Bullets 'n' Babes

Iga Wyrwal is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOT!

If you like the above photos, you MIGHT JUST want to check out this address:

http://allofiga.blogspot.com/

I don't have a Scooby Doo who she is but she has lovely boobies. Attractive but not stunning though, hey this is the Babes tread we can afford to be picky

Good man for bumping this oh so important thread 8)

EDIT: She's way hotter in that link of yours, blonde hair yuck no thanks. That dude is obsessed.

Yeah she looks better as a brunette I reckon.

She has a look of Elisha Cuthbert about her, in the face. Thats probably why I like Iga so much.

I just wish Elisha would do shoots like this!

Iga's boobies are amazing!

Sexy girl.

IronMonkey wrote:I just wish Elisha would do shoots like this!

She would likely lose all credibility and only end up in two-bit B Movies. Unless she does Playboy of course; Americans have a bizarre disconnection with Playboy and don't consider it Porn.

Erm... I wouldn't exactly say her acting career is on fire at the moment though.

Maybe she should start a topless modelling and / or porn career now? While she's still got the goods...

Playboy isn't porn.

It's tasteful nude modelling.

Sarcasm I presume?

I'd say it's both. It is considered porn here by most newsagents whereas in America is not.

Not being sarcastic.

Playboy isnt even close to porn.

Playboy like Page 3 in Newspapers, the imagery is there to titillate hence they're porn. 9 Songs imagery isn't there to titillate hence it's not porn

Playboy is Soft Porn. Porn doesn't just have to be hardcore.

If not why is Playboy not porn but Penthouse is? Presuming you guys consider that to be porn. Granted it's stronger but not by much, well it wasn't when I last looked at it, which eons ago.

Not everything that's meant to 'titillate' is porn. There are also lots of clothed pics of women which are meant to 'titillate', but no-one would call those porn either.

Playboy is just nude-photography, as there are no sexual actions portrayed.

From dictionary.com on the definition of the word porn:

# Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
# The presentation or production of this material.
# Lurid or sensational material.

Porn doesn't have to have sexual actions to be porn.

You could possibly say clothed people which are meant to titillate are a form of soft porn. It's obviously a grey area and especially without seeing examples.

Well... obviously the dictionary is wrong....

So a picture of an attractive, clothed girl doing a "come on" pose is porn?!
Is a girl in a bikini porn?

Do you consider FHM, Loaded, Nuts, Zoo etc as porn? Cause Playboy is much closer to those than it is to Penthouse.

Penthouse is a hardcore porn mag - it shows full nudity, close up images of genitals, women's genitals being spread wide open so you can see right inside, it has full erect penises in it too, however it does not show penetration (at least all this is the case for a NZ/Oz copy of the mag I've picked up a few years ago - can't comment on the UK version).

Playboy as has being stated only does nude photography, without it being sexually explicit - so no close up and inside the genitals images.

As I don't consider playboy to be sexually explicit (likewise with Loaded etc) by the dictionary definition I would say they are NOT porn, but personally I do think playboy is soft porn.

The divide for me is, if it is just topless images, that's just more adult images but not porn. If it is nude so that you can see something downstairs (but not up and inside the genitals) I think it is soft porn, and anything with legs spread etc is hard porn. Soft porn is ace though!!

but that's just me.

Does anyone else think America has a strange connection with Playboy specifically?

I'm sure it's not the only softcore/nude imagery magazine, yet it's put on a pedestal, as no different from any other job. When other as softcore material is considered dirty. I think it has something to do with the "American Dream" bollocks and looking up to Hugh dirty boy Heffner. As far as I'm concerned he's far from a good role model for kids and strangely if he was anyone else Americans would agree with that.

grim_tales wrote:So a picture of an attractive, clothed girl doing a "come on" pose is porn? Is a girl in a bikini porn?

If you're asking me, that's not what I've said regarding your second question. Obviously a girl in a bikini per say isn't porn.

It would all depend if the image (not not a girl in a bikini) sole intention was tot titillate. Playboy is obviously very tastefully done but it's intention is to turn the geezer on.

degeneration wrote:Do you consider FHM, Loaded, Nuts, Zoo etc as porn? Cause Playboy is much closer to those than it is to Penthouse.

Well it's stronger than all of those. None of those show fully nude shots.

Nuts and Zoo definitely have softcore porn, more so than FHM/Loaded. They come very, very close to softcore top shelf material at times. FHM and Loaded I'm not sure it's a grey area, possibly not. It would depend on the photo.

The only reason Nuts and Zoo aren't top shelf is because rightly or wrongly "Lads Mags" are specifically mentioned in some document that separates them from softcore porn mags.

The dictionary as I quote above is quite clear about the distinction between porn and just nudity. I know many think they're one and the same but their is obviously different intentions behind nudity in porn which differs it from nude imagery.

degeneration wrote:Playboy as has being stated only does nude photography, without it being sexually explicit - so no close up and inside the genitals images.

Fair enough about Penthouse then. I'd say it's explicit if not sexually explicit. I'd still say the intention of the photos is to turn the viewer on and hence it's (soft) porn.

I cannot stand those shots when you can see inside a women. Who finds those attractive?

bradavon wrote:From dictionary.com on the definition of the word porn:

# Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
# The presentation or production of this material.
# Lurid or sensational material.

That's vague at best. And I wouldn't call Playboy sexually explicit by any means. 98% is closed legs.

bradavon wrote:Does anyone else think America has a strange connection with Playboy specifically?

No. It's respected because it's being going for 50+ years. It's not just about the pictures, seriously. There are interviews with well-known personalities, there's satire, politics, and serious in-depth articles. If you want shallow: buy Nuts or Zoo. If you simply want a jazz mag: buy Hustler.

I cannot stand those shots when you can see inside a women. Who finds those attractive?

It's like getting a glimpse of a warm, comfy home.

Fair point it is vague.

Does anyone buy Playboy for the articles? I always find they just get in the way (the same goes for FHM). Stories in porn - What!

Er... there are no boobies on this page. Where are the boobies?!

Y'all stop yabbering & post some boobies!

I was just thinking "Where is Iron Monkey with the boobs?" and he appears , sans Boobs

IronMonkey wrote:Er... there are no boobies on this page. Where are the boobies?!

Y'all stop yabbering & post some boobies!

Brad is a boob. Doesnt that count for something?

I can't submit ALL the boobies, otherwise there'll be no surprises for ME when I visit this thread!