Playboy's College Girls - available cheap or free?

[electrictroy]

I was in the bookstore & picked up Playboy's College Girls. ~50 pages of coeds that are stunningly beautiful. I pulled out my $10 and then thought, 'I bet my buds at CAG know where to get these pics for cheap. Or even free.'

So. Please share. :-)

[thagoat]

dude, theres free porn all over the internet. i just got done talkin to some chick in the phillipines over webcam(for free of course), but that was after, i looked through 30 pictures. the web's a porn buffet, and im starving.

[electrictroy]

I don't want porn.

I want college girls w/o clothes. Simple nudes.

[kakomu]

I don't want porn.

I want college girls w/o clothes. Simple nudes.

College girls obviously look better than non-college girls.

Oh, simple nudes are typically known as softcore or centerfold porn.

[thagoat]

either way you slice it, its out there in abundance. just do a quick search, and you'll find the booty ye be seekin"

[Ikohn4ever]

people need to be responsible for their own spank mags or have a buddy to trade with

[electrictroy]

College girls obviously look better than non-college girls.
Oh, simple nudes are typically known as softcore or centerfold porn. Ahhh... well to me "porn" is a dirty word. Degrading. In contrast, the human body is a product of God's (or if you prefer nature's) artistic genius - and therefore a thing of beauty & grace. The human body in its natural state should not be labeled "porn" anymore than you would call DeMilo's Venus or Rubens' nude paintings "porn". It's an inappropriate label.



College girls = young. 18-22. The peak of physical perfection. Young = more attractive in my book (no wrinkles or sags or excess fat). YES, I know there are attractive older women like Halle Berry or Madonna, and I thoroughly enjoy their al-naturale poses, but they are not the norm for that age group. The norm for the ~40 year group is excess fat, blemished skin, flabby muscles. Not physically beautiful.

So in general, a freshly-bloomed rose, i.e. young, is more attractive than an older-withered rose. Hence why I prefer youthful women in their physical prime.

troy

[Zenithian Legend]

You could go to a club at a campus, as it is the weekend... then see a nude live and in person if you play your cards right

[electrictroy]

Heh heh heh!!! Funny. But also a lot of work. I'd rather spend an extra 1/2 hour of overtime at work, and just buy the magazine. 30 minutes of work = 50 naked women = a better deal than 2 hours of chatting up just 1 girl, who would likely slap me when I suggest she get naked. ;-)

[delahappy]

You think those girls in playboy are the "norm" for girls that age?

[Owen]

Just seach one of the many Playboy newsgroups and you should be able to find the pictures for free.

[electrictroy]

The girls in Playboy? No. But the girls in the "college girls" issue? Yes. Because they're all amateurs. What I see in those pages fairly closely matches the "girl next door" I see wandering around the Penn State or Maryland State campuses.

[b0bx13]

The girls in Playboy? No. But the girls in the "college girls" issue? Yes. Because they're all amateurs. What I see in those pages fairly closely matches the "girl next door" I see wandering around the Penn State or Maryland State campuses.
That's because you're a creeper. When you actually live on campus and are the same age, you understand that that is definitely not the norm.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

I once saw a girl from my high school in one of those issues. She looked infinitely better in person, with her clothes on. :lol:

[kakomu]

That's because you're a creeper. When you actually live on campus and are the same age, you understand that that is definitely not the norm.

Depends. I'm thinking magazines are starting to lower their standards in order to saturate the market. I know that the 3 big tease magazines, Maxim, Stuff and FHM have been lowering their standards for some time now. The woman on the cover of the January 06 FHM looks very mannish, not to mention the overload of very average looking women on the magazines.

[alonzomourning23]

Depends. I'm thinking magazines are starting to lower their standards in order to saturate the market. I know that the 3 big tease magazines, Maxim, Stuff and FHM have been lowering their standards for some time now. The woman on the cover of the January 06 FHM looks very mannish, not to mention the overload of very average looking women on the magazines.

Well, there has been more interest in the less than perfect type of girl lately.

[electrictroy]

(shrug) I've got old issues from 1991-98, when I was a college student, and there are girls there from Penn State & Maryland State. They look pretty "typical" to what I saw every day in class.

You'd be amazed how good an "average college girl" can look when you throw away the Sweats, fluff up the hair, add make-up, and soft lighting. Suddenly she looks good enough for a "Special Edition".



