Playboy Is Featuring Naked Women Again -- After Dropping Nudity a Year Ago Due To the Internet (nypost.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Playboy Is Featuring Naked Women Again -- After Dropping Nudity a Year Ago Due To the Internet (nypost.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:05PM from the return-to-your-roots dept.

mi quotes a report from New York Post: The 63-year-old legendary men's magazine is bringing back nude models in its upcoming issue -- one year after banning naked photos in an effort to boost circulation and attract more mainstream advertisers. That effort obviously has failed. One of the main reasons why Playboy dropped nudity in the first place was because the internet filled the demand. Ravi Somaiya reports in the New York Times, "For a generation of American men, reading Playboy was a cultural rite, an illicit thrill consumed by flashlight. Now every teenage boy has an internet-connected phone instead. Pornographic magazines, even those as storied as Playboy, have lost their shock value, their commercial value and their cultural relevance." The issues published under the no-nudes policy, which featured both scantily clad models and could-be naked women with strategic parts of their body covered up, will all change with the March/April issue now hitting newsstands. The issue trumpets the change with a cover headline: "Naked is normal."

46 of 259 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

See, now things are getting better by rubycodez · 2017-02-13 14:12 · Score: 4, Funny

Only in Trump's American can a naked Playboy emerge from the ashes of clothed boringness! We're going to make America undraped again!
1. Re:See, now things are getting better by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 15:25 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Nudes for nerds, stuff that matters ! Yes!
2. Re:See, now things are getting better by braindrainbahrain · 2017-02-13 15:51 · Score: 2
  
  The Melania Issue?
Free by dohzer · 2017-02-13 14:13 · Score: 2

Has anyone here ever actually paid for porn?
1. Re:Free by quonset · 2017-02-13 14:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Has anyone here ever actually paid for porn?
  Companies wouldn't still be in business if people didn't.
2. Re:Free by buss_error · 2017-02-13 14:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Has anyone here ever actually paid for porn?
  I used to admin (on a retainer, they called when they needed something) the bookkeeping system for a adult store chain. in the early 90's they booked over 2 million net profit per month. In 99 when I stopped, it was less than 300K. Company was sold off and it is now owned by a company whose name you know if I said it, and appears to be making profits again. I dunna know.
  
  --
  Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
3. Re:Free by swb · 2017-02-13 15:03 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I worked at a 4 location local video store chain in the early 1990s. Our location was one of the two locations that had porn titles.
  We used to run reports near close and there were some nights where we made 80% of our revenue on porn movies. 75% of that gay porn.
  At this store, the actual tapes were shelved behind the counter and an empty box with a hunk of foam inside was on the shelf. You brought the box, we put the tape in a plastic VHS carry case when you rented it.
  The porn room was a separate room in the back of the store, but the whole empty box selection routine worked the same. But the porn boxes were probably 50% larger in area than the regular titles, but people would always walk out of there and grab the FIRST title they could reach (the A section of drama) in some vain attempt to cover the box, which of course it never did. And they would do it when no one else was in the store, too -- like, umm, I have to read the title to give you the actual videotape to take home. No secrets here.
  One night I moved the tiny self-help & how-to section to where drama was supposed to start because I figured nobody rented them anyway, and if the nervous porn hounds were going to just grab random titles they might as well not decimate the As out of the drama section.
  The biggest hoots were when we people whose name you recognized -- or people you knew! -- came in for porn, especially gay porn.
4. Re:Free by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 15:32 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The biggest hoots were when we people whose name you recognized -- or people you knew! -- came in for porn, especially gay porn.
  I was only renting those for the articles.
5. Re:Free by Pseudonym · 2017-02-13 16:21 · Score: 2
  
