Penthouse Pets VS Playboy Playmates

[a435843]

Originally Posted by jeff4575

Phyliss was my wife from 12.31.1981 until her death on 01.16.2001. While it is true we were regulars at a nude beach (Baker Beach in SF) ... her appearance had nothing to do with 'scouts'. Rather, I had taken some nudes of Phyl both at the beach and in our room as we prepared to go out for the evening. By sheer coincidence, we got the photos back from the lab within a day or so of the new PH issue arriving in the mail. Phyl & I were both fans ... especially of the women with women pics and the Forum letters.

That issue had an ad inviting women to submit their photos to the magazine. Without telling Phyl about it ... I took a few of those photos, stuffed them in envelope and mailed them off.

A few weeks later she asked where those photos were. I told her what I did and she laughed. Because she never thought of herself to be as pretty and sexy as the models we looked at ... she said PH would never want her to model. So you can imagine how stunned we were when Earl Miller called and told us Bob Guccione had seen her pictures and wanted her to be in the magazine.

Phyl never had any desire to be a model or to be famous. She simply wanted to a wife and mother to our boys. So when the issue came out and the 5 or 6 promotional were done ... we went back to being who we were.

The two pictures I've included with this post are from the beach and the photo set I sent to PH.

Thanks for the story and the correction...I had a girlfriend who had some test shots from her modeling agency in college end up being forwarded to PB without her knowledge (until later), which is common, actually. So, congratulations that your submission worked out for Phyliss & you. Ultimately, my experience was slightly less "wholesome", so to speak.

Actually, I'm not surprised that she was immediately contacted about appearing in PH. And, it's also not surprising that she liked PH; a knew a few women in the 80's who liked PH, but not PB.

[astronight]

I have a challenge.
Who posed for Playboy and Penthouse?, as well as a like and dislike, Pet, or Playmate.


I posted three.
I know Playboy Playmates are more true and real, and really more so then we think. I introduce you to Elisa Bridges who tried to uphold that tradition, sure more like her who felt she had to play that part, and gone now.
Leah Darby ( Playboy )..Aka Juliet Cariaga ( penthouse pet ), say what you will, but she used both and still around, cute yet gotta love her for that.
Ultimate supreme Goddess, Sabrina West Penthouse pet! I know Pets at a time, just do it and leave, way too good mystical she was and is, and adore her for just that, and to say she is awesome to me!
Anyway, Penthouse has one awesome Pet, one who treaded in both areas, and then well....lost of respect otherwise.

[spazarino]

Originally Posted by astronight

I have a challenge.
Who posed for Playboy and Penthouse?, as well as a like and dislike, Pet, or Playmate.

The first crossover I'm aware of of Lynn/Linn Thomas (PB first, then PH).

I always prefer her PB shots...PH always came across as a little harsh to me,ans the softer poses/makeup of PB played better into my fantasies.

[cqnew1648]

Thanks to everyone for this thread. It’s great to hear everyone’s thoughts. I hope PH fans won’t mind if I state what has bothered me most about PH and why I’m more a PB fan. It’s certainly not a question of beauty—it’s impossible not to be dazzled by the women in PH. I’ve been less than dazzled, however, by PH’s photography. For instance, when I compare the photos of my favorite PMs with those of my favorite Pet, Joanne Latham, I can’t help but feel that PH didn’t do Joanne or her fans justice. I wonder if Joanne would be loved and appreciated by so many fans today if we had only come know her through her PH shoot. Would she have so many views on VEF and be one of only six softcore models to have a VEF thread rating of 5? I doubt it.

That said, I love the photo of Joanne on the cover of the 15th Anniversary issue. What a beauty—and what a sense of anticipation Joanne gives us with that seductive look on her face as she's falling out of her blouse. Has there ever been a more heart-pounding cover shot?



And with her faint smile—a trademark of so many PB photos—Joanne draws us in. She invites us to spend time with her, and lets us know that she’s having fun too.

