad, too. We got along really well.
Hey, we all read it for the articles, right? So it'll be fine.
So Playboy is wanting to become Maxim/Stuff?
This is a shitty move. They could have just gone straight artistic with their pictorials, but removing them entirely? Very dumb.
Also, to whomever was saying shit about them wanting to be able to be sold in other countries: that's simple, you have (which they already do) branch versions of the publication that adhere to local standards.
I'm surprised they've lasted this long. I guess people got tired of them having too many plastic-titted airbrushed centerfolds that barely even looked like people they were so shooped.
If they still made shit like this >>16234096 I would probably subscribe myself.
I wonder how long they can go on by being a more well-known Maxim.
We should be thinking outside the box. What if this gets Playboy out into the magazine racks at Walmart? Then everyone wanted to buy the PG-13 Playboy. Then they provide highly artistic images that are a huge cut above Maxim, just look at the photos here from a technical level they blow away the Maxim stuff. Then Playboy explodes in popularity saving the magazine. They now can get legit actresses to pose almost nude rather then the trash they have to put in there now.
Fast forward a little later, they could become more explicit, show some occasional topless or see through become like NUTS in the UK. Then when they come back to full nudes it will be news making again.
Its like hitting the reset button on a comic book. Like when DC rebooted all their comics and fixed the continuity. Now we are on Playboy Clean issue one.
Maybe they will improve the magazine and the self imposed limitations will make better art?
Trying to remain positive.
Assuming by that you mean it's not hardcore, sometimes it's nice to see a photo of hot girl naked without her having her pussy gaped open wide enough to conduct a cargo ship through or something like that. I really like their older photos.
This. I like the playboy shoots I have better than the Penthouse or few Hustler Taboo's I have
Caprice was in this Oct Penthouse though, that kinda topped everything
Internet porn can get overwhelming anyway. Doesn't anyone else like picking out a couple great photos and using them over and over? Porn nostalgia is way better than new content sometimes
Hopefully they'll change the way they make up the chicks and do all the photo processing and photoshopping and shit. Playboy photos have looked like majorly airbrushed shiny fake shit since the mid 80s
If you want to destroy the empire you spent nearly a century creating, at least liquidate it and spend the money on a 50 foot gold replica of your genitals or done shit. Don't shoot it in the balls and watch it roll around in agony while it bleeds out!
I'm sure the grills are just as good looking, but Playboy has been, for a few years, overly Photoshopping (airbrushing) their models. Many of the photo sets from the past 5 years have a gold look to them. The stuff from the 1980's was just produced better.
>Their website is quickly following suit
I fucking hope not. Their website has been my fap material for the past five years. The CyberGirls are definitely more racy than the Playmates. I love how the videos will be interviewing the girl and she'll say something like, "I saw my brother's stack of Playboys and I loved how beautiful and classy the women looked," and then show her butthole.
Hmm I think the past 10 years is more accurate
Early stuff through the 80s, there was a natural filter, you know? the insignificant skin blemishes that 100% of human beings have were invisible with a little makeup or couldn't be seen because the photography wasn't digital.
nobody does classy buttholes like playboy does classy buttholes
The playboy website has stopped having nudes for a while. Playboy plus though will still have nudes and "centerfolds." The downside is no more nudie mags. The upside is the cyber girls are showing more and more. They're just transferring to a internet mostly platform. Lots of mags have done this. Just the age we live in.
You saved me time typing out my thoughts.
Though I don't see them going back to nudes though.
This more by Playboy is PURE GENIUS.
The app store app will be HUGE too.
I didn't know who that was, so I looked it up. Lilly Cole, posed in French Playboy. The shots are sexy, but generally clothed or posed to hide any nipple. I guess that tells up what American Playboy will be, soon.
Alana Wolfe - If I saw her in person I'm sure I would be astounded by her beauty. But look at this Playboy image, people's skin just doesn't look like that. This is crazy and it's why Playboy sucks now.
Happy birthday to me, happy birth day to me, happy birthday poor, poor, poor anon.
>conservatives won and placed everyone 70 years back
nigga what? anti-porn conservatives lost. any 12 year old with internet access can watch arbitrarily degenerate porn for free now.
they're doing this because no one under the age of 55 fucking cares about a magazine full of pictures of naked girls when the internet exists. their demographic is literally dying.
Early 1980's playmate Barbara Edwards.