  The college guys who bothered reading the articles and reviews were aiming for that MBA=BMW pie in the sky lifestyle.
  Wealthy lifestyle porn still exists. It's called "Forbes".
  Actual rich people don't read Forbes.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
6. Re:Free by MBGMorden · 2017-02-13 16:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes. Not directly for quite a few years, but even in modern times I'll tip girls on cam sites and such. Not huge amounts (probably no more than $20 per month in total), but I try to support the content I like in some way. I also subscribe to a few Twitch streamers and am a Patreon of a handful of Youtubers.
  If you don't, eventually the content goes away.
  That said, while I think they'll certainly sell more issues with nudes, the whole concept of nude vs non-nude isn't Playboy's problem. The problem is that it's a magazine. While people might still be willing to pay for content, they're not willing to pay for content in that particular format anymore.
  To a large degree I the shift the in the market is just making huge companies with a big staff just not profitable. Sure some things like a blockbuster movie is hard to do at home, but what Playboy is selling can be provided by any pretty girl with a camera in her bedroom. She can provide the product with a LOT less overhead than a huge company.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
7. Re:Free by gl4ss · 2017-02-13 18:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  playboy is more of a brand than anything nowadays.
  also playboy does some non-nude variations internationally already.
  the thai version is non-nude for example.. and they got a thai tv channel thats non-nude too.
  this new "we'll have nudes but they're not going to be 100% sexual but just natural" thing sounds like a disaster though.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
8. Re: Free by Kiuas · 2017-02-13 19:22 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Living wage, no such thing.
  What? A living wage is an easily definable concept: a wage at which people workign full time with said wage can maintain a normal standard of living, that is, afford housing, food, electricity, and so on. :
  
  People can bitch about Wal-Mart all they want but they have shown to be willing to work with people like my kid. I don't agree with all the crap they pull but I won't fault them for taking care of their employees.
  The plural of anecdote is not evidence. I'm glad your son has gotten employed, but keep in mind that wallmart's abuses towards their workforce are such that they even have their own wiki article'
  
  In 2008, Walmart agreed to pay at least $352 million to settle lawsuits claiming that it forced employees to work off the clock. "Several lawyers described it as the largest settlement ever for lawsuits over wage violations."[ - - Because Walmart employs part-time and relatively low paid workers, some workers may partially qualify for state welfare programs.[52] This has led critics to claim that Walmart increases the burden on taxpayer-funded services.[53][54] A 2002 survey by the state of Georgia's subsidized healthcare system, PeachCare, found that Walmart was the largest private employer of parents of children enrolled in its program; one quarter of the employees of Georgia Walmarts qualified to enroll their children in the federal subsidized healthcare system Medicaid.[55] A 2004 study at the University of California, Berkeley charges that Walmart's low wages and benefits are insufficient, and although decreasing the burden on the social safety net to some extent, California taxpayers still pay $86 million a year to Walmart employees.
  As this article well puts it:
  
  Wal-Mart Stores raised its minimum wage to $9 in 2015 and to $10 in 2016, after years of protests by workers. While important steps in the right direction, these increases are not enough. An employee working 34 hours per week (which Wal-Mart considers full time) at $10 per hour still earns less than $18,000 per year and cannot meet her family's basic needs on Wal-Mart's wages alone, even in states with low costs of living, according to a recent study.
  Why does it matter? Wal-Mart is the country's largest private employer, with 1.5 million employees in the United States alone. And it's a hugely profitable one: it generated $482 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2016. The company simply cannot justify its meager pay practices."
  Etc. So they're paying a below livable wage and then making their employees use benefits to try and survive. They're essentially subsidizing a large part of their labor costs with tax-money because what they're paying people is not enough to live on in many areas.
  I totally disagree that this is 'taking care' of their employees. It's blatant abuse, of both the employees themselves as well as tax-payer money that has to be spent on their employees on account of them not paying a livable wage or offering proper health care.
  