I remember watching the Sorority girls walking past my dorm, on a Saturday night, all dolled up in their barely-there "little black dresses", as they walked across campus to go pick up guys in town. They looked absolutely stunning.

troy

[kakomu]

I remember watching the Sorority girls walking past my dorm, on a Saturday night, all dolled up in their barely-there "little black dresses", as they walked across campus to go pick up guys in town. They looked absolutely stunning.

troy

If by "stunning", you mean "slutty"

[sblymnlcrymnl]

If by "stunning", you mean "slutty"It was probably hard to tell from that distance. He was just sitting in his room with his hand in his pants after all.

[electrictroy]

I lived right next to a Sorority Dorm. I never needed playboy back then.

[Cornfedwb]

Ahhh... well to me "porn" is a dirty word. Degrading. In contrast, the human body is a product of God's (or if you prefer nature's) artistic genius - and therefore a thing of beauty & grace. The human body in its natural state should not be labeled "porn" anymore than you would call DeMilo's Venus or Rubens' nude paintings "porn". It's an inappropriate label.



College girls = young. 18-22. The peak of physical perfection. Young = more attractive in my book (no wrinkles or sags or excess fat). YES, I know there are attractive older women like Halle Berry or Madonna, and I thoroughly enjoy their al-naturale poses, but they are not the norm for that age group. The norm for the ~40 year group is excess fat, blemished skin, flabby muscles. Not physically beautiful.

So in general, a freshly-bloomed rose, i.e. young, is more attractive than an older-withered rose. Hence why I prefer youthful women in their physical prime.

troy

Try and justify it all you want. Its spank-worthy porn, and thats it.

[jeffreyjrose]

Add to ignore list? Check.

[niceguyshawne]

This thread makes me sad for this poor fellow.

[weimerwanger]

That's because you're a creeper. When you actually live on campus and are the same age, you understand that that is definitely not the norm.

Its the norm at my college >_> also it seems like all the hot college girls shop exclusively at super target... I may write my thesis on this conspiracy...

[Kayden]

So by calling it a beautiful work of art, you're trying to make slapping your sausage sound less dirty than just yanking to porn?

Right... Well, I need to go 'appreciate' some actual 'works of art'.

And by this we all know I need to go sex-up my girl.

(Troy- Sex is what guys do with real women instead of jerking off to airbrushed pictures of teenage girls that wouldn't give them the time of day.)

[electrictroy]

"There is nothing inherently sinful in the naked human form." - Pope John Paul II.

i.e. A naked body is NOT porn.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

It is when you masturbate to it. :lol:

[greendc27]

It is when you masturbate to it. :lol:
:rofl:

[greendj27]

It is when you masturbate to it. :lol:

Sinner! :lol:

[niceguyshawne]

It is when you masturbate to it. :lol:

zing!

[alonzomourning23]

I think Troy is making a distinction between looking at nude women and softcore sexual acts compared to what has been becoming more and more common in hardcore porn today. Hardcore porn seems to be making a point about demeaning women, treating them roughly, and going out of their way to do things the women hate. That's not always true, but it is becoming more and more common.

Porn is not by definition demeaning and, if you agree with that, then what troy is talking about isn't ridiculous. Though, while I'd agree playboy is porn, I guess someone could argue its Erotica instead.

[javeryh]

This thread is creepy.

[kakomu]

This thread is creepy.

Electrictroy is creepy.

[judyjudyjudy]

I think Troy is making a distinction between looking at nude women and softcore sexual acts compared to what has been becoming more and more common in hardcore porn today. Hardcore porn seems to be making a point about demeaning women, treating them roughly, and going out of their way to do things the women hate. That's not always true, but it is becoming more and more common.

Porn is not by definition demeaning and, if you agree with that, then what troy is talking about isn't ridiculous. Though, while I'd agree playboy is porn, I guess someone could argue its Erotica instead.Honestly, I think he is either so ridiculously ashamed of masturbating to porn that he needs to make up all these points to defend porn as... not porn, or he is making these pointless comparisons just to fuel another everyone vs. Troy argument so he can bask in attention.

[thagoat]

"There is nothing inherently sinful in the naked human form." - Pope John Paul II.

i.e. A naked body is NOT porn.well then, go find your "naked body" that isn't porn on the net, and have fun already. youve gotta be gettin ready to explode.

[Cornfedwb]

well then, go find your "naked body" that isn't porn on the net, and have fun already. youve gotta be gettin ready to explode.

There are naked bodies that are not porn on the internet. You can find nude artwork abounding online. However, Playboy College Girls does not equate in any way, shape or form to Michaelangelo's David or Manet's Olympia.

I worry about what ideas electrictroy's mother instilled in him to bring him to defending his whacking material as "art". Methinks they would roughly equate to the "values" instilled in Henry Lee Lucas by his mother.

