Playboy's College Girls - available cheap or free?

[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]

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

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

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

But they're created simply for sexual arousal.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Gil Elvgreen is better than Vargas, even if vargas has a better atmosphere.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[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.
[/QUOTE]


Having to read your post was fuckin stupid.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I thought vargas was vallejo it seems. Vallejo has lots of erotic fantasy paintings.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I see; I think that Vallejo cornered the half-naked ax-wielding valkyrie market enough that Vargas stuck with sailor girls. ;)
 
[quote name='Mono`'] Having to read your post was fuckin stupid.[/QUOTE]So you're in the same state now, as you were *before* you read my post.



Vargas/Elvgren are very nice. Lovely ladies. However I suspect some of the assets were "enhanced" by the painter. I prefer the reality of photographs w/ natural, no-silicon women. Smaller is better.


troy
 
[quote name='electrictroy']I prefer the reality of photographs w/ natural, no-silicon women. Smaller is better.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

there's a first for everything :D
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]

Wait. You mean those chicks in Playboy aren't all natural? And the photos are touched up? Say it ain't so!
 
[quote name='Mono`']

Having to read your post was fuckin stupid.[/QUOTE]

and this is from the originator of the Legalize Pot thread.
 
[quote name='Mono`']Having to read your post was fuckin stupid.[/QUOTE]
No. Refusing to take $8.00 from your GBC buyer was stupid. You coulda pocketed $7 pure profit & sold the GBC to someone else for $50, thereby collecting ~57 of cash.

Dumbass.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]

youve angered myke...

youre in a heap of trouble now boy.
 
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!?!?!

;)
 
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.
girl9.gif



Modigliano may be my favorite "nude" artist outside of Titian
modigliani-blue-cushion-1917-small.jpg
 
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???
 
[quote name='2poor']are we allowed to have nude pics in the vs forum?[/QUOTE]

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

You are a strange, strange person...
 
[quote name='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???[/QUOTE]

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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']I find ironic that you think "porno is a no-no"[/QUOTE]

can you read? id recommend seeing a optometrist.

is that why your posts are so stupid?

[quote name='electrictroy']therefore solo sex/masturbation is sinful[/QUOTE]

your assumptions make you look like a bigger ass than before.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

I'm really confused on your opinions. Does this mean that you've accpeted playboy as pornography?
 
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
 
[quote name='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[/QUOTE]

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

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
 
im sure all the horny old men are picking up the college girl issues to appreciate the "art". :roll:
 
[quote name='2poor']im sure all the horny old men are picking up the college girl issues to appreciate the "art". :roll:[/QUOTE]
Well, whether it is art or not, the major difference is that nobody accidentally blew a wad on a Jackson Pollack piece.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, whether it is art or not, the major difference is that nobody accidentally blew a wad on a Jackson Pollack piece.[/QUOTE]

you never know.

i mean look at this

stenographic.jpg


if that doesnt get you all hot and sweaty theres something wrong with you.
 
bread's done
Back
Top