conuly | maladaptive has an interesting link (and comment) up...

I'd like to find out where that poster got all of those pictures, because the May '06 centerfold that's on the site isn't the same that's in the actual magazine. It looks to be the same woman, but in a totally different setting.

The stupidass "Barbie Doll" look (tanned, blonde, waxed/shaved, implants, etc.) was one reason my husband cancelled his subscription.

Sometime in the 1990s they slipped up twice and put really attractive women in the centerfold--one was an 18-year-old Hawaiian with a built-in tan, A-cups(!) and BLACK hair (!!); the other was a 27-year-old redhead from "flyover country" with a FARMER'S TAN (!!) and freckles. Then Hugh (or whoever) slapped the editors down and they went back to Barbies.

When I read your comment, I thought, "Hey, I remember those women!" (or at least women like those) but I couldn't possibly have seen them in the 1990's.

Maybe they "slipped up" again:
August 2002 (http://www.dumpanimage.com/image.php?i=q6HRYxuj6S) (I distincly remember seeing a centerfold and reading that she was Hawaiian in her bio. Well damn, Christina Santiago (http://www.oyemag.com/christina.html) is Puerto Riccan.)

September 2004 (http://www.dumpanimage.com/image.php?i=KEZi7u77r2)
(She doesn't really have what I'd call a farmer's tan, but definitely has red hair and freckles.)

Nah. One reason I was so charmed by the redhead was that she had a minimum of makeup on, as well as the farmer's tan, and was photographed in outdoorsy sets. (Look for a lanky woman--not girly like Miss Sept. there--with strong bones, relatively thin lips and that classic tan line ending at the biceps.)

And another thing we agreed on was that the makeup guy needed to LOSE that brown lipliner crap.

Hmm, I looked through all of them and I don't remember seeing anything like that. It might have been one of the pictures that I didn't look at in full-size though.

LOL. !!

Comments over there ...

"there are a couple weird looking tatas out there"
(said by someone in the late 60s pics)

yeah, because that was before photoshop and implants and lifts and all that. it's sad that young guys (I'm assuming) don't realize that natural breasts don't look like what's shown everywhere these days.

I love nude photography. Some of those are really beautiful, I especially like the ones from the sixties. I wouldn't even consider those porn, it's just a woman in her life who happens to be naked.

this is a little scary:

http://www.dumpanimage.com/image.php?i=5MVkz3KNBs

I thought the same thing when I saw it. Way overtanned!
The white ring around her eyes is what really does it for me, I think.

Never mind overtanned (although she's definitely that), what about the BONES sticking out down the middle of her chest?

I'd like to find out where that poster got all of those pictures, because the May '06 centerfold that's on the site isn't the same that's in the actual magazine. It looks to be the same woman, but in a totally different setting.

The stupidass "Barbie Doll" look (tanned, blonde, waxed/shaved, implants, etc.) was one reason my husband cancelled his subscription.

Sometime in the 1990s they slipped up twice and put really attractive women in the centerfold--one was an 18-year-old Hawaiian with a built-in tan, A-cups(!) and BLACK hair (!!); the other was a 27-year-old redhead from "flyover country" with a FARMER'S TAN (!!) and freckles. Then Hugh (or whoever) slapped the editors down and they went back to Barbies.

When I read your comment, I thought, "Hey, I remember those women!" (or at least women like those) but I couldn't possibly have seen them in the 1990's.

Maybe they "slipped up" again:
August 2002 (http://www.dumpanimage.com/image.php?i=q6HRYxuj6S) (I distincly remember seeing a centerfold and reading that she was Hawaiian in her bio. Well damn, Christina Santiago (http://www.oyemag.com/christina.html) is Puerto Riccan.)

September 2004 (http://www.dumpanimage.com/image.php?i=KEZi7u77r2)
(She doesn't really have what I'd call a farmer's tan, but definitely has red hair and freckles.)

Nah. One reason I was so charmed by the redhead was that she had a minimum of makeup on, as well as the farmer's tan, and was photographed in outdoorsy sets. (Look for a lanky woman--not girly like Miss Sept. there--with strong bones, relatively thin lips and that classic tan line ending at the biceps.)

And another thing we agreed on was that the makeup guy needed to LOSE that brown lipliner crap.

Hmm, I looked through all of them and I don't remember seeing anything like that. It might have been one of the pictures that I didn't look at in full-size though.

LOL. !!

Comments over there ...

"there are a couple weird looking tatas out there"
(said by someone in the late 60s pics)

yeah, because that was before photoshop and implants and lifts and all that. it's sad that young guys (I'm assuming) don't realize that natural breasts don't look like what's shown everywhere these days.

I love nude photography. Some of those are really beautiful, I especially like the ones from the sixties. I wouldn't even consider those porn, it's just a woman in her life who happens to be naked.

this is a little scary:

http://www.dumpanimage.com/image.php?i=5MVkz3KNBs

I thought the same thing when I saw it. Way overtanned!
The white ring around her eyes is what really does it for me, I think.

Never mind overtanned (although she's definitely that), what about the BONES sticking out down the middle of her chest?

maladaptive has an interesting link (and comment) up...

no subject

no subject

Let me try again, with better HTML

Re: Let me try again, with better HTML

Re: Let me try again, with better HTML

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Get that girl a steak sandwich!

no subject

no subject

Let me try again, with better HTML

Re: Let me try again, with better HTML

Re: Let me try again, with better HTML

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Get that girl a steak sandwich!