Today's Porn magazine vs. Vintage Porn of yesteryear. A comparison.

[Tucsoncoyote]

First off I'd like to thank those who responded to this thread so far (and you will all get thanked by me, one I finish writing this up, for I will take each observation, and show you that you're all correct in your observations.

First up, billybunter:

Originally Posted by billybunter

Porn mags today are full of porn stars. In the past they generally weren't. A lot of UK page 3 models posed nude in mags years ago.

And billy, you are correct. Many magazines today are chocked full of porn starlets, and duos (both lesbian, and heterosexual), and even threesomes, that are indeeed porn stars, and in some cases, they just want the attention to promote their films or their career. And they don't care how wild they get, just as long as the cameraman/photographer, gets "The money shot' (The cum shot).

Many of the older Magazines (especially the softcore ones), hinted at the sex acts, but were they real? That left everything to the observation of the viewer. It 'hinted' at the sex act, it teased you. Today's magazines are nothing but actual shots showing the act in progress (one picture might show a girl with her tongue out licking a guy's willie, the next, she's got it full i her mouth, and the next, she's going deep throat on him. It's more of "screw the teasing, let's give them what they want!" There's no real hint of a tease, there's no 's not eroticism. It's just pure sex, plain and simple. including the money shot, the plowing the hershey highway, and the wild and crazy sex posiotons. IN shrot, the photos today are more base, more raw... and that in itself, makes it less attractive compared to those from 15, 20, or even 30 years previous. It's a shame really, cause if people went back to the old ways, people WOULD buy more magazines. But now? I look at other fantasy girls, I make my own fantasies in carrtoon format (as Cartoons are basically the only way to live out some guy's fantasies). Even writing stories have lost their luster, and we'll discuss that further down the line. But moving on, the next poster, PHcoupleFan writes:

Originally Posted by PHcoupleFan

I agree with you, TuscanCoyote. My interest is in couples and trios photographed erotically and artistically. PH was clearly the best at that. Their couples pictorials in the 1970s were often very erotic and some of them tried hard to push the envelope. In the 1980s and into the 1990s the PH photographers did an excellent job of photographing couples having fun without explicit closeups. PH went hardcore in July 1997 and they managed a few hot pictorials after that. Unfortunately going hardcore ruined the erotic and artsy tone of the pictorials and they went downhill. PH used amateur male models who were very hot but once they started using pornstars the quality went downhill. It's a shame. The closest to erotic porn now is no longer in magazines but on late night cable instead, and it's hardly as good as the PH pictorials of the past.

I agree with you here, and for good reason. It seems that eroticism is dead. Sexuality is the norm now, and rather then the soft sensual and like you stated, artsy forms that PH gave us that made us want to read, buy, and even (ahem) off to, made that magazine even better than playboy. It hinted at the sex act, it teased us, and yes for a lot of guys (like myself0 aroused us to the point where we would go back and get off angain and again to the same pictorial or even new ideas tried.

And in fact the only disagreement I have is as to when these artsy sensual pictures went downhill, and I think it was with the advent of Hustler Magazine and their more "harder" look at women, which depicted them as sex objects rathe then works of erotic art, that helped kill this. Frankly I Blame Larry Flint for part of this.. The second part was when PH decided to ditch the softcore format, and go hardcore. This really put a damper on everyone's parade. Why show a soft sensual scene and make it feel erotic, when you can just have sex, sex, sex, and more sex, complete with naughtier and more sexual positions. rather then the soft lighting and sensual modes that made magazines erotic.. That's the real flaw, and if magazines listened to the readers, and the readers asked them to go back to the sensual side, I bet dollars to donuts that readerships would return, but as will be pointed out, I doubt that will happen.

Our next poster, historian writes:

Originally Posted by Historian

I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but another big difference is the physical quality of the mags themselves has gone downhill.

Funnily enough I was discussing this elsewhere recently, and comparing a recent issue of one of the well-known British top-shelf mags with some of the equivalents I've still got from the 90's, and the actual mag itself is clearly much more cheaply produced- poorer quality paper, less pages, less 'in-house' editorial and pic content, and photosets that are clearly produced with a much lower budget for studio costs, set, props etc.

The fellow VEF member I was discussing this with said that circulation figures for some titles are down to about a tenth of what they were 20-or-so years back- so it's hardly surprising the whole thing looks as if it's run on a wing and a prayer.

He reckoned it wouldn't long before some of them go under altogether, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's right

Again, I wouldn't be surprised either, and it's because of the porn companies are trying to save a buck to make a buck. That's the wroong attitude.. The real approach to making a magazine, should be quality, and the enjoyment of many motiffs (scenes and sets, and erotic fantasies being played out, ), rather then just the sex angle, complete with oral, anal, double penetration and of course the facial. That's what is killing reader ship as well. The poorer qualitiy paper it's printed on, and the cheap photographers, and harsh lighting, are in fact part of the problem too. Gone is the soft sensual music of love replaced with the heavy metal of hard core (sex), with the money shot (Facial) as being the corner stone of the mag.. That coupled with the fact that today in order to cover costs, magazines have to advertise not only phone sex sites, but also intenet porn. This really has helped kill the market so far that readership is indeed down. Most of the people who do read porn mags today are young adults who think of one thing and that's sex on the brain.