[electrictroy]

Porn is not by definition demeaning and, if you agree with that, then what troy is talking about isn't ridiculous. Though, while I'd agree playboy is porn, I guess someone could argue its Erotica instead. Bingo. Have you ever watched a Playboy vid? There's no sex - at least not the ones I have. It's just beautiful bodies w/o clothes. NOT porn.

Honestly, I think he is either so ridiculously ashamed of masturbating to porn Why would I be ashamed of a natural act??? You people are imagining things. I do it all the time, and so do you. My point, if you go back & re-read post #3, is I don't want sex sites. No sex. I just want "simple nudes".I don't want porn. I want college girls w/o clothes. Simple nudes.troy

[Cornfedwb]

Bingo. Have you ever watched a Playboy vid? There's no sex - at least not the ones I have. It's just beautiful bodies w/o clothes. NOT porn.

First off, porn is ok man.. seriously.

Second, pornography

<application> Still or moving images, usually of women, in
varying states of nudity, posing or performing erotic acts
with men, women, animals, machines, or other props

I'll paraphrase that to make it easier.. "Still.. images.. of women in varying states of nudity posing"

Playboy may not be midget clowns doing donkeys, but its still porn.

[electrictroy]

Is a topless or naked beach a "porn" beach? No of course not. The above definition is ridiculous.

[javeryh]

I wouldn't classify Playboy as porn - just a bunch of naked chicks and other assorted crap. Whatever you call it, it's perfectly good spankage material just like the Victoria Secret catalog, a copy of Cosmo or, in a pinch, the women's underwear section of the JC Penny catalog. :D

[Cornfedwb]

Is a topless or naked beach a "porn" beach? No of course not. The above definition is ridiculous.

Did you miss the images part of that definition entirely?

[sblymnlcrymnl]

I wouldn't classify Playboy as porn - just a bunch of naked chicks and other assorted crap. Whatever you call it, it's perfectly good spankage material just like the Victoria Secret catalog, a copy of Cosmo or, in a pinch, the women's underwear section of the JC Penny catalog. :DJC Penny catalog? What are you, 12? :lol:

[alonzomourning23]

Is a topless or naked beach a "porn" beach? No of course not. The above definition is ridiculous.

Porn is nudity without artistic purpose and where the only intent is to cause sexual arousal. Some people find the quality of photography in playboy and the beauty of the bodies to be art though. While I agree that it can be viewed as such, thats really not the original purpose.

[Cornfedwb]

Porn is nudity without artistic purpose and where the only intent is to cause sexual arousal. Some people find the quality of photography in playboy and the beauty of the bodies to be art though. While I agree that it can be viewed as such, thats really not the original purpose.

And some people enjoy scat play in sex. Just because some people believe something is art does not make it so. Playboy's pictures are softcore pornography, plain and simple.

I severly doubt even Hugh Hefner would say he's making art.

[thagoat]

:twoguns:all of you! shut up!! right now!! the OP is looking for pics of naked girls so he can spank off to them! call it what you want, but its all the same. its masturbation material. now go yank your crank already and end this dumb ass thread:pray:

[alonzomourning23]

And some people enjoy scat play in sex. Just because some people believe something is art does not make it so. Playboy's pictures are softcore pornography, plain and simple.

I severly doubt even Hugh Hefner would say he's making art.

Umm..... ya. That whole scat thing is just an example of porn.

I said that people sometimes see it as art, and I said that wasn't the original intent. I don't get the point here.

[javeryh]

JC Penny catalog? What are you, 12? :lol:

Ahhh those were the days.... :D

[Kayden]

JC Penny catalog? What are you, 12? :lol:

No, but I'm pretty sure the girl in the childrens summer line was. :twisted: :lol:

[Rich]

I was in the bookstore & picked up Playboy's College Girls. ~50 pages of coeds that are stunningly beautiful. I pulled out my $10 and then thought, 'I bet my buds at CAG know where to get these pics for cheap. Or even free.'

So. Please share. :-)

On my wall.

[DigitalSpace]

Bingo. Have you ever watched a Playboy vid? There's no sex - at least not the ones I have. It's just beautiful bodies w/o clothes. NOT porn.

There are quite a few Playboy vids with sex scenes (both a girl with a guy and girl-on-girl, and sometimes a threesome with two girls and a guy). They are pretty softcore, but sex is sex.

Playboy qualifies as softcore porn.

[mykevermin]

The hell is this doing in the versus forum?

[bmulligan]

Wait a goddamn minute here. Who said porn isn't art ?

Porn can definitely be a work of art. But not all art is good art, and I'll know it when I see it.

[Jek Porkins]

Pornography

Por•nog•ra•phy

n.

