A HDD That Contains 56 Years of Playboy Bunnies

[Soul_keeper]

if you actually have a job, and like playboy then $300 is not a bad price imo.

 

[gtvr]

"the Playboy logo is automatically aimed at a certain breed of young women"

young men maybe???

 

[house70]

"a fair price for over half a century of porn"...

Playboy is NOT porn. Never was, never will.

 

[pozaks]

I just want it for the articles.

 

[Guest]

Strangely enough most playboy branded material is actually aimed at and purchased by young women.... I don't really get it either.. it's as if these women are saying "please objectify me"
also the women who wear playboy branded clothing tend to be fat and ugly... so either way I am only giving them value based on their looks...

 

[zak_mckraken]

It's the perfect give for that someone who has no one special.

Da-mn! Best headline ever! Thank you for the laugh Jane!

And now, to go buy myself one of these...

 

[wild9]

[citation][nom]Renegade_Warrior[/nom]There is a new magazine which was in the news recently cause they are going back to the old values that Playboy started out with. I just don't remember the name that they mentioned.The new magazine Does Not allow:Implants, Plastic Surgery, anything that is Fake, the so called Russian model which is supposedly American, NO Photo Shopping and most of all, No Shaved Beavers.Everything is to be All Natural including the poses, just as Playboy started out.If I could remember the name, I would include it here.Not sure, but the news article might have been on NightLine which usually shows just before Jimmy Kimmel comes on.[/citation]

Hmm, that sounds interesting..thanks for the heads up.

What do you think about this idea: no digital cameras during the photo shoots. I know there is the cost to take into account, but I'd be interested to see the difference. I reckon older equipment could be recycled and put to use. It's similar to the analogue vs. digital debate in films. Remember how good the 60's films used to look? They had no HD back then, either.

 

[grieve]

[citation][nom]fjiekie[/nom]you also get 672 (12 issues a year??) so 0.5 dollar / issue + a 250gb HDDa good deal i guess, IF you want it...(personally: it isn't worth for me either)[/citation]
It really is a great deal if you are into playboy.

Google = free, the best deal. Im sure in all my years of porn browsing i have prolly seen every bunny already anyhow.

 

[wild9]

[citation][nom]mrpijey[/nom]Playboy isn't porn, it's erotica. If you want porn then Hustler, Penthouse etc is your thing... Playboy is just tasteful nudity without any of the sexual things that makes it porn.[/citation]

Compared to other contemporary erotica, I find little in Playboy that actually appeals. I think that if you scratch beneath the surface, you'll find very little substance. It's as though Playboy is merely produced for the purpose of people just trying to leave it lying around trying to look trendy, rather than something a porno connoisseur would actually want. It's all about branding..marketing..image, instead of the real deal like old one's used to be.

I don't particularly find a lot of these girls any more attractive than the kind of girl you'd see in a street, to be honest. I think a lot of these self-confessed stars appearing in this magazine are faceless slags with really bad personalities..sorry if that offends anyone, but that's what turns me off and we may not be as quick on the uptake as women when it comes to judging personality but you can spot this fakery a mile off, given a little bit more age and practice.

So that leaves the articles, which again don't really do it for me especially given some of the Hollywood types who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. Don't get me wrong, I think Playboy can get the balance right between erotica and infotainment, but not when the latter attempts to become some kind of substitute. It's not rocket science after all, it's just marketing the right product to the right people.

 

[zak_mckraken]

@Renegade_Warrior : You had me until no shaved beavers. What's wrong with that? It's not fake! What's next? No makeup? Not everyone have the pilosity for an all-natural look. Can they at least trim?

I'm all for returning to basics of beauty. Not only for that "authentic" feeling, but mainly to stop that unrealistic standardized concept of beauty that are driving young girls crazy. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not in some magazine.

 

[noblerabbit]

I am buying this collectors item for the sole purpose of reading the articles. That is what Playboy was all about.

 

[megamanx00]

Wow. That's great, until you eventually consider that the women in the earlier issues are now the same age as your Mom or Grandma now......................... just sayin

It's a nice idea, but hey for $300 you think they could use a bigger hard drive to store some of the rest of your porn on. Just sayin

 

[gorillateets]

Seems like 90% of the articles spewing out of Tom's are pr0n based. It's getting old and no one cares.

 

[tidex]

Haha wow
sounds interesting from a history point of view but other than that its useless.
Playboy is no longer relevant in the internet age

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]why hide it...come to an mutual agreement and you can both look at the stuff...[/citation]

"Hey honey, you don't really do it for me anymore, but I have 250Gb of women who do. I don't want this to come between us, so you can look at it too and be reminded why you aren't good enough."

Great conversation starter. If that doesn't solidify your relationship, I don't know what will!

 

[dman3k]

It only takes 13 minutes and 32 seconds to download off Rapidshare.

I kid, I kid.

I'll wait for the Hustler drive.

 

[aaron88_7]

It's kind of sad how lost Playboy is in the internet era. I'm not sure what is more pathetic, not being able to sell this very same content via a website or selling content from 50 years ago.

 

[guitarpeggio]

[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]It's a lot easier to hide from ones spouse than stacks of paper.[/citation]

I'm glad I married a woman that's not threatened by me looking at something as vanilla as Playboy.
Also the "I just read it for the articles" joke is annoying. Hunter S. Thompson, Chuck P., Shel Silverstein, and others all had writing published in the pages of Playboy. I would proudly read it for those articles.

 

[aaron88_7]

Anybody that still gets playboy has to read it for the articles, that's all they have anymore. articles and advertisements, and a couple PG 13 pictures. Maxim is a hotter magazine and they don't even do nudity.

 

[figgus]

[citation][nom]zak_mckraken[/nom]@Renegade_Warrior : You had me until no shaved beavers. What's wrong with that? It's not fake! What's next? No makeup? Not everyone have the pilosity for an all-natural look. Can they at least trim? I'm all for returning to basics of beauty. Not only for that "authentic" feeling, but mainly to stop that unrealistic standardized concept of beauty that are driving young girls crazy. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not in some magazine.[/citation]

Exactly what I was thinking. +1