Mark Salo wrote:
A thread without JSouthworth is like a cloud without rain.

And point you were about to make was... ?

I think it's fair to say the the UK has generally tended to trail the US in the field of glamour photography. You could put that down to an unfortunate combination of economic factors, stupid laws, police corruption and the Janus-faced, class-ridden uselessness of the UK cultural scene generally. Am I in a mean mood today?

Dan Howell wrote:

yes, it is/was a magazine. and there's nothing wrong with that. it would be more accurate to call it a media company than the restrictive label of journal.

???    I'm a scientist so I think of 'journals' as being more educational.  Now, maybe the 'Playboy Forum' part was a journal, but overall the publication seemed to be a real magazine.   They had some of the finest writers come aboard now and then, plus they got interviews with some people who avoided every qualified news outlet, but spoke freely for 10 pages in a Playboy interview.    Yes I was one of those rare people who not only claimed he read Playboy 'for the articles' but actually did read.,not just oogle and look at tits( well, yes at age 13)  or when they finally uncovered the 'bush' and revealed shaved women later, I was a willing viewer.   But to have quality interviews, I often associated their writing with Rolling Stone.  They were not just about the music, and Playboy was not just about showing off the Naked Girls of the Big 10' in the Sept. issues.

JSouthworth wrote:

And point you were about to make was... ?

I think it's fair to say the the UK has generally tended to trail the US in the field of glamour photography. You could put that down to an unfortunate combination of economic factors, stupid laws, police corruption and the Janus-faced, class-ridden uselessness of the UK cultural scene generally. Am I in a mean mood today?

Hate to pin you down, old chap, but "trail the US in the field of glamour photography" exactly how? Technical excellence? Model quality? Photographic aesthetics? How much the photos arouse you?

Do explain.

JSouthworth wrote:
I think it's fair to say the the UK has generally tended to trail the US in the field of glamour photography. You could put that down to an unfortunate combination of economic factors, stupid laws, police corruption and the Janus-faced, class-ridden uselessness of the UK cultural scene generally. Am I in a mean mood today?

OF COURSE, JSouthworth blames the UK supposedly trailing "the US in the field of glamour photography" on "police corruption".

Not something that anyone else would ever think of.  And yes, we all know why he's so obsessed with pointing that out (ANY excuse he can find to constantly repeat his never ending claims...).

---

Adventure Photos wrote:
What about the Page 6' girls, and the endless tabloids of British fame? I always thought they were far ahead with finding willing, sultry and erotic models.   Can't think of the name of the one girl who was everywhere online, and seemed to 'break the internet' a decade or so ago.   Keely...?   She rocked.

Samantha Fox is one that comes to mind.

But I suspect that you are thinking of Kelly Brook.  Or possibly, Katie Price.

Adventure Photos wrote:
What about the Page 6' girls, and the endless tabloids of British fame? I always thought they were far ahead with finding willing, sultry and erotic models.   Can't think of the name of the one girl who was everywhere online, and seemed to 'break the internet' a decade or so ago.   Keely...?   She rocked.

Page three, are you kidding? That is photography by numbers, with no creativity, no imagination, nothing. Absolute rubbish, but some of the models probably would have looked good with better photography.

Focuspuller wrote:
Hate to pin you down, old chap, but "trail the US in the field of glamour photography" exactly how? Technical excellence? Model quality? Photographic aesthetics? How much the photos arouse you?

Do explain.

It's evident from Southy's endless drivel on another modelling site (prior to him being permanently banned) that amongst his many infatuations are the smutty pics and films which Harrison Marks produced in London during the '60s and '70s. Or, more precisely, the women Marks shot pornographically (according to the law at the time) for illicit sale in brown paper bags, usually concealed beneath a raincoat when exiting the back-street premises from which they were purveyed.

Southy is something of a connoisseur when it comes to this type of material, possessing many girlie magazines from that era no doubt with their pages permanently stuck together. His derision of the police features heavily here, due to their effort to enforce the laws of the time which must have made his procurement activities more difficult. Perhaps his level of disdain for the police is explained by being caught and prosecuted, but who knows.

