[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
>The first issue of Playboy's non-nude...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Thread replies: 73
Thread images: 14
>The first issue of Playboy's non-nude era is here.
>Playboy's March issue is the first to embrace a new look and a new mantra. There is now a commitment to "art, literature and long-form journalism," along with "an entirely contemporary take on photographing the beautiful women who have made the publication one of the most enduring and successful of all time," according to a press release.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/playboy-publishes-first-non-nude-issue_us_56b366cee4b04f9b57d88d72

what does /pol/ think about playboy becoming SFW?
>>
>>63340648
Desperate survival attempt in a world with internet and senile retards dying off.
>>
>>63340648
Are there people that give a shit about this in the internet porn age
>>
>>63340648
>Playboy
>Relevant

Doesn't matter.
>>
>pendulum is swinging back

I'm might be interested if they become a good gents mag. shit like GQ and Esquire is all just paid advertising garbage
>>
>>63340648
shes a chimera, abort misson
>>
>>63340648
non-nude is probably a good idea. Will probably double their sales.

but
>long form journalism
>>
>>63340648
why when I can see girls with clothes for free.
>>
>>63340648
Playboy is largely irrelevant now but has historic cultural significance and for that I find it sad.
>>
>>63340648

Also, the Playboy mansion is for sale for some number like $200 million and you get to keep Hugh Hefner because he's not leaving even if someone buys it.
>>
>>63340693
playboy from 2009-2012 was GOAT. They had the hottest girls and no porn could compare to it.
Nowadays it's just meh and they get lots of used up porn stars.
>>
the nude/non-nude debate is a secondary concern for me, the choice to stick that obnoxious, vapid "heyyyyy ;;)))))" millennial shit right on the fucking cover is the problem here


how the fuck are we going to fix humanity?
>>
>>63340648
Did the editor drop his pants and cut off his balls at the new-look launch?

Pathetic.
>>
Only survivable mode for this franchise would be something like hegre or one of the other hq high def artsy nudes galleries
>>
the sales are going to really funny, though we won't get the numbers. I hope there's a "Jimmy Saville" in the LA morgue to put it up the ass of Hefner's corpse.
>>
>>63340925
unph
>>
>>63340648
internet porn has made made such still images irrelevant to the need of a young male.

they should have synergized early with the internet and release gif/webm of their models instead of sticking with then archaic format
>>
>>63340648
How long till they go under?
>>
actually makes sense since everyone on earth just goes on the internet to look at naked girls now adays

but making their magazine easier to sell widely and more acceptable to read in public will boost their sales
>>
Non-nude is an infinitely better way to go about doing this. Its great that playboy is finally bringing back the art of the tease.

If you want blatant, upfront nudity where imagination is totally out of the picture you should just watch porn.
>>
Playboy was what kept me going in a boys only catholic boarding school in the 90s.
>>
>feminism
>don't be afraid of womens bodies!
>us walking around naked isn't an excuse for rape
>the female form is nothing to be ashamed of!
>...unless the women is attractive and men are looking!
>>
>>63340648
I think this is good.
they sucked at hardcore anyway
plus 2D > 3D
>>
>>63340648
>playboy
>relevant

Playboy died along time ago I can wip out my phone and watch some pornstar fuck for free
>>
>>63341685

That chicks nips are gross
>>
>>63340648
It's like a catalog of products with 5 pages of photos
>>
>>63340648
they'd be better off with bubbles rather than clothing. these things are only for old men and truckers with no internet who need to quickly jerk off with a torch in the cabin.
>>
>>63340747
This.

Probably won't happen though. Will probably be writing by faggots for faggots jiust like GQ
>>
Tthey don't really have another option now. In an age where everyone has a smartphone and everything at their fingertips a monthly print publication is archaic as hell. plus the times and people's limits for what is lewd have gotten way more extreme. a nipple popping out in 1950 might have made a million teens and 20 something dudes cream themselves but a huge chunk of the target demographic probably doesnt get a boner now for anything less than a chick gargling piss out of her ass and making herself puke on a dozen cocks
>>
>>63340648
>what does /pol/ think about playboy becoming SFW?
What primordial soup still reads magazines?
>>
HOLY FUCK THOSE COMMENTS

>Those girls look like they are extremely young, far under 18.

>I agree they look way too young, it is almost scary thinking they could have been nude. Seeing a young female that loks far younger than 18 preform sexy poses dressed or nude makes me gag.

>Are they catering to pedophiles now?? The girl on the cover looks about 12! Super, super, cringeworthy.

