Register on the forum now to remove ALL ads + popups + get access to tons of hidden content for members only!
vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum
vintage erotica forum
Home Home
Go Back   Vintage Erotica Forums > Classic Models > Softcore Models > Softcore Models Discussion

Follow Vintage Erotica Forum on Twitter
Best Porn Sites Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Softcore Models Discussion For all chat and discussions on Vintage Models

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-12-2017, 03:04 AM   #71
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 296
Thanks: 55
Thanked 10,882 Times in 282 Posts
utube 50000+utube 50000+utube 50000+utube 50000+utube 50000+utube 50000+utube 50000+utube 50000+utube 50000+utube 50000+utube 50000+

Is this pic of Karen to the right of her husband doing a trapeze act?

utube is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to utube For This Useful Post:
Old 10-31-2017, 02:34 AM   #72
Senior Member
cqnew1648's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 160
Thanks: 2,302
Thanked 8,506 Times in 169 Posts
cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+
Default Thoughts on Other People’s Thoughts on Hugh Hefner’s Passing

It seems like ages ago when PB was at the heart of our culture—when every straight male of a certain age (puberty until death!) was a fan and when beautiful women competed for our affections. There’s no point in fighting to bring PB back as it was. I wish Hugh Hefner’s son well, but there are good reasons not to fight. We need to make the social world as welcoming to women as to men, and winning a beauty contest—including PB’s ultimate beauty contest—is no longer the honor it once was for a young woman.

Still, it’s upsetting that an artistic, sophisticated magazine that captivated every heterosexual American male is now portrayed as pornography, pure and simple, rather than as fun and sexy. And it’s upsetting that fans, as well as many of our favorite PMs, have been held responsible for the goings on at the PB mansion and for the excesses of Hugh Hefner’s hedonistic lifestyle—a lifestyle that in his golden years embarrassed even his sons. There was more than a bit of desperation in the way he lived his life. It’s one thing to look at young women and to have fond memories of the women who swept us off our feet in our younger years. But older men like Hugh Hefner, who can’t be smitten and fascinated by women their own age, and who’ve forgotten the down side of relationships between young women and young men who have a lot of growing up to do, have got a screw loose somewhere. And Hefner was well aware that many of the famous, wealthy, powerful men he invited to his mansion took advantage of their status as they hit on his young female guests or worse, as in the case of gropers like our current president, rapists like Harvey Weinstein, batterers like O. J. Simpson, and their ilk. There’s much not to celebrate about Mr. Hefner and his predatory crew.

What’s most upsetting, however, is the failure of critics to understand how most fans think about the women who appeared in PB. I read an editorial, for instance, that ridiculed the latest edition of the Centerfold book. The writer challenged herself to leaf through the entire book in an hour. She found the exercise boring. The women looked alike. Nothing to see, in her opinion, but stale poses and pro-forma nudity that dehumanized and objectified women.

The writer, of course, didn’t understand the purpose of centerfolds. Like PB’s calendars, they were never meant to be erotic, because they were supposed to be suitable for semi-public display. That’s why they’re a bit formulaic. Just think of the two photos in Karen’s layout that fans love the most. Not formulaic, but no chance of being the centerfold. Just too hot!

But beyond that, the author failed to see that she, not we, dehumanized and objectified the women who appeared in PB. She looked at each PM perfunctorily—less than 13 seconds each—and concluded on that basis that men think of PMs as mere sex objects. Then she went on to dehumanize us, the alleged dehumanizers.

I’m pretty sure, however, that I’m not speaking just for myself when I say most PB fans see PMs very much as people—extraordinary people. We’re in awe of PMs, and we’re quite aware that in real life they, not we, are on the top of the heap. To say that we feel some kind of awesome power over women by looking at erotic photographs reverses the polarity. When it comes to everyday guys, the power flows in the opposite direction, just as it has for most of us in real life since puberty. And I bet most PMs felt and enjoyed that power. They knew we’d be crazy about them, and reveled in it.