But the promise of Joanne’s cover shot is never fulfilled. From then on, PH hid Joanne’s lovely face in the shadows, or under a hat, or left her out of focus, or lit her scene with so much light that you could barely see her face. As we know from Joanne’s other shoots, she has a wonderfully expressive face, so captivating that she could launch thousands upon thousands of ships—but for some reason, PH decided not to show her face, at least not in clear focus and clear light. For instance, here is Joanne:


1) In the shadows, 2) Faceless, 3) Out of focus, and 4) in too much light.




And why the faraway look on her face? Joanne is photographed repeatedly looking down or away, her thoughts elsewhere.



I do want models and photographers to have the artistic license to express their feelings in erotic art. Joanne may love that faraway look, which for her might express romantic longing or regret. But the repetitious use of the faraway look takes Joanne away from us and leaves me wondering what happened to the happy young woman on the cover of the magazine who wanted to be with us fans and was delighted to be the fifteenth anniversary Pet—a dream come true for her and us.

And last, Joanne’s centerfold. I don’t know if it represents the greatest wasted opportunity in PH history, but it’s one of the reasons I never became a fan of PH.



The photo’s not as successful as it should be, because you can’t tell it’s Joanne. A beautiful woman, yes, but not her. Erotic art begins and ends for most of us softcore fans with the beauty of a woman’s face and with the warmth, passion, and joy she projects as she fulfills her fantasies and ours. Joanne’s closing shot, unlike her cover shot, misses the point.

I’ll close with a few shots that I feel do get the point from my favorite PB PM’s. These photos project the warmth, joy, flirtatiousness, seductiveness, and sexual passion and energy that I find lacking in so many PH shoots—and for the past few decades in PB shoots as well. I wish we could have seen Joanne Latham like this—and in clear focus and bright (but not too bright) light!


Happy, warm, and welcoming (like Joanne’s cover).




Seductive




Lost not in her thoughts, but in her feelings.

[jeff4575]

You make valid points. But I'd like to offer some counter-points.

First ... until PH went porn ... i think they had a much wider variety of models (body types, breast size, etc), women who demonstrated they weren't afraid to be sexual beings ... who proudly said to the world: "We like sex as much as men ... maybe even more so."

PB models where much more about 'the girl next door' image and tended to be very busty ... as if that 'barbie-doll' image is the ideal. Clearly, many men prefer big boobs. But those big boobs are not nearly as attractive after babies or just years of gravity.

Second ... yes PB's photo techniques (including air-brushing) made their models almost perfect ... but I think far too often ... to perfect.

PH ... on the other hand ... tended to let the models be who they were ... slight imperfections and all. Again, i found PH models to be more realistic ... both in substance and style.

But, the nice thing about this site ... we can enjoy what we like and make our case as to why. Cudos to originators.

[a435843]

Originally Posted by jeff4575

First ... until PH went porn ... i think they had a much wider variety of models (body types, breast size, etc), women who demonstrated they weren't afraid to be sexual beings ... who proudly said to the world: "We like sex as much as men ... maybe even more so."

PB models where much more about 'the girl next door' image and tended to be very busty ... as if that 'barbie-doll' image is the ideal. Clearly, many men prefer big boobs. But those big boobs are not nearly as attractive after babies or just years of gravity.

Second ... yes PB's photo techniques (including air-brushing) made their models almost perfect ... but I think far too often ... to perfect.

PH ... on the other hand ... tended to let the models be who they were ... slight imperfections and all. Again, i found PH models to be more realistic ... both in substance and style.

