[citation][nom]mrpijey[/nom]Playboy isn't porn, it's erotica.[/citation]
Exactly. Playboy used to present women as Art; simply beautiful. Especially since the 1990's, issues more likely presented an example of a surgeon's skill rather than the "Girl Next Door" that made them famous. I've not bought one in years.
I don't mind this set I think it offers fairly decent value considering the time and effort that's gone into digitizing all that material.
I just don't really like the modern stuff in general; the 60's, 70's and 80's were the golden era's. Modern pornographic media is littered with material that can only be describe as bland and predictable. So basically I wouldn't complain if this set stopped at 1991.
So many people seem to revert back to the earlier stuff (and not just those who are old enough to remember it) Why, I ask? Well pick up a modern adult periodical and what do you get..
The end result is predictably passive and forgetful experience. This despite being able to access more media than ever before. There's too many interests at play, too many fingers in the pie and the net result is just tripe. Sexuality is used to draw people in, and direct them towards agenda's other than basic sexual attraction. It just ends up being forgetfully 'fake'. Like much of Hollywood these days..
..anyone got a Delorian and a flux capacitor at hand?
We should start a petition to playboy to make Jane the next playboy girl.
They can even insert a tech theme with it. *Drools at the idea of Jane installing GTX 480s in
3-way SLI* It would be the best selling issue hands down.