Certainly, the prominent men who haunted the mansion might have had the upper hand with some PMs. But it’s quite the opposite for fans who stand in line for autographs at car shows and Glamourcons. And think of the millions of us who would have loved to have met PMs at a car show or a Glamourcon, but didn’t go because we worried we might look pathetic in the eyes of the most beautiful women in the world. That’s why I never went! I imagine most PMs are kind to fans and do what they can to make us feel welcome, but there’s no question in my mind about who has the power in these situations, and who doesn’t.

And please, the claim that PMs look alike to straight men is laughable. Maybe to a straight female author or anti-erotic activist, but the beautiful women in PB don’t look alike to us. Every true PB fan could tell you chapter and verse about how different Candy Loving is as a person and a beauty than Patti McGuire or Cynthia Myers, about the photos that drive them wild, and about their favorite GND photos. The poses aren’t stale to us, but inventive and unique. We all wish we could see our favorite PM strike some of the poses other PMs did. I wish I could have seen Karen Price strike some of the poses of Candy, Patti, Cynthia, and, well, my list goes on and on. Believe me, I wouldn’t mind seeing Karen pose for us like this,

Or this,

Or this,

Or this,

Or this!

I’d love to hear other’s thoughts on the subject, and on Hef’s passing, if they’re willing to post, or if they’d be willing to send me a message and let me post their thoughts anonymously.

P.S.—I’m not a fan of Camille Paglia, but she had interesting things to say about Hefner, PB, PH, and feminism, as a self-proclaimed “pro-sex feminist.”

Last edited by cqnew1648; 05-04-2018 at 01:55 AM..
cqnew1648 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 02:37 AM   #73
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
Thanks: 2,651
Thanked 694 Times in 15 Posts
bphantom64 2500+bphantom64 2500+bphantom64 2500+bphantom64 2500+bphantom64 2500+bphantom64 2500+bphantom64 2500+bphantom64 2500+bphantom64 2500+bphantom64 2500+bphantom64 2500+

Thanks for that thoughtful post. And a great selection of photos and poses by Candy Loving, my own perennial favourite (Karen's a close 2nd.)

I agree that anyone who posits that all the women in PB were indistinguishable is, as you say, as guilty of objectification as those they accuse of it. How the heck did all of us PB readers wind up with favourite Playmates if they're all the same?

No, we recognized that these were real women with real personalities. We recognized, on some level, that PB's "girl next door" did indeed live nearby, in our cities and towns and communities and neighbourhoods. The concept taught me that girls could like sex too and that that was something to be celebrated, not feared or disdained. And it taught me that the woman I married could be more than just a housemate--she could be a playmate too. I didn't need a wife and a mistress; the same woman could be both.

So I do think Hef and Playboy changed the world, or at least western culture. It didn't do so on its own but it was part of an array of forces that shook up the repressed, retrograde culture of the 50s and early 60s. It was still enough of a force to affect an impressionable young lad like myself when I read the mag in the late 70s and 80s.

I think it was the internet that ultimately robbed PB of its power. When I was in my early teens I had to summon up the courage to retrieve that precious stapled collection of pages from the upper regions of the magazine rack and brave the critical gaze of the middle-aged drug store sales clerk when I paid for it. Now you can look at as many naked women as you please from the privacy of your home or bedroom.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pining for a return to the good ol' days! Forums such as this have allowed me to amass a complete collection of all the glorious images of my favourite Playmates from years gone by. What a great change from the few precious photos in a couple of increasingly-dog-eared old magazines! But yes, at the same time, we've lost something. Are we better off for it? Only time will tell.
bphantom64 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to bphantom64 For This Useful Post:
Old 05-01-2018, 09:52 PM   #74
bartgirls's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Jackson, WY
Posts: 75
Thanks: 25
Thanked 363 Times in 45 Posts
bartgirls 1000+bartgirls 1000+bartgirls 1000+bartgirls 1000+bartgirls 1000+bartgirls 1000+bartgirls 1000+bartgirls 1000+bartgirls 1000+bartgirls 1000+bartgirls 1000+

It was a version of Playboy but... well, they didn't have the rights or franchise.
bartgirls is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to bartgirls For This Useful Post:

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:14 PM.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.1 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.