It's just plainly sex, sex, sex. No love, no intimacy, no sensual arousal. It's wham, bam thank you ma'am.. that wa great, now it's boring, and time to get another magazine.. or toss it out.. cause the luster of sensuality and eroticism is dead.. it's sex is king baby..

mr. boss makes a valid point too, and here it is.

Originally Posted by mr boss

For me porn and nudity were much more taboo in my teens in the pre-internet days. These days it seems every teen girl in the world has done a few nude pics on her cell phone or web cam. Back in the days there was such a feel of naughtiness to the girls who posed nude or did porn, it was much more of a socially shocking thing for a girl to do. The girls in those days seemed to revel in the naughtiness of it and there was such a greater sense of fun to the modeling or porn back then.

I also feel that nudity and sex tapes are used as a vehicle to push on a girls career, in my younger days most of the girls who posed fully nude and especially hardcore films there wasn't really the career development available so the girls knew that is where they would remain and took greater pride in their work and enjoyed it more.

Yep and it's now today that every woman is an exhibitionist, (and some of the guys are too). In a recent study here in the states, it seems that women today are so sex starved that some of them actually want the attention. They're attention whores. They want their 15 minutes in the spotlight so they take those pictures of themselves, with their webcams and their phones.

And some of them would be literally classified as "Traci Lords" Material.

Eroticism and sensuality is prtty much dead, but I have to point one thing out. Most women today, feel unwanted, un needed even unloved. And they don't feel pretty or sensual. That' a problem because some of us guys have seen them more as nothing mor than sex objext rather than works of art.
(And this mainly falls on the younger generations...)

The thing is.. I love women. It's a known fact. My personal preference was in fact women with exotic looks (Different nationalities and ethinicities..). and if they had intelligence, then that was a plus. some of them aroused me to the point where I would fantasize about them crawling in bed with me, an making slow passionate sex.

And now? Women today are literally becoming attention whores and exhibitionists.. They want one thing and one thing only.. the willing to be happy for themselves, and not just their partner. This problem is because men gave women the right to do whatever they want. And in a lot of cases, the love isn't there, nor is the sensuality. Today's women aren't just unwanted and unloved, they want a guy who loves them, to make them feel secure, and a lot of the younger guys who have sex on the brain, look at women as just pieces of meat, not works of art.

But I digress..

Love is an act of sensuality and eroticism.. Sex is just that.. sex.. and today's magazines portray the sex rather then the eroticism. That's why vintage stuff is still around. when we lose that eroticism the reality is, the baser material things are left, and that includes, sex.

so yeah it's a shame things have gone south.. But maybe some of us "Dirty old men, who have photographic skills can make it sensual again.

But until the magazines realize this, theyre' going to lose the older sensual readers to the younger horny dogs, who just have sex on the brai.. it's a shame really. cause eroticiism is dead. Sex isn't.

barry joel responds thusly:

Originally Posted by barryjoel

No comparison, as far as I'm concerned. Vintage wins hands down!

Absolutely. And now we see what we're talking about. Imean let's be honest and have a major show of hands here.. Who wants eroticism to return? (Raises hand). Who wants just scenes of sex? (Doesn't raise hand.) There is no comparison with the mags of today.. They're just sex mags, not vintage classical works of art.. They barely keep the companies afloat.. and even PB is faltering BH is practially dead, and hustler is going downhill fast.. all for the sake of going on the cheap.. Rather then turning out quality work, todays' mag are about the bug, and quantity.. the more lesser quality magazines you make the more money you make.

and to be honest, it's backfiring in their face. The same goes with Porn films both hard and soft care.. Gone is the erotic look, today it'sget the clothes off, bang up till they fake an orgasm, then shoot the load on the girl's face, then wsh rinse repeat (and with girl on girl scenes it's get down and diry, and to heck with the gently probing.. It's get them clothes off, munch muff, orgasm and then end it cold.. That right there just turns me off.)
Also take a look at the old vintage movies, compare them to today's fare.. Yesterday's movie had sometimes a plot, or a bit of a storyline, today's films are get the blothes off, screw the dialogue and plot and bang till you are blue in the face.)

That's what kills my tastes right there.. both in hard and in soft core.


Next up is magsnapper and his comment

Originally Posted by magsnapper

The cut backs started around 1996 for us at Gold Star.
They deciced to 'do away' with the in-house photographer and buy in very cheap photo sets from America.
Thus putting me out of work,and the models too.
I was up for retirement from the business in anycase so it really did bother me-I was total fed-up with the way the business was going,same old poses,same this,same that and my fees never grew.

The great days of production value was the late 1960s to around the early 90s for own mags.We were producing title as we had no tomorrow.

What I really am surprised about is the fact NONE of these titles ever appear here-yet these are the REAL Vintage Erotica.Sex scenes without the pubics...Im afraid you guys don't understand the history of how we got to this position we are in today.