  --
  "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
9. Re: Free by LoyalOpposition · 2017-02-14 01:48 · Score: 2
  
  I totally disagree that this is 'taking care' of their employees. It's blatant abuse, of both the employees themselves as well as tax-payer money that has to be spent on their employees on account of them not paying a livable wage or offering proper health care.
  And yet, with all the other options available to them, people choose to work for Walmart. Why do you suppose that is? I think it must be because Walmart is the best place to work for compared to those others. Either those other places pay less wages, or offer fewer benefits, or have worse working conditions, or do something else that the employees find objectionable. And since it's not apparent what that something is from the articles you posted, I have to think that they aren't providing a fair account of Walmart's practices. It's like someone has an anti-Walmart agenda. I wonder who gains when people get angry at Walmart? Competitors? Politicians? Social leaders? Something to ponder.
  ~Loyal
  
  --
  I aim to misbehave.
10. Re: Free by Opportunist · 2017-02-14 02:29 · Score: 2
  
  Don't try to out-weird me or I retaliate with things you wish you could unsee.
  My job is in IT security, and for the longest time this was in criminal forensics. I have seen things mortal men fear to think of.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
11. Re:Free by operagost · 2017-02-14 02:32 · Score: 2
  
  That's like someone injecting a leftist rant on Wal-Mart into a discussion on something totally different.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
12. Re: Free by Kiuas · 2017-02-14 03:33 · Score: 2
  
  And yet, with all the other options available to them, people choose to work for Walmart. Why do you suppose that is?
  Because getting some money is better than getting no money. It's not like the poeple who end up working in a wal-mart have a wide choice of places to work in. You seem to assume people without education can simply pick where they work. If there were masses of jobs with a higher pay than wall-mart's available, obviously people would rather work somewhere else.
  Secondly, this is not the case for all wall-marts everywhere obviously, so there are (to my knowledge) states in which the pay is higher and hence it's a better place to work.
  The alternative to working is being poor. The fact that people still opt to work for sub-optimal/sub-livable wages is not proof that those wages are livable, it's proof that a sub-livable wage is superior to no wage at all. Doesn't make it an ethical business practice.
  
  --
  "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
13. Re:Free by haruchai · 2017-02-14 05:23 · Score: 2
  
  "We used to run reports near close and there were some nights where we made 80% of our revenue on porn movies. 75% of that gay porn"
  In the 80s, I worked at a magazine chain that also rented movies. Several locations would rent adult films but the revenue champ was the main location downtown that included gay porn. All employees with less than 5 yrs seniority were required to rotate among several locations; the worst part of working downtown was when a customer wanted a refund because of problems with the recording - we weren't allowed to issue a refund without verifying the customer's claims.
  I swear some would complain, pardon the pun, just to fuck with us.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Glad they made amends by hambone142 · 2017-02-13 14:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

When I was young, my uncle left a Playboy Magazine at our house. I saw it and my mother said "go ahead and look at it, the people in them are all the same".
No, they weren't. Even today, I have never seen a woman that is "the same".
When a kid/teenager can't get the real thing, good ol' Playboy did the job. It opened the wonder of women and all of their "parts" that I had never seen before. It was good old home entertainment. I wore out some pages on my favorite issues (no, they didn't get stuck together but they came close.... oops, pardon the pun).
When I read that Playboy eliminated the nudes, I couldn't believe it.
I'm glad they went back to their roots.
1. Re:Glad they made amends by ToTheStars · 2017-02-13 15:21 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Yeah? Well, when you were partying, I studied The Blade. When you were having premarital sex, I mastered The Blockchain. While you wasted your days at the gym in pursuit of vanity, I cultivated Inner Strength. And now that the world is on fire and the barbarians are at the gate, you have the audacity to come to me for help?
2. Re:Glad they made amends by Mashiki · 2017-02-13 15:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Anonymous Slashdot troll plays sports, gets pussy, tonight on Shit That Never Happened!
  Just because you weigh the size of a small calf, and smell of bitter cheese. Doesn't mean some of us, even with crippling injuries don't get out and play hockey a couple of times a week.
  Jabbing aside, the main reason why playboy dumped nudes was because they put a new "feminist editor" in who knew exactly what was needed for the magazine. And people stopped buying. GQ another men's magazine has for the last couple of years been pulling a "it's all white mens faults" bullshit after they put the same type of asshole in place, needless to say they're not doing very good. It's not limited to print, sites like Esquire are doing the same. And again, suffering for it. People don't like identity politics, and they even less like it when said identity politics tells one particular group of people they're responsible for *all* of the worlds ills and they're all rapists.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
3. Re:Glad they made amends by swb · 2017-02-13 23:42 · Score: 2
  