No, the blame goes to constantly featuring platinum blondes with fake tits or women who don't look real at all.
Playboy was supposed to be "the girl next door likes to fuck as well" and now it is, "Ok, next girl in to the mold - spread'em - got the picture - next girl in to the mold.
Ones like this are much better.
And can you imagine a PMOY who looks like this NOW? I mean, I wouldn't mind if she trimmed her bush a bit, but Lisa actually looked like a girl you might have known and hung around with as opposed to someone who couldn't wait until she was 18 so she could start working at Hooters so she could afford to get tits and plastic surgery so she can pose for Playboy and become famous.
>I really like their older photos.
It's the pubic hair that makes them so sexy.
>Porn nostalgia is way better than new content sometimes
The women in the past had beautiful pubic hair. Now, women in porn either have no pubic hair or ugly pubic hair.
I don't have to see them shaved/waxed bald, but I don't have my supper with the lights off. I like to see what I'm eating.
Plus, I find a lot of hair not only tickles my nose, but chafes my dick.
> Did the feminists tell them to stop because it's sexist and objectifies women?
UK Feminsts helped Create lads mags - here's how:
It's funny. In the UK feminists hate what are called lad mags. Maxim, GQ, FHM, Nuts, Zoo, Esquire etc. What most people don't know is that feminist brought them about. In the old days Playboy and it's clones were king. Some nude girls and some advertising in a magazine and fill up the truck with cash. It was simple and effective business model. However in the late 80s early 90s feminists started going in to large chain newsagents in the UK and just removing playboy etc from the shelves ( AKA brazen shoplifting ). The major newsagents relented and decided not to stock playboy etc anymore. However magazine publishers wanted to get in on that very profitable business model ( Babes and articles for men ) so they reinvented the genre with Bikini clad women and faux intellectual articles ( GQ, FHM, Esquire ). Remember this was the 90s no internet, porn sold in only a few newsagents. The idea took off and even Celebs were posing in their underwear. However the articles were sucky and frequently intellectually pretentious. As a reaction to this very soft porn and shitty articles came a magazine called "Loaded". It had no pretensions to being anything other than being funny, irreverent and having some tits. In 18 months after it's publish it was the best selling "mens magazine" and because of it's irreverent, don't give shit attitude it became known as a "Lads mag". As "Loaded" was eating up market share the other "mens magazines" panicked and became more like "Loaded". Thus it gave birth to the "lads mag" genre. It reached it's peak in the early 2000s with 2 Weekly lads mags ( soft porn, lads articles, jokes etc ) competing before internet porn became accessible to everyone and started to kill off the lads mag. ( Source: I lived through every sorry year of it.)
TL;DR - Playboy very profitable. 80s feminists say "NO - Bad". Newsagents stop selling playboy. People copy playboy cos it's profitable but with bikini girls instead of nude girls. Create lads mag. Now feminist look at lads mags and say "NO - Bad".
Also credit to playboy for getting women considered beautiful like Kate Moss ( INB4 overrated, anorexic etc )
Playboy used to matter. In the 90s it was often either playboy or the underwear sections of the womans clothes catalogue. You millennials do not know how lucky you were.
in the 80s-90s they had Swank , Hustler etc
>You millennials do not know how lucky you were.
since you can compare, I'd like to know which gets got you harder and gave you better orgasm, a) the present you watching internet porn, or b) the pre-internet you watching pre-internet porn, or c) the present you watching pre-internet porn?
Yep. There is a massive oversupply of teenage slavic girls on these sites.
There's a lot that METart does right. High pixel photos, Photographers that know how to take a photograph properly, a good number of sets per day, Doesn't over photoshop the girls. BUT MET art stands for Mostly Erotic Teens and they are obsessed by young girls. It's like they are not interested in anyone over 21. Shit some of the girls have braces. I just feel guilty looking at them. My general rule is that if I were in a bar and I had to ID a girl then she looks too young. Teen porn stars are just everywhere, there's like a glut.
To give credit to playboy they tried to get the celebs/actresses you saw on tele to pose naked. No other magazine had the cash or whatever it took to do that. That made playboy special. It also gave a certain mainstream acceptability to nudity.
