|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar |
Vintage Erotica Talk Talk about vintage erotica right here! |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
March 27th, 2014, 01:13 AM | #21 | |
I got myself banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 582
Thanks: 2,249
Thanked 5,433 Times in 566 Posts
|
Quote:
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. |
|
March 28th, 2014, 09:41 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 214
Thanks: 139
Thanked 2,994 Times in 200 Posts
|
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.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Last edited by astronight; March 28th, 2014 at 10:02 AM.. Reason: more info |
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to astronight For This Useful Post: |
March 28th, 2014, 03:22 PM | #23 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 647
Thanks: 160
Thanked 5,968 Times in 590 Posts
|
Quote:
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. |
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to spazarino For This Useful Post: |
March 31st, 2014, 09:11 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 214
Thanks: 5,880
Thanked 12,513 Times in 214 Posts
|
PB versus PH photography
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. Last edited by cqnew1648; June 20th, 2017 at 01:32 PM.. Reason: Slight changes to text |
The Following 36 Users Say Thank You to cqnew1648 For This Useful Post: | a435843, Acanthus2003, AgentSmith2099, antoniospain, biggus-dickus, BPA262, Cavaliere, cuerina, dlhcas, Dr Shipherd, Glen Quagmire, gogol2323, haVEFun here, Jake Gittes, jennajuggs, jomama, kkfan4ever, lovecrafter56, LustyJanusz, madlad, maxwellsmurf, mikel_100, mwm4211, nnylaker, Omnidirector, Ottermoan, Provert, RLWeed947040, shiodushi, sniggles, Tmee2020, tomg12, trailmaster, USSSulaco, vef_conn, wgnrgeorg1958 |
March 31st, 2014, 11:11 PM | #25 |
Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 54
Thanks: 32
Thanked 950 Times in 47 Posts
|
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. |
The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to jeff4575 For This Useful Post: |
April 1st, 2014, 02:23 AM | #26 | |
I got myself banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 582
Thanks: 2,249
Thanked 5,433 Times in 566 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
April 1st, 2014, 03:50 AM | #27 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,178
Thanks: 14,714
Thanked 34,652 Times in 1,104 Posts
|
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. |
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to cerv3za For This Useful Post: |
April 1st, 2014, 04:14 AM | #28 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 554
Thanks: 3,228
Thanked 9,546 Times in 533 Posts
|
Quote:
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! |
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Viklas For This Useful Post: |
April 1st, 2014, 12:41 PM | #29 |
Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 54
Thanks: 32
Thanked 950 Times in 47 Posts
|
|
The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to jeff4575 For This Useful Post: |
April 1st, 2014, 02:14 PM | #30 |
Banned!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Savannah GA
Posts: 16,142
Thanks: 47,756
Thanked 215,718 Times in 16,027 Posts
|
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?
|
|
|