The art has gone out of Erotica...you have only to see the boring old scans produced on these forums.Same old poses-dicks,fannies.A standard 7 poses as we knew them in the business,the models done them,jumped off got the kit back on,and waited to be payed.

And that's the thing... the poses.. Like you pointed out, there was no variety in the number of poses you could do with a woman, or for that a couple. The thing was, the magaazine company wanted the same old, same old, they didn't ant it to be ertoic, they wanted to just say, look, girl A does, this, this, this, this... and there was no fariety. Which really hurt some of the mags..

But the other part, is that todays' amgs get into wilder and wilder poses, but most of these are sex acts.. (I fecall in one mag (PH I believe) there was a sensual scene of a woman laying back and the guy kneeling over her and she gently grasping his willy and simulating that she was taking it in.. I kept visualizing that scene and it alway sblew my mind and a load out of me..
it was sensual.. and yes it was the in house photographer who made the scenes work and made it erotic.

Today's cheap hacks aretoday taking models are having them pose in positions that a contortionist would do..
but instead of the teasing and ertoicism, it's now "Get down and dirty, sread those juicy lips, slip a finger in, wiggle it around, fake an Orgasm, get up get out, get paid... Some of the shots were time consuming back in the day were in fact tastefully done, today's work is haphazzard at best, and lacks the quality .. it's just raunch and sex.. give them the facial money shot, done..

That' is what is killing it.. the lack of vintage eroticism.. the lack to fantasize.. the lack to have those erotic thoughts.. today, it's get the mind in the gutter, wank off, toss the mag.. get a new one..

that's show that you guys actually got gypped.. if some of the photogs had actually had changeups and different poses than what the MAGS wanted they would actually be having more sles not less. But what really hurt the photo was that the pay came out of his/her pocket, and not the mag companies..

That's what it is, basic greed to make money to gyp you and the model out of a decent paycheck.. that's should leave you hopping mad..

dbaily makes a valie point here..and it's a doozy:

Originally Posted by dbailey

I have been spending much happy time in the various Hustler threads and the Chic thread and I cant believe the erotisism of those shots from 20 years ago. They may actually be formulaic but the lighting coupled with the leaning back poses and some of the best faked orgasmic delight that I have ever seen on the face of a lady couple with lots of stockings or failing that oiled bodies and am I right in thinking that in some of them the flap shots seem to be artificially coloured pink or red.

Its not real I know, but as a fantasy it beats the pants off the highly lit shots of bored looking models covered in tattos and piercings.

Nope, I get more pleasure from some of these actuallt tame shots by todays comparsions than i do from new stuff.....and now gentleman...be warned...my next sentence may be giving too much information.

If a set gives me the involuntary sensation of my scrotum tightening then I know it has hit the spot and these names threads and perhaps old Men Only, Club and the Leg World and Leg Sex do the same.

Well here you make valid points and I'm going back to the issue of the sensually tasteful versus the tacky stuff of today..

Like you stated, the stockinged girl, or the oil body is indeed a turnon.. Many guys love the oiled form due to it's sheen, and beauty. It literally states, that the woman is sexually arousing and it even makes her want you to bang her. the expressions on her face are also a turn on.. it's the thing that makes you want to bang her more.

The stocking are arousing cause they make a woman look sexy, and feel sexy too, and yes those leggy bodels you mention in the last statment make them feel special..

But as of late, like you have pointed out (as well as the posters previous to you), is today's models are in fact porn stars and even exotic dancers / porn stars, Their view of eroticism today is to literally try to turn guys on with tattoos and body piercings.. (Okay the only thing I think makes a woman more erotic are maybe ear piercings, but when you pierce a lip, or a tongue, or even the naughty bits, or a belly button, it's a major turn off. Frankly it leaves me puzzled as to why these girls are in the business in the first place.. but then we can site that back in the mid 1990's a trend was coming, and that was of course the "Boob Job" (Silicone implants). Most guys today love the girls before they have a boob job and less afterwards.. Very few girls today can keep a boob job looking real, and it's this look that makes the girl look more like a bad blowup doll or a Barbie than a REAL woman.

Frankly I'll admit something too. I love erotic women.. Girls like Kobe Tai are hot caus of their small boobs, some black women ar hot cause of their sensual curves, some of the other girls are enjoyable of their ethnic looks,

but put a boob job, a tattoo, or even a body piercing, and what you got is a porn star who is desperate for attention.. Heck even today's exhibitionsitic teens are getting the wrong signal. If they want to look hot, they want to get a tttoos, if they want to look sexy they get a body piercing.

I actually looked at a couple of girls one time and these were girls in their 20's.. I was pushing into my 40's at the time. Now these babes were lookers, one was totally hot and was definitely exotic.. and I thought, "Hey I bet if I asked them, I might get a date with one of them..

But as I approached, one of them said to the other,

"So where are you going to get your body piercing?"

"In my crotch" the girl replied.. "You know. What are you?"

