I don't think that playboy has published nudes for years. What appears to be a nude girl is now coated ... no, LAYERED, in body make-up. I think they apply it with trowels.
Joke from twenty years ago... "We're having trouble with that new model .. she keeps sliding all over the place."
The work there is a bizarre xample of 'overworking' ... no one is flawless and those body-made-up images are cold, lifeless, artificial.
Sexy? Wander around downtown until you find a window dresser assembling a mannequin. FAR more enticing than Playboy.
In a way, it is a great shame ... I was a great fan of Playboy at its inception. Now the whole magazine is an artificial wreck.
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
Having been to both clothed-only and clothes-optional beaches as a young USA-certified horny male, I would say that the only difference between the two is that the clothes-optional beaches were much more relaxing. That and one had to use more sunscreen...
One of the most beautiful, non-erotic sights in the world is that of a mother breast-feeding a child in public. It stirs the heart, not the gonads.
In the context of this discussion, am I the only one who found this an interesting choice of metaphor?
Originally Posted by Saganich
Thank you for your comment! I don't think that there is much that one cannot communicate without clothes on! I think that we already had our sexual revolution. I am certain that there is the odd photo that really needs to have the subject without clothes, but mostly it is just voyeurism.