I've said previously that I do prefer PB to PH, but Jeff makes some great points. In short, PH tended to feature a wider range of models (although white only), in a more intimate setting, and in that "blurry", fantasy style, of which I was a fan. PB had a less sexual approach, focusing more on body type (big boob, usually, but not always) and the more traditional "model look". I like the smiles in PB (though I had a friend who hated them), but the sexuality in PH precludes the smiling. And, I think cqnew did pick a few bad shots...a better example of better lighting and focus (from the 90's), but with an intelligent use of facial obscurity, hats, and clothing would be in the classic "Teneil" pictorial (OP credit)...Teneil's expressions exude a sexuality equal to anything in PB:

[cerv3za]

Interesting discussion. I agree that the photography in PH was always subpar...all those out-of-focus shots, all those too-dark or too-light shots. The other thing is that PH went prostitute on us way before PB did...PB continued to have women who really did look like a hyper-fantasized girl next door, but they looked real, or at least really cute. In the 90s, long after I found PB exciting, they still had insanely cute girls like Jennifer Leroy, Nicole Wood...or later, Kona Carmack. Somebody said all the PB women were busty blondes...not even. I say this as a huge fan of Marianne Gravatte (otherworldly...girl next door if you live on Mars, maybe), but also as a huge fan of Michelle Drake, and of Rita Lee and Karen Morton...I mean, their faces were as memorable as the rest of them. That was the case in PH in the 70s, but by the early to mid-80s they started having women in there who looked like strippers...it took PB a long time to get to that point.

Who was the playmate/pet who made it clear that the respective magazine had jumped the shark? In PB, there were a few that were actually ugly, either a mean-looking face with way too much makeup or a grotesquely huge bust? Julianna Young springs to mind, or Petra Verkaik, or Shae Marks post-boob job. Then again, I once saw Jennifer Lavoie close-up, and I don't think I'd ever stood next to anyone so naturally beautiful.

In PH, on the other hand, and many other magazines, you look at pretty much everyone past...oh, I don't know, 1985...and you wonder what freak show you walked into, with pet after pet daring you to stare at her greased, shaved anus. PB didn't go there, but it took into the 2000s for the magazine to be exclusively made up of blow-up dolls.

1969 to 1982, the women of PB looked like fashion models with their clothes off...you can say it's not real, it's all fantasy, but they peddled that fantasy really, really well. My personal favorites were Lui, Oui, and a couple of surprising magazines like Stag and Genesis in the 70s. They had great, great-looking women.

[Viklas]

Originally Posted by spazarino

The first crossover I'm aware of of Lynn/Linn Thomas (PB first, then PH).

The first model to appear in both mags that I'm aware of is Ursula Buchfellner aka Ursula Fellner.

Also Teri Weigel appeared in both mags in1985/86.

I always figured the difference in approach was, PB knew what was pretty-- PH knew what was sexy!

[jeff4575]

I say this as a huge fan of Marianne Gravatte



I could not agree more about Marianne Gravatte. She is far and away my favorite playmate. And outside of Phyl (for obvious reasons) ... my favorite PH pic of all time is Victoria Lynn Johnson.

[bigtrain45]

There have been dozens upon dozens of truly beautiful women in both magazines, and I agree with Jeff, that PH had more different body types, but they had less ethnic diversity. But where I have lost interest in PB for the most part, is that they seem to have decided that the vagina is now off-limits, presumably to set themselves aside from pretty much everyone else. The Cybergirls show it all, but the magazine models are a bit too coy for my taste. As to the past, I prefer PB's airbrushing to Guccione's soft focus and dim lighting. I wish Wendy Blodgett, as one example, had been shot by PB instead of PH, as I think we'd have a much better idea of just how beautiful she is, or was. But in the last 20 years, since Guccione hardly ever shot any of the models, and the focus and lighting became much more clear, I think PH, even with their preponderance of porn actresses, does more for me than PB. Really, is Karen McDougal, for instance, prettier than Tera Patrick, when they were both in their late 90's prime? Has any PB model of the last 20 years been prettier, or hotter, than Stacy Moran, Liz Hilden, or Megan Mason? Also, since PB puts their models under exclusive contracts, we only get to see them the way PB chooses to show them to us. Many PH models move around and shoot for other sites, like Twisty's, DD, Earl Miller, etc., so we get to see them in a variety of settings, with different hair and makeup people, and isn't variety part of the fun?