1. Anything that gives a judge an erection.

[electrictroy]

There are naked bodies that are not porn on the internet. You can find nude artwork abounding online. However, Playboy College Girls does not equate in any way

It's obvious you've never seen it. It's funny listening to people speak about things they've never seen. They get it obviously wrong.

"College Girls" = Young women w/o clothes standing in dorms or locker rooms. That's all it is. No sex. Not even an implication of sex. Some of Ye are letting your American Puritanism color your perception of "nude coeds" = "sinful". How medieval.

[mykevermin]

Man, if this is gonna be in the vs forum, I guess I have to participate.

My 2 cents: If it isn't Alberto Vargas' work, then it's shit.

[Kayden]

If she's not tripple D, I dont wanna see.

[alonzomourning23]

Gil Elvgreen is better than Vargas, even if vargas has a better atmosphere.

It's obvious you've never seen it. It's funny listening to people speak about things they've never seen. They get it obviously wrong.


"College Girls" = Young women w/o clothes standing in dorms or locker rooms. That's all it is. No sex. Not even an implication of sex. Some of Ye are letting your American Puritanism color your perception of "nude coeds" = "sinful". How medieval.

But they're created simply for sexual arousal.

[mykevermin]

Gil Elvgreen is better than Vargas, even if vargas has a better atmosphere.

I just heard of Elvgren for the first time a few weeks back. He's very good as well, but I figured that Vargas was the ideal name associated with the "pinup" style.

[javeryh]

This thread would be a whole lot cooler if we weren't talking about a magazine - read the title again...

[niceguyshawne]

The hell is this doing in the versus forum?


My thoughts exactly.

[electrictroy]

My 2 cents: If it isn't Alberto Vargas' work, then it's shit.Gil Elvgreen is better than Vargas Who? Please share the links.

[mykevermin]

Google.

[mykevermin]

http://images.google.com/images?q=gil+elvgren&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=alberto+vargas&btnG=Search

[sblymnlcrymnl]

The hell is this doing in the versus forum?Vs. topics don't show up on the main page. That is why.

[alonzomourning23]

http://images.google.com/images?q=gil+elvgren&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=alberto+vargas&btnG=Search

I thought vargas was vallejo it seems. Vallejo has lots of erotic fantasy paintings.

[mykevermin]

I thought vargas was vallejo it seems. Vallejo has lots of erotic fantasy paintings.
Oh, I see; I think that Vallejo cornered the half-naked ax-wielding valkyrie market enough that Vargas stuck with sailor girls. ;)

[mykevermin]

I prefer the reality of photographs w/ natural, no-silicon women. Smaller is better.
Dude, you're the OP, right? You were looking for PLAYBOY.

I've not used this before, but I figure it's fitting here: S-T-F-U.

[doraemonkerpal]

Dude, you're the OP, right? You were looking for PLAYBOY.

I've not used this before, but I figure it's fitting here: S-T-F-U.

:rofl:

there's a first for everything :D

[javeryh]

Dude, you're the OP, right? You were looking for PLAYBOY.

I've not used this before, but I figure it's fitting here: S-T-F-U.

Wait. You mean those chicks in Playboy aren't all natural? And the photos are touched up? Say it ain't so!

[2poor]

Dude, you're the OP, right? You were looking for PLAYBOY.

I've not used this before, but I figure it's fitting here: S-T-F-U.

youve angered myke...

youre in a heap of trouble now boy.

[mykevermin]

Angry? Nah, he just worded his sentence (he prefers photographs to drawings) in a way that demanded I comment on it's silliness.

What makes me angry?
trickle-down economics (alright, Republican ideologies in general)
plumbing woes (I've earned my blue-collar stripes in the past two weeks)
traffic
lies
and the "leveling" system in Final Fantasy II. GodDAMN who was the bag of fuck who came up with THAT!?!?!

;)

[Sleepkyng]

vargas sucks, come on, those are terribly done pieces. IK IK, but it doesn't hold a candle to Schiele who I think is much more charged and has a better eye for the human body.
http://www.netmint.com/%7Ealbina/schiele/girl9.gif


Modigliano may be my favorite "nude" artist outside of Titian
http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/modigliani/show/modigliani-blue-cushion-1917-small.jpg

[2poor]

are we allowed to have nude pics in the vs forum?

[alonzomourning23]

are we allowed to have nude pics in the vs forum?

No, but its been done before and nothing happened.

[electrictroy]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the world's greatest pieces of art (like Michaelangelo's David) are banned because of a bunch of Puritans w/ neuroses???