>his point is not there exact age but how old they really look
>>
>>63341349
they release videos through the cyberclub though
>>
>>63341685
Why does she have melanoma for nipples?
>>
>>63340648

Girl looks like an underfed 14 year old
>>
I understand them. If you want nude girls these days it is only a couple of clicks away on the internet. By offering something more contemporary and tasteful, perhaps they can turn it around.
>>
File: nelden nippel.png (2 MB, 1011x814) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
nelden nippel.png
2 MB, 1011x814
>>63341865

No, no, they are not
>>
any sauce for this?
>>
>>63342546
>Playboy's March
>>
>>63340648

Heterochrom green/blue, not bad
>>
>>63342187

I read the print edition of The Economist magazine.
>>
>>63340648
Good business decision. Turn it into a decent magazine with hot chicks and it'll survive. No reason for porn mags to exist now that porns so easy to get
>>
File: ShaunaSand_4.jpg (64 KB, 486x720) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ShaunaSand_4.jpg
64 KB, 486x720
Like it or not, Playboy at least had some glamor. Modern porn is just filth. And most pornstars are fugly. I prefer beautiful women. For me the 80s/90s Playboy aesthetics are just perfect.
>>
File: image.png (317 KB, 776x892) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.png
317 KB, 776x892
>>63343649
Connoisseur of porn right here.
>>
>>63341853
>pornstar fuck
You seem to have them confused with Hustler.

Playboy has more class than that.

>Select all images with a milkshake.
>>
With all kinds of horrible filth being easily available Playboy should've been running on the fact it has the rare tag of being "classy" porn with suprisingly good writers and journalists working for them.

I'm curious if their new approach will sell, I can understand that they wanna town down the graphic content so that people might buy one to read their articles which tend to be really good. But I don't think it will.
>>
>>63340747
GQ started out okay, but quickly turned to 80% adds, 20% propaganda on how to be subservient to women.
>>
>>63344162
>pic
Who is this perfect woman? I can't get any answer for about a month. Nobody tells.
>>
>>63346456
nobody wants to spoonfeed you when you can easily find her name
>>
>>63346569
>tfw Google Search by image
Is it real? Wow she looks different.
>>
>>63340648

I liked to torrent all the foreign playboy mags every now and then for a good fap. Guess I wont be doing that anymore. Or is this just for the US edition. A lot of countries have their own version of playboy.

>>63340815

Who the fuck will buy porn let alone non nude porn? Do these retards think they can somehow change their image of playboy from being a porn mag into some journalism shit at this stage, after becoming the fucking icon of porn?
>>
>>63341632
Playboy was porn you fucking proxy cuck
>>
>>63346456
Donald Trump.
>>
>>63348287
>>
>playboy went SJW finally

How much longer until its full of obese trannies of color?
>>
>>63340648
Circulation has collapsed at all general interest mens mag's because their SJW approved content sucks.Elites / liberals don't like masculinity and objectification of women. Online porn will eventually be targeted too.
>>
>>63340648
how long till fatties are all over the cover?
>>
File: cancer.png (167 KB, 548x1613) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
cancer.png
167 KB, 548x1613
>>63340648
>the comment section
>>
>sjw did this!!

This thread is pathetic. Playboy doesn't give a shit about SJW. The problem is that Playboy has been going to shit for decades and they need to change things up. Men used to buy playboy for the articles and nudes but now you can find all the nudes you want online cutting out half of the audience while still turning off possible consumers who'd want to read their articles but don't want to buy a "porno mag". This is just them attempting to keep afloat.
>>
>>63350463
They all look young because they are all photoshopped to hell and back.
>>
>>63350465
So men's magazines have male oriented content, but juxtapose w nu-male indoctrination. Read thru Esquire, every layout says something like "she can kick your ass" or "you know, she's a genius!". Comes across as cringingly self-hating, thus readership collapses
>>
File: 1362410280129.jpg (69 KB, 500x667) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1362410280129.jpg
69 KB, 500x667
>>63351738
and they're healthier than your average feminist shithead
>>
>>63352203
She seems like somebody's mom, but not in a bad way. Maybe she should embrace maternity; it might suit her.
>>
>>63340648
2016, the year Playboy turned into Maxim.
>>
>>63340648
Who is this and where can I see her naked?
>>
>>63342192
tons of weirdly argued comments about that eh

It's almost like it was purposefully coordinated by some SJW types trying to pre-shame men that buy it.
>>
>>63340648
Going to fail.
>>
>>63340648
That's a damn shame, I'd love to see her nude.
>>
File: 1454524585066.jpg (9 KB, 290x290) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1454524585066.jpg
9 KB, 290x290
>>63340925
>tattoo

0/10
>>
>>63343649
Are those saggy too big, badly shapen breasrs with ugly mishsapen nipples an example for whats good or bad? I mean i can agree with your statement, but u chose a terrible picture to go along with it
>>
playboy will probably have nudes on their website for a subscription; the magazine, if written well, would become an 'i read it for the articles' rag.
>>
>>63353986
she's literally perfect
>>
Let's dispel this fiction once and for all that Playboy doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing; he's undergoing a systematic effort to change this country and make America more like the rest of the world. If I'm elected we'll embrace what makes America the greatest country in the world.
>>
>>63354213
Shes probably ruining that perfectly nice chair and getting it all gooy. Put some pants on lady
Thread replies: 73
Thread images: 14
Thread DB ID: 491260



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.