Oh yeah - and of course the dorks at Playboy would never allow a woman to be shown in her natural state? Or most any other phony publications for that matter. They would rather destroy half of the models body, just to cover up a normal attribute (like any moron couldn't tell?) they are the worst with their, pillowy, frosted, unrealistic, phony, computer generated images. Mine as well be looking at cyborgs.
I haven't seen a woman in Playboy magazine that hasn't looked like they have been made from the same cuttie-cutter mold, in over 20 years. How pathetic and boring.
Their breasts are so inflated, they look like freaks, and very unatural overall. Their lips are bloated way too large, in hopes of looking more ethnic, I guess? And nordic-looking Caucasion women just can't pull this look off very well. Throw in the totally damaged awful white-looking hair (looking preaged) from all the constant chemical treatments, and you have an unatural, hideous, sickly looking woman. Who looks like she has aged, way beyond her years. Most cannot even talk, becuase the skin is their face and around the mouth has been altered so badly. It is actually sad to see. These women often look like hell too when they reach their 40s, and often need much corrective surgery to reverse all this ridiculous and uneccessary damage.
What most men think is "beautiful" today - I guess? Like a larger version of some adolescent, only with many botched surgeries, ugly scars, bad tatoos, and metallic hardware sticking out of every orifice? Have you ever seen a bad infection from a tatoo or piercing? I have. It's not pretty.
Can someone please tell me how all this absolute destruction, is somehow considered pretty by anyone?