[Sleepkyng]

in case anyone was wondering - Schiele was an apprentice to Klimt.

[camoor]

are we allowed to have nude pics in the vs forum?

Come on, it's the only way 80% of this forum is ever going to see the nude female form ;)

[redgopher]

Ahhh... well to me "porn" is a dirty word. Degrading. In contrast, the human body is a product of God's (or if you prefer nature's) artistic genius - and therefore a thing of beauty & grace. The human body in its natural state should not be labeled "porn" anymore than you would call DeMilo's Venus or Rubens' nude paintings "porn". It's an inappropriate label.



College girls = young. 18-22. The peak of physical perfection. Young = more attractive in my book (no wrinkles or sags or excess fat). YES, I know there are attractive older women like Halle Berry or Madonna, and I thoroughly enjoy their al-naturale poses, but they are not the norm for that age group. The norm for the ~40 year group is excess fat, blemished skin, flabby muscles. Not physically beautiful.

So in general, a freshly-bloomed rose, i.e. young, is more attractive than an older-withered rose. Hence why I prefer youthful women in their physical prime.

troy

You are a strange, strange person...

[2poor]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the world's greatest pieces of art (like Michaelangelo's David) are banned because of a bunch of Puritans w/ neuroses???

its quite ironic on how you think something made for guys to jerk off to is art, isnt it?

did your mommy tell you porn was a no-no?

[electrictroy]

I find ironic that you think "porno is a no-no" & therefore solo sex/masturbation is sinful. That's messed-up. I'd recommend seeing a psychologist to fix that mental aberration.

[2poor]

I find ironic that you think "porno is a no-no"

can you read? id recommend seeing a optometrist.

is that why your posts are so stupid?

therefore solo sex/masturbation is sinful

your assumptions make you look like a bigger ass than before.

[kakomu]

I find ironic that you think "porno is a no-no" & therefore solo sex/masturbation is sinful. That's messed-up. I'd recommend seeing a psychologist to fix that mental aberration.

I'm really confused on your opinions. Does this mean that you've accpeted playboy as pornography?

[electrictroy]

Naked bodies are NOT pornography. Especially not the "College Girls" issue I was requesting (which are just amateurs). Good God. Some of you would see a "photos from nudist beach" and call it porn. That's just... stupid. Incredibly stupid. Naked bodies are just naked bodies. The End.




It doesn't become pornography until the sex starts.

troy

[kakomu]

Naked bodies are NOT pornography. Especially not the "College Girls" issue I was requesting (which are just amateurs). Good God. Some of you would see a "photos from nudist beach" and call it porn. That's just... stupid. Incredibly stupid. Naked bodies are just naked bodies. The End.




It doesn't become pornography until the sex starts.

troy

Pornography is sexually explicity material that is meant to produce arousal. Now, somehow I doubt you mean to look at College girl issues of playboy for a purpose beyond becoming sexually aroused.

That being said, I find it a lot easier to define all nudity as sexually explicit and pornographic, but being able to distinguish different levels of pornographic content, hence the terms "softcore", "hardcore" and other such terms.

It seems obvious that you wish to obscure these definitions. Claiming that at some point art becomes pornography, but that they are mutually exclusive. Or that photography can be non-pornographic, but both sexually explicit and meant to produce arousal. At which point, I question your definition.

However, quite simply art can be pronographic, and pornography can be art. It all happens in degrees. Is a painting of a woman naked and spreading her legs any less artistic than a painting of a woman just being topless? You aren't going to sit there and jerk off to it, but, it certainly is sexually explicit and can be arousing.

[niceguyshawne]

Man, if I knew this topic was going to last this long, I would have just sent him the 5 bucks for the magazine myself.

[javeryh]

Is a painting of a woman naked and spreading her legs any less artistic than a painting of a woman just being topless? You aren't going to sit there and jerk off to it, but, it certainly is sexually explicit and can be arousing.

woah, woah, woah... wait just a minute here... you should pull your pud any chance you get and if these super-sexy naked paintings are all I think they are then I might have to go do so right now... mmmm... naked paintings... :D

[2poor]

im sure all the horny old men are picking up the college girl issues to appreciate the "art". :roll:

[mykevermin]

im sure all the horny old men are picking up the college girl issues to appreciate the "art". :roll:
Well, whether it is art or not, the major difference is that nobody accidentally blew a wad on a Jackson Pollack piece.

[2poor]

Well, whether it is art or not, the major difference is that nobody accidentally blew a wad on a Jackson Pollack piece.

you never know.

i mean look at this

http://www.jackson-pollock.com/stenographic.jpg

if that doesnt get you all hot and sweaty theres something wrong with you.