  My brother in law had some kind of anniversary coffee table book about Playboy with selections of POTM throughout the years.
  Up until about the mid-late 1970s, there women and settings seemed a lot more normal and naturalistic. A fair amount of natural light, outdoors kind of photos. I'm sure the photos were airbrushed to hell and back, but it didn't come off all soft-focus, velvet and lace, and the women themselves seemed to be fairly real.
  By the late 70s and 80s, the settings changed and it seemed like more indoors photos and more emphasis on velvet, lace and stereotypical lingerie. And the photography began to enter some kind of unreal, soft focus heavily airbrushed look, and the women featured were much more on the extreme side of big breasted.
  It stopped being young and playful and became kind of middle-aged fantasyland. And of course by then Playboy was having to compete with the more explicit Penthouse and the really explicit Hustler. By the time Internet porn came around, Playboy was too tame. I always wondered what would have happened if Playboy began showing spread legs when Penthouse began gaining traction.
4. Re:Glad they made amends by naubol · 2017-02-14 01:20 · Score: 2
  
  Ahh the old every woman who exposes herself is a whore argument. Mixed with, "pornography should be about appreciating inner beauty." If people want to objectify women in porn while fapping, let them. As objects of lust, no two women are the same. As interview subjects, no two women in pornography are the same either.
  
  --
  Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
Future of Internet Porn by TheOuterLinux · 2017-02-13 14:38 · Score: 2

Maybe Playboy is just preparing for the Trumpocalypse. When we all are running oil lamps, not questioning where the precious resource actually came from (humans), and staring at nude Playboy posters that have become illegal (hypocritical) because God only talks to Republican US presidents and the Pope, we will be glad for when your flame flickers, it is as if she seductively dances only for you. The humming of the night drones and screams of those that missed curfew canceling out the spank noise. The audio portion comes from 30 second ham radio broadcasts to make tracing difficult.
Re:larry flynt for president by rubycodez · 2017-02-13 14:46 · Score: 5, Funny

better than Obama, where Playmates got hope and a change of clothes
Naked is normal?! by DontBeAMoran · 2017-02-13 15:29 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm sorry, but naked women are anything but natural.

--
#DeleteFacebook
1. Re:Naked is normal?! by geek · 2017-02-13 15:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm sorry, but naked women are anything but natural.
  What fucking planet do you come from where being naked isn't natural? Are people on your planet born in scuba gear or something?
2. Re:Naked is normal?! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 15:49 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  In America, naked women look like planets.
3. Re:Naked is normal?! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 16:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Do you want to get wooshed? Because this is how you get wooshed.
4. Re:Naked is normal?! by geekmux · 2017-02-14 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  He didn't say "not NORMAL" he said "not NATURAL". Asshole.
  Naked is exactly NATURAL. We are born naked.. That's what nature does.. Hence NATURAL.
  Sure, a woman in the naked state is not the norm, but it is NATURAL.
  Why the fuck can't you people understand certain words? NATURAL = FROM NATURE.
  We may be born in that state, but there's not a fucking spot on this planet that is truly compatible with being naked, as our caveman ancestors discovered.
  You can call it "natural" all you want, but ironically nature ain't fucking having it, which tends to beg the question of what is "normal" to survive.
Re:One thing still wrong... by cayenne8 · 2017-02-13 16:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