"My lip.."

ewww... total turn off right there.. and then they went on with discussion of tatoos... and I thought.. "God ladies, you're HOT, why disfigure yourselves, just for attention? There's a guy here who would ask you out on a date!" and then I realized.. They weren't wanting an erotic love session.. They wanted the cheap sexual thrill..

I could have probed further and I bet anything that their reasoning was because of their boyfriends, or the fact that they had found one of their guys' mags, which showed that tatoos are hot, and body piercings are in..

I shake my head on this..

Sirch comes up with this:

Originally Posted by Sirch

You hear it all the time. Its Photoshopped. A friend of mine gave me his stash of PB magazines from the last 10 years. I don't think Ive seen a PB magazine since the 80's. So I was quite shocked at what I saw.

The pictorials are horribly photoshopped. I'm not just talking about making an arm or waist slimmer. They completely "blur" the skin so its one uniform color and texture. Then they sharpen the edges. These women like like cartoons. Seriously! This is no muscle definition what so ever.

The beauty of the female form is rather complex. Lighting is important as well. There is nothing erotic or sensual in a current PB magazine.

I also think a magazine like PB should photograph "natural" models only. Their roots are in celebrating the beauty of the female form. Not the fake plastic female form.

Don't even start about photoshopping.. A lot of it is sadly.. crap..

30 years ago, computers weren't even in the hands of people and artistic photos were in vogue.. the were done with lighting techniques and poses that made you fantasize...to make you desire the woman (or being the lucky stiff boffing her.

But today? Everything is photo shopped.. want to make a boob bigger, photo shop it, want to make her slimmer? Get out Photo shop and manipulate the pixels.. Literally everything you see in mags today are in fact namipulated or changed with a bit of (Lack) of creative atlent..

Heck cartoon artists who do cartoon characters make them look hot cause they know that they're cartoons. But today's models are manipulated in such a way that if they don't look right, send it to the computer artist and change it.. add some flesh here, remove flesh there.. in short, make it look cartoony..

and tha in iself is a major turn off..

Frankl;y if people used photoshop correctly people would make some beautiful bits of erotic art, but since most of today's computer geeks are not artistic, they just throw a work together and call it art.. It's sad really.. with photographgic lenses and the right lighting, photo can be easily arousing..

but take it to a computer and digitally warp and manipulate the pixels, and today's mags look like crap.. the glossy paper is gone too, the cheap grainy stuff kills the look, and then of course throw in all the rest mentione dabove..

and it downright stinks, worse than a baby's 3 day old diaper.

Let's face facts.. we need artists here, not hacks.. and taking a picture and ruining it so to make it look sexually hot isn't art, it's a travesty..

Finally we finish up with oldster, and he has the most important thing to say.

Originally Posted by oldster

whether comparing soft porn from years ago to soft today, or hard porn images from years ago to those of today there are really big differences.
------
---todays is simply camera taking a picture of the action
---porn images from the 60's thru 70's did the same but also did creative images using black and white instead of color, creative use of shadows, angles, tint, etc giving a lot more variety of presentation of the pics
-------
porn from yester-year had a much greater variety of story lines and scenarios. Lending itself to the viewer of the images having a greater variety of situations to picture themself being in. For example the old Swedish Erotica loops, catalogs,etc had sex scenes in elevator, bars, apartments, hot tubs, classroom, doctors office, orgy, romantic settings, shower, etc. Todays scenes are pretty standard in terms of setting for the sex
------

porn mags(hardcore) and men's magazines(playboy, penthouse, hustler, etc) had a wider variety of story lines, articles, satire, comedy, short stories, cartoons, reader contributions(ie penthouse having letters in magazie from people sending in their own experiences--penthouse letters)...While mags today have advertisemnents, 800 umbers, etc....
Still wank to some of the letters in penthouse letters and to short stories that were rather vivid

oldster, you said it in spades, literally. Gone is the artistic and creative works of the old photographic styles, the variance in style and tinting and even subtle use of lighting and lenses made the eroticism artistic.. there was no computer manipulations, black and white as just as erotic as color. and in the end, like you pointed out, a lot of mages had the cartoons / comedy, the short erotic stories or stories in general. the colorful commentary (such as Hustler did), and even the amateur models who wanted to be the Real models (the echibitionists who's boyfriends could take good photos, but not spectacular ones like the pros..

There was a lot of GOOD content in mags of yesteryear.. Porn films had more plot than led on to believe.. and yes, the poses while some would call boring, would in fact be erotic thanks to the careful attentiveness of the photographer who skillfully used the lens, lighting and the tils and looks to make a scene appealing.. The story writers (like in the PH Letters) were real people who had real emotions, and yes, even sexual fantasize...

that says a lot on how far porn and eroticism has fallen.. Gone are the stories and the articles that were good to read, replaced by nothing but advertisements. Gone are the artsy cartoonsthat made you get a chuckle of the 'Sexual innuendos'.

and gone are the mdels, who are now replaced with half bored starlests who do hard core films that are so bored, they wish they could get out of the bizness.. Add to that the fear of STD's and pregnancies, and even the lack of plot, or even a storyline, and today's magazines are nothing more tha a bunch of hap hazzard pictures that are in fact tossed together with the facial being the shot of the day. (Yes guys lie't see the sperm covered face of the model! Forget the even faked orgasm.. it's not hot enough!

sadly without a shift back to the old ways, things are going to go south.. The Porn industry is on the skids.. and with today's internet, and the fact that we can go to any porn site and watch a movie, or look at the lack of taste makes me ralize.. I miss the old days..The days when you could fantasize about sex, and get off to iut, and to do it multiple times..