< Pamela Anderson ( in the 90s she was one of the most desired women in the world and playboy got her nudes. Well played playboy )
What I prefer most is
>a) the present you watching internet porn
For me t comes down to choice. Pre-internet you had to take what you were given. Pictures were often over airbrushed and only partial nudity. Video was low definition. Girls were sometimes not that pretty. Scenes were perhaps not what you were into, often cringey, most video was girl boy. I usually prefer lesbian or solo girl or poss POV ( - porn guys have to learn that they are a prop and not the star ). Now I can perhaps find a girl I like and watch her stuff. Or find a good new site and watch all the good vids. Or find a new "Thing" and watch the good stuff. Or pick something I'm in the mood for. the modern era is a golden age for porn. Now it's become more acceptable more girls are getting into it which means you are more likely to find a pretty girl that's a good performer. And with production cost coming down there is much much more choice.
Generally I prefer video over photograph. It's difficult to get sentimental about the old A4 "dirty mag" that you had to stash when you can get a beauty shot in 4k.
I am older ( 40) and I no longer drink caffeine so the orgasms aren't as potent. However in the old days of porn, especially soft core partial nudity, it was often something you "got yourself hard to" ie you could flick through the pages and not get hard. The current internet porn, a video I like, gets me hard whether I want to or not. Watching old porn has a certain "Oh I have happy memories of that" but I would never swap it for what is available today. Realistically I can only see porn getting better in the future.
Finally I give you in evidence in favour of modern porn this pic from playboy plus. Pretty, High definition, Comes as a set of about 60 photos. Can trace Eugenia Diordiychuk ( brunette ) and find all her stuff. It's a definite improvement from three or four overly air brushed partial nudes in an A4 magazine
>implying playboy doesn't focus on 18-21 year-olds
pamela anderson became one of the most desired women in the world because she posed in playboy. she was nobody before playboy.
Don't get me wrong playboy had some great shots and got some great reactions from the girls. Sexy, playful, not trying too hard or looking dead in the eyes. They were genuinely beautiful regardless of nudity. But this was probably the best pic of 1969. Now it might not be the best pic of the day. And that's why millennials are lucky when it comes to porn.
I would say playboy has a larger range of ages than METart.
Pammy started in playboy but then got famous in Baywatch.
I thought I was the only one. Photos are okay but I have no chance of getting hard to them, I don't think met art is that much better honestly.
Its kinda nice now in a way because I can appreciate them for artistic beauty and not have that 'tool mode' horniness that makes me blind.
So I hope Playboy makes up for it by being really artistic and glorifies female bodies of all kinds.
Pam was literally a face in a crowd at a Canadian Football Game when a camera that was hooked up to a jumbotron caught a glimpse of her face, then stayed on her for about a minute. Somebody got a hold of her, offered a modelling contract and the rest was history.
His son controls the company. He wants to rebrand it and move it into the 21st century. Those are his words and plans, not saying I agree with them. It's a shame it's come to this, future generations of men will have to spend their puberty years looking at lesser quality women.
No faggot, it's because the magazine is shit. There's more bullshit articles and ads than there is nudity, the nudity is only a couple pages and is very softcore. If I was an oldfag who wanted to read articles, I would buy a fucking newspaper.
This is my wife's Aunt.
She's still very pretty.
I'm surprised it even survived as long as it has...I mean, they don't even show buttholes and a quick google search can get you way better than anything that's ever been in the magazine and you don't have to flip through tons of pages of bullshit articles.
Karin & Mirjam Van Breeschooten
She got onto a soap opera and won the first season of Dancing with the Stars. Wiki says when she was on Baywatch, she played a small part and also body doubled for Carmen Electra, who couldn't swim.
More like golf magazine putting club covers on all their club images.
>Has Anita Sarkeesian taken over?
Wow /v/, you really are that stupid, they are changing because nobody is paying for neither the magazine or their websites, why they should? there is free porn on the internet.
By removing the nudes they are expanding to reach a broader audience, you stupid fuck.
The full article
>Nudes Are Old News at Playboy
Last month, Cory Jones, a top editor at Playboy, went to see its founder Hugh Hefner at the Playboy Mansion.
In a wood-paneled dining room, with Picasso and de Kooning prints on the walls, Mr. Jones nervously presented a radical suggestion: the magazine, a leader of the revolution that helped take sex in America from furtive to ubiquitous, should stop publishing images of naked women.
Mr. Hefner, now 89, but still listed as editor in chief, agreed. As part of a redesign that will be unveiled next March, the print edition of Playboy will still feature women in provocative poses. But they will no longer be fully nude.