And just wait till after a kid or two if you want to see a 'real woman's body...
Err...who wants to see that?!?!
LOL, but seriously, guys are visual beings, they want to see and react to beautiful women which in general is not the majority of the female population.
Hell, its getting worse and worse today, as that it is getting to where a majority of modern females not only are overweight and obese, but we are NOW actually telling everyone "this is ok"...and they're believing it.
It is NOT ok to be obese, and not for the sake of aesthetics, BUT for health concerns.
The looking hot part is just gravy that goes along with being fit and not fat.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:larry flynt for president by cayenne8 · 2017-02-13 16:24 · Score: 5, Funny

Next thing you know, they'll try to come out with a Playboy for Married Men.....
Every month.....same chick....
;)

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:One thing still wrong... by Opportunist · 2017-02-13 16:38 · Score: 2

Yes, but who wants to see that?
I get the impression, most guys want a young ass with huge tits. Any woman around that doesn't hurt, but doesn't add much to the experience either.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Off the rails for years by RubberDogBone · 2017-02-13 17:37 · Score: 2

I used to be a stockholder in this company, before Hef threw a fit and took it private. Why did he do that? Because investors like me were telling him he was full of shit and his ideas sucked and it was costing the company money, all of which was true. He didn't like it. He took is bat and balls and went home.
The truth about Hef is that he ran the magazine with final editorial control and final say on EVERY business effort they made, worth mentioning, and he was well into senility by the end, making just awful decisions one after another.
One great example was the annual 'contest' the magazine and website held to have readers vote for PMOY. None of that shit mattered. Hef and Hef alone picked the winner and that's why for a long time they were all the same blondes, and why he had three of them at once as girlfriends. Hef didn't give a shit about the readers or the company. The decision to drop nudity was actually the first idea in decades that didn't come from Hef. Somebody else came up with it and Hef was so out of it, he waved it through.
Which was a disaster. Like most of Hefs ideas.
Cooper Hefner has a much sharper idea of what he wants to do and he gets what the reader wants. Um well, he gets the girls AND what the readers want to see. So maybe he will be able to make a miracle out of it.
Thanks to Hef, the company has spent decades ignoring massive IP they could have been monetizing, like the bunny girl costumes. That outfit is famous worldwide and isn't considered nearly as adult as the magazine. So why hasn't Playboy had their bunny girls everywhere? All they do license is the rabbit head logo, and then for shit like bad cologne sets and stickers. WTF.
I hope Cooper turns the merchandising around. I really do.

--
Sig for hire.
1. Re:Off the rails for years by Baron_Yam · 2017-02-14 01:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Playboy Clubs should have been so entrenched in our culture that Hooters never happened. You'd have to tier the branding, but it should have been done.
  Same thing with Maxim - it never should have launched because Playboy should already have owned the space. Instead of taking their magazine no-nude, they should have had a 'skimpy clothing' variant years ago. (If they did, I never heard of it so that's a different kind of fail)
  Basically, if you are a guy with money in your pocket, you should have been seriously tempted to peruse a Playboy Men's Health magazine at lunch, eat dinner at a Playboy restaurant, and go for drinks at a Playboy bar and maybe later on go to a Playboy night club. While wearing Playboy cuff links.
  And women should have had 'Playboy for women' (Not Playgirl) as a Cosmo-alternative to let them know '6 tricks in bed to please your Playboy' or something.
  SO much marketing potential wasted.
Re:larry flynt for president by Evtim · 2017-02-13 17:54 · Score: 2

Eh, are you crazy? wife = chick? That must be some new use of the word chick I was previously unaware of.
Re:larry flynt for president by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 19:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, they all start as a chick and become a harpy.
The reaon being... by OpenSourced · 2017-02-13 20:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

One of the main reasons why Playboy dropped nudity in the first place was because the internet filled the demand
Like the Internet didn't fill the demand for news and opinion articles.