Today it's wham, bam, thank you ma'am.. next sex scene please..

and it doesn't matter if it's a guy on girl , or girl on girl scene..

sadly until people get bored of sex, will the realize there 's mreo to eroticism then just sex.. Sex is just one part of this.. eroticism is the other..

Cybger sex today is nothing more than sex using comptuers, there's not intimacy, not actual touching, no actual meeting of a person, it's all digital, and dumb downed.

Until things change, this is the way erotic mags will go into less and more debasing things.. towards things that won't even appeal to men (or women) andymore.

once that happens, well. the handwriting is on the wall.. Sex Mags will go out of business.. Internet sex will be the rage, and in the end, human initimacy, fantasy, and even love will bur turned into nothing but rauchy desbasing sex...

complete with facial.

That' about sums it up..

Tucsoncoyote--

[FineHamAbounds]

Originally Posted by billybunter

Porn mags today are full of porn stars. In the past they generally weren't. A lot of UK page 3 models posed nude in mags years ago.

I think you are right. I only came of age to legally purchase these magazines in The States a few years back. I wish I was 18 in the 60s/70s. Even Playboy's gotten a little sleazy. The old school models were at least a little artistic.

Hey Tucson,

this is an excellent thread. I've wondered myself as to why I'm here on this site, more than a free porno movie site or a free cam site, and the reason is I have a hard time relating to todays attitudes towards EVERYTHING, not just erotica. I agree with all of your observations as well.

Here are a few random thoughts that I have, the mindset we have now is an animal like/dumbed down intelligence. Almost infantile, and grotesque at the same time. I've always been attracted to a womans pubic hair, now the hip thing to be is bald like a child. And it is quite fitting because of the immaturity factor. Ever notice some of the records some of these models were listening to? King Crimson - The Stranglers, girls back then were hip to really cool music, they were in tune, today they all listen some form of corporate shit.

Socially woman were expressing their sexuality, and they didn't want to make a career of their beauty. Today, it's all about laziness, entitlement, and being an overnight porn star. Their is nothing mysterious, or erotic with the models of today, it's all about having their 15 minutes of fame.

Look at Hefner, he gets engaged to a golddigger, then she calls the wedding off, keeps the ring and sells it, that is a piece of shit in my book, she has 0 class. Instead of getting shit, Crystal Klein host's a holloween bash at the Borgata Casino in Atlantic City and gets 30K to do it? But I think we've all know for a long time there is no more girl next door. It's ironic but the ideal image Hefner tried to create, became a nightmare that came back to humiliate him. Any good looking girl today without character and morals, wants whatever she can get out of life.

And it doesn't stop with sexuality, how bout the rest of society, that's going to hell in a handbasket too!

[Greenman]

Okay here is my take. Forgive me if this has been mentioned but there isn't alot you can say about a magazine without repeating things.

The best thing for me about being a teen and a Vintage mag was the fact that the girls/women were usually unbelievably gorgeous in the case of a page 3 girl and above all else there was none of this shaving nonsense-in fact that was confined to specialist magazines like Shaven Ravers etc which didn't interest me at all. Also the main difference apart from Whitehouse was the lack of men in them which wasn't really what you wanted to see in a girlie magazine. We had great titles like M*yf*ir, P-House and Parade, and slightly sleazier looking Escort, XS and others but it was the thought that you might see a Page 3 girl completely naked that was the real carrot. This was mostly through MFair and P-House which had British offshoots and in the days when Paul Raymond hadn't got his hands on them, they would regularly feature some of your favourite girls. I thought they were a little slicker yet lacked the variety of girls when Raymond took over their running and amazingly hardly any black or asian looking girls appeared. Were they racist back then? Who knows but then you had the specialist magazines appear like Black and Blue & Asian Babes but even then many were not what they claimed to be. This of course was softcore porn but the real hardcore stuff wasn't allowed in many newsagents-the hardest I ever got was a Whitehouse that featured Jo Guest.

Obviously the main difference was no men(as mentioned earlier) but that was due to the laws of this country and if there were men a magazine they had to be 'covered' up with strategically placed sticker or printed like that. Mind you as I also said earlier I didn't particularly want to see that in a magazine, I mean there is nothing more off-putting as a teen seeing a bloke who is more developed when you are only 16 and just discovering girls. It was the girls we wanted. I felt that P-boy was too expensive and that there were too many articles when all you really wanted again was the girl/s although if a British model were in it like Samantha Fox or Marina Baker, well that was different. The worst thing about the magazines were the teaser covers; you think your favourite girl is in the mag because she is on the cover but after handing over your money and rushing home what do you find-she is to be the following month's bloody magazine!!