Its executives admit that Playboy has been overtaken by the changes it pioneered. “That battle has been fought and won,” said Scott Flanders, the company’s chief executive. “You’re now one click away from every sex act imaginable for free. And so it’s just passé at this juncture.”
For a generation of American men, reading Playboy was a cultural rite, an illicit thrill consumed by flashlight. Now every teenage boy has an Internet-connected phone instead. Pornographic magazines, even those as storied as Playboy, have lost their shock value, their commercial value and their cultural relevance.
Playboy’s circulation has dropped from 5.6 million in 1975 to about 800,000 now, according to the Alliance for Audited Media. Many of the magazines that followed it have disappeared. Though detailed figures are not kept for adult magazines, many of those that remain exist in severely diminished form, available mostly in specialist stores. Penthouse, perhaps the most famous Playboy competitor, responded to the threat from digital pornography by turning even more explicit. It never recovered.
Previous efforts to revamp Playboy, as recently as three years ago, have never quite stuck. And those who have accused it of exploiting women are unlikely to be assuaged by a modest cover-up. But, according to its own research, Playboy’s logo is one of the most recognizable in the world, along with those of Apple and Nike. This time, as the magazine seeks to compete with younger outlets like Vice, Mr. Flanders said, it sought to answer a key question: “if you take nudity out, what’s left?”
It is difficult, in a media market that has been so fragmented by the web, to imagine the scope of Playboy’s influence at its peak. A judge once ruled that denying blind people a Braille version of it violated their First Amendment rights. It published stories by Margaret Atwood and Haruki Murakami among others, and its interviews have included Malcolm X, Vladimir Nabokov, Martin Luther King Jr. and Jimmy Carter, who admitted that he had lusted in his heart for women other than his wife. Madonna, Sharon Stone and Naomi Campbell posed for the magazine at the peak of their fame. Its best-selling issue, in November of 1972, sold more than seven million copies.
Even those who disliked it cared enough to pay attention — Gloria Steinem, the pioneering feminist, went undercover as a waitress, or Playboy Bunny, in one of Mr. Hefner’s spinoff clubs to write an exposé for Show Magazine in 1963.
When Mr. Hefner created the magazine, which featured Marilyn Monroe on its debut cover in 1953, he did so to please himself. “If you’re a man between the ages of 18 and 80, Playboy is meant for you,” he said in his first editor’s letter. “We enjoy mixing up cocktails and an hors d’oeuvre or two, putting a little mood music on the phonograph, and inviting in a female acquaintance for a quiet discussion on Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex ...” He did not put a date on the cover of the first issue, in case Playboy did not make it to a second.
Exactly. A few years back when I was working as a journalist for a printed mag (working for online now) I bought a Playboy and took a look with the layouter and the graphics designer. We all had a good laugh about the Playmate which was more like a "how to" for photoshop noobs.
Her pussy was so softened that you could barely see a slit. The whole skin was smooth as a brand new car's paint job. That was disgusting.
Why do you think are pages like girlsoutwest or abbywinters making so much money? Its because they chose not to pull the ultra-photoshop show but rather show girls as they really look like.
And to be honest: Aside from early fap times when I was a teen (was before the mass spread of the interwebs) I never even liked the Playboy. I bought me the October 83 Edition as a birthday present to myself a few years ago and that Playboy was even awesome BECAUSE of the articles. Hell, they interviewed people like Fidel Castro, real persons of contemporarty history.
The Playboy of the last 20 years on the other hand was more like a Men's Health combined with nude chicks and fake tits. The fashion tips which were great back in the days for EVERY man became something only for those who were able to spend 10k bucks on a single outfit. The interviews, the articles became boring as fuck.
Mr. Hefner “just revolutionized the whole direction of how we live, of our lifestyles and the kind of sex you might have in America,” said Dian Hanson, author of a six-volume history of men’s magazines and an editor for Taschen. “But taking the nudity out of Playboy is going to leave what?”
The latest redesign, 62 years later, is more pragmatic. The magazine had already made some content safe for work, Mr. Flanders said, in order to be allowed on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, vital sources of web traffic.
In August of last year, its website dispensed with nudity. As a result, Playboy executives said, the average age of its reader dropped from 47 to just over 30, and its web traffic jumped to about 16 million from about four million unique users per month.