--
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
True Porn Clerk Stories by Kunedog · 2017-02-13 20:46 · Score: 2

Ali Davis, is that you?
XXX1
XXX2
XXX3
XXX4
Opinion from a Nudist by ThatNakedGuy · 2017-02-14 01:04 · Score: 2

I'm a nudist ("naturist"). Nudity is prosaic. I see more naked people every weekend than many of you have seen in your entire lives.
American society makes such a big deal about nudity, when our media is literally saturated with it. People like nudity, and not just for porn. There's a vocal minority of never-nude types who raise a fuss. I do photography as a hobby. If I post a beautiful flower online it might get 4 views. If I post a non-sexual nude photo it'll get 107 views. People like nudity.
I've observed that hard core porn people are just immature. I used to have a co-worker who would view porn on his work computer and try to interest me.
Him- "Wow. Look at her breasts!!!"
Me- "Yes, most women have those."
Him- "Wow, look at her pu$$y!!!"
Me- "Yes, you usually find those on females."
Yeah, breasts and weenies are unique, but a breast is just a breast and a weenie is just a weenie. Act like you've seen them before.
Re:larry flynt for president by silentcoder · 2017-02-14 01:04 · Score: 2

Chick is derived from the Spanish "Chiquita" meaning "young girl".
Nothing about looks in there.

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The Internet did not kill Playboy. Playboy killed by yooy · 2017-02-14 01:37 · Score: 2

The Internet did not kill Playboy. Playboy killed itself. I once knew a girl that worked at Playboy. She told me that by far, the majority of employees are women. I am not surprised. As far as I know, the DAUGHTER of the founder is in charge of the magazine but I may be wrong. So women writing and designing a magazine made for men. Not surprised this is heading for disaster. If I remember correctly, they once showed Marge Simpson (from the comic series) naked. I mean, really? Besides that, I find the pictures overly artistic and photo-shopped. Pink and Amy (English site seem to be discontinued) has often nice picture. Just an example (not a very good one): https://www.amypink.de/2017/01...
Re:Patreon for porn by bzipitidoo · 2017-02-14 03:15 · Score: 2

This is what I've been saying for years. There is no way to stop or regulate people swapping data among themselves. DRM does not work and no one, no matter how talented, is going to find a way to make it work.
What is sad is how producers have failed to understand the issue. They want to believe they can produce and sell data same as any other material good that is subject to scarcity. They've gone to great lengths to try to turn this dark fantasy into reality, and have of course completely failed. Their efforts were doomed, like any effort to create an actual flying horse, a pegasus, would be. With advances in genetic engineering technology, we could possibly create a horse with wings. But no way would it be able to fly.
Further, they haven't understood that even if success was possible, and achieved, it would be a setback for society. Because then, it would be possible to lock down and control information, and the power to do that could only be abused to impose tolls on the public in exchange for the same basic information, over and over. Imagine how "profitable" it would be to own the secret of "2+2=4", and no elementary school child could learn that until they paid the owner for the privilege. As it is, the secret of the birds and the bees is guarded entirely too zealously, and the more successful adults are at keeping teenagers in the dark about that, the worse the outcomes tend to be for all concerned. Nudity in Playboy was ever so slightly educational. I bought one for that purpose when I was around 14. The clerk at the bookstore frowned at me-- I was obviously underage, and he wasn't supposed to sell X rated things to minors-- but he didn't ask for my age, just took my cash in exchange for the zine.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Re:News for nerds... by SharpFang · 2017-02-14 03:51 · Score: 2

Whenever it's stuff that matters, someone complains it's not news for nerds. Whenever it's news for nerds, someone complains it's not stuff that matters.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:larry flynt for president by ChrisMaple · 2017-02-14 03:55 · Score: 2

Wrong. "Chick" derives from US informal "chicken", meaning a young, inexperienced person, as in "she's no spring chicken."

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Won't matter by uncoveror · 2017-02-14 05:13 · Score: 2

Nude or clothed, print is dead.

--
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Re:larry flynt for president by sconeu · 2017-02-14 05:32 · Score: 5, Funny

English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and rummages through their pockets for loose grammar.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.