I for one am glad that our magazines didn't have men in them but I still think they lost something after Raymond got his mits on the group, yes they had a few more Page 3 girls in them but as I said no black babes or asians only a diet of blondes, brunettes, the odd redhead and raven haired bird. As the Internet came about the magazine began to lose its appeal and any picture you wanted could be found online thanks to some brilliant scanners or in the fledgling smartgroups or newsgroups later. Who needed paper when you had it in full colour, on your computer in the privacy of your room. Magazines are still around but now with the onset of the Brazilian look and tattoos, piercings and other unsightly looks I think the Net is probably the only place now that modern teens migrate to and why spend money on a magazine when you can find whatever picture you want for a few pence.

In summary I loved the magazines of my era and we definitely had the best looking girls around plus all the controversy and women's lib, Claire Short on her usual ludicrous crusade to rid the shelves of M-Fair and PHouse which unfortunately she succeeded in doing from WHSmith and other public places but by then the Net was closing in(quite literally) and virtually sounded the death knell of the magazine.

[Sharkhunter]

Originally Posted by Historian

I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but another big difference is the physical quality of the mags themselves has gone downhill.

As the self-proclaimed unofficial archivist of Club International for the last twenty-five odd years up to the end of last year when I finally gave up on the title, I have discussed much of this elsewhere and can only agree. While the magazines from twenty years ago were printed on paper that would last good a few days when left for us lucky schoolboys to find underneath some bramble bush somewhere, these days the pages have a feel of toilet paper.

The biggest downer for me was Club - while the issues of the 1980s and 1990s had a good solid "feel" to them, even those from the early 2000s were OK. If you rested the mag in the palm of your hand - that is when the palm of your hand was not wrapped around something else - it would pretty much remain stable. Now try this with a more recent copy - it just flops on either side of your hand, signifying that the paper is weak and lightweight.

The cover itself - being of weaker material - seems to acquire a natural crinkling effect (this can be seen on the photos of the covers, for example at http://www.newsstand.co.uk), and when you open a copy you can see that the pages inside are far thinner then before while the printing has a washed out look that makes it look cheap and nasty. Of course, this is the real killer given that the cover price of your average mag is now over £4.

That's just my analysis before even examining the contents.

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s Club truly lived up to its reputation of being one of the highest-quality top-shelf mags around: it contained the finest models, and a good number of popular girls and Page Three babes. You could leaf through a copy and not find one dud photoset. To be blunt, it would keep you hard from cover to cover.

There was a bit of a dip in the late 1990s, but by 2002 new editor Matt Berry had found the right formula: OK, there were no longer any Page Threers or bespoke shoots, but one could find the finest picks from the new Eastern European stable with many sets being sourced from the best photo houses such as Denys DeFrancesco and Viv Thomas. Added to the fact that for many years the regular girl was Sophie Moone (aka Stella) it was still a must-buy for me.

Then came the turn of the decade, a new editor, and what was for me the collapse of the magazine. This happened in a number of ways:

- Sophie/Stella being replaced by the pneumatic Sasha. For me Club had always been about natural models, and to have a silicon-stuffed model as the regular feature was a real turn-off for me.

- Fake tits/tattoos. Apart from remaining in line with Club's unofficial position on fake breasts, previous editor Matt Berry appeared to have had a policy on body art, to the point where models had their tats airbrushed out. (While like most of us I am not overly keen on airbrushing as a whole, zapping Zuzana Z's cheap belly dolphin or making Natasha Marley's human canvas disappear improved the quality greatly). With the new editor, some quite hideous tattoos and tits found their way into the mag.

- Covers with fake underwear and/or stars or dots on the nipples, which I always thought was (a) badly done and (b) lazy. I can't imagine they would get the work-experience boy to play around with photoshop and spray a thong over a model's crotch when looking up another shot in which she is actually wearing underwear would have been a far easier and better option. As for the nipple stars/dots - yeah, yeah we want to see tits - but let's leave something to the imagination first.

- Too many bald cunts. OK, I know pubic hair is not in fashion any more, but there are still loads of pretty models out there who keep at least a little fur down there. Sometimes you'd go through an entire magazine and not see one strand of pubic hair.

- The decline in print quality. At the end of 2010, PRP's publisher changed and with it there came a very obvious reduction in quality, both in the material and the output. An issue from twenty years ago could tolerate a blob of errant spunk if it was quickly wiped off - as much as one tried to avoid it there would be the occasional accident - but the shit paper on the more recent mags meant that if your jizz remains for even half a minute it works its way down at least a dozen pages. Even wiping if off immediately isn't good enough.

- The price. Shelling out over £4 for a wank mag that I more often that not never ended up wanking over was very obviously a massive waste of money. Most of the time I'd end up digging out an old copy instead or powering up the laptop to check out the latest pictorial submissions on VEF.

For this reason I gave up on Club at the end of Volume 39 - I didn't even bother with the 40th birthday edition as I knew it would have the feeling of turning up at a massively-advertised party only to find out that there would be no food, no alcohol, no decent music and no attractive women.

