Originally posted by TorchslasherThe comments after the pictures are almost more entertaining than the pictures of a naked Ex-Buffy star.
The tremendously high standards of the typical internet male are always hilarious.
1. Not everyone gets off on pictures of a random naked woman (I'm not necessarily saying that applies to Torchslasher, though; he doesn't even really pass judgment on the photos, he just says the comments are funny).
2. If your field of consideration is all naked pictures available on the Internet, why not have high standards?
Er, I mean ... look how MANLY you are as you imply the enjoyment you get from masturbating to these pictures!
I don't know if you would ascribe this opinion to "high standards", but I found the pictures unspectacular. The thing is, Playboy has this tendency to make absolutely every naked woman look exactly the same (not helped, certainly, by their very genetically limited field of models) and I just find it annoying. And also, I was good friends with a photographer, and you'd be surprised how many of these broads are ug-o's pre make-up/flattering angles/airbrushing...
But far be it for me to prevent anyone from beatin' it.
Problem with celeb layouts is that I believe most of the time they decide what gets used. So often they go for the "it has to look sophisticated" look of things. So lots of tropical surroundings, lots of artistic photos. The focus is not on their nakedness but on making a artistic image and layout.
The playboy centerfolds and such, that's a different story all together. As you said, often it's the same type of body, vibe, look,etc. I liked those Newsstand special editions they had a lot more. Often the whole vibe wasn't as contrived, just hot women in various states of undress looking hot.
(edited by dMp on 11.10.06 1332) *sigh* Why bother?
I was kinda dissapointed by it. This isn't to say that I didn't like, because I did, but it was kinda short. The showing we went to started at 1:30 and we were out of there and already in the car by 3:00.