The magazine will adopt a cleaner, more modern style, said Mr. Jones, who as chief content officer also oversees its website. There will still be a Playmate of the Month, but the pictures will be “PG-13” and less produced — more like the racier sections of Instagram. “A little more accessible, a little more intimate,” he said. It is not yet decided whether there will still be a centerfold.
Its sex columnist, Mr. Jones said, will be a “sex-positive female,” writing enthusiastically about sex. And Playboy will continue its tradition of investigative journalism, in-depth interviews and fiction. The target audience, Mr. Flanders said, is young men who live in cities. “The difference between us and Vice,” he said, “is that we’re going after the guy with a job.”
Some of the moves, like expanded coverage of liquor, are partly commercial, Mr. Flanders admitted; the magazine must please its core advertisers. And all the changes have been tested in focus groups with an eye toward attracting millennials — people between the ages of 18 and 30-something, highly coveted by publishers. The magazine will feature visual artists, with their work dotted through the pages, in part because research revealed that younger people are drawn to art.
The company now makes most of its money from licensing its ubiquitous brand and logo across the world — 40 percent of that business is in China even though the magazine is not available there — for bath products, fragrances, clothing, liquor and jewelry among other merchandise. Nudity in the magazine risks complaints from shoppers, and diminished distribution.
Playboy, which had gone public in 1971, was taken private again in 2011 by Mr. Hefner with Rizvi Traverse Management, an investment firm founded by Suhail Rizvi, a publicity-shy Silicon Valley investor, who has interests in Twitter, Square and Snapchat among others. The firm now owns over 60 percent. Mr. Hefner owns about 30 percent (some shares are held by Playboy management).
The magazine is profitable if money from licensed editions around the world is taken into account, Mr. Flanders said, but the United States edition loses about $3 million a year. He sees it, he said, as a marketing expense. “It is our Fifth Avenue storefront,” he said.
He and Mr. Jones feel that the magazine remains relevant, not least because the world has gradually adopted Mr. Hefner’s libertarian views on a variety of social issues. Asked whether Mr. Hefner’s views on women were the exception to that rule, Mr. Flanders responded that Mr. Hefner had “always celebrated the beauty of the female figure.”
“Don’t get me wrong,” Mr. Jones said of the decision to dispense with nudity, “12-year-old me is very disappointed in current me. But it’s the right thing to do.”
The problem is that they ditched all their decent photographers for DDG shit. If you look at anything from PlayboyPlus in the past four years over half of it is Polish skanks and MFC models.
The centerfolds are slightly better but marred by PMOY being chosen from the wive's of Hef's friends. This years PMOY looks like Steve Tyler with a boob job but she got it over
>>16234090 because she's married to their current lead photographer.
I miss Nishino.
That's the excuse they're using. Fact is Playboy has been on a slow steady decline since the mid 70's. After the eighties they were continually plagued by bad management and poor business decisions. Sure print is in decline, but the website is a fucking mess and a nightmare to navigate. Licensing the logo is only going to last so long. Playboy hasn't been about the playboy lifestyle in some time and that's where they started to fuck up. The company is on its death bed.
First of his many business mistakes. Honestly a chick is never going to truly understand the jet setting lifestyle of a playboy. If you noticed ever since he let her run it is when the company went on a slow down ward decline. Hef is a genius and a fucking idiot all at once.
As a result of this announcement I decided to get the remaining issues before they take the nudity out. The current issue has nothing like the lame crap you linked to in your post. They're really fantastic pictures. Every one of them. I have a few that I snatched years ago from my grandpa's stash and with the exception of the clothing style and hair styles, it still has the same timeless quality from the issues I have from the late 80's and early 90's.
When I turned 18 I remember immediately subscribing - this was back when dial-up was the fastest shit available. I sub'd for 2 years while living with my folks, up until my fucking father figured out what was arriving in the black bags. (Playboy is mailed as a magazine in black plastic wrapping.)
My father didn't disapprove of Playboy in the house, in fact, it was quite the opposite. He'd steal my bags, open my mail, read the mag and tell my about everything inside of it. Playboy kind of lost the fucking appeal after that.
Later, I was always hoping to find some way to subscribe to both the online and the print edition for one low cost bundle. Never saw that type of deal. ESPN used to run something like that. I would've resubbed if I could've gotten PB and online access for a decent yearly price.
I'll miss the Old Mag. I remember Brooke Burke's and Diora Baird's nudes fondly, and I've still got the first magazine I'd ever seen - Sept 2001 - which I stole from my older brother.