The final blow came when another title I had started to collect - Mayfair's Lingerie Special - suddenly released an issue that was not only low on print quality was differently sized from the previous copies (A4 as opposed to the traditional foolscap).

I have not even glanced at a top shelf for almost a year now - while I did feel pangs at the beginning, I don't miss it any more. Buying, reading and selling older stuff is far more satisfying.

[Historian]

Originally Posted by Sharkhunter

As the self-proclaimed unofficial archivist of Club International for the last twenty-five odd years up to the end of last year when I finally gave up on the title, I have discussed much of this elsewhere and can only agree. While the magazines from twenty years ago were printed on paper that would last good a few days when left for us lucky schoolboys to find underneath some bramble bush somewhere, these days the pages have a feel of toilet paper.

The biggest downer for me was Club - while the issues of the 1980s and 1990s had a good solid "feel" to them, even those from the early 2000s were OK. If you rested the mag in the palm of your hand - that is when the palm of your hand was not wrapped around something else - it would pretty much remain stable. Now try this with a more recent copy - it just flops on either side of your hand, signifying that the paper is weak and lightweight.

The cover itself - being of weaker material - seems to acquire a natural crinkling effect (this can be seen on the photos of the covers, for example at http://www.newsstand.co.uk), and when you open a copy you can see that the pages inside are far thinner then before while the printing has a washed out look that makes it look cheap and nasty. Of course, this is the real killer given that the cover price of your average mag is now over £4.

Yes, I was discussing Fiesta in an exchange of PMs with another member, and we drew exactly the same conclusions from comparing a current issue with 1990s equivalents- cheaper, thinner paper, poorer-quality printing, generally a mag produced on a much smaller budget- but selling for a higher price.
He hit me with an absolute killer statistic, that goes some way to explaining this- Apparently back in 1988, Fiesta's annual circulation peaked at around 328000- now it's under 30000...As he said, I guess when your revenues have been hit by 90%+, survival is a not bad result!

[Tucsoncoyote]

Well I think that the issue with Internet sites is just a pat of the issue as to why Today's magzine readership has gone down, but it's also the fact of content and really how it's done that makes or breaks most magazines today versus the vintage versions.

I mean let's roll back to the early 1960 and mid 1970's when Playboy and Penthouse were in vogue and Hustler wwaas just getting warmed up..

Back in those first days, The Playboy photos were very well laid out, the expressions of the women were soft, and gentle, though some gave you a hint that they were impish a little bit evil in thier own way...

As for Penthouse, The cameraman definitely set the mood, and you can take a look at any magazine back then and you had things like the fuzzy lense, the soft sensual lighting and not to off the wall poses. (Oh they were suggestive, but that's why we had fantasies in our minds, imagining what they would do next?)

I personally think that when the first major change was like has been pointed out previously, was when companies like Hustler and Swank came out, and they used really less than professional quality photographers.

I mean look at some of the first early pictures of Hustler and you can notice the harsh lighting and the way they literally smothered a woman in water, or made her look all shiny.. and then thanks to the fact that the photographers (the cheap ones that is) wanted their models attitudes to change, you had women who had serious attitudes.. Gone was the "I'm so sweet and Innocent" or "I'm impish and playful" kind of look, to that of the "I'm a dirty slut, screw me silly kind of look." I mean look at te expressions.. and the way women looked was like they were faking an orgasm rather than posing tastefully as a model.. It was like "Legs open spread those lips, and then slip a finger in." or even worse. the "On your stomach lift that ass up and show them both your assets and then slide it in and "How like you are getting off with a million guys at once look."

And the looks and expressions of women on those shoots literally sometimes spooked the heck out of me..

I mean the warm smile, the impish grin was gone. It was like.. I'm an Agressive she-tiger and I'm going to growl, pounce on you and kill you like a psychopathic look..

See that's the thing, that was where the start of the decline of readership started.. Guys wanted women to enthrall their senses with that warm welcoming smle... or that impish grin that said "I'm a good girl Play with me.."

And then what really started to cause these mags were indeed the fact that the mags wanted to save money and not make it with tastefully done layouts..

Granted the photographer's time is his money, but rather than getting tasteful works taht could be at least decent to show us the sensual and eroticism we all need, it degraded into a magazine that started to feel chip.. and when the replaced the more expensive photo glossy paper with the more common paper you would find in a printer, like has been pointed out, the actual sales started to slip..

But really I thiik the thng that finally has pushed magazines off the top of the shelves in most book agent stores, and out from behind the counters of liquor and conveience store shelves.. was the fact that now we are catering to those who want not just fantasy, but hot quick one night facial shots. The money shot as we call it..

I mean Watching a girl give a guy in a blowjob and hidig it wth her hand was a great boost to the imagination.. Watching it now just go into the mouth, and half way into the throat is now becomiing the norm, and at this rate, deep throats and gagging mags are soon to be the norm.. None of that sensual teasing with the tongue, or a gently lick on the head.. It's 'get in in as far as possible, hold it till you turn blue in the face, then gough gag and spit it out..

and anal.. it's just ram her balls to the walls, slam her like crazy until she howls in pain then have her clean off the mess with her tongue..(Excuse me, I'm gonig to hurl at this point.)

and now with the internet out there where we can watch these same less then sensual acts occur, well, we're becoming totally de-sensitized by it..