Anyway, his recent posts criticising the standard of glamour photography in the UK are something of a comical surprise given his complete adulation of it, expressed [endlessly] up until now. Southy is evidently a chameleon, so don't take anything he says at face value.

As to the answer to your question - Southy has made it clear elsewhere that he's amply aroused by illicit UK pornography from the '60s and '70s so I doubt it's that. Whether Southy himself will elucidate further is doubtful given the inconsistency of the varying opinions he's expressed.

JSouthworth wrote:
Page three, are you kidding? That is photography by numbers, with no creativity, no imagination, nothing. Absolute rubbish, but some of the models probably would have looked good with better photography.

What Southy really means is that Page 3 was a bit 'tame' for his particular needs.

As for 'photography by numbers' I'm certain that Southy would learn to appreciate that approach if only he'd try it.

P R E S T O N wrote:
As for 'photography by numbers' I'm certain that Southy would learn to appreciate that approach if only he'd try it.

The UK taxpayer's money once again goes down the toilet on what can only be described as pathetic attempts at provocation. It really is tragic that anyone could be stupid enough to consider it worth paying the wages of people like you.

JSouthworth wrote:
Page three, are you kidding? That is photography by numbers, with no creativity, no imagination, nothing. Absolute rubbish, but some of the models probably would have looked good with better photography.

The Sun newspaper, in which the page three pictures appeared was a down-market publication, basically a sex and scandal sheet. It's photography was pitched at the same intellectual level. Later the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport would take the formula further.

LightDreams wrote:
Samantha Fox is one that comes to mind.

But I suspect that you are thinking of Kelly Brook.  Or possibly, Katie Price.

Keeley Hazell

P R E S T O N wrote:
...

JSouthworth wrote:
The UK taxpayer's money once again goes down the toilet on what can only be described as pathetic attempts at provocation. It really is tragic that anyone could be stupid enough to consider it worth paying the wages of people like you.

As we all remember, JSouthworth's LAST attempt at claiming what PRESTON's job was, went down in flames, completely discredited...

He doesn't state what he NOW believes PRESTON's "UK taxpayer" job is that supposedly "requires" him to discredit JSouthworth.  Just a little more vague after his last set of completely libelous claims were totally disproven.

More complete bullsh*t from JSouthworth.  One day he'll completely surprise us by showing that he's capable of actually learning from his past mistakes.  Would I bet money on it?  No.  But it certainly WOULD be a pleasant surprise...

Acraftman1313 wrote:
There was a photographer that posted a link to Japanese "photobooks" in the forum some time back which I really enjoyed but that link has disappeared and after numerous attempts to goggle Japanese photobooks (which I think has something to do with good ole USA - "Land of the free as long as we say its okay" internet access) I was wondering if that was you and if you have a link or could provide one. They were mostly B&W  nsfw shots but I did enjoy a lot of the work .

Might of been me. I have a collection of 2500 pdf photobooks and will repost them eventually.

Jappydolls, idolfile, akiba-online

Those sites are primary sources but i had to make coherent pdfs out of the loose and sometimes random images.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
All the men's magazines have been replaced by TicTok

(https://www.tiktok.com/@findmodels?lang=en)

THAT and Google.

I'm not even sure why OF is still a thing when there are MILLIONS of screencaps out there from it. I was listening to a podcast the other day and I knew the one girl was an OF model. The guest asked how OF works and she explained vaguely. He didn't know how to use it and the host said; "she has stuff on Twitter." I literally googled her and I found a plethora of her OF porn out there. So yeah, TikTok and Google for $500 Alex.

What is the modern equivalent of Playboy

There is none.
Because the PLAYBOY was not only a glamour magazine but a kind of lifestyle which was part of a certain public spirit. PLAYBOY had its time in the 1950ies, 60ies, 70ies... and early 80ies. Afterwards it went the way all old warriors go.

They do not die - they fade away. ;-)