I hope I'm not going to step on any toes here - it's not my objective - but I have to say I'm flabbergasted by Palomine's and Zasha's reactions.
Of course you're entitled to your opinions, and we all must recognize that there exist different standards of beauty and different tastes, but the norm for this site and its participants is big breasts. And sure, big breasts are not everything: the face, the rest of the body and, as far as they are known, non-physical factors are of importance too. But Palomine, as you point out, the non-physical factors are a complete unknown here: either of those playmates could be witty, dull, bitchy, brilliant, kindhearted, or a total airhead - and dynamite or a washrag in the sack. But we're limited to considering their physical appearance, by which you, Palomine, find Tina Jordan so overwhelmingly unattractive that you prefer the not-just-skinny-but-flat-as-a-board Latina. Right? And much as I respect your right to a different opinion, I find that strange for a member of our community: Tina Jordan doesn't make me throb with lust either, but judging from her appearance alone and by (our) community standards of sex appeal, she's a hands-down winner over Christina Santiago.
And Zasha, I guess she's something of a "change of pace", but for me, not very refreshing. In fact her selection is a logical extension of
Playboy's evolution towards smaller-breasted playmates. Look at last year's dozen
and compare the 12 playmates of 40 years ago, whose average is a good bit heftier:
You may be right that there is a tendency to over-emphasize blondes (50% last year, I think the population as a whole is ca. 25% blonde), but what strikes me even more is the emphasis on long flowing hair. Above all, the overriding criterion for the pundits of
Playboy is slimness to the point of anorexia, and their ideal breast size is definitely shrinking: Ms. Santiago is thus a logical conclusion more than a change of pace.
If what you want is
really a change of pace, you should welcome a playmate covered with warts, or ten feet in circumference, or with a nose like a cauliflower,or all of the above. But of course, the Playmate was never really the girl next door, unless you were extremely lucky. You know what would be a true change of pace, and a refreshing one for many of us here? A playmate like Nadine Jansen or Nicole Peters (without even going into the possibilities of enhanced ones like Chelsea or Maxi Mounds). Now
that would really buck the trend.
But of course that could never be. The screams of irate women and politically correct men would be deafening: "
How dare you outrage our eyes with a fat cow like that?" I'm not talking about those who honestly prefer skinny, even flat-chested women: they could just shrug and wait till next month, which is my reaction on seeing Ms. Santiago. But large breasts are so un-PC, even if natural.
Of course flat-chested women have a right to a full sexual life, as do extremely fat or tall or short women. And they needn't worry, for there is plenty of diversity in men's preferences (I'm sticking to heterosexuality for purposes of the discussion). What is common to this community is the preference for big-breasted women, and cute as she is, Christina Santiago just doesn't fit in. If someone posted her in the UG, I (and you, Palomine) would be duty bound to delete all but one "morph-me" post. Because, in a word, she's off-topic.
0 ( ( ! < JOk, I'm off the soap-box