Sex and Love aren't a beautiful act anymore.. It's now more like a freak show.. as we have girls getting slammed three ways to sunday, getting thier faces plastered with come, and even worse.

Frankly if Magazines want to promote sex and love again, it's time to go back to the basics, (which is something they won't do, because they have to pander to today's young adults who want it down and dirty..).

but if they did? it might mean new magazines could pop up to replace the old..

but until then.. The old ways are dead.. and that all we got here, is in fact nothing but pictures of women just getting down and dirty, acting slutty and thinking of themselves not as beautiful creatures that men adore and want to have, but creatures that now can scar the heck out of our sleep with a haunting howl on their face.

But heck.. it's good to fantasize, no? Cause I'll still look at the porn and still get off on it, if the mood fancies me, but other than that? Porn mages for me, are used for reference guids for otehr forms of erotic art..

Even if it's not real, it is still good to hae fantasies.. Or not?

Tucsoncoyote-

[Sharkhunter]

Just looking at the most recent cover of Club tells me yet again why I don't bother buying it anymore. It actually sums up modern magazines.

[LeJazzHot]

I have very mixed feelings about the state of print publications as they moved from the vintage era (where I earned my first Purple Heart for calloused palms) to the modern age. The biggest change I noticed over the years was a phenomenon with parallels to the broader mass media industries. In order to sustain growth and gain market share, the mass media have developed unsubstainable appitites for "content." In other words, having enough shit to push in front of the consumer on a non-stop basis. Just consider the crap that goes for "news" on the all news networks. Or an even better example would be the plight of what was originally The Learning Channel, a US cable network. In the beginning, you could actually be educated on a variety of subjects of value. Now the network is called TLC and their stock and trade is cheap to make idiotic reality shows like "Say Yes to the Dress", "Cake Boss", and "I did not know I was pregnant".

The top shelf adult mags began their decline with the infusion of content from major porno companies who used photo shoots as a disguised form of advertising for the starlets and their movies. Vivid Pictures and Club magazine was the first offender I noticed doing this in the mid-90s, but others production companies and magazine soon followed with similar tie-ins.

I believe in compartmentalization in life. When I want to see good hard, nasty shagging I can have Rocco or Marc Dorcel; when I want good "leave it in doubt, use your imagination" erotica, I no longer have the quality that once existed in mags like Club, Velvet, Cheri, Whitehouse, etc. during the golden age, circa 1985-1998.

[Girlfan]

Some very intelligent posts here, and a great - if not a little sad - thread.

My experience is entirely based on British magazines, which I started to buy (or, in the early days, find under hedges), around 1980.

For me, as the use of colour became cheaper and more prevalent, the magazines became better and better (I'm mainly talking about the likes of Club International, Fiesta, Men Only & Mayfair), until they reached their zenith, round about 1990. The editorial was usually witty, the photography high-class, and the girls were simply superb. Plastic tits were almost unknown (variety is the spice of life: not every woman has to be 40DD), ugly body piercings simply did not occur, and tattoos were strictly the province of dock workers, motorcyclists and pirate fantasists. Add to that the fact that a copy of, say Club at that time was a bloody well printed, high-quality (from a paper point of view) publication.

It slowly started to go downhill after that - but very slowly. Perhaps the "Lads Mag" phenomenon of the 1990s had something to do with it - you could get away with buying "Loaded", but a proper top-shelf mag marked you down as some kind of "dirty old man". The real problem was the Internet, of course. Suddenly, porn, of every variety, from the tamest softcore to the most horrendous hardcore was everywhere. I still prefer a paper copy, but truth be told, why go to the newsagent & buy a mag for say three quid when you can download ten times as much material for nothing in five minutes?

Then we got the cult of the "porn star" - overly tarty lookalike bimbos that flooded most sites, and, as a result, most magazines in the last 5-10 years. I'm talking about bleach-blonde hair, airbrushed featureless skin, plastic boobs, tattoos, piercings and bald pussies on almost every girl. Variety - the spice of life, remember - was gone, and the mags were fighting for survival, following trends, where all throughout their history they had set their own. Circulation goes down, quality goes down, and it’s a vicious cycle from thereon in.

Personally, I stopped buying mags regularly around 2001 (OK, partially because I got married & my Wife isn't that keen on me having too much smut around), and I bought my last one at all maybe 5 years ago. I didn't enjoy it at all. What a sad comparison to the 1980s, where the frisson of excitement you got looking through a new magazine was one of life's great little pleasures. In the modern mag the girls all looked like (cheap) hookers, and, as everyone else has mentioned, the whole thing felt shoddily produced.

The one salvation is that vintage magazines are still available from the likes of Jobbydealer, and, of course, we have VEF.

Before posting this, I re-read it, and it struck me that I've just said the same things as almost everyone else - so at least it isn't just me!