Playboy's College Girls - available cheap or free?

electrictroy

electrictroy

Banned
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. :)
 
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.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']I don't want porn.

I want college girls w/o clothes. Simple nudes.[/QUOTE]

College girls obviously look better than non-college girls.

Oh, simple nudes are typically known as softcore or centerfold porn.
 
either way you slice it, its out there in abundance. just do a quick search, and you'll find the booty ye be seekin"
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']College girls obviously look better than non-college girls.
Oh, simple nudes are typically known as softcore or centerfold porn.[/QUOTE] 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
 
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. ;-)
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='b0bx13']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']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.[/QUOTE]

Well, there has been more interest in the less than perfect type of girl lately.
 
(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
 
[quote name='electrictroy']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[/QUOTE]

If by "stunning", you mean "slutty"
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']If by "stunning", you mean "slutty"[/QUOTE]It was probably hard to tell from that distance. He was just sitting in his room with his hand in his pants after all.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']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[/QUOTE]

Try and justify it all you want. Its spank-worthy porn, and thats it.
 
[quote name='b0bx13']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.[/QUOTE]

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...
 
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.)
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]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.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']"There is nothing inherently sinful in the naked human form." - Pope John Paul II.

i.e. A naked body is NOT porn.[/QUOTE]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.
 
[quote name='thagoat']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/QUOTE] 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.

[quote name='judyjudyjudy']Honestly, I think he is either so ridiculously ashamed of masturbating to porn [/QUOTE] 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".[quote name='POST_3']I don't want porn. I want college girls w/o clothes. Simple nudes.[/quote]troy
 
[quote name='electrictroy']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.[/QUOTE]

First off, porn is ok man.. seriously.

Second, [quote name='dictionary.com']pornography

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[/quote]

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.
 
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
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Is a topless or naked beach a "porn" beach? No of course not. The above definition is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Did you miss the images part of that definition entirely?
 
[quote name='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[/QUOTE]JC Penny catalog? What are you, 12? :lol:
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Is a topless or naked beach a "porn" beach? No of course not. The above definition is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
: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:
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']JC Penny catalog? What are you, 12? :lol:[/QUOTE]

No, but I'm pretty sure the girl in the childrens summer line was. :twisted: :lol:
 
[quote name='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. :)[/QUOTE]

On my wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top